The 2020 data was collected and analyzed by Ali Ladak and Jacy Reese Anthis. This report was authored by Ali Ladak. For the list of contributors on the 2017 iteration, see the 2017 report.

Summary

Our Animals, Food and Technology (AFT) survey tracks attitudes towards animal farming and animal product alternatives in the US. In 2020, as in the 2017 and 2019 iterations, we found significant opposition to various aspects of the animal farming industry, with a majority of people reporting discomfort with the industry, and strong support for a range of quite radical policy changes, such as banning slaughterhouses. The trend in attitudes between 2017 and 2020 is relatively stable, though slightly negative (not statistically significant). Notably, the number of people who consider animal farming to be one of the most important social issues fell from 2017 to 2019, and remained at this lower level in 2020.

We found that lower age, leftward politics, and a vegetarian/vegan diet were associated with greater animal farming opposition (AFO) and animal product alternative support (APAS). There were regional and ethnicity differences, which are plausibly explained by average differences in political views. While women had more AFO, we found no gender differences in APAS. Education and income were positively associated with APAS but not with AFO.

Table of Contents

Introduction

In October 2020, we conducted the third iteration of the Animals, Food and Technology (AFT) survey on attitudes towards animal farming and animal-free food with 1,113 US adults, census-balanced to be representative of age, gender, region, ethnicity, and income. Here we report:

1. The results from the 2020 survey.
2. The trends in responses between 2017 and 2020.
3. The results of regressions of respondents’ opposition to animal farming and support for animal product alternatives (i.e., plant-based and cultured meat products) on a range of demographic variables.

Our methodology remained largely the same as in previous years and can be found in our 2017 report. Any deviations from this are reported in the text. Links to the data, survey, and analysis code for the results presented in this report can be found here.

2020 Results

Figure 1 presents the means and distributions of responses for the questions in the 2020 survey, weighted to account for differences between our sample and the US population on various demographic characteristics as in previous iterations of the survey.

Figure 1:  Animals, Food and Technology survey 2020 weighted means and distributions. Please use the dropdown menu to show results for questions of interest.

The results for 2020 are broadly consistent with those of previous years. We report key findings for respondents who expressed an opinion below.

• Positively, a majority of people, 71.5%, reported feeling some discomfort with the animal farming industry, and 91.7% of people think animals have roughly the same capacity to experience pain as humans. 48.5% consider animal farming to be one of the most important social issues in the world today.
• People’s positive attitudes translate into support for various policies: 50.7% of people are in favor of banning factory farming, 44.8% are in favor of banning slaughterhouses, and 35.6% are in favor of banning all animal farming completely.
• However, while people on average believe that 68.7% of animals come from factory farms, a surprisingly high number reported that they think farmed animals are treated well (62.2%), and an even larger number (80.1%) reported that their usual sources of animal products treat animals humanely.
• Relatively large proportions of respondents reported that they think people should consume fewer animal products (65.6%), and that they themselves are trying to reduce their animal product consumption (50.8%). However, 95.5% still think that eating animals is a personal choice.

2017–2020 Trends

Figure 2 presents trends in the weighted mean responses to each survey question for the three years we have collected data. The chart also shows the trends in the two scales we developed from these questions: Animal Farming Opposition (AFO) and Animal Product Alternatives Support (APAS)^[1]. Definitions of these and all other questions in the survey can be found here.

Figure 2:  Animals, Food and Technology survey 2017–2020 trends. Please click on items on the legend to show trends for questions of interest.

Overall, the charts suggest that people’s responses have been relatively stable over the period. Statistical analysis of time trends supports this: there was no significant change in APAS over the period, and while there was an increase in animal farming opposition between 2017 and 2019, the difference between 2017 and 2020 was not significant. The full results can be found here. We report the key findings below.

• Between 2017 and 2019, there was a significant reduction in the proportion of respondents who thought that animal farming is one of the most important social issues, and this change persisted through 2020.
• There was increased discomfort with the animal farming industry between 2017 and 2019, however, in 2020 this fell back to the 2017 level. Similarly, there was an increase in support for bans on animal farming between 2017 and 2019, though this returned to its 2017 level in 2020. Between 2019 and 2020, there was an increase in the extent to which people opposed a ban on slaughterhouses.
• Between 2019 and 2020, there was a significant increase in the number of people agreeing that farmed animals are treated humanely. There was also a significant increase in the extent to which people consider that the animal products that they themselves buy come from animals that are treated humanely.
• Compared to 2017, there was less agreement that people should eat more plant-based products. There was also a significant reduction in the proportion of respondents who think that people should eat more plant-based foods or cultured meats even when prices are the same. At a personal level there was no significant change in the proportion of people who reported trying to reduce their animal product consumption, though fewer people reported a preference to do so when prices are the same.
• On the positive side, people on average said they would donate a greater proportion of $10 to animal causes if they were given the chance, in both 2019 and 2020. There was also a decrease in the extent to which people think that eating animals is a personal choice between 2019 and 2020.

Demographic Analysis

In this section we report the results of four regression models testing the relationships between various demographic variables and two outcome measures: AFO and APAS. In two of the models, we pooled the data across the three years of data and included year dummy variables to account for time trends. In the other two models, we used 2020 data only so that we could include political and diet variables that we did not collect in earlier years. We used weights in all of the models to ensure the sample was representative of the US population.

Table 1: Results of Ordinary Least Squares Regressions (Weighted) Predicting Animal Farming Opposition (AFO) or Animal Product Alternatives Support (APAS).

Note: Standard errors reported in parentheses. Dependent variables are measured on a seven-point scale, with “no opinion” responses treated as the mid-point.  References categories: Gender = Female, Region = South, Race/Ethnicity = White, Year = 2017, Political party = Democrat. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

The analysis revealed several notable relationships:

• Age was significantly negatively correlated with both AFO and APAS across all the models.
• Gender was significantly correlated with AFO, with men reporting reduced opposition. However, it was not correlated with APAS.
• The Northeast region was associated with greater AFO than the South. However, after including political and diet variables, this relationship was no longer significant, suggesting it may be driven by these factors. In one of the models, we found that the West was associated with lower APAS than the South.
• Being Black and Hispanic was associated with greater AFO and greater APAS in the pooled models. In the 2020 models, after including the political and diet variables, these associations became insignificant.
• While there were no differences in AFO between those with and without a college degree, there was a significant positive association between having a college degree and APAS.
• Similarly, there was no relationship between income and AFO, though there was a relationship between income and APAS (though the effect size was relatively small).
• Political conservatism was associated with both lower AFO and APAS. Relative to Democrats, Republicans reported both lower AFO and APAS. Being an Independent was associated with lower APAS but not lower AFO.
• Unsurprisingly, being vegan or vegetarian was the strongest predictor of both AFO and APAS.

Appendix

The dataset, GuidedTrack survey code, and R code to run all of the analysis presented in this report can be found here. Please feel free to reach out to ali@sentienceinstitute.org with any questions.