Farm animal mistreatment is widespread and severe, yet most of it could be eliminated cheaply through improvements that the majority of people already support
If consumers are (generally) willing to pay the 'welfare premium' for better treatment of animals, and thus there is no additional cost to the producers, why have they not changed their behaviours? Is it e.g. because although any costs can be passed on, there are other downsides that we're not aware or don't fully appreciate?
And given the level of support, why is there not more regulatory push, given it is probably an easy way to win over voters?
It seems like there is enough precedent with bans on caged hens and macerating chicks that producers/supermarkets/politicians could win a lot of favour with consumers/voters.
It’s a good question. I think’s it’s probably a combination of limited information on factory farming, low political salience (the issue doesn’t rank highly for voters vs cost of living, immigration etc.), people taking more of a consumer mindset when at the grocery store (optimizing on taste and price), and the absence of or lack of trust in welfare claims made on products. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in Switzerland when mandatory painful procedure labeling of products comes in: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/07/04/switzerlands-new-animal-welfare-labels-explained/
“the absence of or lack of trust in welfare claims made on products” — this in itself would be a great post, particularly with brands clamouring to bring out more and more claims, e.g. ‘slave free’ chocolate, x% protein or fibre, a mix of EU and non-EU honey, organic not actually meaning organic (as far I have been told), a health score of ‘B’ for something fully natural but a score of ‘A’ for something processed, etc. maybe consumer fatigue with all the marketing BS plays a part.
I'd add that we are too reluctant to look for unusual solutions such as drugging the animals in a way that prevents suffering. It doesn't have to look nice, if they were maintained on powerful opiates they wouldn't care (obv food safety issues there).
What is really necessary here is a trustworthy organization that can certify farms via video inspection as using best practices in this regard. Otherwise I fear that every time we eliminate a crate it will naturally be replaced with an almost crate.
I buy the cruelty free eggs but I fear most of what I pay for is actually the high end hippie premium. I don't even know what to look for with beef.
Right now we have a smattering of gameable standards and organizations with mixed goals.
I'm a bit more optimistic on the relationship between price and hen welfare - it might not be linear but more expensive eggs seem to be higher welfare. Agree that better verification would be ideal, and with improved AI, perhaps that'll be possible soon
Good question, it's mostly supermarkets pricing cage-free eggs as a premium product, next to the caged eggs
While cage-free eggs cost producers about 20 cents more per dozen, in US states where caged eggs are still available, supermarkets charge a $1-$2.50 premium for cage-free. In states where caged eggs are banned, cage-free eggs are pretty much the same price as caged eggs are in other states.
CO2 is likely more painful than alternatives like more inert gasses (often argon) or electric stunning.
CO2 elicits a greater anxiety response and takes longer to render pigs unconscious compared to argon. CO2 is also more reactive and causes faster and more severe blood acidification. (See here for more: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11948533/)
Admittedly, the survey question asking the acceptability of "Killing pigs in gas chambers by use of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas" might not be indicative of support for welfarists' switch to argon, given the objection probably isn't the gas.
Hi Martin. Thanks for the post.
"Chickens, the most farmed land animal"
Chickens are the most farmed land vertebrate. The population of farmed insects is larger, and there are more farmed insects slaughtered per year too (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Rw3iXiJ4Fw4ePu4t6/forecasting-farmed-animal-numbers-in-2033).
If consumers are (generally) willing to pay the 'welfare premium' for better treatment of animals, and thus there is no additional cost to the producers, why have they not changed their behaviours? Is it e.g. because although any costs can be passed on, there are other downsides that we're not aware or don't fully appreciate?
And given the level of support, why is there not more regulatory push, given it is probably an easy way to win over voters?
It seems like there is enough precedent with bans on caged hens and macerating chicks that producers/supermarkets/politicians could win a lot of favour with consumers/voters.
It’s a good question. I think’s it’s probably a combination of limited information on factory farming, low political salience (the issue doesn’t rank highly for voters vs cost of living, immigration etc.), people taking more of a consumer mindset when at the grocery store (optimizing on taste and price), and the absence of or lack of trust in welfare claims made on products. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in Switzerland when mandatory painful procedure labeling of products comes in: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/07/04/switzerlands-new-animal-welfare-labels-explained/
“the absence of or lack of trust in welfare claims made on products” — this in itself would be a great post, particularly with brands clamouring to bring out more and more claims, e.g. ‘slave free’ chocolate, x% protein or fibre, a mix of EU and non-EU honey, organic not actually meaning organic (as far I have been told), a health score of ‘B’ for something fully natural but a score of ‘A’ for something processed, etc. maybe consumer fatigue with all the marketing BS plays a part.
Hell yea, let's go!
I'd add that we are too reluctant to look for unusual solutions such as drugging the animals in a way that prevents suffering. It doesn't have to look nice, if they were maintained on powerful opiates they wouldn't care (obv food safety issues there).
But no one likes that bc it looks bad.
Even pain relief for standard industry practices like tail docking would be a good start
What is really necessary here is a trustworthy organization that can certify farms via video inspection as using best practices in this regard. Otherwise I fear that every time we eliminate a crate it will naturally be replaced with an almost crate.
I buy the cruelty free eggs but I fear most of what I pay for is actually the high end hippie premium. I don't even know what to look for with beef.
Right now we have a smattering of gameable standards and organizations with mixed goals.
I'm a bit more optimistic on the relationship between price and hen welfare - it might not be linear but more expensive eggs seem to be higher welfare. Agree that better verification would be ideal, and with improved AI, perhaps that'll be possible soon
Why are cage free eggs so much more expensive in supermarkets?
Good question, it's mostly supermarkets pricing cage-free eggs as a premium product, next to the caged eggs
While cage-free eggs cost producers about 20 cents more per dozen, in US states where caged eggs are still available, supermarkets charge a $1-$2.50 premium for cage-free. In states where caged eggs are banned, cage-free eggs are pretty much the same price as caged eggs are in other states.
E.g. Lewis Bollard found Target in Michigan (which bans caged eggs) selling *cage-free* for $2.99, the same price as *caged* eggs in neighboring Illinois (which allows sale of caged eggs): https://farmanimalwelfare.substack.com/p/crunch-time-for-cage-free
Super interesting! Thank you for sharing
Excited to read your blog! Your "Five insights from farm animal economics" is one of my favorite articles here.
Thanks Cantor!
👍
Can't wait to see more from this blog, Martin!
Thanks Björn, appreciate your posting!
I look forward to reading more!
Thanks Abby!
What is bad about killing pigs with CO2 gas ?
CO2 is likely more painful than alternatives like more inert gasses (often argon) or electric stunning.
CO2 elicits a greater anxiety response and takes longer to render pigs unconscious compared to argon. CO2 is also more reactive and causes faster and more severe blood acidification. (See here for more: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11948533/)
Admittedly, the survey question asking the acceptability of "Killing pigs in gas chambers by use of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas" might not be indicative of support for welfarists' switch to argon, given the objection probably isn't the gas.
Thanks for the information
Thanks for this!