BY THE NUMBERS, NOT THE NARRATIVE

Over time, that argument showed up in corporate decisions. Promises to help animals gave way—replaced by carefully worded statements about “balancing priorities” and “environmental responsibility.”

Companies have used the same rationale again and again: sustainability requires trade-offs. In practice, that hasn’t meant bold action for the planet. It has meant rolling back promises that would give animals even the most basic freedoms—and keeping cruel factory farming practices in place in the name of sustainability.

That story didn’t come from nowhere. Industry groups like the Center for Food Integrity (CFI) have been pushing a narrative that consumers will sacrifice farm animal welfare for a narrow definition of "sustainability.” Companies like Kroger and Target have used this to justify rolling back cage-free and broiler commitments. Our research challenges that narrative. Farm animal welfare is not a luxury or niche concern. It’s a core value for consumers.

This research focused on the choice itself: when animal welfare and environmental benefits conflict, what do people choose?

Inside the survey

To better understand this debate, we partnered with Bryant Research to survey 1,200 US consumers. Participants answered questions about animal welfare and sustainability, then worked through a series of egg-buying scenarios designed to reflect the kinds of choices people make at the grocery store.

Each scenario asked participants to compare options with different animal welfare scores, sustainability scores, and prices. By asking people to make real trade-offs, the research showed how people make decisions.

The results were clear: most consumers chose higher animal welfare.

What the results showed

Although people value both issues, they consistently prioritize animal welfare over sustainability time and time again.

• Animal welfare wasn’t up for trade. 55% of people said they wouldn’t accept worse treatment of animals for environmental benefits. Only 16% said they would.
• Battery cages were a hard no. 61% said battery cages weren’t acceptable—even when they were claimed to be better for the environment. Only 16% said they were acceptable.
• When price wasn’t a factor, people prioritized animals. When priced the same, most people chose the option that improved animals’ lives, regardless of the size of impact.
• Many people were willing to pay more. When better treatment for animals cost extra, people chose it more often than sustainability alone.
• Promises to animals weren’t optional. 51% agreed that companies should honor commitments to farmed animals, even if it resulted in worse environmental outcomes.
• You couldn’t talk sustainability without animals. 81% said any meaningful definition of sustainability had to include how animals were treated.

Even when trade-offs were on the table, concern for animals didn’t disappear.

The limits of the “either-or” argument

The idea that animal welfare and sustainability must compete often starts from a narrow view of the problem.

Some industry efforts focus on environmental improvements without changing how the actual system works. As the study’s background notes state, that approach can end up shifting the burden onto farm animals instead of addressing the deeper inefficiencies of industrial animal agriculture.

The bigger question is what we mean when we talk about sustainability.

The view from inside the system

Chickens offer one clear example of what these rollbacks look like in practice. Every broken commitment keeps them confined in battery cages.

Row after row of cages stretch across massive sheds on factory farms. Hens live in wire enclosures so cramped they can’t spread their wings or move more than a few steps, suffering out of sight with little relief.

This is what gets lost when animal protection is negotiable.

What happens when people keep caring

This research backs up what people like you have been saying and feeling all along. Making that support for animals visible—to companies, to decision-makers—creates real leverage for animals. Choosing products that improve lives, asking questions, and supporting transparency add up.

The bigger takeaway is simple: most people don’t see animal welfare and sustainability as competing priorities. In fact, the vast majority say a truly sustainable food system must include how animals are treated.

Making those expectations clear to companies is one way to help push the food system in a more humane direction. And animals are better for it.

For anyone who wants to dig deeper, the full study is available here.