Animal-welfare-labelled meat is not a stepping stone to animal-free diets: empirical evidence from a survey

Abstract

ABSTRACT A survey is used to test a stepping stone model for meat reduction and farm animal suffering elimination. People’s preferences to eat conventional meat, animal-welfare-certified meat and plant-based meat substitutes are measured in hypothetical situations where everyone else eats certified meat or plant-based meat substitutes. These preferences reflect social norms about food. When everyone else follows a harmful social norm, such as eating conventional meat, violating this norm by following a different diet becomes costly due to social sanctions. Either the survey method has a low sensitivity to detect real stepping stones, or the survey evidence suggests that animal-welfare-labelled meat is not a stepping stone towards the reduction and elimination of animal-based meat. If people transition to eating welfare-labelled meat, they may become less likely to eliminate meat from their diet. Everyone eating welfare-labelled meat is an absorbing state, which prevents a further transition to animal-free meat substitutes. The survey shows very weak and mixed evidence that the introduction of an animal welfare label could be counterproductive for animal welfare. In the long run it could result in a locked-in equilibrium with a less harmful social norm, i.e. a suboptimal state of animal farming that still contains animal suffering.