According to the Power of Meat 2025 study, nearly half (49%) of Americans say “yes” when asked if they think animals are raised in a humane way. More than a quarter (26%) answer “no” to that question with the remaining 24% saying they “don’t know.”

That suggests a solid level of consumer trust in the safety of meat and poultry products – but also the need to continue outreach and education.

Jennifer Walker is co-founder and chief animal welfare officer for Kinder Ground, a nonprofit organization dedicated to elevating the welfare of animals in food production. She shares some insights on emerging issues and trends regarding the industry’s animal welfare practices and priorities.

Study findings presented during ProteinPACT 2024 last fall suggest 20% of consumers report being active detractors of the meat and poultry industry when it comes to animal welfare issues – what approach can help engage and inform consumers in this area?   

Jennifer Walker: I think the first thing the industries need to do is stop asking people who will NEVER like/approve/support their product what they think. Of the 20% that report being active detractors of meat and poultry, 6% are vegetarian or vegan. The overall percentage of the population that adheres to a vegetarian diet has not changed in any huge significant way over time. The chance of changing their purchasing behavior for whatever reason they chose to not purchase animal products is approaching zero. Stop trying to convince them. In the words of Miss Swift,  “haters gonna hate.”  If 15% are active detractors, that means you have 85% of the population that are willing consumers. Yay! If you genuinely think the 15% are “activists” or, whom I think we should more accurately refer to as animal agriculture abolitionists, I think it is wrong-headed to say that these are the folks “we need to work on”.

I think the bigger question and concern is why do only 10% “actively support the industry when it comes to animal welfare”? Having not seen the actual study I don’t know what that means exactly, but let’s take it to mean only 10% think the industry is doing a great job when it comes to animal welfare. If we ignore the 6%, that means that 84% of our consumers do not feel we meet the moment when it comes to animal welfare. If we disregard the full 20% that leaves us with 70% thinking we don’t do a bang-up job. That is a problem, but I don’t think it is a surprise. Maybe it is because we are not collectively showing up as advocates for the animals in our systems like we should? If the industry thinks we are going to message our way out of the problem, whether it is tie-stalls, gestation crates, battery cages or feedlots that offer zero shade as relief from sweltering sun, we are kidding ourselves. We have been having the same tired conversation for 20 years and guess what, 94% of consumer think it is OK to benefit from animals in production and 84% of those think we could do better at treating them a little better, and they are right. If you want to engage consumers, show them something worth engaging over instead of trying to convince them that what they intuitively understand to be a less than optimal situation is actually a good one. Step one to building trust is being honest. Show consumers what you are doing to do better rather than trying to do better at explaining why you continue to do what you have always done.

What emerging regulatory guidance is impacting animal welfare and humane handling? Is this US specific or International, any specific areas and or species?

Jennifer Walker: I am not on the plant and processing side, so I won’t touch on that. I don’t know of any specific regulatory guidance at the moment on the farm side, and don’t imagine there will be much appetite or steam on that for the next several years. Nevertheless, I do think the transport of animals, specifically calves, is going to come under increased scrutiny along with calf housing. Canada has established some specific rules as has the EU around minimum age for transport and maximum time for travel. Few things scream “I couldn’t care less” than putting a day-old calf on a trailer and sending it half-way across the country to then be raised in a pen barely big enough to turn around in, on slatted floors with no bedding -- and the latest undercover video from an animal ag abolitionist group manages to shine a spotlight on the issue.

How is the threat of HPAI influencing animal welfare and humane handling practices and consumer-facing messaging? US or other regions? 

Jennifer Walker: I think the big issues is, it is going to ensure that the topic of mass depopulation stays on the radar and continual risk when it comes to consumer sentiment. Until we identify humane, or at least more humane ways to manage depopulation the reality is we are being forced to kill millions of birds in a way that is not humane. It may be the best we can do today, but that should not keep us from working hard to do better, not just for the animals but for the caregivers that have to manage it. That includes putting the welfare of the birds over profit and moving beyond the politics and trade barriers that are keeping us from vaccinating the birds. Again, you can’t message “how much you care” and then turn around and say we are not going to protect our birds because it will impact our export market.

A it relates to handling and transport, I think the impact of HPAI in cattle has revealed to many the degree and distance to which some cattle are moved as part of their normal operations drawing attention the stress of transport, particularly with newborns.

Lastly, I think there is a real risk of losing trust when it comes to food safety due to the repeated issues of raw diets and raw milk causing mortalities in domestic and wild cats.

How are AI and other tech innovations shaping humane handling and animal welfare practices and outcomes? Assume I can speak to AI and tech available globally? Yes

Jennifer Walker: There is a lot of tech out there. Beyond the systems out of Deloitte monitoring handling at slaughter, I don’t see many that are ready for prime time and or scalable at the farm level. There are some systems to score locomotion in cattle that perform OK, but the platforms are not enough. You need boots on the ground to support their role out and adoption on the farm, and you need the caregivers on the farm capable and empowered to act on the data.

I am both bullish and bearish on technology and AI when it comes to animal welfare. That is, I am an optimist who worries a lot! In theory these tools will help us intelligently manage data, ensure animals are treated as individuals and receive timely care, provide constant monitoring of the animals and their environment,  allow us the opportunity to micromanage the environment in ways that can protect the environment and soil health, and offer 24/7 vigilance of the animals and their caregivers.  My concern is the reality will be that data is leveraged to maximize profit not optimize it with welfare, we will manage to the average, not the individual, access to tech will be limited by scale to farms that can afford it and adapt their system to it, it will replace rather than elevate caregivers, and at its very worst, it will erode competence and empathy. The intuition of our caregivers will be replaced by notifications. Empathy will be undermined by data. And a duty of care will be dismissed by digital vigilance.

The one exception I see is the ability to use AI and tech to build empathy. The Animal Vision system that allows us to train animal caregivers on stockmanship provides a unique opportunity to use technology to build empathy.  The Humane Handling Institute at the University of Wisconsin RF is investing in this technology and will incorporate it into teaching stockmanship. The ability to give caregivers the chance to see and experience the world through the eyes of cattle I believe will transform how we work with cattle day to day as well as open our eyes to how we can make simple fixes in their everyday environment that will make their lives and ours a little better.