Better for Animals: The Evidence Behind Government Outreach

23 minute read

This month, we’re spotlighting the evidence behind Government Outreach as part of our ongoing Better for Animals research.

Better for Animals: Background

Animal Charity Evaluators’ Better for Animals: Evidence-Based Insights for Effective Animal Advocacy resource is an ongoing project in which we distill key research on different animal advocacy interventions to help us evaluate their impact in different contexts. We have made this research publicly available to support informed decision making about how to help the most animals. You can read more about the methodology here.

This is a living document and we want to make it as helpful, accessible, and up-to-date as possible, so please feel free to reach out with feedback! To keep up to date with ACE’s research and the work of the amazing organizations that we support, be sure to sign up for our mailing list.

To help make this information more accessible to a wide range of audiences, we are spotlighting one intervention each month through a series of social media and blog posts. This month we are focusing on the evidence around Government Outreach.

---

Intervention Spotlight #11: Government Outreach

---

What is this intervention?

This category refers to engaging politicians, governments, or public institutions to change laws or policies affecting animals. Tactics include lobbying legislators to propose or support animal-friendly legislation, collaborating with policymakers to draft and refine policies that enhance animal welfare, and providing expert input or research to inform decision making.

Note: This review currently only covers government outreach as an intervention for farmed animals, and not for wild animals, although many of the findings may be transferable.

Summary: Our assessment, and how confident we are in it

Bottom line

• Government and legislative advocacy have the potential to create substantial positive change for animal welfare due to the scale of influence and the enforcement mechanisms available to governments.

• Effectiveness varies greatly depending on the political, social, and economic context, and is likely substantially higher when there is public and media support, strategic alliances, and effective enforcement mechanisms.

• We have significant uncertainties around advocating to reduce subsidies for animal agriculture, as some evidence suggests this could increase the overall number of animals farmed.

• The strength of evidence is moderate, drawing on a mix of academic literature, expert opinion, case studies, and survey data. However, it lacks rigorous studies that would allow for causal attribution, has limited coverage of low- and middle-income countries (with most research focusing on North America and Europe), and relies heavily on context-specific findings.

What makes this intervention more or less effective

We expect the effectiveness of this intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken.

• We believe this intervention is likely stronger when:

  • Political and institutional conditions are favorable (e.g., under stable democratic governments with functioning enforcement systems). Countries that are influential in trade or regulation can further amplify the impact of new laws.

  • There is public support for animal welfare improvements.

  • There are clear legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms.

  • The chosen policy change aligns with government priorities.

  • Policy design addresses imports (i.e., standards are also applied to imported products, and welfare burdens are not simply offshored).

  • Advocacy is personalized rather than automated, anchored to a clear and specific legislative ask, built on lasting relationships, and backed by diverse coalitions and broadly bipartisan framing.

• Conversely, the intervention is likely weaker, or may have unintended negative consequences when:

  • Political or economic barriers are high (e.g., political instability; frequent government turnover; or strong, well-funded counter lobbies).

  • Enforcement is weak; low inspection rates, as seen in the UK and many U.S. states, can render new laws largely symbolic.

  • Domestic standards are undercut. If imports are not included in legislation, lower-welfare import products can flood the market and disadvantage compliant domestic producers.

  • Public reaction is negative. Campaigns may face backlash that polarizes voters or strengthens opposing groups.

  • Resource needs are underestimated (i.e., lobbying can be costly and require years of sustained effort).

• Government outreach is also frequently used in tandem with interventions such as protests, popular initiatives, legal advocacy and litigation, influencing investments, research on farmed animal welfare, media outreach, and farmer collaboration, so for additional context we suggest also reading the evidence reviews for those interventions. Effectiveness likely differs depending on the combination of interventions.

Strength of evidence

• Our research indicates that there is currently a moderate evidence base regarding government outreach relative to other animal advocacy interventions. The evidence we found largely consists of descriptive articles, expert opinion, case studies, and survey data.

• Strength of evidence is mixed because the literature lacks rigorous studies that would allow for causal attribution and relies heavily on context-specific findings concentrated in North America and Europe.

• Therefore, our confidence in our overall assessment is currently moderate.

Priorities for future research

A key gap is the net effect of specific asks. Some reforms could either reduce animal suffering or increase it, for instance by shifting production toward the far more numerous chickens, and more research is needed to be able to better predict the direction and effect size for different asks. Research should also map which legislative wins are actually enforced by tracking reforms through to measured welfare outcomes. Better research designs are also needed to test the causal and counterfactual impact of lobbying and other forms of government outreach. Other priority gaps include transferability of findings beyond North America and Europe and to legislative outreach for wild animals.

In depth

How effective is this intervention?

This section covers the evidence on government outreach and lobbying in general. Later sections look at specific reforms, including subsidy reform and public funding for alternative proteins.

• The ceiling for potential impact is high: Due to the scale of government control, even modest legislative changes can impact billions of animals.¹ Governments have implemented numerous pieces of legislation, policies, and regulations that benefit animals. This includes directly banning or regulating cruel practices in animal farming, or implementing measures that influence the consumption of animal products — for example through taxation, subsidies, and labeling of animal-derived food products.² Government intervention in other areas, such as regulation of antibiotic use on farms and environmental policy, can also have indirect effects on animal welfare (both positive and negative).

• One reason to expect government outreach to be effective is that legislators appear responsive to public preferences on animal welfare, although the evidence is correlational and self-reported attitudes may overestimate true support.

  • Bryant et al. (2024)³ showed that higher support for animal welfare tends to be correlated with stronger animal welfare legislation, which may reflect governments responding to citizens’ preferences (however, the cross-sectional results cannot show causation).⁴

  • Importantly, the survey found positive public sentiment for stronger animal welfare legislation even where this does not translate into purchasing habits. A parallel pattern shows up in actual votes. In California, 63.5% of voters backed Proposition 2’s ban on battery cages, yet more than 90% of the shelled eggs Californians were buying at the time did not meet the standard they had just voted for.⁵ This phenomenon, known as the voter-buyer gap, is central to the case for government outreach: It means there is untapped public support for animal welfare that consumer-facing campaigns alone cannot capitalize on but policy outreach may be able to, allowing advocates to secure welfare improvements that would never materialize through purchasing behavior alone.

  • However, such surveys may overstate the public’s true support for animal welfare. Sentience Institute’s 2021 survey of U.S. adults found unexpectedly high support for radical policies, with 49.1% favoring a ban on slaughterhouses, 52.7% favoring a ban on factory farming, and 38.8% favoring a ban on all animal farming. The numbers may be inflated by misunderstandings of the questions or by respondents giving socially desirable answers.⁶ In line with that, a Rethink Priorities study showed that when respondents were asked to explain their reasoning, support for a slaughterhouse ban dropped from 20.4% to between 7.9% and 15.7%, suggesting that abstract support figures may overstate true public backing for radical reforms.⁷ However, most policy asks are more incremental, and support for less radical measures seems less likely to be exaggerated.

  • Overall, there is likely some genuine public support that policy advocacy can draw on, but its magnitude is uncertain and may be smaller than surveys suggest, especially for the most ambitious reforms. The causal direction between public support and legislation is also unclear, and, relatedly, it is an open question how advocates should best make use of public support in their lobbying efforts.

  • One way of leveraging citizen support may be to mobilize them to respond to public consultations, whereby governments invite citizens to comment on proposed policy before it is decided. Animal Ask believes coordinating responses to such consultations could be a low-cost and underexplored intervention.⁸

Below, we summarize the evidence on two specific types of reform government outreach may aim for.

Animal agriculture subsidy reform

• A subsidy is a benefit provided by the government — typically a cash payment, tax break, or price support — that lowers the cost of producing or consuming a good, or raises the income of its producers. The OECD, which monitors and evaluates agricultural policies in 54 countries, reported that total support to the agricultural sector was $842 billion per year across 2022-24.⁹ An analysis of 2017 data of OECD and non-OECD nations found 22% of all subsidies were used for meat products and 10% for milk and other dairy products.¹⁰ On balance these subsidies tend to lower the price of animal products, encouraging consumption and production, though the effect is smaller than commonly assumed.¹¹

• Efforts to reform animal agriculture subsidies usually involve promoting welfare-conditional subsidies to incentivize higher-welfare practices, and reducing subsidies for meat production, feed crops, or fisheries.¹²

• Of these, the promotion of welfare-conditional subsidies currently appears to be the most promising avenue, with case studies in Switzerland and the EU indicating that these can bring concrete improvements in animal welfare. If these improvements lead to lower stocking densities or higher cost of production, welfare-conditional subsidies can also result in fewer animals being farmed.¹³ For instance, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy provides payments to farmers who go beyond the legal minimum animal welfare standards. Conversely, farmers in breach of the legislation receive reduced subsidies.¹⁴

• While reducing subsidies for meat production could be impactful under certain circumstances, it could also shift production away from cows ( who are currently more subsidy dependent) toward chickens (who are typically less subsidy dependent), resulting in more suffering overall given that many more chickens are farmed than cows.¹⁵ Advocating for subsidy reform on environmental grounds runs a similar risk: While this can be a tractable strategy given that many governments have made public environmental commitments to which they can be held accountable, it could shift production to the relatively lower-emissions poultry and aquaculture industries.¹⁶

• Abolishing subsidies for feed crops also comes with risks. Animal Ask described campaigning to reduce these subsidies as plausibly harmful, citing cases where policies passed and meat consumption continued to rise, and one economic modeling study which suggested that animal production could increase as feed-crop subsidies are removed, as crop farmers shift towards higher-profit animal sectors.¹⁷

• Similarly, reducing fisheries subsidies also appears potentially harmful when reforms explicitly seek to maintain a large population of wild fishes so that more can be caught in the long term, which could lead to more fishes suffering and dying overall rather than fewer.¹⁸

Public funding for alternative proteins

• In 2021, it appeared that alternative proteins might have sufficient private capital that they did not require government funding.¹⁹ However, this no longer appears to be the case, with a decrease in alternative protein sales and reluctance from some investors.²⁰ Governments could play a key role in funding open access alternative protein research that private investors may be less likely to fund due to risk, long timelines, and potentially low return on investment.²¹ Government funding can also be a much more reliable source of finance for companies working in novel areas because it tends to be less susceptible to sudden market fluctuations.²²

• However, in their 2022 report, Animal Ask argued that promoting subsidies for plant-based foods does not appear to decrease consumption of animal products in practice because consumers do not see plants or plant-based animal product alternatives as legitimate substitutes for animal products. They noted that this may change in the future as public perceptions of alternative proteins, and their suitability for replacing animal products, improve.²³ In 2025 researchers surveyed consumers on food preferences to estimate cross-price elasticities between plant-based meat alternatives and meat and similarly concluded that lowering prices of plant-based meat alternatives would be unlikely to significantly impact conventional poultry and livestock production.²⁴

Cost effectiveness

• For a given campaign, the cost effectiveness of government outreach varies greatly depending on the change in policy or legislation being called for, with some legislative demands potentially leading to more net suffering.²⁵ An assessment of the change in policy or legislation that takes into account the country context, flow-through effects, and tractability is required to determine how cost effective government outreach is likely to be in each case.²⁶

• The challenges in establishing such cost-effectiveness estimates are comprehensively discussed in Ryba’s 2022 Effective Altruism Forum post:²⁷ According to Ryba, measuring the effectiveness of lobbying is challenging due to the difficulty in separating baseline policy success from the counterfactual impact of lobbying efforts. Academic literature on this topic is limited, with insufficient evidence to assess lobbying’s unique contribution. Ryba therefore recommends expert judgment and superforecaster panels to evaluate the counterfactual impact of lobbying in animal advocacy.

• Complicating causal attribution further, we often find multiple organizations lobbying for the same policy change (see, e.g., the coalitions that formed around End the Cage Age²⁸ and the banning of octopus farming²⁹), which makes it difficult to attribute the influence on the government to any single organization.

Under what conditions is this intervention more or less effective?

Note: Many of these are identical to those listed in the Popular Initiatives section, because both interventions pursue legislative/policy change through formal government channels.

Favorable conditions

• Political & institutional context

  • A jurisdiction’s political, social, and economic context shapes how effective legislative advocacy can be. A 2026 analysis found that the World Bank’s Voice and Accountability indicator, which captures the extent to which citizens can select their governments,³⁰ was a far stronger predictor of a country’s level of animal protection than economic indicators like GDP per capita, explaining 58% of the cross-country variation on its own.³¹ The authors suggest that where citizens can pressure representatives and influence government, stronger animal welfare protections tend to follow. Relatedly, stable democracies seem to offer potential for more durable wins, since policy commitments are less likely to be reversed by abrupt political change.³²

  • Jurisdictions that are influential on the world stage can create positive spillover effects, such as the Brussels Effect (where EU regulations spread well beyond EU borders),³³ or by enforcing standards on trading partners through policies like Proposition 12, which applied welfare standards not only to farms in California, but to all products sold in California.³⁴

  • Countries with constitutional protections for animals (e.g., Brazil) may offer promising legal avenues for advocacy, although in practice these frameworks have so far resulted mainly in symbolic recognition rather than widespread welfare improvements.³⁵

  • Advocacy may also be more likely to succeed when it coincides with a policy window, i.e., the period in which a recognized problem, a viable policy solution, and the political will to act align. Mercy For Animals distinguishes windows that are predictable (e.g., elections or budget cycles), unpredictable (e.g., an outbreak of swine or avian flu), or deliberately created (e.g., a high-profile exposé); they argue that taking advantage of such events is often the most feasible way to move an issue onto the political agenda.³⁶

• Public and corporate support

  • Strong public support for animal welfare policies likely enhances the effectiveness of campaigns, as the responsiveness of legislators to public preferences (discussed above) suggests. Public support plausibly gives advocates a constituency to point to and lowers the risk of backlash.

  • A 2020 Sentience Institute survey of 1,113 US adults found that animal farming opposition and support for animal product alternatives were higher among those who were younger, more left-leaning politically, and followed a vegetarian or vegan diet. ³⁷ Faunalytics further found that in the U.S., Liberals, Democrats, women, and non-binary individuals were consistently more likely than other groups to take political actions (e.g., sign petitions, attend protests, and vote for measures or candidates) for animals.³⁸ Faunalytics recommends focusing on these groups most open to asks, in order to build genuine and sustained local support for campaigns.

  • Public support may also shape the extent to which the same legislation is actually implemented, not just whether it passes. One study of how four European countries responded to the EU’s 2008 pig welfare directive found that those with higher public concern for animal welfare adopted stricter standards,³⁹ though the small sample and correlational design limit how confident we can be in that conclusion.

  • Prioritizing welfare asks already adopted by some corporations may also be beneficial, as these companies may support broader adoption to level the playing field. As Kitty Block, the CEO of Humane World for Animals, says: “We’ve seen corporate commitments lead to advances in public policy time and time again, as legislators recognize that the business community and the public support and expect to see animal-friendly outcomes.”⁴⁰

• Enforcement & implementation

  • Legislative changes for animals are only impactful if effectively enforced and implemented. Enforcement and compliance rates vary significantly across regions and countries.

    • The Animal Law Foundation found that in the U.K. less than 3% of farms were inspected by public bodies in 2024;⁴¹ similarly, in the U.S., a 2023 Animal Welfare Institute review found that of 44 state-level farm animal protection provisions across 18 states, only 12 provisions in 10 states had evidence of enforcement activity.⁴²

    • A 2023 analysis of official inspections of French cattle farms between 2010 and 2013 found full-compliance rates with animal welfare standards of 60.6% on first-time inspections, compared with 80% in the UK, 77% in Denmark, and 72% in Finland.⁴³

    • A 2025 comparative study of 16 E.U. countries found that only half had successfully implemented E.U. animal welfare standards, with outcomes strongly influenced by factors such as the presence of Green parties, public support for animal welfare, and the absence of conflicting domestic regulations.⁴⁴

  • When advocating for legislative changes, advocates must consider how improvements will be enforced, e.g., by advocating for legislative text to include a specific enforcement authority, mandatory inspection or monitoring, and penalties for non-compliance. Animal Ask also suggests that global performance indicators (GPIs) – standardized measures used to track and compare countries’ progress in strengthening and enforcing animal welfare legislation –could improve enforcement at minimal cost to the movement.⁴⁵

• Tactic and ask

  • Forming coalitions with other advocacy, environmental, and public-health groups can strengthen the push for legislative changes by pooling resources, broadening the constituency a legislator hears from, and framing an ask around several priorities at once.⁴⁶

  • With regards to subsidies specifically, animal advocates may benefit from seeking collaboration with other social justice advocates on subsidy reform, given the likelihood of mutually beneficial objectives.⁴⁷

  • Welfare-conditional subsidies should also be designed so as to actually incentivize farmers to change their practices, rather than to reward farmers for their existing practices, and they should be sufficiently large so as to be worth the time and effort required to implement the required changes.⁴⁸ The context should dictate whether advocates lobby for subsidy reform at the national or sub-national level, with the former likely to be more impactful but the latter likely to be more tractable.⁴⁹

  • With regard to public funding for alternative proteins, the type of government funding required depends on the trajectory of the market. For example, one report suggests that if cultured meat production could scale to 50 million metric tons in the next 30 years, it would be worth investing in open access research prizes and lobbying for government funding wherever it currently appears most tractable.⁵⁰ If this were only possible on longer timeframes, asks should prioritize funding in countries where the highest meat demand is projected to be.⁵¹ Requests for government funding should also align with governments’ interests; for example, some governments are particularly interested in food security (e.g., Singapore⁵²), while others care more about environmental commitments (e.g., Denmark⁵³).

  • Finally, advocates may be able to increase their impact by timing different tactics well: In a 2015 survey, policymakers in Belgium and Canada reported that public opinion influences their actions more when they initially prioritize issues for policy action, while they use parties and expert sources more during the policy formulation phase. Interest groups were reported to be prominent in both stages.⁵⁴ More research is needed to corroborate the findings, especially across different countries.

Less favorable conditions

• Political & institutional context

  • Political instability and changes in government can disrupt or reverse progress made by advocacy efforts.⁵⁵

  • The presence of a well-funded and organized counter lobby, as seen in the obstructions to revisions of EU animal welfare legislation by farming lobbies,⁵⁶ can significantly hinder advocacy efforts. The counter lobby spends significantly more money lobbying than animal advocates, and has privileged access to decision makers, influence on media channels, and the ability to mobilize farmer protests as political cover.⁵⁷

    • The scale of this access asymmetry is now even documented in the European Commission’s own records: An Animal Equality analysis covering mid-December 2024 to 11 March 2026 showed that the Commissioners responsible for animal welfare and agriculture and their cabinets held at least 46 meetings with meat, poultry, and dairy industry representatives on animal welfare against just seven with animal welfare organizations.⁵⁸ An earlier investigation by Lighthouse Reports and The Guardian found that industry lobby groups used privileged channels with senior Commission officials, after which internal attitudes toward the legislation became extremely negative.⁵⁹

    • The example shows that even when there is overwhelming public support and a united coalition of organizations behind a reform, an organized counter lobby with privileged access can still stall or reverse it — the legislation is now more than 800 days overdue.⁶⁰

• Tactic and ask

  • Low-welfare imports can undermine domestic standards. A 2024 report found that in New Zealand, large volumes of low-welfare animal products were imported as a result of strict domestic welfare regulations that did not apply to imports.⁶¹ This substitution effect can significantly weaken the overall impact of welfare improvements, disadvantage compliant domestic producers, and reduce incentives for higher-welfare practices globally. Welfare legislation should therefore always aim to include imports to mitigate this risk.

Mixed conditions

• Much less research addresses the effectiveness of government outreach in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); however, a 2023 Animal Ask report identified some LMICs that have lower levels of animal production and consumption relative to their peers, and points to the policies that may have influenced this.⁶² This is a signal that specific policy reforms may be a viable lever in LMICs.

• Expert reviewers and advocates also noted that in some countries (e.g., India and China) lobbying is viewed less favorably than in the Western contexts the majority of the evidence comes from, and influencing governments requires more caution. In these contexts, advocates may have to rely more on alignment with existing government priorities and less on direct or adversarial tactics.

Strength of evidence

• The general strength of evidence for government outreach is mixed. The report draws on a variety of sources including surveys, expert opinion, and case studies, but lacks methodologically rigorous studies that would allow for causal attribution. Outreach tactics can be randomized for intermediate outcomes such as legislators’ responsiveness or individual votes⁶³, but given the rarity of reform passage, randomized studies evaluating end results are likely infeasible for this intervention.

• To understand subsidies, we relied heavily on Animal Ask’s report “Subsidies: Which reforms can help animals?” and Faunalytics’ report “Reforming Animal Agriculture Subsidies: A Guide for Advocates.” The former in particular calls for more in-depth economic analysis to understand the complexities of subsidy reform.

• Most evidence comes from higher-income democratic contexts (especially North America and Europe), which limits global applicability since political systems, enforcement capacity, public attitudes, and market structures vary significantly, and we identified these as factors likely affecting the impact of government outreach.

• Other key limitations include difficulty attributing policy outcomes to specific lobbying efforts, limited data on long-term enforcement and impact, and potential biases in public opinion data (e.g., social desirability in surveys).

Our priorities for improving this evidence review

To improve future iterations of this review, we plan to:

• Expand the review to include a broader range of geographic contexts, particularly low- and middle-income countries, to improve global applicability and highlight knowledge gaps.

• Include more granular cost-effectiveness estimates, drawing from any available comparative analyses across policy types, regions, or tactics.

• Clearly flag attribution challenges in coalition-led campaigns, and summarize any available methods or estimates used to assess marginal contributions.

• Seek out and summarize data on policy enforcement and implementation outcomes, to assess where legislative wins have translated into real-world welfare improvements.

• Compare the effectiveness and tractability of different government outreach tactics (e.g., lobbying, consultations, and subsidy reform), based on available case studies or expert reviews.

• Provide more detailed summaries of risks and backfire effects, drawing on examples where advocacy efforts led to resistance or policy reversal.

• Include summaries of stakeholder perspectives, especially from policymakers and officials, to better understand which advocacy approaches have been viewed as credible or effective.

• Where appropriate, summarize evidence on trade-offs between ambitious and pragmatic policy goals, especially in differing political contexts.

• Research the opportunities for, and limitations of, wild animal welfare legislation.

Last updated July 22, 2026

This review was originally written by Eleanor McAree and has since been co-edited by Alina Salmen and Mitchell Laughlin. We would like to thank Max Carpendale, Neil Dullaghan, and Ren Grace Ryba for their helpful feedback as expert reviewers.

---

1. Flores & Bryant (2023); Mills (2022)  

2. Coller Animal Law Forum Database  

3. Bryant et al. (2024)  

4. Bryant et al. (2024)  

5. Paul et al. (2019)  

6. Sentience Institute (2022).  

7. Dullaghan (2022)  

8. Carpendale (2024)  

9. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2025)  

10. Springmann & Freund (2022)  

11. Ritchie (2026)  

12. Ryba (2022)  

13. Ryba (2022)  

14. Coller Animal Law Forum (n.d.)  

15. Ryba (2022)  

16. Polanco & Anderson (2022)  

17. Ryba (2022)  

18. Ryba (2022)  

19. Bollard (2022); Mridul (2025)  

20. Mridul (2025)  

21. Bollard (2022)  

22. Tyler (2020)  

23. Ryba (2022)  

24. Caputo et al. (2025)  

25. Animal Ask (2022)  

26. Coller Animal Law Forum  

27. Ryba (2022)  

28. End the Cage Age (n.d.)  

29. Compassion in World Farming (2023)  

30. World Bank (2024)  

31. Montalcini and Crowther (2026)  

32. Brulliard & Wan (2019); Vogeler (2019)  

33. Bradford (2020)  

34. Marceau & Kysar (2023)  

35. Baptista-Rosa (2024)  

36. Mercy for Animals (2024)  

37. Ladak & Anthis (2021)  

38. Faunalytics (2023)  

39. Kuenzler and Vogeler (2025)  

40. HWA (2025)  

41. The Animal Law Foundation (2024)  

42. Craig (2024)  

43. Lomellini-Dereclenne et al. (2023)  

44. Bazaar & Vogeler (2025)  

45. Ryba (2024)  

46. Foer & Gross (2024); Van Dyke & Amos (2017)  

47. Polanco & Anderson (2022)  

48. Ryba (2022)  

49. Polanco & Anderson (2022)  

50. Dullaghan (2022)  

51. For context, this report gives a 54% probability that less than 100,000 metric tons of cultured meat will be sold before 2051, based on predictions by six forecasters.  

52. Mridul (2025)  

53. MFA (2026)  

54. Willems, et al. (2024)  

55. Brulliard & Wan (2019); Vogeler (2019)  

56. Lighthouse Reports (2023); Politico (2023)  

57. Kikou (2024)  

58. As reported by Kaye (2026)  

59. Lighthouse Reports (2023)  

60. Animal Policy International (2026)  

61. Animal Policy International (2024)  

62. Animal Ask (2023)  

63. Bergan (2009); Butler & Nickerson (2011)  

---

---

---