Human concerns far outweigh farm-animal welfare for most Americans, according to a new survey of 1,000 people conducted by the American Farm Bureau Federation in conjunction with Oklahoma State University.

The survey found that consumers considered the U.S. health-care system, poverty and food safety five times more important than the well being of farm animals.

Through what Oklahoma State University Assistant Professor F. Bailey Norwood called an "innovative survey question," the study found that consumers equated the suffering of one human to that of 11,500 farm animals and that most respondents believed farmers should be compensated if they are forced to comply with more rigorous animal-welfare standards.

"While this does not imply that farm animal welfare is not important, it does imply when forming public policy, the interests of farm animals take a backseat to the interest of humans," Norwood wrote in a summary of survey results posted on the AFBF Web site.

Norwood also said consumers see animal welfare as a result of shopping decisions in addition to producer choices. According to the survey, a majority of shoppers believed that if consumers want higher animal-welfare standards, companies will provide it — and charge more for it. Thus, when consumers choose to purchase traditional meat instead of more expensive meat raised under alternative production systems like organic or free-range, they understand that their purchase directly determines the level of animal care provided.

When asked about gestation crates for sows, researchers found that consumers were more accepting of the practice if given an explanation for its use. For example, the survey found that only 18 percent of consumers agreed with the statement, "housing pregnant sows in crates is humane," while 45 percent agreed with the statement, "housing pregnant sows in crates for their protection from other hogs is humane."

By Alicia Karapetian on 12/3/2007 for Meatingplace.com