WEBVTT 00:00:00.999 --> 00:00:04.219 Hello everyone, this is TheVeganReport and my 00:00:04.219 --> 00:00:08.259 name is Sandro Ianni. I'm a PhD student in psychology 00:00:08.259 --> 00:00:11.759 at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. There 00:00:11.759 --> 00:00:15.099 I'm working with Professor Chris Hubwood at the 00:00:15.099 --> 00:00:19.219 Personality Psychology Lab. In today's episode 00:00:19.219 --> 00:00:21.859 I have the great pleasure to present some of 00:00:21.859 --> 00:00:24.420 the research I've conducted so far during my 00:00:24.420 --> 00:00:28.890 PhD. My research can be broadly summarized as 00:00:28.890 --> 00:00:31.989 studying the political psychology of sustainable 00:00:31.989 --> 00:00:35.729 plant -based food system change. What this means 00:00:35.729 --> 00:00:38.570 is that I'm taking a psychological perspective 00:00:38.570 --> 00:00:41.810 to look at the political factors that shape our 00:00:41.810 --> 00:00:44.590 journey towards a world where food production 00:00:44.590 --> 00:00:47.649 and consumption is more beneficial to humans, 00:00:47.950 --> 00:00:51.450 the environment and non -human animals. I've 00:00:51.450 --> 00:00:54.689 decided to structure this episode around several 00:00:54.689 --> 00:00:58.049 topics that guide my research and which are hopefully 00:00:58.049 --> 00:01:01.969 also highly relevant to you as listeners. Each 00:01:01.969 --> 00:01:05.069 part will feature some recently published or 00:01:05.069 --> 00:01:08.069 soon to be published work, so I will be able 00:01:08.069 --> 00:01:11.989 to share some fresh findings with you. My goal 00:01:11.989 --> 00:01:15.129 is to provide you with the big picture and the 00:01:15.129 --> 00:01:17.969 key research findings and to spare you some of 00:01:17.969 --> 00:01:20.930 the details. But for those who would like to 00:01:20.930 --> 00:01:23.909 take a deeper look I will share links to my papers 00:01:23.909 --> 00:01:27.129 which are all open access in the description 00:01:27.129 --> 00:01:30.930 of this episode. You can also find me on LinkedIn 00:01:30.930 --> 00:01:35.269 where I regularly post research updates or you 00:01:35.269 --> 00:01:39.250 can reach out to me via email. My contact information 00:01:39.250 --> 00:01:42.549 will also be mentioned in the description. And 00:01:42.549 --> 00:01:46.049 as a reminder you can find new episodes of this 00:01:46.049 --> 00:01:49.359 series every Wednesday on this podcast. It would 00:01:49.359 --> 00:01:52.620 be great if you could share this episode and 00:01:52.620 --> 00:01:57.219 the podcast with your community. Okay, so the 00:01:57.219 --> 00:01:59.819 first question I will be talking about today 00:01:59.819 --> 00:02:04.000 is what are some political challenges and opportunities 00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:07.019 for sustainable plant -based food system change? 00:02:07.959 --> 00:02:11.219 Here I will mainly talk about a study where we 00:02:11.219 --> 00:02:14.860 analyze large sets of public opinion data from 00:02:14.860 --> 00:02:19.180 Switzerland. The goal was to identify differences 00:02:19.180 --> 00:02:22.139 and similarities across the political spectrum 00:02:22.139 --> 00:02:25.960 when it comes to priorities around food system 00:02:25.960 --> 00:02:29.479 issues. So things like environmental protection, 00:02:30.060 --> 00:02:34.560 domestic food production or animal welfare. After 00:02:34.560 --> 00:02:38.080 that part I will cover another study where we 00:02:38.080 --> 00:02:41.860 looked at the political polarization around farm 00:02:41.860 --> 00:02:45.060 animal welfare across the entire European Union 00:02:45.060 --> 00:02:51.520 and the UK. Then the next question I'll be talking 00:02:51.520 --> 00:02:56.099 about today is what are some challenges and opportunities 00:02:56.099 --> 00:02:58.900 for the animal welfare movement in the current 00:02:58.900 --> 00:03:03.580 political context. This part will feature content 00:03:03.580 --> 00:03:06.280 from a recently published commentary article 00:03:06.280 --> 00:03:11.500 in FAIR, which is the journal on the psychology 00:03:11.500 --> 00:03:18.139 of human -animal intergroup relations. As a fourth 00:03:18.139 --> 00:03:21.659 topic, I will briefly talk about a study where 00:03:21.659 --> 00:03:25.060 we checked how communication shapes engagement 00:03:25.060 --> 00:03:29.120 with food system change advocacy across the political 00:03:29.120 --> 00:03:33.919 spectrum. And lastly I will share a quick outlook 00:03:33.919 --> 00:03:40.639 on some upcoming projects. As a short note before 00:03:40.639 --> 00:03:44.300 I start, in this episode I will often talk about 00:03:44.300 --> 00:03:47.219 differences across the left -right political 00:03:47.219 --> 00:03:50.819 spectrum and I want to highlight here that these 00:03:50.819 --> 00:03:53.280 statements will represent statistical trends 00:03:53.280 --> 00:03:57.099 and are meant to make findings more comprehensible. 00:03:57.469 --> 00:04:00.909 But of course political beliefs are complex and 00:04:00.909 --> 00:04:04.669 not all individuals with similar political orientations 00:04:04.669 --> 00:04:08.330 will hold identical opinions about the things 00:04:08.330 --> 00:04:11.650 I will talk about. So just keep that in mind. 00:04:15.330 --> 00:04:18.269 With that let's jump into the first question 00:04:18.269 --> 00:04:20.930 about political challenges and opportunities 00:04:20.930 --> 00:04:24.879 for sustainable food system change. I think it's 00:04:24.879 --> 00:04:28.040 safe to say that reforming established food systems 00:04:28.040 --> 00:04:31.860 brings a lot of challenges. Like in other areas, 00:04:32.199 --> 00:04:34.600 there are strong interest groups which tend to 00:04:34.600 --> 00:04:38.620 oppose more meaningful changes. And I won't talk 00:04:38.620 --> 00:04:42.800 so much about this aspect today. But often there 00:04:42.800 --> 00:04:46.600 is also, to some extent at least, some skepticism 00:04:46.600 --> 00:04:50.209 from the larger public. People might worry about 00:04:50.209 --> 00:04:52.990 what change will mean to them personally, so 00:04:52.990 --> 00:04:56.209 their living conditions, for their values and 00:04:56.209 --> 00:04:59.529 for the world they know. And as a psychologist 00:04:59.529 --> 00:05:02.550 I'm particularly interested in public opinions. 00:05:03.209 --> 00:05:06.509 In my view, if we want to make food systems more 00:05:06.509 --> 00:05:09.490 sustainable, we first need to understand what 00:05:09.490 --> 00:05:13.009 priorities and concerns people have. Otherwise, 00:05:13.410 --> 00:05:15.850 reforms could face backlash, which could mean 00:05:15.850 --> 00:05:18.889 significant setbacks for reforms that are actually 00:05:18.889 --> 00:05:22.689 very pressing. So in short, reforms must align 00:05:22.689 --> 00:05:26.709 with what people value. Now the challenge is 00:05:26.709 --> 00:05:29.930 that people are in many ways different from each 00:05:29.930 --> 00:05:35.420 other, also with respect to their values. A convenient, 00:05:35.540 --> 00:05:38.759 although not perfect way to approximate differences 00:05:38.759 --> 00:05:41.899 in values is to ask people about their position 00:05:41.899 --> 00:05:46.100 on the left -right political spectrum. From political 00:05:46.100 --> 00:05:48.839 psychology we know that there are certain values 00:05:48.839 --> 00:05:51.660 and worldviews that are, at least on average, 00:05:52.100 --> 00:05:54.939 more strongly endorsed on either side of the 00:05:54.939 --> 00:05:59.089 political spectrum. These broad values and worldviews 00:05:59.089 --> 00:06:01.970 are often quite useful to understand why people 00:06:01.970 --> 00:06:04.410 across the political spectrum hold different 00:06:04.410 --> 00:06:09.490 opinions on more concrete topics. Some researchers 00:06:09.490 --> 00:06:12.290 have already attempted to make a link between 00:06:12.290 --> 00:06:15.389 political orientation and food system issues, 00:06:15.970 --> 00:06:19.310 most prominently regarding environmental and 00:06:19.310 --> 00:06:23.089 climate protection. In the first paper I want 00:06:23.089 --> 00:06:25.870 to present today titled political orientation 00:06:25.870 --> 00:06:29.189 and attitudes about agricultural reforms around 00:06:29.189 --> 00:06:34.449 sustainability. I've examined relationships between 00:06:34.449 --> 00:06:37.209 political orientation and various food system 00:06:37.209 --> 00:06:41.350 issues in Switzerland. This project was realized 00:06:41.350 --> 00:06:44.730 together with my supervisor Chris Hopewood and 00:06:44.730 --> 00:06:47.810 two researchers from the Swiss Competence Center 00:06:47.810 --> 00:06:51.170 for Agricultural Research. I'm Janine Ammann 00:06:51.170 --> 00:06:57.310 and Judith Irek. For the project we used existing 00:06:57.310 --> 00:07:01.009 public opinion data from our collaborators and 00:07:01.009 --> 00:07:05.670 also data from post -vote surveys of recent popular 00:07:05.670 --> 00:07:09.629 initiatives around agricultural policies. So 00:07:09.629 --> 00:07:13.550 for some context in Switzerland citizens can 00:07:13.550 --> 00:07:17.089 regularly vote on policy proposals as a form 00:07:17.089 --> 00:07:20.769 of direct democracy. And for this project we 00:07:20.769 --> 00:07:24.009 were interested in three separate proposals that 00:07:24.009 --> 00:07:28.230 would have brought substantial changes to the 00:07:28.230 --> 00:07:33.269 Swiss food system. Two were primarily focused 00:07:33.269 --> 00:07:36.670 on promoting the environment. That is, one was 00:07:36.670 --> 00:07:40.639 an initiative on biodiversity promotion. and 00:07:40.639 --> 00:07:43.759 the other was the so -called drinking water initiative. 00:07:45.019 --> 00:07:48.160 So their major focus was to reduce the use of 00:07:48.160 --> 00:07:52.300 chemicals in agriculture. And the third initiative 00:07:52.300 --> 00:07:55.779 was about animal welfare and basically demanded 00:07:55.779 --> 00:08:00.079 that the abolishment of vector farming in Switzerland. 00:08:01.480 --> 00:08:04.579 All three initiatives were rejected by roughly 00:08:04.579 --> 00:08:09.069 60 percent of voters. I would say that these 00:08:09.069 --> 00:08:12.589 cases nicely highlight the importance of public 00:08:12.589 --> 00:08:16.470 opinions for food system reforms, particularly 00:08:16.470 --> 00:08:19.209 in Switzerland with its rather distinct political 00:08:19.209 --> 00:08:22.529 system. But I think it is also safe to say that 00:08:22.529 --> 00:08:26.629 in other kinds of democracies, such reforms would 00:08:26.629 --> 00:08:29.970 face small chances to pass or even get onto the 00:08:29.970 --> 00:08:34.190 political agenda if a majority of voters oppose 00:08:34.190 --> 00:08:39.509 them. But now back to the study. So we analyzed 00:08:39.509 --> 00:08:43.289 the data of almost 10 ,000 Swiss residents who 00:08:43.289 --> 00:08:46.169 provided information about their political views 00:08:46.169 --> 00:08:50.370 on a common left -right self -placement scale. 00:08:51.610 --> 00:08:54.710 For some of them there was also data on how they 00:08:54.710 --> 00:08:58.210 rated the importance of different criteria that 00:08:58.210 --> 00:09:02.240 might matter when one buys food and The same 00:09:02.240 --> 00:09:04.919 people also provided ratings on the personal 00:09:04.919 --> 00:09:09.080 importance of different food policy issues. So 00:09:09.080 --> 00:09:12.320 in other words, we had information about people's 00:09:12.320 --> 00:09:17.259 priorities as consumers and voters. And many 00:09:17.259 --> 00:09:22.759 of these assessed shopping criteria and political 00:09:22.759 --> 00:09:26.700 policy issues were very similar. So for instance, 00:09:26.919 --> 00:09:30.799 they included animal welfare, various environmental 00:09:30.799 --> 00:09:34.580 issues, questions about food prices or social 00:09:34.580 --> 00:09:39.220 standards in food production. And what we then 00:09:39.220 --> 00:09:42.299 did is we tested the association between political 00:09:42.299 --> 00:09:49.200 orientation and those importance ratings. The 00:09:49.200 --> 00:09:52.179 results, or the results, the main results at 00:09:52.179 --> 00:09:56.259 least suggested that among people with more political 00:09:56.259 --> 00:10:00.399 left orientation all environmental goals were 00:10:00.399 --> 00:10:04.779 prioritized. So that means that issues like biodiversity, 00:10:05.220 --> 00:10:08.919 reducing plant protection products or the use 00:10:08.919 --> 00:10:12.080 of plant protection products, nutrient surpluses 00:10:12.080 --> 00:10:16.919 and particularly reducing greenhouse gas emissions 00:10:16.919 --> 00:10:20.500 from food production were given more importance 00:10:20.500 --> 00:10:24.159 on the left. And this aligns with a lot of previous 00:10:24.159 --> 00:10:28.830 research. which tends to show that most environmental 00:10:28.830 --> 00:10:35.710 issues tend to be quite polarized today. As we 00:10:35.710 --> 00:10:38.470 describe in the paper, some of this research 00:10:38.470 --> 00:10:41.850 argues that this difference could be due to how 00:10:41.850 --> 00:10:44.929 people on the left versus right tend to assign 00:10:44.929 --> 00:10:48.909 moral concerns differently. But there's also 00:10:48.909 --> 00:10:52.929 some evidence that at least part of this division 00:10:53.179 --> 00:10:56.580 might come from how environmental issues are 00:10:56.580 --> 00:10:59.399 discussed by political parties and the media. 00:11:02.720 --> 00:11:05.179 With people on the political right, on the other 00:11:05.179 --> 00:11:09.460 hand, we found that they valued increasing domestic 00:11:09.460 --> 00:11:13.259 food production more strongly and also showed 00:11:13.259 --> 00:11:17.240 stronger commitments to meat consumption. The 00:11:17.240 --> 00:11:22.899 second point is already already relatively common 00:11:22.899 --> 00:11:26.480 finding in research but in our study we expanded 00:11:26.480 --> 00:11:29.960 this finding in some way by looking also at two 00:11:29.960 --> 00:11:32.679 more indirect indicators of meat attachment. 00:11:33.740 --> 00:11:35.960 The way we did this is a bit more complex so 00:11:35.960 --> 00:11:39.059 I recommend checking the paper if you are interested 00:11:39.059 --> 00:11:44.120 in this. Concerning the finding on domestic food 00:11:44.120 --> 00:11:48.120 production there was actually less prior research 00:11:48.120 --> 00:11:52.279 on this particular topic. However, there were 00:11:52.279 --> 00:11:55.360 good reasons to expect this association because 00:11:55.360 --> 00:11:59.320 of how a strong domestic food sector could promote 00:11:59.320 --> 00:12:05.740 more typically conservative values. Another insight 00:12:05.740 --> 00:12:08.919 from the study is that people with more right 00:12:08.919 --> 00:12:12.690 -leaning orientations tended to be less willing 00:12:12.690 --> 00:12:16.190 to compromise on farmers income and low food 00:12:16.190 --> 00:12:21.529 prices for environmental policy goals. Here I 00:12:21.529 --> 00:12:24.730 should note that we were able to examine individuals 00:12:24.730 --> 00:12:28.649 willingness to compromise on certain issues by 00:12:28.649 --> 00:12:33.110 having questions where people had to make decisions 00:12:33.110 --> 00:12:36.409 in sort of a trade -off scenario. So basically 00:12:37.470 --> 00:12:41.129 people had to say how they would weigh the importance 00:12:41.129 --> 00:12:46.450 of two contrasting policy goals. And this measure 00:12:46.450 --> 00:12:48.950 was particularly interesting because in reality 00:12:48.950 --> 00:12:52.370 it is oftentimes difficult to give equal weight 00:12:52.370 --> 00:12:58.169 to all issues at once. Now concerning farmed 00:12:58.169 --> 00:13:01.809 animal welfare, we found that even though importance 00:13:01.809 --> 00:13:06.490 ratings were slightly higher on the left, Concerns 00:13:06.490 --> 00:13:09.769 were also quite high on the right. For example, 00:13:09.990 --> 00:13:12.309 among people on the right, there was a tendency 00:13:12.309 --> 00:13:15.889 to weigh animal welfare equally to domestic food 00:13:15.889 --> 00:13:19.590 production, protecting farmers' incomes and low 00:13:19.590 --> 00:13:24.789 food prices. Interestingly, it turned out that 00:13:24.789 --> 00:13:28.470 animal welfare was less of a polarizing issue 00:13:28.470 --> 00:13:34.279 than environmental protection. We found that 00:13:34.279 --> 00:13:39.679 even with the post -vote survey data, the effect 00:13:39.679 --> 00:13:42.899 of political orientation on the likelihood of 00:13:42.899 --> 00:13:45.799 rejecting the factory farming initiative was 00:13:45.799 --> 00:13:48.980 smaller than for both environmentally focused 00:13:48.980 --> 00:13:53.299 initiatives. Later in this episode I will talk 00:13:53.299 --> 00:13:56.159 about the relationship between political orientation 00:13:56.159 --> 00:14:01.850 and animal welfare in more detail. A final observation 00:14:01.850 --> 00:14:04.629 from this study I wanted to share with you is 00:14:04.629 --> 00:14:07.129 that people on the left and right did not differ 00:14:07.129 --> 00:14:10.730 in how important foods taste, price and healthiness 00:14:10.730 --> 00:14:15.389 was to them. So taken together I think our study 00:14:15.389 --> 00:14:18.730 provides some important insight into how the 00:14:18.730 --> 00:14:21.409 chances for sustainable food system reforms could 00:14:21.409 --> 00:14:25.730 be improved. I think a pragmatic pragmatic way 00:14:25.730 --> 00:14:29.269 forward needs to be one where reforms will respect 00:14:29.269 --> 00:14:31.950 the priorities of both sides of the political 00:14:31.950 --> 00:14:36.870 spectrum and this could be done by forming packages 00:14:36.870 --> 00:14:39.570 of policy instruments that attempt to balance 00:14:39.570 --> 00:14:43.889 concerns for environmental protection on the 00:14:43.889 --> 00:14:47.789 one hand as well as domestic production, farmers 00:14:47.789 --> 00:14:52.179 income and food prices on the other side. Of 00:14:52.179 --> 00:14:54.879 course this might be more challenging than pursuing 00:14:54.879 --> 00:14:59.799 a one -sided focus, but I think ultimately that 00:14:59.799 --> 00:15:02.960 forming broader coalitions and ensuring wider 00:15:02.960 --> 00:15:05.899 public support will be more successful and a 00:15:05.899 --> 00:15:10.799 more feasible long -term strategy. Fortunately 00:15:10.799 --> 00:15:13.480 there were also certain things where disagreements 00:15:13.480 --> 00:15:18.210 were smaller or even absent. So overall promoting 00:15:18.210 --> 00:15:21.210 a food system that produces affordable tasty 00:15:21.210 --> 00:15:25.289 and healthy food is definitely a good idea. And 00:15:25.289 --> 00:15:28.929 as our study also showed there tends to be more 00:15:28.929 --> 00:15:32.210 of a political consensus around animal welfare 00:15:32.210 --> 00:15:36.250 in Switzerland. In the next section I will share 00:15:36.250 --> 00:15:39.870 some data on these specific issues for the broader 00:15:39.870 --> 00:15:45.389 European context. But before I do that, as a 00:15:45.389 --> 00:15:48.009 final note to the study, I wanted to mention 00:15:48.009 --> 00:15:51.509 that we also looked at people's trust in farmers 00:15:51.509 --> 00:15:55.889 and in environmental and animal welfare advocacy 00:15:55.889 --> 00:15:59.450 organizations, and we also analyzed support for 00:15:59.450 --> 00:16:02.309 the main campaign arguments from those three 00:16:02.309 --> 00:16:05.549 initiatives. So if this kind of stuff is interesting 00:16:05.549 --> 00:16:07.929 and relevant for you, feel free to check out 00:16:07.929 --> 00:16:13.490 the paper. Let's move on to the second question 00:16:13.490 --> 00:16:16.590 of today's episode, which is about how political 00:16:16.590 --> 00:16:20.029 orientation relates to concerns for farm animal 00:16:20.029 --> 00:16:23.610 welfare across countries from the European Union 00:16:23.610 --> 00:16:27.490 and the UK. As I mentioned earlier, in Switzerland 00:16:27.490 --> 00:16:31.190 we found that there was a relatively small association 00:16:31.190 --> 00:16:35.009 between more left political orientation and concerns 00:16:35.009 --> 00:16:39.139 for animal welfare. This is actually a quite 00:16:39.139 --> 00:16:43.139 common finding in research, but so far most studies 00:16:43.139 --> 00:16:46.440 have been conducted with people from North America 00:16:46.440 --> 00:16:50.720 or Northwestern Europe. Because this pattern 00:16:50.720 --> 00:16:53.159 tends to be quite consistent, there has been 00:16:53.159 --> 00:16:56.820 some theorizing about a possible connection between 00:16:56.820 --> 00:17:00.360 more typical left -wing values and animal welfare 00:17:00.360 --> 00:17:04.000 concerns. Broadly summarized, the arguments are 00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:07.299 that people on the left are often more in favor 00:17:07.299 --> 00:17:10.799 of expanding moral concerns and are concerned 00:17:10.799 --> 00:17:14.099 with establishing equality, whereas on the right 00:17:14.099 --> 00:17:16.819 there is a stronger desire for respecting traditions 00:17:16.819 --> 00:17:21.779 and preserving the status quo. Now, as with prioritizing 00:17:21.779 --> 00:17:25.259 climate goals, it is also likely that some of 00:17:25.259 --> 00:17:28.279 these differences are due to context effects. 00:17:28.750 --> 00:17:32.569 This is why it is important to look at a more 00:17:32.569 --> 00:17:35.789 diverse set of countries and to compare differences 00:17:35.789 --> 00:17:39.890 across time. And for those reasons we conducted 00:17:39.890 --> 00:17:43.230 a study on the political polarization of farm 00:17:43.230 --> 00:17:47.910 animal welfare across the entire EU, so including 00:17:47.910 --> 00:17:50.329 many countries where there has been no research 00:17:50.329 --> 00:17:54.529 on this topic before. In this study, which is 00:17:54.529 --> 00:17:57.660 not published yet, we used existing data from 00:17:57.660 --> 00:18:01.700 the Eurobarometer survey where questions about 00:18:01.700 --> 00:18:05.339 farm animal welfare were asked. So those surveys 00:18:05.339 --> 00:18:08.559 are conducted on behalf of the European Union 00:18:08.559 --> 00:18:11.700 with representative samples from each member 00:18:11.700 --> 00:18:17.000 state. There were three surveys which asked the 00:18:17.000 --> 00:18:19.799 same questions about farm animal welfare concerns, 00:18:20.180 --> 00:18:27.289 one in 2006, one in 2015, and one in 2023. For 00:18:27.289 --> 00:18:30.130 the UK we only had the data for the first two 00:18:30.130 --> 00:18:34.690 waves because of Brexit. Simply put, we then 00:18:34.690 --> 00:18:37.650 tested how self -reported left -right political 00:18:37.650 --> 00:18:42.430 orientation was correlated with reported concerns 00:18:42.430 --> 00:18:46.049 for farm animal welfare. There were multiple 00:18:46.049 --> 00:18:49.109 questions on this topic, each with a somewhat 00:18:49.109 --> 00:18:53.119 different focus. We analyzed those separately 00:18:53.119 --> 00:18:56.740 but I will focus on the two most central questions 00:18:56.740 --> 00:19:00.279 where results were very similar. That is one 00:19:00.279 --> 00:19:03.579 asked about the personal importance of farm animal 00:19:03.579 --> 00:19:06.940 welfare and the other question asked about whether 00:19:06.940 --> 00:19:09.759 one believes that farm animal welfare needs to 00:19:09.759 --> 00:19:15.599 be improved in one's country. Our results indicated 00:19:15.599 --> 00:19:18.579 that on average across all countries and time 00:19:18.579 --> 00:19:22.089 points There was a very small association in 00:19:22.089 --> 00:19:24.690 the direction of stronger concerns with more 00:19:24.690 --> 00:19:28.650 left political orientation. There was also not 00:19:28.650 --> 00:19:31.769 much evidence that the average association changed 00:19:31.769 --> 00:19:37.069 between 2006 and 2023. However, we found important 00:19:37.069 --> 00:19:40.769 variation across countries. I won't go into details 00:19:40.769 --> 00:19:44.170 for specific countries, but overall the tendency 00:19:44.170 --> 00:19:47.630 was that the association with left orientation 00:19:47.960 --> 00:19:51.500 was stronger in countries from northwestern Europe 00:19:51.500 --> 00:19:55.559 compared to countries from southern Europe and 00:19:55.559 --> 00:19:59.519 particularly eastern Europe. In addition, our 00:19:59.519 --> 00:20:03.259 analysis suggested that between 2006 and 2023 00:20:03.259 --> 00:20:08.240 this association got stronger primarily in northwestern 00:20:08.240 --> 00:20:12.539 European countries. So all together these patterns 00:20:12.539 --> 00:20:16.819 suggest that differences in country context might 00:20:16.819 --> 00:20:20.329 matter. And to explore this a bit more, we also 00:20:20.329 --> 00:20:23.490 tested whether two kinds of context factors could 00:20:23.490 --> 00:20:27.890 help to explain our findings. Firstly, we took 00:20:27.890 --> 00:20:31.670 information about each country's level of economic 00:20:31.670 --> 00:20:35.990 and social development at each time point. Specifically, 00:20:36.069 --> 00:20:40.150 we used the UN's Human Development Index. Secondly, 00:20:40.250 --> 00:20:43.069 we tried to gather information about how political 00:20:43.069 --> 00:20:46.130 parties within each country politicized animal 00:20:46.130 --> 00:20:50.700 welfare. For that we downloaded parties, election 00:20:50.700 --> 00:20:54.160 manifestos and coded how often they mentioned 00:20:54.160 --> 00:20:57.539 animal welfare issues. I should note here that 00:20:57.539 --> 00:21:00.480 we did not code how exactly they talked about 00:21:00.480 --> 00:21:05.380 animal welfare, just the frequency, but our analysis 00:21:05.380 --> 00:21:08.779 was restricted on content that had a pro -animal 00:21:08.779 --> 00:21:11.359 welfare focus, so the general direction was clear. 00:21:12.490 --> 00:21:15.869 The paper will provide more details on how this 00:21:15.869 --> 00:21:19.750 indicator was created. Now, across countries 00:21:19.750 --> 00:21:24.769 and our free time points there was a strong positive 00:21:24.769 --> 00:21:28.490 correlation between the development index and 00:21:28.490 --> 00:21:32.430 the party politicization of animal welfare. So 00:21:32.430 --> 00:21:35.490 in more developed countries parties also tended 00:21:35.490 --> 00:21:39.420 to mention this issue more frequently. We also 00:21:39.420 --> 00:21:43.279 found that overall left -oriented political parties 00:21:43.279 --> 00:21:46.799 tended to highlight animal welfare more often, 00:21:46.980 --> 00:21:50.380 especially those parties from the green party 00:21:50.380 --> 00:21:53.940 family. We were able to test this because the 00:21:53.940 --> 00:21:57.680 party manifesto data also provided an indicator 00:21:57.680 --> 00:22:02.119 of parties' left -right positioning. Now importantly, 00:22:02.599 --> 00:22:06.200 both context factors also roughly aligned with 00:22:06.200 --> 00:22:09.950 geographic regions, and help to statistically 00:22:09.950 --> 00:22:13.630 explain the polarization pattern among the general 00:22:13.630 --> 00:22:17.930 population. So the higher the development index 00:22:17.930 --> 00:22:20.809 and the more parties mentioned animal welfare, 00:22:21.509 --> 00:22:24.490 the more there was an association between left 00:22:24.490 --> 00:22:27.210 political orientation and farm animal welfare 00:22:27.210 --> 00:22:31.609 concerns. At this point I should highlight that 00:22:31.609 --> 00:22:35.079 this finding is correlational and we could not 00:22:35.079 --> 00:22:39.039 test these things in a causal way. In the paper 00:22:39.039 --> 00:22:42.619 we provide some theoretical reasoning for our 00:22:42.619 --> 00:22:47.039 results. Essentially we hypothesize that higher 00:22:47.039 --> 00:22:51.079 country development could promote an expansion 00:22:51.079 --> 00:22:56.400 of moral concerns for animals, particularly among 00:22:56.400 --> 00:23:00.319 progressives. And political parties mostly those 00:23:00.319 --> 00:23:03.680 on the left, might then become more likely to 00:23:03.680 --> 00:23:06.460 consider this issue for their political agenda. 00:23:07.640 --> 00:23:10.579 This could increase the saliency of the topic 00:23:10.579 --> 00:23:13.599 in political debates and parties might also start 00:23:13.599 --> 00:23:16.660 to position themselves differently on this issue. 00:23:17.779 --> 00:23:21.000 All of this could lead ultimately to stronger 00:23:21.000 --> 00:23:24.819 issue polarization among the public. However, 00:23:25.460 --> 00:23:28.000 we cannot rule out that other things like differences 00:23:28.000 --> 00:23:32.839 in political institutions are involved. So taken 00:23:32.839 --> 00:23:36.220 together, this study provides some nuance to 00:23:36.220 --> 00:23:38.900 the relationship between political orientation 00:23:38.900 --> 00:23:44.339 and concerns for farm animals. The role of context 00:23:44.339 --> 00:23:49.599 might be bigger than we thought. Like with our 00:23:49.599 --> 00:23:52.400 study in Switzerland, it is also important to 00:23:52.400 --> 00:23:55.440 point out that in an absolute sense, reported 00:23:55.440 --> 00:23:58.380 concerns for animals were quite high across the 00:23:58.380 --> 00:24:01.880 political spectrum. So overall it seems more 00:24:01.880 --> 00:24:05.559 that in certain countries there is a relatively 00:24:05.559 --> 00:24:08.839 strong desire among people on the left for more 00:24:08.839 --> 00:24:12.420 far -reaching reforms. And this brings me to 00:24:12.420 --> 00:24:16.099 the next question I wanted to talk about. But 00:24:16.099 --> 00:24:19.059 before that, quick reminder that if you would 00:24:19.059 --> 00:24:21.119 like to read this paper when it's published, 00:24:21.500 --> 00:24:24.579 I recommend following me on LinkedIn or setting 00:24:24.579 --> 00:24:30.859 up a Google Alert. As a third topic of this episode, 00:24:31.099 --> 00:24:33.559 I'm going to talk about political challenges 00:24:33.559 --> 00:24:36.660 and opportunities for the animal welfare movement. 00:24:37.230 --> 00:24:41.049 This part is largely based on a commentary piece 00:24:41.049 --> 00:24:43.230 that I wrote together with Dylan de Gourville 00:24:43.230 --> 00:24:46.009 and Seda Rice, which was recently published in 00:24:46.009 --> 00:24:49.589 the Fair Journal. The starting point for this 00:24:49.589 --> 00:24:52.990 article is the following question. How could 00:24:52.990 --> 00:24:56.210 the animal welfare movement, which tends to be 00:24:56.210 --> 00:24:59.710 rather left progressive, thrive in a world where 00:24:59.710 --> 00:25:03.130 a lot of issues are politically polarized and 00:25:03.130 --> 00:25:06.309 also where the public, parliaments and governments 00:25:06.730 --> 00:25:09.809 have become more conservatively minded in many 00:25:09.809 --> 00:25:13.710 places in the world. Like with other social movements 00:25:13.710 --> 00:25:16.650 before, this kind of question can spark very 00:25:16.650 --> 00:25:19.910 different opinions. Some people might think that 00:25:19.910 --> 00:25:23.710 this context asks for more inclusive advocacy 00:25:23.710 --> 00:25:28.109 and more openness for compromises. Others might 00:25:28.109 --> 00:25:32.170 be hesitant to accept these ideas, either for 00:25:32.170 --> 00:25:36.140 pragmatic or principled reasons. For our commentary 00:25:36.140 --> 00:25:39.039 we first gathered some of the common arguments 00:25:39.039 --> 00:25:42.880 for both positions. Overall those arguments were 00:25:42.880 --> 00:25:46.019 usually quite compelling and plausible. However, 00:25:46.720 --> 00:25:50.039 they were also rather speculative since research 00:25:50.039 --> 00:25:54.000 is somewhat missing in this area. In the second 00:25:54.000 --> 00:25:58.140 part of this article we then describe ways in 00:25:58.140 --> 00:26:00.460 which research could help to find more robust 00:26:00.460 --> 00:26:04.750 answers. Our article is quite compact and only 00:26:04.750 --> 00:26:07.250 about three pages long, so it's a short read. 00:26:07.970 --> 00:26:13.170 But here are the main points. First, there are 00:26:13.170 --> 00:26:15.990 pragmatic reasons for why advocacy might need 00:26:15.990 --> 00:26:19.670 to become more politically inclusive. To pass 00:26:19.670 --> 00:26:23.190 animal welfare policies, it is often essential 00:26:23.190 --> 00:26:26.170 that there is a broader coalition of voters and 00:26:26.170 --> 00:26:30.519 or politicians who support them. There are good 00:26:30.519 --> 00:26:33.680 examples of this point relating to animal welfare, 00:26:34.279 --> 00:26:38.920 but also if we look at other instances of social 00:26:38.920 --> 00:26:45.960 reforms. Similarly, if caring about animal welfare 00:26:45.960 --> 00:26:49.220 becomes something that people generally perceive 00:26:49.220 --> 00:26:53.960 as left -wing, it could make the issue unnecessarily 00:26:53.960 --> 00:26:57.450 divisive. where people engage with the topic 00:26:57.450 --> 00:27:01.410 more from an us versus them perspective. And 00:27:01.410 --> 00:27:04.630 such dynamics might be very hard to reverse later. 00:27:05.750 --> 00:27:08.890 It can also be argued that the foundation for 00:27:08.890 --> 00:27:12.390 more inclusive advocacy is already somewhat given. 00:27:12.990 --> 00:27:16.349 As I described earlier, the differences across 00:27:16.349 --> 00:27:19.029 the political spectrum are often not that large 00:27:19.029 --> 00:27:22.390 and especially if one compares those to other 00:27:22.390 --> 00:27:26.970 debated topics. The real question might not be 00:27:26.970 --> 00:27:30.490 so much about whether one wants animal welfare 00:27:30.490 --> 00:27:34.170 improvements, but how reforms should look like 00:27:34.170 --> 00:27:39.029 and how far they should go. Now this last point 00:27:39.029 --> 00:27:41.670 might be a source of possible tension within 00:27:41.670 --> 00:27:45.069 movements. If reaching out to people with different 00:27:45.069 --> 00:27:48.710 values means that one has to adapt demands and 00:27:48.710 --> 00:27:52.480 messages to match those values, some advocates 00:27:52.480 --> 00:27:56.380 might feel like they're not authentic. In addition, 00:27:56.599 --> 00:28:00.579 it could mean that for the sake of reducing friction, 00:28:02.259 --> 00:28:05.420 it becomes necessary to stay focused on a single, 00:28:05.640 --> 00:28:08.619 well -defined issue, whereas other important 00:28:08.619 --> 00:28:11.960 but potentially polarizing issues need to be 00:28:11.960 --> 00:28:16.359 avoided. This could, for example, concern things 00:28:16.359 --> 00:28:19.539 like climate change or social justice issues. 00:28:20.029 --> 00:28:23.849 but often different movements are important allies 00:28:23.849 --> 00:28:27.710 for each other's causes. So the question is whether 00:28:27.710 --> 00:28:30.789 taking this path is worth the risk of potentially 00:28:30.789 --> 00:28:35.589 hurting cross -movement collaborations. The last 00:28:35.589 --> 00:28:39.730 point we raise in the argument section is that 00:28:39.730 --> 00:28:42.890 supporting advocacy which comes from people who 00:28:42.890 --> 00:28:46.410 actually identify as conservatives might be more 00:28:46.410 --> 00:28:50.829 desirable. For them it would be more natural 00:28:50.829 --> 00:28:53.609 to promote animal welfare as a right of center 00:28:53.609 --> 00:28:58.170 issue and such advocacy would be more credible 00:28:58.170 --> 00:29:01.869 on authentic. So an idea could be to support 00:29:01.869 --> 00:29:05.269 movement building within more conservatively 00:29:05.269 --> 00:29:10.349 minded organizations. We then go on in the article 00:29:10.349 --> 00:29:13.549 with some ideas for future research related to 00:29:13.549 --> 00:29:16.700 these arguments. This section is mostly targeted 00:29:16.700 --> 00:29:19.859 at people working in the field either from academia 00:29:19.859 --> 00:29:24.500 or NGOs so I therefore won't discuss these points 00:29:24.500 --> 00:29:27.920 here but some things relate quite closely to 00:29:27.920 --> 00:29:30.519 what I've talked about so far in this episode. 00:29:31.539 --> 00:29:33.900 In the end of course it's the members of the 00:29:33.900 --> 00:29:36.519 animal welfare movement who have to decide how 00:29:36.519 --> 00:29:39.099 these different arguments and the corresponding 00:29:39.099 --> 00:29:46.640 research should be weighted and used. Okay, let's 00:29:46.640 --> 00:29:49.460 move on to the last research findings of today. 00:29:50.220 --> 00:29:53.140 Here I will talk about an idea that has become 00:29:53.140 --> 00:29:56.299 quite popular in psychological research over 00:29:56.299 --> 00:29:59.259 the last couple of years and which basically 00:29:59.259 --> 00:30:02.839 aims to reduce polarization around disputed topics. 00:30:03.539 --> 00:30:07.380 It is a communication approach called moral reframing. 00:30:07.759 --> 00:30:11.279 The simple idea is that if you want to make advocacy 00:30:11.279 --> 00:30:14.140 for a certain topic more convincing to people 00:30:14.140 --> 00:30:17.160 with different moral convictions, you need to 00:30:17.160 --> 00:30:20.539 match your message content to the values of these 00:30:20.539 --> 00:30:23.420 different groups. Or in other words you need 00:30:23.420 --> 00:30:26.420 to use the right moral framing for your audience. 00:30:28.180 --> 00:30:31.200 Based on my impression of the literature, there 00:30:31.200 --> 00:30:33.960 is mixed evidence for the effectiveness of this 00:30:33.960 --> 00:30:37.559 approach. It seems like it's often not as simple 00:30:37.559 --> 00:30:40.400 as that and we probably need more research to 00:30:40.400 --> 00:30:43.099 better understand why it works in some cases 00:30:43.099 --> 00:30:48.079 and fails in others. The study I want to present 00:30:48.079 --> 00:30:51.599 is an application of this moral reframing approach 00:30:51.599 --> 00:30:54.980 to the advocacy for more plant -based food systems. 00:30:55.960 --> 00:30:59.700 The goal wasn't to promote individual diet change 00:30:59.700 --> 00:31:03.099 but to argue for the benefits of shifting the 00:31:03.099 --> 00:31:06.700 larger food system. To do this we first picked 00:31:06.700 --> 00:31:09.619 five general issues where a more plant -based 00:31:09.619 --> 00:31:13.119 food system would bring benefits. Those were 00:31:13.119 --> 00:31:16.700 animal welfare, environmental protection, food 00:31:16.700 --> 00:31:19.680 security, public health and something we called 00:31:19.680 --> 00:31:25.339 inconsistency in society. We then created two 00:31:25.339 --> 00:31:28.859 message versions for each issue. One that was 00:31:28.859 --> 00:31:32.319 framed in values more associated with the political 00:31:32.319 --> 00:31:36.279 left and one with values from the right. For 00:31:36.279 --> 00:31:39.200 the values we followed the common psychological 00:31:39.200 --> 00:31:41.839 framework and we pre -tested the messages to 00:31:41.839 --> 00:31:44.740 make sure the different values were explicit 00:31:44.740 --> 00:31:50.380 enough. Next we conducted our first study where 00:31:50.380 --> 00:31:53.339 people from Switzerland rated those messages 00:31:53.339 --> 00:31:57.819 on how convincing they find them. Also they were 00:31:57.819 --> 00:32:01.380 asked about their political orientation. After 00:32:01.380 --> 00:32:05.019 this first study we conducted a second one which 00:32:05.019 --> 00:32:08.859 was very similar but for that one we created 00:32:08.859 --> 00:32:14.180 new message types where we separated two important 00:32:14.180 --> 00:32:18.220 elements of the original messages. One type of 00:32:18.220 --> 00:32:22.720 message only included the main moral appeal of 00:32:22.720 --> 00:32:26.940 the originals excluding the actual reasoned arguments. 00:32:27.369 --> 00:32:30.849 The other message type included only the reasoned 00:32:30.849 --> 00:32:34.809 arguments, so there we removed all parts that 00:32:34.809 --> 00:32:38.789 made explicit appeals to moral values. We did 00:32:38.789 --> 00:32:42.410 this because most research on moral reframing 00:32:42.410 --> 00:32:46.450 didn't compare morally framed messages to messages 00:32:46.450 --> 00:32:51.190 where one only uses purely reasoning based messages. 00:32:51.769 --> 00:32:54.549 and this is a problem because in some cases it 00:32:54.549 --> 00:32:58.390 might be counterproductive to moralize an issue. 00:33:00.109 --> 00:33:03.990 Now after conducting both studies we tested a 00:33:03.990 --> 00:33:08.410 total of 32 messages which talked about one of 00:33:08.410 --> 00:33:12.369 the five general issues use left or right framings 00:33:12.369 --> 00:33:16.769 and a varied message type so like the moral framing 00:33:16.769 --> 00:33:21.319 plus reasoning only moral framing or the only 00:33:21.319 --> 00:33:25.099 recent arguments messages. All were rated on 00:33:25.099 --> 00:33:31.359 the same evaluation scale. For the results I 00:33:31.359 --> 00:33:35.059 focus here on the big picture. Our paper which 00:33:35.059 --> 00:33:37.920 is not published yet will include an online tool 00:33:37.920 --> 00:33:41.279 where one can find detailed comparison of individual 00:33:41.279 --> 00:33:46.339 messages. What we found overall is that messages 00:33:46.339 --> 00:33:49.680 which matched people's values were indeed more 00:33:49.680 --> 00:33:53.779 convincing than those which mismatched people's 00:33:53.779 --> 00:33:56.480 values. And this was especially the case for 00:33:56.480 --> 00:34:00.319 people on the political left. So this means that 00:34:00.319 --> 00:34:03.779 left value framed messages were more appealing 00:34:03.779 --> 00:34:07.599 to those people than right value framed messages. 00:34:08.960 --> 00:34:13.449 However, messages which only used reason and 00:34:13.449 --> 00:34:16.550 reasoned arguments were actually even more appealing 00:34:16.550 --> 00:34:19.710 to people on the left and for people on the right 00:34:19.710 --> 00:34:23.789 the reasoning only messages were usually as strong 00:34:23.789 --> 00:34:27.449 as those messages which used or which also included 00:34:27.449 --> 00:34:31.369 right moral framing so at least in the context 00:34:31.369 --> 00:34:35.309 of our study it seems like there is no real benefit 00:34:35.309 --> 00:34:39.110 of framing messages in moral terms and it would 00:34:39.110 --> 00:34:42.070 be better overall to stick to more reasoning 00:34:42.070 --> 00:34:46.989 based messages. Importantly we also found that 00:34:46.989 --> 00:34:51.489 the issue focus of messages made a considerable 00:34:51.489 --> 00:34:55.210 difference. So environmental protection messages 00:34:55.210 --> 00:34:58.949 were strongly appealing on the left but not so 00:34:58.949 --> 00:35:04.079 much among the right. Conversely, domestic food 00:35:04.079 --> 00:35:07.840 security messages were particularly strong on 00:35:07.840 --> 00:35:10.559 the right, but not so much on the left, at least 00:35:10.559 --> 00:35:14.519 compared to other topics. The issue that was 00:35:14.519 --> 00:35:18.679 the strongest across the political spectrum was 00:35:18.679 --> 00:35:23.659 animal welfare. Specifically, messages specifically 00:35:23.659 --> 00:35:28.260 messages that had a harm -based focus but not 00:35:28.260 --> 00:35:31.460 those which promoted more of an animal rights 00:35:31.460 --> 00:35:37.739 appeal. I think it is also quite interesting 00:35:37.739 --> 00:35:40.960 that the way these issues related to political 00:35:40.960 --> 00:35:44.920 orientation in this study nicely replicate what 00:35:44.920 --> 00:35:48.599 we found in the larger survey study with people 00:35:48.599 --> 00:35:50.900 from Switzerland that I presented at the beginning 00:35:50.900 --> 00:35:56.239 of this episode. So, taken together, our messaging 00:35:56.239 --> 00:36:00.760 study makes a case for using more well -reasoned, 00:36:00.760 --> 00:36:03.780 non -moralizing animal welfare arguments to promote 00:36:03.780 --> 00:36:06.539 plant -based food systems across the political 00:36:06.539 --> 00:36:11.139 spectrum. However, more research would be important 00:36:11.139 --> 00:36:14.699 to check the robustness of our findings, especially 00:36:14.699 --> 00:36:17.599 studies in more applied settings or in other 00:36:17.599 --> 00:36:23.860 countries. As a final point I wanted to share 00:36:23.860 --> 00:36:27.880 a short outlook on some future projects. A major 00:36:27.880 --> 00:36:31.940 focus for my next studies will be about understanding 00:36:31.940 --> 00:36:34.679 what shapes support for plant -based policies, 00:36:35.519 --> 00:36:37.860 so policy measures that would promote a more 00:36:37.860 --> 00:36:41.099 plant -based food system. This will include the 00:36:41.099 --> 00:36:43.960 role of individual differences like political 00:36:43.960 --> 00:36:47.739 beliefs but also much more than that. In general, 00:36:47.980 --> 00:36:50.639 I think that there is a large research gap in 00:36:50.639 --> 00:36:54.300 how we can promote more systemic solutions compared 00:36:54.300 --> 00:36:57.960 to individual behavior change interventions and 00:36:57.960 --> 00:37:01.280 studying policy support is an important pathway 00:37:01.280 --> 00:37:05.539 to do this. Other than that, we are also looking 00:37:05.539 --> 00:37:09.280 into how people's concerns about animals could 00:37:09.280 --> 00:37:12.400 be measured in a more valid and reliable way. 00:37:12.940 --> 00:37:17.079 Much of the research so far had to rely on somewhat 00:37:17.079 --> 00:37:20.500 limited assessment tools which might prevent 00:37:20.500 --> 00:37:23.800 us from uncovering individual differences in 00:37:23.800 --> 00:37:27.900 more precise and informative ways. And with that 00:37:27.900 --> 00:37:31.280 we've reached the end of today's episode. Before 00:37:31.280 --> 00:37:34.239 I stop I would like to quickly bring your attention 00:37:34.239 --> 00:37:36.900 to the amazing work that my colleagues are doing. 00:37:37.340 --> 00:37:40.360 You should definitely check out the other research 00:37:40.360 --> 00:37:43.539 of our team in Zurich. You will find the link 00:37:43.539 --> 00:37:47.480 to our group website in the description. That's 00:37:47.480 --> 00:37:49.760 all from me. Thank you very much for listening. 00:37:50.320 --> 00:37:53.179 I appreciate your interest and feel free to share 00:37:53.179 --> 00:37:55.960 this episode with those who might be interested 00:37:55.960 --> 00:37:58.300 in today's topic. Thank you.