I thought that wasn’t Halal!
What Muslim consumers know (and don’t know) about animal welfare in halal food production
Executive Summary
Halal, an Arabic word meaning “permissible” or “lawful” in Islam, refers to a wide range of practices that align with Islamic teachings. In the context of food, halal refers to items that Muslims are allowed to consume. For animal-based products, this includes specific guidelines for preparation, handling, and processing.
Among Muslim consumers, there is a common belief that halal food implies higher standards of animal welfare and avoids practices considered cruel. However, it’s not always clear whether these beliefs match what actually happens in food production.
In this study we ask: How much do Muslim consumers in Turkey know about whether common industrial farming practices—like debeaking or the killing of male chicks—are actually permitted under halal food standards? And when they are told that these practices are indeed allowed, how do they say it affects their willingness to buy such products—or to consider plant-based alternatives instead?
To answer these questions, we surveyed 788 Muslim adults in Turkey, where halal is the standard for food production and consumption. We tested participants’ knowledge of six common practices used in Turkish industrial animal farming that relate to major animal welfare concerns: chick culling, debeaking, cow–calf separation, the lack of legal requirements for long-term medical care, the absence of rules protecting animals’ natural lifespan, and the lack of space for chickens to express natural behaviors. When participants answered incorrectly, we provided them with the information that the practice is in fact permitted under halal rules in Turkey. We then asked them how this information would affect their decision to purchase products involving the practice, and to substitute them with plant-based options.
We also examined how both knowledge and responses to the information varied across different groups—based on age, gender, education level, religious characteristics, knowledge of general halal principles, and views on animal treatment and dietary choices in the Islamic context.
As the first study of its kind in a Muslim-majority country, this research offers novel evidence on the gap between what consumers assume about halal and what is actually allowed in animal food production. Its findings are especially timely, as the global halal market continues to grow and Muslim populations—now nearly one-fifth of the world—remain largely understudied in animal advocacy work.
As industrial production expands, understanding how Muslim consumers think about animal welfare—and how informed they are about current practices—will be increasingly important. This study provides practical insights for advocates, policymakers, and religious leaders working to improve animal welfare, and for anyone invested in supporting informed, values-based food choices.
Key Findings
Widespread unawareness among Muslim consumers about what halal standards allow
For all six practices included in the study, more than half of participants didn’t know they are allowed under halal production. Between 25% and nearly 50% wrongly believed such practices are not allowed at all. This suggests that a substantial share of Muslim consumers assume halal offers stronger animal welfare protections than it actually does.
Not all practices are equally known and not everyone is equally informed
Some practices were less known than others. The largest gaps were for the lack of required medical care (80%), followed by chick culling and lack of space for natural behaviors (both over 70%). Knowledge also varied across groups: older adults, men, and those with higher education or income tended to be more informed. Participants who said halal is very important to them, or who supported stunning or believed plant-based diets are compatible with Islam, also had better awareness of what current rules permit.
When provided with the correct information, consumers say they would act on it
After seeing accurate information, many participants said they’d be less willing to buy products involving the practice, and a smaller—but still notable—share said they would choose plant-based alternatives instead. This gap suggests some may be considering other animal-based products they see as more acceptable.
Incorrect responses are linked to greater changes in intentions than uncertainty
Across all six practices, participants who wrongly believed a practice was not allowed were more likely to say the information affected their choices.
Some practices prompted stronger reactions than others
The highest shifts in intentions were seen in response to debeaking and the lack of medical care. Cow–calf separation and early slaughter led to smallest shifts.Some groups showed greater potential for change
If information about these practices became more widely known, certain groups seemed more likely to change their food choices. These include older adults, women and nonbinary participants, people with higher education or income, and those who consider consuming halal products very important. They also include people who believe animal welfare is essential to halal, think halal methods are better for animals, or believe plant-based diets can be part of Islam.
Recommendations
For advocates:
Educational efforts on halal production should be a priority, as many consumers misunderstand or hold false beliefs about what practices are permitted, especially around medical care and chick culling. Start by identifying specific knowledge gaps by audience, since understanding varies by practice and demographic. Instead of broad campaigns, use targeted “myth-busting” strategies that correct misconceptions. Focus outreach where behavior change is more likely, and avoid one-size-fits-all messaging. Prioritize the practices with greatest response potential (e.g., debeaking, medical care) and responsive groups (e.g., women, older adults, highly religious or educated individuals), Pair welfare messaging with practical, culturally appropriate plant-based options. Always pilot-test messages for clarity and behavioral impact.
For funders:
Despite its global significance, the Muslim consumer market is often overlooked and underfunded in food systems and animal advocacy. This study reveals an opportunity: many Muslim consumers hold false beliefs about halal welfare standards, and respectfully and strategically correcting them may be more effective than general education. Invest strategically to support the next wave of research and testing to identify the most impactful messages, the most receptive audiences, and the culturally grounded interventions needed to drive large-scale change.
For researchers:
Muslim communities are key players in global food systems but remain underrepresented in animal welfare research. Focus future work more on Islamic contexts, using locally informed and religiously grounded frameworks. Go beyond stated intentions to measure real behavior, replicate results, and explore why certain practices drive stronger reactions among specific groups. In addition to demographics, values like religiosity and ethical views on Islam’s role in animal welfare deserve deeper study. Investigate why intentions to reduce harmful consumption don’t always translate into plant-based adoption, and examine the systemic ripple effects on diets, markets, and advocacy in Muslim societies.
For Halal industry stakeholders:
Align current practices with both ethical standards and consumer expectations. Several practices currently permitted in halal production—like debeaking and denial of medical care—are especially harmful from an animal welfare standpoint and out of step with what many Muslim consumers expect from halal standards. While this study highlights just a few examples, they are far from the only concerns. Phasing them out would not solve everything, but it would mark a meaningful step toward reducing animal suffering and aligning production more closely with the values many already associate with halal. Transparency is also essential, not just through technical disclosures, but by ensuring that consumers clearly understand what halal standards actually allow. Most are unaware that such painful practices are permitted, and when informed, many reconsider their purchasing decisions. Certifiers, regulators, and producers all share responsibility for providing clear, accessible information so consumers can make informed, value-based choices.
