How Do Muslim Consumers View Halal and Animal Welfare and Respond to Different Messages?
Evidence from 15 Countries
Executive Summary
Muslim consumers make up roughly a quarter of the world's population and spent an estimated US$1.53 trillion on food and beverages in 2024 — a figure projected to grow to US$2.06 trillion by 2029. Food is the largest sector of the broader Islamic economy, and meat is the largest product category within that sector, making Muslim consumers one of the most consequential audiences for global animal agriculture.
Yet, Muslim audiences receive relatively little attention in farmed animal advocacy. Most existing evidence comes from Western or predominantly non-Muslim populations, leaving advocates with limited evidence about how Muslim consumers understand animal welfare, halal, and dietary change.
For Muslim consumers, food choices are shaped not only by culture, price, taste, and convenience, but also by religious commitments and by their understanding of what Islam requires, permits, or encourages. Halal food is central to this: it refers to products that meet religious requirements for sourcing, preparation, processing, and, in the case of animal-based products, slaughter. These requirements can have direct implications for animal welfare — including how animals are raised, handled, transported, and slaughtered — and can shape whether Muslim consumers see modern animal agriculture practices as compatible with Islamic principles, ethically concerning, or unacceptable. Little is known, however, about how Muslim consumers connect animal treatment to their faith, or what might move them to act.
This creates an evidence gap with practical consequences for advocates. Without context-specific research, advocacy organizations may rely on messages or strategies that do not fit Muslim audiences. They may miss welfare issues that many Muslim consumers already see as relevant to halal, overlook areas where consumers are uncertain, or fail to engage the religious institutions that people trust for guidance.
To help close that gap, we conducted the first large-scale, cross-country study of Muslim consumers’ views on halal, animal welfare, and food choices. We surveyed 6,294 Muslim consumers across 15 countries in North Africa, Southwest Asia and the Gulf, South and Southeast Asia, and Muslim-minority Western countries.
The study was developed in consultation with 16 organizations and advocates working across animal advocacy, food systems, and Muslim community contexts, whose input helped shape the practical questions it examined: Which animal-based production practices do Muslim consumers view as unacceptable from religious and secular/non-religious perspectives? Could these concerns affect purchasing choices? Where would consumers seek guidance on religious questions about food and farming? How do they understand the relationship between halal, animal welfare, and Islamic principles? And how do they respond to messages that use Islamic versus secular framing, and animal welfare versus environmental arguments, to encourage reduced consumption of products from industrial animal farming?
Below, we highlight the key findings and recommendations most relevant to organizations working on animal welfare, food systems, and engagement with Muslim communities.
Key Findings and Recommendations
Key finding #1: For many Muslims, halal requirements extend beyond the slaughter method and include how animals are treated throughout their lives. Around six in ten participants said that how an animal was raised, transported, and protected from distress before slaughter was essential for meat to be halal. About 63% agreed that a product cannot be truly halal if animals suffered unnecessarily during their lifetime. Participants also held high expectations of halal certification. Around three-quarters associated halal-certified products and facilities with better animal treatment, while about 63% believed current certification focuses too much on slaughter and not enough on how animals are raised and transported.
Recommendation: Use this finding to advocate for clearer, stronger welfare standards in halal certification, while making visible any gaps between what consumers expect and what certification currently requires. Share the evidence with halal certifiers, standard-setters, producers, retailers, religious scholars, and policymakers to support greater transparency and stronger welfare protections across halal supply chains.
Key finding #2: Most participants saw at least one industrial farming practice as Islamically unacceptable, and most said they would choose an alternative product. Overall, 87% considered at least one of six production practices Islamically unacceptable. The practices most commonly viewed this way were long-distance transport, removal of body parts without pain relief, automated slaughter, and confinement housing. However, willingness to switch was often conditional, especially when the alternative was plant-based. For halal animal-based alternatives, price and convenience were the most important conditions. For plant-based alternatives, these practical considerations also mattered, but taste was selected most often.
Recommendation: Raise awareness among Muslim consumers when practices they may consider Islamically unacceptable are used in halal food supply chains. Pair this information with practical guidance—such as clearer labels, product guides, and certification comparisons—to help consumers identify suitable alternatives. At the same time, work with producers and retailers to make higher-welfare halal and plant-based options more appealing, affordable, and widely available.
Key finding #3: Most participants — including many who are highly religious — see fully plant-based diets as Islamically acceptable. About 60% agreed that excluding all animal-based foods—including meat, milk, eggs, and honey—is Islamically acceptable. Agreement was also high among participants with greater religiosity and those who placed greater importance on halal status.
Recommendation: Present plant-based eating as a religiously legitimate option. Work with Islamic scholars and trusted religious platforms to explain its compatibility with Islam, while also addressing the practical factors that shape whether consumers choose plant-based alternatives. This can include promoting familiar recipes and making options more affordable, appealing, convenient, and easy to find.
Key finding #4: When uncertain about the halal status of a food or product, Muslim consumers turn to religious and certification institutions, not social media or general search. Certification bodies (61%), Islamic scholars (54%), and Islamic informational resources (52%) are the most commonly cited sources — far ahead of social media (11%) or top search results (23%).
Recommendation: Build the credibility and reach of animal welfare messaging by working with certification bodies, Islamic scholars, and established Islamic information platforms, rather than relying primarily on general online content or influencer partnerships. Engaging these institutions early may be especially important for issues on which religious guidance remains unsettled or unfamiliar, such as stunning and cultivated meat.
Key finding #5: There is substantial uncertainty about whether several emerging or less familiar practices are Islamically acceptable. Uncertainty was especially high for the use of insect-based protein in animal feed, genetic engineering, stunning, and cultivated meat—issues for which religious views, public understanding, and halal standards are still developing.
Recommendation: Approach these issues carefully and engage credible religious authorities, halal experts, and certification bodies while guidance and standards are still evolving. For practices that may raise animal welfare concerns, raise awareness of the potential conflicts with halal requirements. For practices that may offer animal welfare benefits, such as stunning and cultivated meat, encourage consideration of the conditions under which they could be regarded as halal. Communicate relevant guidance through credible scholars, certification bodies, and established Islamic information sources.
Key finding #6: Knowledge of stunning is limited, views on its acceptability are divided, and opposition is often conditional rather than fixed. Knowledge was low: 28.9% of participants had never heard of stunning before the survey, 32% had heard of it but did not know what it involved, and only 28% knew that some stunning methods are reversible. Just under half considered stunning acceptable in at least one form: 23% accepted it only when it was reversible, while a further 26% accepted it regardless of reversibility as long as other halal requirements were met. The remaining 52% rejected stunning in all forms. Among those who rejected it, however, most said at least one condition could make them more open to reversible stunning (86%). Approval from religious authorities was the most commonly selected condition, followed by halal certification and reassurance that stunning would not interfere with the required slaughter method.
Recommendation: Clearly explain what stunning is, how it affects animal suffering, and how different methods relate to halal slaughter requirements. Distinguish between reversible and irreversible stunning. Because approval from religious authorities was the condition most commonly selected by opponents, obtaining and clearly communicating guidance from credible religious authorities should be a central priority.
Key finding #7: Islamic framing outperformed secular framing, while animal welfare content outperformed environmental content—and the size of these advantages depended on both the outcome and the audience. Islamic framing was especially effective at increasing interest in hearing more from the organization, while animal welfare content was especially effective at reducing stated interest in buying products from industrial animal farming. These differences also varied across participant groups. Participants who were already reducing animal-based foods, or who already intended to do so, responded relatively positively to all four messages. Among those who were not already reducing their consumption and did not intend to do so, message choice mattered more: Islamic framing and animal welfare content showed clearer advantages over secular framing and environmental content.
Recommendation: Choose message framing according to both the intended outcome and the audience. Use Islamic rather than secular framing when the primary goal is to encourage engagement with the organization, and emphasize animal welfare over environmental content when the goal is to reduce buying intentions. When both outcomes matter, consider combining Islamic framing with animal welfare content. Pay particular attention to less receptive audiences, for whom the choice of framing appears to make a larger difference.
Key finding #8: There is no single Muslim consumer audience - views and responses vary across regions and participant groups. Differences appeared in the welfare issues participants connected with halal, their openness to plant-based alternatives, their acceptance of stunning, and their responses to different message approaches. For example, participants in North Africa placed particular importance on humane transport, while those in South and Southeast Asia were more likely than participants in other regions to connect halal with how animals are raised. They were also more open to plant-based alternatives and stunning. Responses also differed by factors such as religiosity, the importance placed on halal status, current dietary practices, and prior motivation to reduce consumption.
Recommendation: Tailor campaign priorities, messages, messengers, and calls to action to each target audience. Regional patterns are useful starting points, but effective engagement also requires attention to religious orientation, existing dietary practices, practical barriers, and readiness to change. These findings should guide further local research and help identify which messages, messengers, and approaches are most relevant, credible, and practical in each context.
