Messaging Impacts Public Perspectives Towards Fur Farming in the Northeastern United States

Animal fur has long symbolized luxury and social status, but growing concerns about animal welfare, environmental harm, and zoonotic disease risks have prompted global reforms, with over 22 countries banning fur production. In the United States, however, public attitudes toward fur farming and sales bans remain underexplored. This study surveyed 2014 adults from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York to assess views on fur farming, acceptability, and support for state-level bans, as well as the influence of message framing. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six message conditions (animal welfare, environmental, public health, economic, faux fur alternatives, or social norms) or a control group. Most respondents supported bans on fur sales and fur from commercial farms (approximately 65% weighted). Messages highlighting animal welfare, environmental impacts, public health, and social norms significantly increased support, while economic and faux fur messages did not. Political affiliation moderated these effects, with independents most responsive. Beliefs about cruelty, environmental harm, and zoonotic risks predicted support, whereas conservatism, opposition to regulation, and consumer rights beliefs predicted opposition. Overall, appeals to ethics, sustainability, and social change appear most effective for advancing fur-related policy initiatives.