More than 81% of surveyed residents of Ukraine's regional centres believe that laying hens should be able to move freely and spread their wings, rather than spend their entire lives in cages.
This is evidenced by the results of a study conducted by the research group Doka Centre on behalf of the NGOs Ecoaction and Eurogroup for Animals.
The researchers explored Ukrainian consumers' views on farm animal welfare, their awareness of the environmental impacts of large-scale livestock production, and their support for European production standards.
How do Ukrainians feel about the conditions in which animals are kept?
The survey showed that 81.4% of respondents agree that laying hens should be able to move freely and spread their wings, and not be confined to cages throughout their lives. Of these, 17.3% fully support this view, while 64.1% mostly agree with it. Overall, 59% of respondents consider it important that farm animals’ welfare is ensured during their keeping.
During the interviews, participants explained that even on large farms, animals should have sufficient space to move and the possibility to express their natural behaviours. The issue of keeping hens in cages prompted one of the strongest negative reactions among participants.
Another unexpected topic for many participants was the practice of culling day-old male chicks in egg production systems. Some respondents learned about this practice for the first time during the interviews and, following the discussion, the vast majority expressed strong opposition to it.
At the same time, the study showed that the concept of farm animal welfare is still unfamiliar to many consumers. A total of 50.6% of respondents could not explain what animal welfare means or said they had never previously considered the issue. However, the findings suggest significant potential for raising public awareness and increasing demand for such information.
Do consumers want more information about the origin of food products?
During the interviews, participants said they lacked clear information about the conditions in which animals were kept when producing the food products they purchase. In their view, consumers should be able to access this information directly in shops, particularly through clear product labelling.
Among the proposed solutions were QR codes that would allow consumers to access additional information or even view videos from production facilities. At the same time, participants stressed that such information should be reliable, as they tend to trust independent organisations that verify compliance with standards more than producers' own claims.
Despite supporting better conditions for farm animals, most respondents expressed concern about possible price increases, which is understandable and expected given the current economic situation.
At the same time, attitudes towards cage systems for hens were found to be largely independent of consumers' willingness to pay more. Both those willing to pay a premium and those unable to do so expressed similar levels of support for phasing out cage systems for laying hens.
What do Ukrainians know about the environmental impact of livestock production?
The study also showed that consumers are far less aware of the environmental impacts of large-scale livestock production than they are of farm animal welfare issues.
For around 30% of respondents, the environmental impact of production is a fairly important or very important factor when choosing animal-based products. During the interviews, it became clear that many participants assume that large farms may have negative impacts on the environment but are not always sure how these impacts occur.
Only a proportion of respondents were able to identify specific environmental issues associated with livestock production. These included the use of natural resources and the impact of large livestock operations on water quality and soil health, particularly where manure is not managed safely and effectively.
At the same time, 74.2% of respondents believe that animal products produced in Ukraine should meet European requirements for both environmental protection and animal welfare. In particular, 26.6% fully agree with this statement, while a further 47.6% mostly agree.
What needs to change?
According to the authors of the study, responsibility for improving animal welfare cannot rest solely with consumers. This requires changes to the way livestock enterprises operate, as well as financial support for small and medium-sized producers that may struggle to transition to alternative housing systems without assistance.
"The survey showed that Ukrainian consumers care about the conditions in which animals are kept. However, the situation cannot be changed through consumer choice alone. That is why it is important not only to establish clear requirements for producers but also to support farmers in transitioning to higher-welfare production systems without passing additional costs on to consumers," said Anna Danyliak, Policy Specialist at Ecoaction.
In particular, the authors recommend gradually phasing out cage systems, introducing clear animal welfare labelling, strengthening state oversight, and providing support for small and medium-sized producers adapting to new requirements.
"Eighty-one per cent of Ukrainians consider keeping hens in cages to be cruel, just like the 1.4 million Europeans who supported the 'End the Cage Age' initiative. Europe is already moving towards cage-free egg production, and this sends a clear signal to Ukrainian producers to invest in cage-free systems today rather than in cages that will need to be replaced tomorrow," said Valentyna Vozna, Policy Officer at Eurogroup for Animals.
The authors of the study emphasise the importance of consumer awareness. If people better understand how food products are produced and how production affects animals and the environment, they will be better equipped to make informed choices.
The study was conducted between May and June 2026 among residents of Ukraine's regional centres. It included an online survey of 1,211 respondents, three focus groups involving 27 participants, and 21 in-depth interviews with individuals from 19 regional centres.