Animals and Society, Uncategorized

Animal Welfare Labels: End The Confusion!

  ‘Red Tractor’, ‘Freedom Foods’, ‘Organic’…. all terms we’ve heard before. All welfare assurance labels. All designed to inform us about where our food comes from and how it was produced without having to spend too long scouring the small-print on the packet. But is it really that simple? The numerous different labels, codes and schemes standing for varying levels of welfare make it easy to forget, and sometimes even be completely wrong about what each of these labels actually mean.

  First, you need to decipher which labels actually include high welfare in their definitions. This is easier said than done. Many labels say ‘locally sourced’ or ‘farm fresh’, but none of these bear any indication to animal welfare standards. Only quality assurance labels are designed with welfare in mind. But the confusion doesn’t end there – how are we to know the levels of animal welfare standards by looking at a logo on a packet. Clearly, the schemes need to distribute more information to us, the consumers, about what each of their labels stand for. This can be achieved through many different strategies such as leaflets/ posters in local supermarkets, or a re-brand of the label itself to emphasise exactly what it stands for.

pig-752555_640

  So, what really differs between welfare labels? Although they all tell us that the minimum legal requirements for animal welfare were met, some of them say more than others. First, there is the highest welfare label available in the UK; Organic. This label shows that the animals produced under organic standards have been reared with much lower stocking density and have lived with outdoor access. One leading organic label is the Soil Association Organic Standard which holds the highest certified welfare standards in the UK (OneKind, 2016). This scheme goes beyond most of the UKs minimum legal welfare requirements including the ban on the use of confinement systems, GM feed and the early weaning of piglets (Farms Not Factories, 2016). In the absence of Soil Association products, Free-range schemes are the next best thing. However, these do come with significant limitations. For example, only eggs and poultry have legally defined standards for free-range living (OneKind, 2016).

  RSPCA Assured (previously Freedom Food) is another welfare assurance scheme used widely in the UK, with around 30% of British pigs reared under this label. The RSPCA assess farms using strict welfare standards that go beyond that of the minimum requirements, focusing on environmental enrichment in particular. This helps to increase positive experiences for the animals, not simply reducing the negative ones. However, unlike organically reared livestock, RSPCA assured farms wean their piglets from 21 days and GM feed is allowed. There is also controversy over the allowance of tail docking in pigs in certain circumstances. Circumstances that could potentially have been avoided were it not for the type of intensive farming system used, e.g more space and enrichment equals reduced stress, meaning less tail biting occurring. That said, RSPCA Assured products seem likely to be the most widely available and recognisable to the public whilst ensuring higher than minimum levels of welfare.

  Finally, the most recognised of all the animal welfare food labels is the Red Tractor scheme. This label does no more than simply inform the consumer that the animal products meet the minimum legal requirements of welfare in the UK. Basically, it informs us that the meat was legally produced in Britain. It is by no means an indicator of good welfare. Using pig farming as an example, under Red Tractor schemes pigs are often kept on bare concrete slats with no bedding or straw, with limited space and ineffective enrichment.
Furthermore, it has been reported that the widespread illegal tail docking of piglets also takes place on many Red Tractor farms, for no adequate reasons (OneKind, 2016). In 2007, it was estimated that around 88% of pigs sold for meat in the UK were victims of illegal tail-docking (Hickman, 2007). That number is horrifyingly shocking when thinking about those that may have bought Red Tractor pork with the misguided knowledge that it was produced under ‘high’ levels of welfare.

  It becomes quite clear that precise information regarding food labeling should be made more widely available to the buying public. In fact, it could even be more widely advertised. Not enough people understand animal welfare labels to make an informed choice of which one to buy. Additionally, an even further concern is the complete lack of welfare labeling altogether on products with ‘hidden’ animal-derived ingredients (e.g milk powder). But that could easily form the basis of its own discussion…

Sources

Farms Not Factories, (2016) Understanding Labelling. Available at: http://farmsnotfactories.org/resources/labelling/ [Accessed 30 October 2016]

Hickman, M. (2007) The pain of tail-docking: a fact of life for millions of pigs. The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-pain-of-tail-docking-a-fact-of-life-for-millions-of-pigs-761687.html [Accessed 30 October 2016]

OneKind, (2016) Food Labelling and Assurance Schemes. Available at: http://www.onekind.org/lifestyle/onekind_eating/food_labelling_assurance/ [Accessed 30 October 2016]

 

Standard

One thought on “Animal Welfare Labels: End The Confusion!

  1. A Label Conundrum

    The issue of meat welfare assurance labelling certainly is confusing and the routine mutilations such as pig tail-docking and teeth-clipping that you mention in RSPCA and Red Tractor assurance schemes are shocking.

    This problem of confusion can be solved through better understanding of current labelling systems as you suggest. Samant, Crandell and Seo (2016) cite many examples of the confusion existing in consumers over USA labelling systems. Following research into education of consumers on labelling, they concluded that if consumers are educated about meat assurance standards labelling, they do indeed develop a greater understanding of welfare issues and have more confidence in their own ability to make decisions based on labelling. Before education they found that consumers were more likely to make emotional decisions on welfare assurance labelling based on their own backgrounds and experiences or to disregard welfare as an issue.

    Another possible way to combat this could be the introduction of a new, clearer labelling system; Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) is campaigning for compulsory EU-wide meat and dairy labelling to reflect welfare productions standards (CIWF, 2016). CIWF produced a report following interviews with over 3000 consumers in three European countries for the Labelling Matters campaign with over 80% of respondents welcoming the introduction of a labelling scheme for meat and dairy products similar to that used for egg production welfare in the EU (Labelling Matters, 2013). Those consumers were not confident making judgements on welfare standards based on current labelling.

    Conversely, in the UK, DEFRA carried out research in 2010 interviewing just 96 consumers and determining that industry-wide welfare assurance labelling was not likely to be useful to consumers given the lack of a common standard by which to judge welfare in farmed animals (BrookLyndhurst, 2010). With the development of the twelve criteria of The Welfare Quality System (Welfare Quality 2014), it would appear that DEFRA’s fears could be laid to rest by the use of this measure of welfare for meat labelling. DEFRA also concluded that welfare was not a motivating factor for consumers (BrookLyndhurst, 2010) whereas the CIFW Labelling Matters report found that labelling meat with welfare standards actually highlighted the issue of welfare to consumers who had not previously known that animal welfare could be an issue in meat production (Labelling Matters, 2013).

    As more evidence is found from consumers that an EU-wide welfare assurance labelling system would be welcomed (Van Loo et al, 2014), research has shown that the meat industry itself could also benefit from higher welfare assurance labelling, demonstrating a ‘more natural’ life for the animals and link to this better attributes of the end product such as improved taste and texture (Thorslund et al, 2016) especially as higher welfare has been shown to equate to higher productivity (Kauppinen et al, 2016).

    The question in the UK remains to be asked whether DEFRA, an organisation that represents agriculture and has significant ties with the agricultural industry, should be making decisions on animal welfare in the farming system as this could be viewed as somewhat of a conflict of interests. Could it be time for the founding of a separate and independent government animal welfare body to take forward issues such as labelling, farm assurance schemes and animal welfare measurement standards?

    References

    BrookLyndhurst, (2010) Are labels the answer? Barriers to buying higher animal welfare products – A Report for DEFRA. Available at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17379 [Accessed 17/11/16].
    Compassion in World Farming (2016) Labelling Matters. Available at: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/our-campaigns/labelling-matters/ [Accessed 17/11/16].
    Kauppinen, T. et al. (2012) Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Science, 143, pp. 142-150.
    Labelling Matters (2013) Briefing – Landmark consumer research reveals overwhelming support for method of production labelling of meat and dairy products. Available at: http://www.labellingmatters.org/images/LM-BRIEFING-FINAL-Landmark-study-shows-2015.pdf [Accessed 17/11/16].
    Samant, S., Crandall, P. G. and Seo, H. (2016) The effect of varying educational intervention on consumers’ understanding and attitude toward sustainability and process-related labels found on chicken meat products. Food Quality and Preference, 48, 146-155.
    Thorslund, C. A. H., Aaslyng, M. D. & Lassen, J., (2016) Perceived importance and responsibility for market-driven pig welfare: Literature review. Meat Science [Accepted for publication].
    Van Loo, E. J., et al (2014) Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy, 49, 137-150.
    Welfare Quality (2014) Principles and Criteria of Good Animal Welfare. Available at: http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/41858/5/0/22 [Accessed 17/11/16].

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s