In the absence of a mandatory welfare or environmental impact labelling scheme, animal products carry a hodgepodge of related claims, some more meaningful than others.

A slew of animal welfare labels can be found on animal products in the UK. Some of these labels use entirely unregulated, meaningless phrases like ‘reared by our trusted farmers’. Such labels give no assurance of the actual welfare conditions farmed animals experience and are essentially nothing more than humane-washing. 

Even the more specific claims are widely misleading. For example, Sainsbury’s now carries packaging that states ‘our chickens now have more space to roam & have a happier & healthier life’. However, these ‘happier’ and ‘healthier’ chicken lives merely amount to being granted 20% more space than the industry standard – an improvement from 19 chickens per square metre to 15. This crowded density is depicted in the right-side image below, a response to Sainsbury’s 2023 advertisement (left) boasting their welfare standards.

Unfortunately, these same concerns apply when it comes to sustainability labels. As with welfare labels and ‘humane-washing’, brands can engage in ‘greenwashing’ whereby they place eco-conscious terms on their packaging without implementing any real, validated sustainability measures. They may also misrepresent how ‘green’ their product is by highlighting minute improvements, such as changes in packaging.

In a recent move, ‘carbon-neutral’ claims have sprung up on milk and beef packaging. While they appear robust on first look, farms engage in dubious methods to achieve a ‘carbon neutral’ claim on these products, often investing in external carbon offset schemes that are unreliable at best and fraudulent at worst.

There are legitimate quality assurance standards which products can subscribe to and carry some meaning. In animal welfare, this includes schemes such as Red Tractor, RSPCA Assured, and Soil Association. For environmental impact, this includes schemes like Certified Regenerative by A Greener World, Regenagri by Control Union, and Regenerative Agriculture Standard by FoodChainID. While these certification schemes, in theory, provide consumers with the assurance that a product meets a given quality standard, relying on a system of private certification schemes is wrought with potential problems and conflicts of interest. 

• First, the existence of several different standards is likely to increase consumer confusion. With a range of different schemes available and widely used, the average consumer is unlikely to know whether Red Tractor is better than RSPCA Assured, for example, or the details of what either certification entails. The companies behind these certification schemes might even use this to their advantage, knowing that consumers trust them and are unlikely to seek out a scheme’s actual specifications. 

• Second, the optional nature of certifications is likely to lead to incomplete and skewed consumer perceptions. A product having a label (in theory) means that a product meets a certain standard – but no label could mean that the product does not meet the standard, or simply that it has not subscribed to this particular labelling scheme. Moreover, applying labels only to products which perform well is likely to lead to skewed perceptions of the category overall. If animal products either have (a) a high welfare or green certification, or (b) no label, consumers may develop the mistaken impression that most animal products are high welfare and sustainable. This would obscure the reality that most farmed animals are on unsustainable and low-welfare factory farms.

• Third, relying on private organisations to issue certifications can lead to perverse incentives when it comes to setting and enforcing standards. Private certification schemes are funded by producers, who pay a fee for evaluation and certification. Therefore, each competing certification scheme may have a business incentive to demand a lower set of standards, reducing the burden on producers and increasing subscriptions. Furthermore, certification schemes have a financial incentive to take a lenient approach on enforcement: rescinding a certification means losing revenue. 

In a striking example of this issue, Animal Justice Project recently undertook a massive pressure campaign to get RSPCA Assured to drop one of their approved companies, AD Harvey. It took an undercover investigation exposing clear animal cruelty, weeks of campaigning, a protest outside the gates of AD Harvey’s Norfolk slaughterhouse, a petition of nearly 5,000 signatories, and copious mass media coverage before RSPCA Assured agreed to permanently drop AD Harvey. While this company was eventually dropped from the scheme, there is no telling how many other companies are currently operating under these certifications with little to no welfare oversight. 

According to our research, UK consumers clearly crave transparency regarding their food. Unfortunately, the current landscape of environmental and animal welfare labels does not meet this demand. Where do we go from here? We recommend moves at the individual, retailer, and policymaker levels. 

We encourage food retailers to guarantee high welfare products by adopting the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC). The BCC puts forth a thorough set of animal welfare standards, spanning the very breeds used (you may be familiar with the industry standard ‘frankenchickens’ bred to grow so unnaturally large and fast that they often experience conditions like lameness and even heart attacks) to the method of slaughter. Companies that adopt the BCC must demonstrate their compliance with these standards through third-party auditing and annual public reporting. 

Retailers could also commit to clear and honest welfare labels on animal products. This would entail avoiding misleading and meaningless welfare-related labels like ‘reared by trusted farmers’ on their own products. Retailers may also be in a position to require that their suppliers adhere to certain welfare standards, or ‘grade’ the production systems according to a transparent framework. These methods would incentivise greater welfare standards and reward high-welfare farmers. 

In response to consumer demand for transparent, straightforward labelling, the UK government should implement mandatory animal welfare and environmental impact labelling based on transparent and consistent evaluation criteria. 

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) was considering such a scheme for animal welfare in 2022. However, this was dropped after industry objections, and Defra provided no assurance that such a scheme would be considered in the future. Similarly, in 2009, the UK was considering a universal environmental labelling scheme; in 2023, it still has not come to fruition. In 2021, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) urged for mandatory eco-labelling, and public and political interest has picked up in the past year. However, thus far, no actual commitments have been made. 

We encourage policymakers to reconsider labelling mandates that align with demand from the UK public and urge that these schemes be properly enforced. Instituting these moves would garner public trust, increase public health, and could put UK producers in a better position in the domestic and international markets, as standardised UK labels could be easily recognised and valued for their sustainability, welfare, and quality. 

Advocates can shape both retail and policy directions. We recommend the following moves:

• Demand that the UK government implement standardised labelling mandates. It is only through these universal schemes that our food system can achieve true transparency and accountability.

• In lieu of standardised labelling systems, demand that companies adopt standards like the BCC. 

• Educate the public about meaningless eco and welfare labels, including the shortcomings of private certifications.

March 2024

Since publishing of this article, two stories have made waves regarding animal product labels.

1. UK Environmental Secretary Steve Barclay proposed a consistent labelling system for meat and dairy products. Specifically, products originating from countries that adhere to lesser environmental and animal welfare standards than British standards would be clearly labelled as such. This move would position British meat and dairy as the eco-friendly, ethical choice and encourage purchase of these products over imports. This is a worthwhile first step on the path to fully transparent labelling – the kind of transparent labelling that the vast majority of UK consumers strongly support, according to our research.

However, framing British meat and dairy as the environmentally-friendly and humane choice presents a major risk: perpetuating existing misconceptions among well-meaning consumers. While UK farmed animal welfare standards might surpass those from other countries, these standards are far from ‘humane’. For instance, nearly all broiler chickens in the UK – a resounding 95% – are factory farmed. That amounts to around 120 million chickens every year intensely stocked in massive warehouse barns, where they live stunted lives (about 35 days) in bodies that grow too big and too fast for their legs and organs to support. Moreover, new undercover investigations continue to expose so-called high-welfare UK farms, such as the Red Tractor-approved pig farm in Devon where film crews recorded ‘unimaginable suffering’. Positioning British products as high-welfare disguises the reality of British farming practices, perpetuating the misinformation consumers are already contending with. We urge the UK government to implement a universal, mandatory labelling system for all animal products – both foreign and domestic.

2. Across the pond in the US, New York Attorney General Letitia James is suing JBS, the Brazilian beef giant and world’s largest meat producer, over its climate claims. For years, JBS has promised to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040 – starting off with a bang on Earth Day in 2021, taking out a full-page New York Times ad claiming to be part of the climate solution. Meanwhile, the sole meaningful solution to Big Meat’s greenhouse gas emissions problem is to scale down production. Leticia James has deemed JBS’s long-standing net-zero promises so unsubstantiated and unfeasible that she is taking them to court for fraud. You can read the full lawsuit here. 

This move presents a potential strategy here in the UK – to not merely campaign against greenwashing (and humane-washing), but to sue the actors themselves. This is not the first time companies have been taken to court for climate misinformation. For instance, a spate of US states in recent years has brought lawsuits against fossil fuel companies for undermining climate science and deliberately misleading the public about their role in the climate crisis. Thus, there is a precedent for this legal strategy, and it is worth pursuing in the context of animal agriculture.