Labelling Factsheet
Background
In response to the difficulty of obtaining legislative reforms for animals, one solution advocates have been exploring is to increase transparency in the production of animal-source foods. This push comes alongside government efforts in a variety of countries to provide producers with quality labels, which include animal welfare standards, and even in some countries, animal welfare labels.
Proponents of increased transparency via consumer information hope to achieve several goals. Firstly, increased information would enable consumers, who can afford it, to express their preferences by purchasing more humane food products. Secondly, disclosing information on farming methods can lead to improving the treatment of animals through market pressure, by allowing virtuous producers to signal their products, pressuring others to upgrade their production methods to remain attractive. Such a market-based strategy therefore ultimately seeks to extend beyond consumer empowerment, to transition the industry away from cruel methods of production.
Food labels represent one of many ways to convey information regarding the treatment of farm animals used for food production purposes, along with methods such as advertising and commercial claims on food packages. Labels that specify the treatment of farmed animals will typically contain one of two types of information. The first communicates information about the welfare levels afforded to animals, based on a set of criteria and an assessment by the certifier. An example of an animal welfare label is the RSPCA Assured label. The second type of information is method of production. These types of labels inform consumers of the farming methods employed in the making of an animal-source food, such as cage-free, indoor, or outdoor farming. An example of a method-of-production label is the EU method-of-production label on shell eggs.
Labels can further be single- or multi-level. For example, the US label “Certified Animal Welfare Approved” is a single-level label, while the Dutch label “Beter Leven” (better life) counts three levels. Some labels that are not specifically animal welfare labels can however communicate information on the treatment of animals, such as organic labels, which, though not specifically animal welfare labels, usually include animal welfare standards. For instance, the EU Organic Label includes animal welfare standards in addition to environmental standards.
Even though labelling can be a useful tool to inform consumers on the impact that certain products have on animal welfare, the effect of labelling remains limited in two aspects. First, prices seem to be the main driver of consumer behaviour, especially for low-income consumers, whose choice is limited due to budgetary constraints. Secondly, the power of labels is diminished by the glut of misleading packaging information. The proliferation of claims on products could lead to a situation where consumers have a hard time distinguishing between reliable certification schemes and dishonest commercial speech. Furthermore, when poorly designed and implemented, animal welfare labels can even launder humane-washing efforts, giving consumers the impression that certain products are humanely produced, when in fact they are not. Finally, ineffective labels might result in reinforcing self-regulation rather than accompanying the sector’s transition towards better practices as a result of the passing of new laws.
For all these reasons, a strategy relying on food labelling must be carefully thought of, as an ineffective label could achieve the opposite effects of the goals initially pursued.
Key Considerations
When evaluating, drafting or comparing farmed animal welfare laws and policies, local context, political feasibility and the regulatory environment all influence what one considers “Better Practice.” With that caveat in mind, when all else is equal, the following considerations indicate better and worse practices for laws and policies.
Mandatory for all animal-source food
To provide the consumer with the necessary information, animal welfare or method-of-production labels must apply to all animal-source food products, including products for which labelling would not be advantageous – i.e. the label would carry information that the product is derived from animals kept in cages. A mandatory label for all animal-source food would also ensure wide recognition among consumers, which is also likely to reinforce the effectiveness of a label.
On the other hand, when labels are voluntary, consumers do not receive the necessary information to make informed choices. This is because voluntary labels rarely convey undesirable attributes of a product, as no producer would volunteer information that might steer customers away from their product. For this reason, voluntary labels only convey positive information and usually concern only a small fraction of products sold on the market.
A positive example of a mandatory label with a broad market visibility is the EU’s mandatory method-of-production label on table eggs and the EU Organic Regulation, which require producers to disclose the egg laying hens’ housing systems by way of a code on all table eggs sold in the EU. A significant shortcoming, however, is that such a label only applies to table eggs, and not eggs used as ingredients in prepared or industrially-processed food. Another example of good labelling practice is the EU’s mandatory label of the production method for fresh fish sold in the EU.
Scope of information: from breeding to slaughter
A label should also inform consumers about the treatment of animals used for food from the time they are bred until the moment they are slaughtered. The scope of the information provided by a label should therefore cover every single segment of the production process. The details of the standards used by the labelling authority should also be made public.
An example of a label that includes animal welfare standards from breeding to slaughter is the “Animal Welfare Label” in France, a label created by a coalition of NGOs and retailers, although the details of the labelling criteria are not available to the public.
Geographical scope
The label should further apply to all animal-source food products sold within a given jurisdiction, including imported food products. This would ensure that all animal-source food products within a given jurisdiction carry a label, thereby keeping a level-playing field among domestic and imported products. An example of a label that applies to imports is the is the EU’s mandatory method-of-production label on table eggs, which requires importers to comply with the labelling requirements. In cases non-EU producers do not comply with EU egg-laying hen welfare standards, the eggs must still carry a label informing consumers that the egg was not produced in condition equivalent to EU rules.
Integration into Agricultural Policy and Public Procurement Guidelines
Lastly, a label should be integrated into other policies beyond consumer policies, including agricultural policies and public procurement rules. This would increase the effectiveness of the label in transitioning away from cruel production methods. For instance, agricultural policies could prioritize farmers whose practices are certified by a high-quality animal welfare label in the granting of subsidies. Similarly, public administrations could prioritize the sourcing of labelled products in their food procurement policies.
For example, the EU’s agricultural policy provides subsidies for producers who wish to convert to organic standards, or maintain such production standards. A positive example of animal welfare label integration into public procurement rules can be found in the Netherlands, where the Dutch government sources a portion of its animal products from producers which are labelled Beter Leven – a label developed by the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals (Dierenbescherming)(Bismuth et al.).
References
References
Beter Leven, (the Ducth “Better Life” label) https://beterleven.dierenbescherming.nl/
Alice Di Concetto, Food Labelling and Animal Welfare, Research Note #2, The European Institute for Animal Law & Policy (2021), available online: https://animallaweurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Animal-Law-Europe-Research-Note-2.pdf
European Commission, Options for Animal Welfare Labelling and the Establishment of a European Network of Reference Centre for the Protection and Welfare of Animals, (2009)
“Etiquette bien-être animal” (the French “Animal Welfare Label”), http://www.etiquettebienetreanimal.fr/
Christine Parker, The Food Label as Governance Space: Free-Range Eggs and the Fallacy of Consumer Choice, Recht der Werkelijheid (Right of Reality) (2014).
Christine Parker and Josephine de Costa, Misleading the Ethical Consumer: The Regulation of Free-Range Egg Labelling, Melbourne University Law Review (2016).
Saskia Stucki, (Certified) Humane Violence? Animal Welfare Labels, the Ambivalence of Humanizing the Inhumane, and What International Humanitarian Law Has to Do With it, AJIL Unbound (2017).
Further Readings
ASPCA, Vermont Law School, Center for Agriculture and Food Systems, Farm Animal Welfare Certification Guide, A Farmer’s Tool for Understanding Welfare Certifications Programs (2017).
Derek J.F. Eaton et al., Product Differentiation under the WTO, An Analysis of Labelling and Tariff or Tax Measures Concerning Farm Animal Welfare, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), 2005.
Harald Grethe, High Animal Welfare Standards in the EU and International Trade – How to Prevent Potential “Low Animal Welfare Havens”, Food Policy, Volume 32, Issue 3 (2007).
Frauke Pirscher, Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2016).
Lennart Ravn Heerwagen, et al., The Role of Quality Labels in Market-Driven Animal Welfare, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2015).
Glynn T. Tonsor and Christopher A. Wolf, On Mandatory Labelling of Animal Welfare Attributes, Food Policy (2011).
Law / Policy Name of the text | Topic The topic of the legislation or policy covered by the text | Species The animal, or type of food production, covered by the text | Type of Act Whether the act is a law, regulation, or policy, or another type of text | Status Indicates whether the act is in force or not |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgricultureAnimal healthAnimal welfare | All animals | Legislation | In force | |
| Animal healthAnimal welfareAntimicrobial resistance | Farmed animals | Legislative Proposal | Bill proposal | |
28-Hour Law USA | Animal welfare | Farmed animals | Legislation | In force |
| Alternative ProteinsPublic procurement | Farmed animals | Legislative Proposal | Bill proposal | |
| AgricultureAnimal healthAntimicrobial resistance | Farmed animals | Policy | In force | |
| Animal healthAnimal welfareWild-caught fishing | Fish | International Convention | In force | |
| AgricultureAnimal welfareClimate & environmental protection | Farmed animals | Legislative Proposal | In force | |
| Animal welfare | All animals | Constitution | In force | |
| Animal welfareRecognition of sentience | All animals | Legislation | In force | |
| Animal welfare | All animals | Constitution | In force | |
| Recognition of sentience | All animals | Legislation | In force | |
| Animal welfare | All animals | Constitution | In force | |
Article 80 of the Swiss Constitution Switzerland | Animal welfare | All animals | Constitution | In force |
| Animal welfareAquacultureRecognition of sentience | Farmed animalsFish | Legislation | In force | |
| AgricultureAnimal healthAntimicrobial resistance | All animals | Legislation | In force | |
| Recognition of sentience | All animals | Legislation | In force | |
| AgricultureAnimal welfare | Broiler chickens | Legislation | In force | |
| AgricultureAnimal healthAnimal welfareSales Bans | CalvesPigs | Legislation | In force | |
| AgricultureAnimal welfare | Calves | Legislation | In force | |
Canada 2020 NDC Canada | Climate & environmental protection | Farmed animals | Policy | In force |
| You're viewing 20/113 Entries | ||||