A framework for a comprehensive animal welfare label: scientific, logistic, and ethical challenges

At least nine of the 27 EU member states have national food labeling schemes with animal welfare claims, and there is a growing plethora of private animal welfare labels (AWL), e.g., as part of the marketing strategy of retail companies (Lundmark et al., 2018; EC, 2022; Stygar et al., 2022). The impact of these labels on the welfare of farmed animals is generally considered disappointing (but see Mullan et al., 2016, 2022). The multitude of labels often confuse the consumer, and there seems to be a clear need for simplifying the existing state of play of these labeling schemes (BEUC, 2021; Forbes, 2021; Promarket, 2021; EC, 2022). Both the European Commission and some national authorities, such as the Flemish Government, are therefore considering options for animal welfare labeling to better transmit value through the food chain. This article wishes to contribute to these developments by proposing a framework for a virtuous and comprehensive AWL for animal products.

In our view, there can be two, nonmutually exclusive, virtuous roles of labeling food. The first role is to inform consumers (or other stakeholders) about product attributes that they, or society at large, consider relevant. This may include the country of origin, quality assurances, and the impact of the production process on the environment and climate, and on people and nonhuman animals (hereafter termed “animals”). The second role is to drive change in consumption and hence production practices. This aspiration could be to lower the environmental footprint, to improve labor condition, or—the focus of this article—to improve the welfare of animals from which these products have been derived. Recognizing that informing may also drive change and that in the process of changing consumption habits people often become more informed, it is clear that both virtuous roles of labeling may be closely intertwined.

Bearing this interconnectedness in mind, we present a novel framework for a virtuous and comprehensive AWL for animal products with the ultimate goal of improving animal welfare through changes in consumption patterns. Whilst it would be welcome if people became better informed and more aware about livestock welfare issues, ultimately we wish the effectiveness of the label to be judged by the extent that consumption (and hence production) patterns have shifted to the benefit of the animals. This contrasts with less virtuous—at least in our opinion—and sometimes hidden agendas of some AWL schemes such as sheer profit, “welfare-washing,” or the promotion of goods produced in their own country (nationalism). We would contend that the failure to truly impact animal welfare likely relates to these less virtuous agendas for AWL.

The shift we aim for may be achieved both by raising thresholds for the lower welfare products, and by a demand shift in favor of higher welfare products at the expense of lower welfare products. As higher animal welfare standards typically increase production costs (McInerney, 2004; Gocsik et al., 2016; Vissers et al., 2019; Molnár and Szőllősi, 2020), consumers will need to be encouraged not only to seek out animal-friendlier goods, but also to pay premium prices for it. Hence, to be effective, the AWL should meet some important criteria: (1) reflect animal welfare status correctly (validity), (2) be cost-efficient, and (3) align with consumer expectations, including price differentials. Indeed, lack of transparency and trust, as well as costs being too high or not being aligned with expectations (value for money) have been identified as barriers for consumers to purchase animal-friendlier products, even if they have stated in surveys that they would prefer to do so (Ingenbleek and Krampe, 2022). For voluntary and private labels, in particular, these three criteria will also largely determine the scalability, or the market uptake, of the AWL.

One possible reason for AWL not meeting consumer expectations is that they are not comprehensive, for example because they fail to cover important aspects of animal welfare (e.g., positive affective states). AWL can also fail to be comprehensive in the sense that they do not cover the entire production chain but instead focus on one particular life phase only, often the production stage on farm. A focus restricted to the on-farm phases may make farmers feel singled out whereas they have little influence on other stages of the production chain that may affect animal welfare considerably as well (e.g., genetic breeding stock, transport, and slaughter). This concern can be broadened to other aspects and activities that are often not considered by existing AWL although they are inherently linked to the entire production chain and can be associated with specific animal welfare issues, such as the killing of the nonproductive sex (e.g., male calves or chicks) or the stressful conditions of the parental stock. Hence, we include a fourth criterion for an AWL: that it is comprehensive by including all major aspects of animal welfare, all relevant parts of the production chain and the entire lifetime of the animals.