Method-of-Production labels: a welcome trend for farm animal welfare?

There is a surge of initiatives to provide animal-sourced food with method-of-production (MoP) labels. MoP-labels aim to facilitate the uptake of production standards that are, or are perceived to be, more sustainable and animalfriendly. These standards may include e.g. a maximum stocking density, a ban on mutilations, or access to an outdoor area, and often increase production costs. The reasoning is that farmers will be compensated for these higher costs by the willingness of an increasing proportion of consumers to seek out and pay premium prices for MoP-labelled food. The aim of this contribution is to reflect on whether this increasing interest in MoP labels is a welcome approach for improving animal welfare in livestock farming. For many animal welfare scientists it may feel as back to square one as most MoP-provisions include so-called resource-based instead of animal-based measures of animal welfare. Since the Welfare Quality project (2004-2009) in particular, scientific consensus had been growing that animal welfare is most directly assessed by using animal-based indicators, whereas resourcebased indicators imply an increased likelihood of better/worse welfare. Resource-based provisions, however, are generally more feasible to audit cost-efficiently and give farmers more security about whether or not they comply with MoP-standards. Moreover, many consumers have limited knowledge about the actual welfare problems in animal agriculture and commonly associate certain provisions (e.g. straw for pigs, pasture for cattle) with superior welfare. By focussing on such resource-based provisions, MoP-labels thus readily accord with consumer perception. However, erroneous perceptions about the link between certain provisions and true animal welfare state might be reinforced if these provisions are included in the MoP-label. MoP-provisions detailing how the animals are to be housed and managed do not guarantee a certain level of animal welfare. Indeed, true animal welfare status is the outcome of complex interactions between stockperson(s), housing environment and the animals. If this match is bad, the actual animal welfare status might be poor despite compliance with all MoPprovisions. If such cases will be revealed to the public, the consumers’ confidence in such MoP-labels will wane swiftly. Another concern, is that within MoP-labels competition to produce at the lowest cost will continue without financial incentives to further improve animal welfare. The full potential of each production system will thus not be realised if such MoP-labels are not complemented with animal-based measures or other incentives for farmers to keep on striving to improve animal welfare.