Farm Animal Welfare and Food Information for European Union Consumers: Harmonising the Regulatory Framework for More Policy Coherence

Abstract

Today, there are a dozen labelling schemes pertaining to farm animal welfare in at least seven Member States. Despite the proliferation of animal welfare labels, European Union rules on food information to consumers concerning the treatment of farmed animals used in animal-source food production remain fragmented and incomplete. On the one hand, the rules contained in agricultural regulations primarily aim to harmonise marketing standards, but only for some products. On the other hand, consumer protection rules aim to protect consumers from misleading commercial claims but not misleading claims about animal treatment specifically. After examining the situation that has led to the proliferation of animal welfare food labels in the European Union, this article analyses the animal welfare food labelling landscape and presents different regulatory pathways to best harmonise consumer information on farm animal welfare.

I. Introduction

Animal-source food products are produced in massive quantities all over the world. In the European Union (EU) alone, 8 billion animals are slaughtered for food annually, a number that has been increasing year by year. ¹ And with such enormous production figures come massive consumption patterns: the average EU citizen eats around 70 kilograms of meat ² and 235 kilograms of dairy annually. ³

The industrialisation of animal agriculture following World War II has enabled the production of such high volumes of animal-source food products. ⁴ However, common practices in industrial farm animal production have led to growing concerns among EU citizens, with an overwhelming majority expressing the view that “the welfare of farmed animals should be better protected”. ⁵ Over the past two decades, numerous undercover investigations have substantiated and fuelled such concerns by exposing cruel production methods on farms, during animal transport and in slaughterhouses. Nevertheless, ethically questionable production methods persist unabated in large part due to inadequate farm animal welfare standards in EU law, which still permits practices that cause animal suffering. ⁶ For instance, EU law allows the use of cages in all sectors where extreme confinement presents a competitive advantage for producers, such as egg, ⁷ pork ⁸ and veal production. ⁹

Given the shortcomings of existing EU animal welfare legislation and the difficulty of obtaining ambitious legislative reforms, animal advocates have turned to increased transparency in the production of animal-source foods as a way to inform consumers while incentivising producers to transition to more humane farming practices. ¹⁰

Proponents of increased transparency of animal treatment via food labels hope to achieve several goals. Firstly, proponents of increased transparency anticipate that increased information for consumers would allow those with adequate means to express their preferences by purchasing more humane food products, in a context where close to half of EU citizens “do not believe there is currently a sufficient choice of animal welfare friendly food products in shops and supermarkets”. ¹¹ Beyond consumer empowerment, disclosing information on farming methods can lead to the improvement of the treatment of animals through market pressure by allowing virtuous producers to signal their products and pressuring others to upgrade their production methods to remain attractive.

While the efficacy of labelling as a political tool is still a question of contentious debate, animal welfare labels have proliferated in the EU to an astonishing degree over the past ten years. Today, there are a dozen labelling schemes pertaining to farm animal welfare in at least seven Member States. These labels exist alongside rules in EU legislation that mandate producers to disclose the treatment of animals to consumers.

Such a plethora of information about farm animal welfare on food products could potentially create confusion among consumers and undermine the effectiveness of transparency to change production systems. Yet, EU rules on food information to consumers concerning the treatment of farmed animals used in animal-source food production remain fragmented and incomplete. The rules contained in agricultural regulations primarily aim to harmonise marketing standards, but only for some products, while consumer protection rules aim to protect consumers from misleading commercial claims but not misleading claims about animal treatment specifically. Such piecemeal legislation has resulted in an incoherent, weak regulatory framework, enabling the emergence of low-quality information on the food market.

Anticipating the risks that the surfeit of information related to farm animal welfare poses to consumer protection and fair competition between producers, the EU institutions have identified the need to harmonise the delivery of animal welfare information on food products. In May 2020, the European Commission announced the creation of a standardised EU animal welfare label on food products. ¹² To carry forward this standardised label, in June 2020, the European Commission created a working group within the Directorate-General for Health’s (“DG SANTE”) Platform on Animal Welfare, which positioned itself in favour of a voluntary animal welfare label. ¹³ In December 2020, the Council of the EU further adopted Conclusions in favour of the creation of a voluntary, EU-wide animal welfare label. ¹⁴

Such initiatives, however, fall short of addressing the incoherence in the policy framework that provides consumers with information about farm animal welfare. Quite the opposite, the creation of yet another voluntary animal welfare label on the one hand, coupled with the absence of regulatory action in ensuring existing food labels do not mislead consumers on the other, is likely to aggravate an already dire situation on the EU market.

Considering the latest developments on the topic of animal welfare information for consumers at the EU level, this article: (1) examines the situation that has led to the proliferation of animal welfare food labels in the EU; (2) analyses the animal welfare food labelling landscape; and finally (3) presents different regulatory pathways to best harmonise consumer information on the treatment of animals used for food.

II. The consumer information turn in animal protection advocacy

1. The shortcomings in animal welfare legislation

Despite ambitious language in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which recognises animals as “sentient beings”, ¹⁵ farm animal welfare standards in EU secondary law remain minimal. Many of the standards contained in EU farm animal welfare legislation are drafted using terms so general that they leave significant room for interpretation. As a consequence, these laws have yielded little to no improvement in the protection levels afforded to animals. EU farm animal welfare legislation, such as Directive 98/58/EC on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, ¹⁶ typically uses expressions such as “unnecessary suffering” and adjectives such as “appropriate”, “adequate”, “likely to cause suffering or injury” or “comfortable”. ¹⁷ However, none of these terms are substantiated by quantifiable, measurable standards. Accordingly, Members of the European Parliament, in a 2020 report on on-farm animal welfare, observed that “the way the current legislation is worded makes it impossible to properly analyse its implementation” and recommended that “the Commission should update these directives to make them more effective with a view … to providing greater clarity and going into greater detail”. ¹⁸

The standards contained in EU farm animal welfare legislation are also outdated in light of the best available science provided by EU independent experts themselves. For instance, in 2004 and 2006, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) produced scientific opinions in which they recommended the phasing out of the use of carbon dioxide for pigs ¹⁹ and the use of shock baths for poultry. ²⁰ In 2009, however, the Legislature did not follow EFSA’s recommendations “because the impact assessment revealed [they] were not economically viable”. ²¹

Given these numerous shortcomings, the European Commission announced in 2019, as part of the European Green Deal, the revision of “the animal welfare legislation, including on animal transport and the slaughter of animals, to align it with the latest scientific evidence, broaden its scope, make it easier to enforce and ultimately ensure a higher level of animal welfare”. ²² While this announcement comes as welcome news from an animal protection perspective, the process of adopting the revised acts will likely take at least another few years, followed by what will likely be long transition periods before the new rules enter into force.

2. Food labelling as a way to improve farm animal welfare

Given the limited effectiveness of existing EU legislation in ensuring adequate farm animal welfare and the difficulty of obtaining new animal protection laws, animal advocates have engaged in corporate advocacy efforts to incentivise producers to voluntarily transition to more humane farming practices, ²³ including through the disclosure of methods of production. ²⁴

Compared to efforts focusing on the improvement of farm animal welfare legislation, animal welfare measures have found success through an increase in consumer information by the mandatory labelling of the method of production on shell eggs in 2008, as per Regulation 589/2008 as Regards Marketing Standards for Eggs (Eggs Marketing Standards Regulation). ²⁵ As per the Eggs Marketing Standards Regulation, all shell eggs must indicate the type of farming systems in which egg-laying hens were kept during production, including cages. ²⁶

Following mandatory method-of-production labelling for eggs, the overall number of egg-laying hens kept in non-cage systems steadily increased in the EU, with the European Commission correlating such a transition in practices with method-of-production labelling in a 2019 report. ²⁷ In another 2022 report, the Commission more generally cited the labelling of shell eggs as the key factor in the improvement of egg-laying hen welfare. ²⁸

Considering the success of mandatory method-of-production labelling for shell eggs, European animal advocates have thus taken notice of an effective way to improve practices on farms through market pressure. This strategy is typical of a “neoliberal turn” ²⁹ in environmental and animal welfare regulation, which relies on market-based approaches and consumer concerns rather than public interest to advance legislation. By targeting all relevant actors of the food production chain – producers, manufacturers, retailers and consumers – advocates aim to sway production and consumption choices in favour of farm animal welfare.

However, market-based strategies are not a way to sidestep the matter of regulation entirely; these approaches simply lead to another type of regulation. Although rooted in the market, mechanisms such as labelling still require regulatory oversight to ensure the quality and accuracy of information provided to consumers. ³⁰ Such regulatory oversight can also help nations avoid disproportionate technical barriers to trade. ³¹

III. The proliferation of animal welfare labels in the Union

Since animal welfare labels began to proliferate in the early 2000s, four main types of labels have emerged – and currently coexist – on the EU common market: (1) the Organic Certification, (2) private animal welfare labels, (3) method-of-production labels and (4) a new generation of labels that combine method-of-production and animal welfare information.

1. The Organic Certification: an animal welfare label by proxy?

Among the EU official quality certifications, only the EU Organic Certification contains animal welfare rules. Production rules for EU Organic Certified products are set in Regulation 2018/848 on organic production and labelling of organic products ³² (Organic Regulation), which entered into force in 1991 and has been revised twice since – in 2007 and 2018.

Originally, the 1991 Organic Regulation did not cover animal-based products and so did not include animal welfare standards. However, in 1999, the EU Legislature amended the 1991 Organic Regulation by way of a supplementing regulation to include livestock production within the scope of the Organic Regulation. ³³ With this supplementing regulation came animal welfare standards for cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, horses and chickens. ³⁴ Among other animal welfare requirements, this regulation prohibited the force-feeding of animals and the use of cages for poultry animals, and it further mandated access to open air areas. This regulation also provided larger space allowances per animal, while requiring lower stocking densities. ³⁵ Each of these aforementioned requirements exceeded the minimum legal standards provided in EU law.

The EU Legislature then revised the Organic Regulation in 2007, further including the “[respect] of high animal welfare standards” as one of its objectives. ³⁶ Despite this inclusion, animal welfare standards in the regulation remained unchanged. ³⁷ In 2019, however, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) imposed the requirement that all animals used for meat in organic production must be stunned before being killed. ³⁸ With this ruling, the CJEU extended the scope of the animal welfare standards in the Organic Regulation, which had traditionally focused on regulating on-farm methods of production, and only used non-committal language when referring to the slaughter of animals used for organic meat production. ³⁹

Furthermore, the 2018 revision of the Organic Regulation led to significant improvements in animal welfare standards. ⁴⁰ Key amongst these changes were the inclusion of additional species in the Organic Regulation, such as fish, ⁴¹ bees, rabbits and deer, and additional animals such as breeding sows and egg-laying hens, as well as juvenile egg-laying hens. ⁴²

Even though the animal welfare standards in the Organic Certification have improved over the past thirty years, such standards on animal welfare remain relatively low from an animal protection perspective. For instance, for animals other than poultry, animal welfare standards in the Organic Regulation only go beyond allowed common industry practices to a marginal extent. To better respond to a specific segment of informed, ethical and financially secure consumers, governments and non-profits have developed labels with more robust animal welfare standards.

2. First-generation animal welfare labels: filling the gap in animal welfare

Alongside the development of animal welfare standards in the EU Organic Certification, certifiers have enacted labels that communicate exclusively on animal welfare. These labels target consumers who specifically seek to minimise the harmful treatment of animals used for food purposes. Such is the case of Beter Leven in the Netherlands, Für Mehr Tierschutz in Germany, Tierschutz Krontrolliert in Austria and the Bedre Dyrevelfærd label in Denmark. Of these four labelling schemes, the only one that is public, being enacted by the national government (the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration), is Bedre Dyrevelfærd. The other three labels emanate from private, non-profit actors (Dierenbscherming in the Netherlands, Deutscher Tierschutzbund in Germany and Vier Pfoten in Austria). All four labels are also multi-tiered – Beter Leven and Bedre Dyrevelfærd have three levels and Für Mehr Tierschutz and Tierschutz Krontrolliert have two – thereby offering a more refined evaluation of animal welfare levels on farms compared to the EU Organic Certification.

Despite the shortcomings of the animal welfare standards contained in the EU Organic Certification, all three non-profit labels have modelled their standards on the animal welfare rules contained in the Organic Regulation. The animal welfare standards of Beter Leven’s top level (“three stars”) and the standards for Für Mehr Tierschutz’s entry level (“one-star”) are the same as in the Organic Regulation, for instance – although slightly more stringent. ⁴³

There is not yet conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of these first-generation animal welfare labels in causing the industry to shift away from inhumane practices in the countries where such labels exist. However, the multi-tiered rating systems of these labels (typically on a scale from one to three or one to two) might be misleading to consumers, who expect all levels to guarantee markedly improved standards of animal welfare, when, in reality, lower-rated products provide only a modicum of improvement relative to non-labelled products – a phenomenon known as the “halo effect”. ⁴⁴

However, influencing individual consumer choices does not seem to be the primary goal of these first-generation animal welfare labels. Based on their functioning, the primary goal of these labels appears to be the forging of partnerships between non-profits and retailers. Over the years, animal welfare labels have thus been used as a corporate social responsibility (CSR) tool by retailers to present themselves as supporters of more humane production methods. ⁴⁵ In that sense, strictly speaking, these first-generation labels could be classified more as CSR initiatives than consumer information measures aimed at increased transparency.

3. The instrumental role of method-of-production labelling in shifting to more humane production methods

Method-of-production labelling is another type of information delivered directly to consumers on the front of packs. ⁴⁶ Method-of-production labelling informs consumers about the farming systems involved in the making of a given food product. One specific type of information related to the method of production that is relevant to animal welfare is the labelling of the farming method.

EU law has imposed the systematic labelling (also referred to as “marking”) of farming methods for shell eggs – those both domestically produced and imported ⁴⁷ – since 2008. ⁴⁸ Under the Eggs Marketing Standards Regulation, all shell eggs ⁴⁹ must be labelled according to their farming method, which are “0 – organic”, “1 – free range”, “2 – barn” or “3 – from caged hens”. ⁵⁰ The rules also further impose a “non-EC standards” (non-European Community) mark for imports where there is “no sufficient guarantee as to the equivalence of rules”. ⁵¹ However, this requirement does not apply to eggs used as ingredients in processed products, nor does the requirement apply to lower-quality shell eggs sold between professionals. ⁵²

The Eggs Marketing Standards Regulation – one of the many implementing regulations of the Common Market Organisation Regulation ⁵³ – has been pivotal in improving the treatment of egg-laying hens. The numbers speak for themselves: in the span of thirteen years from 2006 to 2019, with the Eggs Marketing Standards Regulation having come into force in 2012, 54% of the egg-laying hen population on farms have been shifted from caged housing to cage-free systems (barn, free range and organic systems). ⁵⁴ By contrast, EU battery cage egg production today primarily goes into egg products, for which the mandatory rule of labelling of housing systems does not apply, ⁵⁵ indicating the effectiveness of method-of-production labelling in shaping consumer preferences and industry practices towards ethical production.

Further linking this shift towards more humane production methods to the Eggs Marketing Standards Regulation, a 2019 report by the European Commission concluded that “the rules for indicating the farming methods applied for laying hens [method-of-production labelling for shell eggs] have been effective in promoting alternative production methods”. ⁵⁶ As a result, a more recent European Commission report in 2022 has identified the Common Market Organisation Regulation (CMO Regulation) as a successful tool for improving hen welfare due to the mandatory method-of-production labelling contained in the CMO Regulation’s Implementing Regulation, which is the Eggs Marketing Standards Regulation. ⁵⁷ This same report also recommended extending farming system labelling to other animal-source products “to promote animal-friendly practices and housing conditions”. ⁵⁸

4. Second-generation animal welfare labels: informing consumers about farming methods

Over the past five years, a new generation of animal welfare labels has emerged. These labels, built on the success of method-of-production labelling developed for shell eggs, focus primarily on delivering information about the systems in which farm animals are raised. These new animal welfare labels aim to deliver simple, descriptive information about production systems, as opposed to older-generation animal welfare labels, which rate the level of welfare afforded to animals based on a large set of criteria decided by private entities. Second-generation labels come exclusively from the private sector. In France (Etiquette bien-être animal) and Italy (Etichettatura benessere animale), these method-of-production labels have emerged under the auspices of the animal protection organisation Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), in cooperation with other non-profits and retailers. ⁵⁹ The French version, which only exists for poultry meat, combines two types of information: information on the housing systems of poultry, in the form of a pictogram; as well as the welfare of levels of the birds, in the form of a grade (from A to E) based on 230 standards. ⁶⁰ The Italian version of the CIWF label, which exists for pork and dairy products, is more succinct and only displays the housing system with grades of 0 (organic standards) to 5 (“intensive”).

In 2019, German producers also adopted a method-of-production label in an attempt to harmonise the many animal welfare food labels coexisting on the German market. This “umbrella label”, called Haltungsform, is a meta-label that harmonises numerous existing labels into a four-tiered taxonomy determined by the housing system in which the animals are kept. ⁶¹ Additionally, in 2022, the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Bundesinisterium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft) enacted a mandatory label of farming methods on all pork products, ⁶² including those sold in retail, online and at farmers markets.” ⁶³ The German label aims to inform consumers on whether the animals were raised indoors, indoors with more space than provided in the law, indoors with outdoor access or free-range or organic. ⁶⁴

IV. Increasing policy coherence in the delivery of information on farm animal welfare on food labels

The issues posed by the proliferation of consumer information regarding animal welfare on food products have created the necessity to harmonise the ways in which such information is generated and delivered to consumers in the EU. ⁶⁵

Such a harmonisation first necessitates coherent regulatory action at EU level by: (1) decluttering and streamlining food product information and removing misleading labels; (2) refraining from enacting yet another flawed label; and (3) extending the mandatory disclosure of production methods to all animal-source products marketed in the EU. To achieve such goals, the EU institutions could use Article 114 on the approximation of laws ⁶⁶ and Article 43(2) on the organisation of a common agricultural market as legal bases. ⁶⁷

1. Improving consumer information on farm animal welfare in existing food labels

a. Public labels

Animal welfare standards contained in EU food quality labels are relatively low when compared to typical consumer expectations. These quality labels materialised under Regulation 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Quality Scheme Regulation), ⁶⁸ which provided the framework for the EU Organic label, ⁶⁹ as well as, inter alia, the protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical designations (PGIs).

Even though EU Organic Certification is the only EU quality label to include “the observance of a high level of animal welfare respecting species-specific needs” as a general principle, ⁷⁰ the Organic Regulation still allows inhumane practices on farms. For instance, the EU Organic Regulation provides no prohibition on the disbudding of cows and the castration of piglets, and it merely provides that “any suffering to the animals shall be reduced to a minimum by applying adequate anaesthesia and/or analgesia”. ⁷¹ Similarly, the Organic Regulation provides no restriction on the early separation of offspring from their mothers. ⁷²

Furthermore, the Organic Regulation provides no specifications on the transport of live animals, only providing that the “duration of transport of livestock shall be minimised”. ⁷³ The Organic Regulation only refers to minimum legal standards by providing that “all persons involved in keeping animals and in handling animals during transport and slaughter … shall have followed adequate training, as required in particular in [Council Regulations 1/2005 and 1099/2009]”. ⁷⁴

Similarly, the EU Organic Regulation provides no specification on the killing of animals at slaughter or for depopulation purposes. Even though a 2019 ruling by the CJEU found that slaughter without stunning was not compatible with the standards in the Organic Regulation, ⁷⁵ the Organic Regulation does not address issues such as killing methods. The Organic Regulation merely provides that “any suffering, pain and distress shall be avoided and shall be kept to a minimum during the entire life of the animal, including at the time of slaughter”. ⁷⁶ As a result, killing methods that EFSA has recognised as causing adverse impacts on the welfare of animals, such as stunning with a high concentration of carbon dioxide for pigs and electrical shock baths for poultry, ⁷⁷ remain authorised in the Organic Regulation. Similarly, there is no limit on line speeds in slaughterhouses, thereby allowing organic producers to industrially slaughter animals.

Other potentially misleading labels are the PDO and PGI labels. The Quality Scheme Regulation does not require producers to include animal welfare standards that would go above and beyond minimum legal requirements in the specification of PDOs and PGIs. Even though Recital 23 of the Quality Schemes Regulation lists the welfare of farm animals as an example of a condition that “an agricultural product or foodstuff bearing … a geographical indication should meet”, ⁷⁸ the Quality Schemes Regulation does not provide any animal welfare-related specifications in the list of criteria with which labelled products should comply. ⁷⁹ As a result, many PDO- and PGI-certified producers employ inhumane industrial production methods.

For example, investigations by animal advocates revealed that production methods on farms supplying Grana Padano PDO did not differ from common practices on conventional, non-certified farms. Images reveal early calf–cow separation and the keeping of calves in individual pens, in addition to violations of sanitary rules. ⁸⁰

Considering the misleading potential of food quality labels, the EU Legislature should therefore make a priority of ensuring that consumers do not pay a premium for products whose production methods do not effectively abide by quality standards, including animal welfare standards. The specifications of the EU Label could be amended in the Organic Regulation’s Implementing Regulation 2020/464 ⁸¹ by way of an implementing act that adds transport and slaughter specifications to existing livestock production rules. ⁸² The upcoming revision of the Quality Scheme Regulation also presents the EU with the opportunity to update the minimum standards with which all PDO and PGI labels should comply, including animal welfare standards. Specifically, Article 5 of the Quality Schemes Regulation should be amended to make high animal welfare standards a requirement for products labelled as PDOs and PGIs. ⁸³

b. Private labels

Certain private animal welfare labels, including those created by animal protection organisations, are vulnerable to humane-washing criticisms. Specifically, multi-tier labels based on rating systems, which have low entry standards and do not adequately convey the negative production aspects of a particular product (such as Beter Leven – one star), are at risk of misleading consumers into thinking they are buying humane food, when the first tier of the label goes above and beyond legal standards only to a small extent. Another issue from a market transparency perspective arises when labels do not grant access to their full list of specifications, as is the case with the Etiquette bien-être animal, which grants access to their full specifications upon request only.

Another priority for the EU Legislature should thus be to better regulate voluntary private labels by requiring that all labels readily provide their standards and specifications, and the Legislature should require that even relatively low-tier labels abide by significantly higher animal welfare standards than provided in law. Such regulation could come by way of an amendment to Regulation 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (FIC Regulation) ⁸⁴ to specifically regulate humane claims about food products.

2. Disincentivising the proliferation of voluntary animal welfare labels

a. Curbing the numbers of voluntary labels at the EU level

Animal welfare-related labels add to other existing food labels about the nutritional properties of products (eg Nutriscore), their environmental impacts (eg organic certifications, Planet-score) and social footprint (eg Fair Trade label). Not only do these labels add to the glut of information delivered to consumers, they often contradict one another. For instance, a food product with a positive animal welfare grade might have a low nutritional score.

While failing to reign in this unwieldy situation with labels, the European Commission might aggravate the issue through the multiplication of consumer information on fronts of packs. In the Farm-to-Fork Strategy, the European Commission thus announced the potential creation of three new food labels, starting with a “harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling”, as well as “ways … to create a sustainable labelling framework that covers, in synergy with other relevant initiatives, the nutritional, climate, environmental and social aspects of food products”. ⁸⁵ In addition to these two labels, the Commission announced it would “also consider options for animal welfare labelling to better transmit value through the food chain”. ⁸⁶

Although still in the making, such an animal welfare label would probably be voluntary, judging by the Member States’ respective positions in the Council, ⁸⁷ as well as DG SANTE’s Platform on Animal Welfare. ⁸⁸ However, how the EU animal welfare label would fit into and function within an already jumbled labelling ecosystem remains to be seen. Regardless of the voluntary nature of such an EU animal welfare label, the effectiveness of an animal welfare label remains questionable, while mandatory method-of-production labelling has proved effective in the case of shell eggs.

b. Regulating humane labels through consumer law

To the extent that labels are a standardised form of delivering information to consumers, EU legislation should regulate low-quality animal welfare labels so as to limit the communication of misleading information on fronts of packs. While consumer law rules pertaining to information delivered on food products already exist by way of the FIC Regulation, ⁸⁹ the EU regulatory framework needs to be reinforced to target humane-washing practices.

The objective of the FIC Regulation is to “guarantee [consumers’] right to information” and to contribute to “providing a basis for consumers to make informed choices in relation to food they consume and to prevent practices that may mislead consumers”. ⁹⁰ To that extent, the FIC Regulation prohibits the communication of misleading information, including “as to the characteristics of the food and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, country of origin or place of provenance, method of manufacture or production” (emphasis added). ⁹¹ The EU Legislature has further identified – in recital 50 ⁹² of the FIC Regulation, which mentions information pertaining to the stunning of animals slaughtered for meat – that information specifically related to animal welfare is relevant consumer information.

However, the FIC Regulation’s provision on production methods remains too general to produce any tangible effects on the regulation of humane claims in the absence of an implementing regulation specifying the criteria for such claims. For the FIC Regulation to have effect in regulating humane claims, the EU executive could adopt a regulation using Regulation 1924/2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods (Claims Regulation) ⁹³ as a model. The Claims Regulation regulates commercial claims made by producers under any form (such as labelling, presentation or advertisement) on health and nutrition, including pre-packaged and bulk food products, made by businesses supplying mass catering services (restaurants, hospitals, schools, etc.). ⁹⁴ The EU Legislature could thus enact similar requirements for humane claims through secondary law, using the Claims Regulation as a blueprint for regulating humane commercial claims on food products.

In fact, such an initiative would be consistent with one of the policy options that the European Commission has been considering as part of the revision of EU farm animal welfare legislation, which is to “regulate animal welfare claims. Under this approach, common minimum requirements for all animal welfare claims made on food on the EU market would be established, e.g. general principles and conditions of use, scientific substantiation.” ⁹⁵

3. Extending method-of-production labelling to all animal-source products in the EU

The EU Legislature could further improve consumer information on animal welfare by using its competence in establishing a common agricultural policy and, more specifically, a common market organisation. ⁹⁶ The CMO Regulation ⁹⁷ has provided fertile ground for the enactment of consumer information for food products. Such rules have been enacted in the implementing regulations of the CMO Regulation on marketing standards (EU Marketing Standards), including the Eggs Marketing Standards, which impose the mandatory labelling of method of production on shell eggs. ⁹⁸

The revision of the EU Marketing Standards regulations that began in 2021 could present an opportunity to improve the quality of consumer information on farm animal welfare by applying current obligations related to the labelling of the method of production on shell eggs to all other animal-source food products. The obligation to label the housing system of egg-laying hens could first be extended to egg products by way of amending the Eggs Marketing Standards Regulations, as proposed by the German delegation to the Council of the EU in April 2021. ⁹⁹

Beyond eggs, a similar labelling obligation could be integrated into other EU Marketing Standards regulations. Regulation 543/2008 ¹⁰⁰ (Poultrymeat Marketing Standards Regulation) forms the basis for the mandatory labelling of method of production for poultry, as this Regulation already provides a series of “optional reserved terms” to describe fresh poultry products. (Optional reserved terms are terms that can be used voluntarily by producers to describe a value-adding feature of their products or a specific production process.)

Under the Poultrymeat Marketing Standards Regulation, producers can use the following four terms to describe the type of farming: “Extensive indoor (‘barn-reared’)”, “Free range”, “Traditional free range” or “Free range – total freedom”, provided producers comply with the specifications attached to each of these terms. ¹⁰¹ Additionally, when using these terms, producers must comply with specifications set into law. Among these specifications are standards that relate to methods of production that have positive impacts on animal welfare. For instance, the specifications for the “Free range – total freedom” reserved term imposes inter alia that producers should provide “continuous daytime access to open-air runs of unlimited areas”. ¹⁰²

To improve consumer information on the welfare of broiler chickens, the EU executive could amend the Poultrymeat Marketing Standards Regulation to include additional terms describing industrial production methods to the list in Article 11 and make the use of these terms mandatory, using a similar language and marking method as Article 12(2) of the Eggs Marketing Standards Regulation. ¹⁰³

Regulation 1379/2013 (Common Fishery Policy) also establishes marketing standards for fish products. ¹⁰⁴ These standards mandate that operators label the production method on fish products sold on the common market using the following terms: “caught”, “caught in freshwater” or “farmed”. ¹⁰⁵ Even though the terms and specifications provided in the legislation are not indicative of the level of protection afforded to fish during their catch or farming, this regulation already provides a basis for a more comprehensive framework to improve consumer information on the welfare of fish used for food purposes.

Similar modifications could be brought about in other EU Marketing Standards regulations, which also exist for milk and dairy products, ¹⁰⁶ as well as for beef. ¹⁰⁷ There are no marketing standards for pork, but the upcoming revision of EU marketing standards could also lead to the creation of a dedicated regulation, with similar labelling requirements as those for shell eggs.

Beyond the discussion on the legal feasibility of mandatory method-of-production labelling, the work that producers and animal advocates have undertaken through the implementation of the Etiquette bien-être animal has evidenced practical obstacles to the extension of mandatory labelling of methods of production beyond shell eggs. These obstacles are significant in sectors that are not well segmented. Such is the case with pork production, which is overwhelmingly intensive in the EU, with more than 90% of sows kept in cages, ¹⁰⁸ and with the majority of piglets subjected to tail docking in response to high density levels on farms in the top EU producers: France, Germany and Spain. ¹⁰⁹ However, the precedent of mandatory method-of-production labelling for shell eggs, which entered into force at a time when battery cages were the default production system, ¹¹⁰ also showed that such difficult obstacles can be overcome. This experience has shown that labelling can be a major driver of segmentation in production by setting clearer quality levels and specifications and by providing a vehicle to orientate subsidies and investment efforts. ¹¹¹

V. Conclusion

Improving consumer information through food labels about the treatment of farmed animals is a palliative in the context of regulatory action that fosters farm animal cruelty. However, such a palliative measure does carry the potential to contribute to a transition to less cruel production methods, as the mandatory method-of-production labelling on shell eggs has done.

Over the past few decades, though, consumer information on the welfare of animals has taken the form of voluntary “animal welfare labels”, which have proliferated to a dramatic extent within EU Member States. The effectiveness of such labels is questionable, and some labels might even confuse or mislead consumers.

While strict regulation of the humane claims on fronts of packs remains urgent, the EU executive has responded by attempting to create yet another animal welfare label at the EU level. At the same time, the EU executive has shown no sign of generalising mandatory labelling of production methods on all animal-source food products. This position is all the more surprising as proliferating labels fragment the single market, mislead consumers and, in turn, undermine the functioning of the EU food market.