In March, the European Commission et al. (2022) published a study of animal welfare labelling in the EU. Survey collected data that could support potential initiatives relating to animal welfare labelling across Europe. The research compared the consumers’ awareness and attitudes on animal welfare labels, mapped the labelling schemes in different EU countries and related problems. 

The results indicate that generally the EU consumers awareness on the farm conditions is limited. Consumers’ level of concern towards conditions under which animals are kept has increased, but their level of awareness of modern animal farming practices is relatively low. In each Member State more than half of the consumers felt that the information available is insufficient to allow them to make informed choices about the food products they buy based on animal  welfare. Finnish consumers were most satisfied with the availability (47% agreeing that information is sufficient), while Estonian (37%), Swedish (33%) and German (31%) consumers scores were closer to EU average (31%) (European Commission et al. 2022). The consumers indicated that they would like to receive more information on the topic, incl. on slaughter conditions, feeding, outdoor access and housing conditions.  The level of interest towards animal welfare information varied across countries. Consumers in Finland and Sweden indicated very high interest towards receiving information on animal welfare as well as younger people and females.  Those findings are well in line with those previously demonstrated in research literature. Consumers preferred a label that is present on all animal-based products, thus effort should be made to develop a labelling scheme suitable to food products from all animal species (European Commission et al. 2022).   

Media and newspapers were the most preferred sources of information how farm animals are kept and treated (respectively 49% and 47% of respondents getting their information from those sources). Just over a quarter (27%) mentioned labels of food products indicating that the dissemination of animal welfare information through food labels has been very limited. The influence of labels on purchasing decisions was also limited, thus one of the suggestions of the study was to combine traditional media with food labels to raise awareness (European Commission et al. 2022).

The consumer declared willingness to pay more for high welfare products, but not more than they currently pay for organic products. Willingness to pay increases with better understanding on farming practices and if consumers believe the food product has higher quality. Consumers preferred labels that are in text or logo format and had less interest in QR codes or electronic information. Important aspect is the sufficient size of the label. The results indicate that color-coded scales and evaluative labels (providing assessment on product vs. descriptive labels that provide neutral factual information)  may perform better.

The study mapped 51 labels with animal welfare claims in the EU and UK. Most of them are created and run by private organisations and publicly run animal welfare labels are rare. Consumers are somewhat more likely to trust welfare labels that are managed by NGOs or the EU public authorities than labels run by retailers or producer organizations.  The consumers preferred EU intervention by indicating that the EU should provide animal welfare information.  

Most of the welfare labels are national ones, however 16 of the 27 EU Member States had no national-level labels on animal welfare. The standards for those labels differ considerably. The products bearing animal welfare labels are generally more expensive than regular products. However, the competitive advantage from the animal welfare labelling often does not extend outside the home country. Most of current labelling schemes are country-based and often do not provide advantage in other countries as the labels are not recognizable to their consumers or retailers. At the same time, the producers and farmers have to compete in the same market with competitors that may have lower welfare standards and related lower production costs.  The standards for different labels and their implementation costs for the producers as well as level of information and guarantees provided to the consumers vary significantly across Member States. 

Half of existing labelling schemes cover the full duration of life of animals (welfare on-farm, during transport, and at slaughter), while remaining schemes vary in terms of what part of production cycle they cover. The species most commonly covered are pigs (32 schemes out of 48 analysed), beef cattle and broilers (27 schemes respectively), laying hens (26), dairy (21), sheep (18). 14 labels cover only one species, while 24 schemes cover five or more species.  In terms of production systems, 6 labels are for organic production. Most of the labelling schemes have higher welfare criteria than national and EU legislation and require third party auditors (European Commission et al. 2022). 

For more information:

European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Maestre, M., Campbell, L., Etienne, J., et al. (2022). Study on animal welfare labelling: final report. Publications Office of the European Union.  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2875/676603