Defra has told industry stakeholders it will not be consulting on controversial plans to introduce compulsory animal welfare labelling of certain food products. The Department had been planning to launch a formal consultation in the spring, but this failed to materialise, after the plans came in for some heavy criticism from the industry. This week, officials informed industry stakeholders that the Department does not believe it is the right time to launch the consultation.
A Defra spokesperson said: “We are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. “We will continue to work with farmers and supermarkets to improve food information for consumers and support the production of healthier, higher welfare animals through our Animal Health and Welfare Pathway.”
Under the plans, new regulations would have required products, initially pork, poultry and eggs, to be categorised in different tiers, linked to method of production. Defra had claimed the move would give consumers a clearer indication of how pork and other products are produced and help drive improvements in welfare standards. It said the proposals sought to simplify and clarify existing welfare labels’.
However, in a letter to Defra Ministers earlier this year, a coalition of industry organisations – including the NFU, NPA, British Meat Processors Association, the Food and Drink Federation, Dairy UK and the British Poultry Council – argued that the proposals would add significant additional costs to the food chain without delivering further clarity for consumers.
“Mandatory method of production labelling will not deliver continual improvement of farm animal health, as method of production is not the key determinant of animal welfare,” the letter stated. “The science is clear that attention to detail and professional management of our flocks and herds is a greater determinant of animal welfare, but this is much more difficult to translate into a clear and useful consumer labelling framework.” “Labelling should be voluntary and follow compulsory rules when certain terms are used to ensure accuracy and consistency.”
Responding in April, Farming Minister Mark Spencer said the initial call for evidence on welfare labelling reforms in 2021, ‘pointed to the fact that consumers do face barriers to purchasing products produced to UK welfare standards or higher, including through lack of transparency in the absence of a simple standardised labelling approach, and affordability where higher-welfare products are sold at a premium’. He suggested the new approach could help farmers ‘fully capture the value of products which meet or exceed UK welfare regulations’. But he assured industry stakeholders their concerns had been fully considered in developing the proposals.
Defra indicated that, while it has dropped plans to consult now on welfare labelling reforms, it intends to continue working with industry to explore how it can ‘harness the market to improve food information for consumers and raise animal welfare standards’. This will include looking at how welfare labelling could align with wider labelling proposals, such as eco-labelling.
NPA Reaction
The NPA’s Pig Industry Group (PIG) did not hold back with its concerns over the various flaws in the plans when they were presented by Defra officials earlier this year. NPA chief executive Lizzie Wilson welcomed the decision not to issue the consultation. “We as an organisation argued strongly behind the scenes that compulsory welfare labelling would be a blunt tool that adds costs across the chain, while doing nothing to educate consumers about real welfare on farms,” she said.
“Our PIG made it very clear to Defra that you cannot equate welfare with method of production and that the proposed system would likely confuse, rather than inform. “We welcome the fact that Defra has listened to us and others throughout the supply chain on this and will continue to work with them to ensure any future moves to increase transparency in the pork supply chain are proportionate and effective.”
The proposals for mandatory welfare labelling in pork, poultry and eggs in retail would have seen a split in the pork supply chain adding significant cost. Defra said the labels would ‘seek to simplify and clarify existing welfare labels’, but we argued this would not provide consumers with more information than they already have given the Pork Provenance Code is widely used.
The work on eco labels continues and, whilst only voluntary, these would likely contradict the welfare labels proposed, adding further confusion for consumers. Having responded to the Government’s Call for Views in 2021, Pig World met with the Defra team last autumn to discuss the proposals and share the NPA’s position. We continued to raise concerns, but the Defra team were adamant these proposals would be consulted on.
In turn, NPA joined forces with other industry groups to write to Minister Spencer to iterate the impact they could have on the sector whilst not delivering more for consumers. The position of the sector was made clear again when the NPA Pig Industry Group invited the Defra welfare labelling team to join their meeting, which is why the team was very pleased that Defra has taken the decision not to consult now. The Defra team still wants to improve transparency and provide the industry with a ‘level playing field’ to promote higher welfare products, but future work will include looking at how welfare labelling could align with wider labelling proposals, such as eco-labelling. We are so pleased Defra has listened to us and others throughout the supply chain on this and will continue to work with them to ensure any future moves to increase transparency in the pork supply chain are both proportionate and effective.
NPA responded to a Defra consultation on the proposed introduction of penalty notices for animal health and welfare offences in England. They believe new and proportionate financial penalties for animal health and welfare offences could add to, and complement, the current enforcement regime to support early behaviour change to promote compliance and better protect the nation’s animals.
NPA has been involved in the discussions about this policy development for some time and responded to the consultation to support the proposals. However, NPA did note that continuity across the country is essential – as such, guidance and frameworks for inspectors is needed to provide a consistent and proportionate approach to the use of penalty notices. The use of penalty notices is likely to follow advice and guidance from the inspector to the keeper and NPA suggested Government collaborate with industry to ensure the guidance is relevant to commercial pig production.
The Soil Association’s Criticism
The Soil Association criticised the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for stopping plans to add animal welfare labels to pork and chicken products. Welfare labelling on eggs has been mandatory since 2004 and last year the Government said it would seek proposals to extend the labelling. Rob Percival, head of Food at the Soil Association, said: “The Government has hammered another nail into the coffin of its animal welfare policy agenda. Welfare is a clear priority for UK citizens. So in whose interest has this decision been made? It’s clearly neither in the public interest nor in the interest of animals.” “It’s simply not true that UK animal welfare standards are consistently adequate, and consumers have a right to know which system an animal has been farmed in. We support the NFU’s call for clearer country of origin labelling, but welfare or method of production labelling is also needed.”
Industry Leaders Welcome Decision
Industry leaders have welcomed a Defra decision to drop plans for compulsory animal welfare labels on food items. Proposals under consideration would have seen pork, poultry and eggs categorised according to their production method. Defra claimed the move could help drive improvements in welfare standards. But the idea has been dropped following a concerted campaign by pig and poultry leaders. They argued that the plan would add significant costs to the food chain without delivering further clarity for consumers.
A coalition of industry bodies – including producers and processors – raised their concerns in a letter to Defra earlier this year. The letter said mandatory labelling would not deliver better animal health because production method was not a key determinant of welfare. Similar criticisms were levelled by the National Pig Association when Defra officials presented their plans earlier this year. NPA chief executive Lizzie Wilson welcomed the decision not to pursue the consultation. “We as an organisation argued strongly behind the scenes that compulsory welfare labelling would be a blunt tool that adds costs across the chain, while doing nothing to educate consumers about real welfare on farms.”
“Our Pig Industry Group made it very clear to Defra that you cannot equate welfare with method of production and that the proposed system would likely confuse, rather than inform.” “We welcome the fact that Defra has listened to us and others throughout the supply chain on this and will continue to work with them to ensure any future moves to increase transparency in the pork supply chain are proportionate and effective.”
Defra had planned a formal consultation in the spring. But it failed to materialise. Last month, officials told the National Pig Association that the department did not believe it was the right time to launch a consultation. A Defra spokesperson said: “We are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.” “We will continue to work with farmers and supermarkets to improve food information for consumers and support the production of healthier, higher welfare animals through our Animal Health and Welfare Pathway.”
Some Condemnation
Farmers and campaigners have condemned a government u-turn, which has seen ministers ditching plans to introduce mandatory animal welfare labels based on method of production, for chicken meat and pork products. This took place within days of the German Bundestag’s decision to introduce mandatory method of production labelling. Rob Percival, head of food policy at the Soil Association, said that by abandoning the consultation “the government has hammered another nail into the coffin of its animal welfare policy agenda.”
Mandatory labelling of shell eggs has existed in the UK since 2004 but is currently the only example of mandatory farm system labelling on an animal-derived product. The labelling system was so successful that in 2014 the British Egg Industry Council called on the government to extend mandatory labelling to products with eggs as the main ingredient, such as quiches and egg sandwiches. In addition, a system of voluntary method of production labelling for pork products was introduced by the British Pig Council in 2010 and has been in place ever since. By 2015 around 40% of UK pigs were born outdoors and assured as ‘outdoor bred’, ‘outdoor reared’, ‘free-range’, or ‘organic’. Around a third were RSPCA Assured.
Labelling has also proved highly popular with customers. It has enabled easy point of sale comparison and allowed consumers to support farm systems with greater welfare potential. In 2013 a survey showed that 83% of UK customers wanted to see labelling extended to all meat and dairy products. Correspondence from officials at Defra said that while the evidence collected during an early-stage consultation showed that public support for animal welfare labelling was strong, the government has decided not to proceed with plans to introduce new labels.
Fidelity Weston is the chair of CLEAR, a UK consortium of 47 food, farming, civil society organisations and businesses working together for better labelling for the environment, animal welfare and regenerative farming. She said “In 2020, during the passage of the Agriculture Act, Lord Gardiner committed to deliver “informative food and drink labelling and marketing standards to protect consumer interests.” “Three years on, it is disappointing that there has been very little progress. We believe that the only way that the government can provide the transparency and level playing field it wishes to see is to implement a mandatory labelling system whereby information on how our food is farmed is made mandatory information for all food labels at all point of sale.
“There is much that industry and the market can do to improve food information for consumers but these changes will only be truly transparent and trustworthy if it is based on an independently established holistic method of production approach as advocated by CLEAR. “Currently, the lack of action from the British government is leaving a policy black-hole being filled with unregulated eco-labels with a high potential of consumer misinformation and greenwashing.”
