We’re all used to seeing the gruesome images of black lungs and rotting teeth on packets of cigarettes, designed to put smokers off the unhealthy habit. Now, scientists say that slapping similar stickers on packs of meat in supermarkets could help to shame buyers. The stickers could include sad images of animals, accompanied by messages such as: ‘Animals suffer when you eat meat.’ They could also include images of decimated forests with the words: ‘The Amazon rainforest is destroyed when you eat meat.’
A study from Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands found that consumers were less inclined to buy products featuring the labels. ‘Meat-shaming messages trigger shame but also other negative emotions that translate into reduced purchase intentions,’ the authors wrote. ‘Our analyses show that adding a sticker to a meat package, warning potential customers about the negative consequences of their purchase, may be an effective way to influence buyers’ behaviour.’
The Study
For their study, published in Elsevier journal Food Quality and Preference, researchers wanted to see if a ‘confrontational approach’ would have any impact on meat buying habits. The first experiment involved showing 161 volunteers one of two images of a packet of chicken breasts, one of which had a warning sticker. This sticker had a photo of two battery chickens behind the bars of a cage, accompanied by the message ‘eating meat makes animals suffer’. Participants were then asked how likely they would be to buy the product, their emotional response, whether it would impact their future buying habits and how often they ate meat.
The results revealed that the warning label made consumers less inclined to purchase the chicken breasts, and even motivated them to eat less meat in the future.
In the second study, 483 volunteers were again shown packets of meat with one of six different meat-shaming food labels. Again, each had an image and message -two related to animal welfare, two related to environmental damage and two health-related. One of each was accompanied by a ‘personal’ message – for example, ‘By eating meat, you destroy the Amazon rainforest!’ – while the other one had an ‘informational’ one – like ‘Eating meat destroys the Amazon rainforest!’. They were then surveyed on their responses to the labels and meat-eating habits, as in the first study.
The researchers found that the extent to which a consumer was discouraged to buy meat as a result of the label was not impacted by the type of consequences it highlighted, be that on the environment, animal welfare or health.
Whether the message was framed in a personal or informational manner also did not affect the participants differently. However, the health-related message gave less of an emotional response than the other two, both of which led them to experience ‘higher levels of guilt than shame’. The researchers say this could be because the consequences for animal welfare and the environment are ‘concrete and easy to imagine’, while those on their health are ‘rather abstract and long-term’.
For the final study, the team wanted to investigate whether the source of a warning message and its perceived credibility impacted consumer habits. They showed 563 participants one of six labels and told them they had been created by United Nations, Greenpeace or private nutritionist Green Eatz.
The results revealed that the source did not make a difference to a warning label’s effectiveness. However, if a consumer perceived the source to be reliable, they were more likely to consider changing their buying habits.
Strangely, consumers were also more likely to buy a product from an organisation they see as reliable, regardless of its negative message. The authors wrote: ‘This might be explainable by consumers simply using the logo of an organisation they deem reliable as a peripheral cue, without properly processing the content of the message.” ‘The organisation’s label may unintentionally have a halo effect and function as an endorsement rather than a warning sign.’
They concluded that emotional warning messages about the negative impacts of eating meat on animal welfare and the environment can deter consumers from buying meat products, regardless of how it’s framed or who it came from.
The System
Cambridge University scientists have come up with a system of measuring animal welfare that enables reliable comparison across different types of pig farming. This means that animal welfare can now, for the first time, be properly considered alongside other impacts of farming to help identify which farming systems are best. This is vital for improving animal welfare in livestock production, at a time when demand for meat is rising globally and the way animals are farmed is changing – with concerns about the welfare of intensive and indoor systems. Animal welfare assessments could also enable consumers to be better informed when choosing what to eat.
Britain has various labelling schemes for meat products to assure consumers that certain standards have been met. The team used their new system to test how the different labels compare in terms of animal welfare.
Farms producing ‘woodland’ labelled pork products scored best for pig welfare, followed by ‘organic’, then free-range, RSPCA assured, Red Tractor, and finally those with no certification.
“We have shown that it’s possible to reliably assess animal welfare on farms. This means decisions about which types of farm are better or worse for animal welfare can be based on proper calculations, rather than assumptions – as is currently the case,” said Dr Harriet Bartlett, first author of the study, who carried out this work while a researcher at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Veterinary Medicine. She is now a Research Associate in Sustainable Food Solutions at the University of Oxford.
Bartlett added: “Now animal welfare can be included in overall assessments of farm sustainability alongside other measures like carbon emissions and biodiversity impacts, so we can make better informed decisions about how we choose to farm and what we choose to eat.”
Coming up with an overall measurement of animal welfare has previously been difficult because of disagreement on which factors are most important. For example, is a health problem more important than a behaviour problem? What level of welfare is good enough?
The new system assesses the quality of an animal’s life through a wide-ranging set of welfare measurements, reflecting a range of concerns about welfare. The results can be integrated into a single score to enable comparison across farms. This will enable exploration of trade-offs between animal welfare and other issues of concern to consumers, such as the impact of farming on the environment.
Assessment of the pigs looked at everything from health problems like coughing, sneezing, and lameness, to the way they interacted: biting each other’s ears or tails, or engaging with their environment, for example. Various scoring methods were tested – giving more or less weight to the different aspects of animal welfare – on 74 pig farming systems in the UK. The team were surprised to find that each method gave broadly the same overall result in terms of which farms, and types of farms, performed best and worst. “Despite ongoing debate about how to measure animal welfare, we found we can identify which types of farms we might want to encourage and which we shouldn’t with reasonable consistency,” said Professor Andrew Balmford in the University of Cambridge’s Department of Zoology, who was involved in the study.
The new welfare measurements combine quality of life with length of life, and scores can be produced ‘per unit’ of production. The welfare scores can also allow several farms to be grouped together – for example when animals are kept on different farms at different growth stages. “This work opens up possibilities for greater rolling out of welfare assessment scores in food labelling, including in other species as well as pigs. Until now, the methods available have made this impractical,” said Professor James Wood at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Veterinary Medicine, who was involved in the study.
The technique of ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ is widely used to quantify environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use, across all stages of farm animal production. But until now there hasn’t been a way of measuring animal welfare that enables valid comparisons across different farming systems, so Life Cycle Assessments do not include it and as a result, welfare concerns have sometimes been overlooked. Food production accounts for over a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Making farming systems more sustainable, in the face of growing global demand for meat, is a major challenge for farmers and the government.
‘Woodland’ labelled pork is from farms that provide at least partial tree cover for the pigs, and ‘Organic’ provides outdoor access for the animals. The ‘RSPCA assured’ label is welfare focused, while ‘Free range’ is not a formal assurance, but typically refers to fully outdoor farming systems. Most UK pig farms produce ‘Red Tractor’ labelled pork, which has lower production costs – translating to a lower price for consumers. This research was funded by the BBSRC, the Royal Society, MRC, and The Alborada Trust.
The EU
The use of cages, the practice of mutilation and feed restriction should be avoided for the welfare of farmed broiler chickens and laying hens, according to new scientific opinions from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The two opinions – one on broiler chickens, those bred specifically for meat production, and another on laying hens – published on Tuesday (21 February), were requested by the European Commission in the framework of the ongoing revision of the animal welfare legislation. The EU scientific body’s conclusions are clear: “Birds should be housed in cage-free systems.”
In addition, EFSA advises against the practice of mutilation, including beak trimming, which is practiced to reduce the risk of animals pecking each other. “The practice of beak trimming should not be necessary if good management practices are implemented,” reads the report. The major threats to the birds’ welfare identified by the EU agency include genetic selection for fast growing rate and high stocking density, as well as high temperatures, absence of litter or poor litter quality and sub-optimal light management. The opinions give a number of recommendations, ranging from reducing stocking density to allowing birds to rest in elevated platforms, to prevent the negative welfare consequences.
“Our scientific assessments conclude that the use of cages leads to severe welfare consequences such as restriction of movement, inability to perform exploratory, foraging and comfort behaviours, such as dustbathing, and isolation stress in the case of single cages,” said Frank Verdonck, Head of Unit Biological Hazards & Animal Health and Welfare at EFSA. “Therefore, EFSA recommends housing all birds in alternative systems.”
The EU is one of the world’s biggest producers of poultry meat with around 6 billion broiler chickens being reared for meat every year resulting in 13.3 million tonnes of poultry meat, according to the report. In 2022, the EU executive evaluated the current EU animal welfare legislation concluding that its overhaul is needed, and a proposal is expected in the second half of 2023. The opinion also follows up on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “End the Cage Age”, which gathered 1.4 million signatures calling for a transition to a cage-free farming system.
The U.S.
Acknowledged by Consumer Reports as the only “highly meaningful” food label for farm animal welfare, outdoor access and sustainability, Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW (AWA) is an independent, nonprofit farm certification program—and now one of the nation’s top 5 fastest growing certifications and label claims.
Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW is the only label that guarantees animals are raised outdoors on pasture or range for their entire lives on an independent farm using truly sustainable, high-welfare farming practices. It is the only label in the U.S. to require audited, high-welfare production, transport and slaughter practices, and has the single highest impact on consumer purchasing of any food label, according to The Hartman Group.
The Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW standards were developed in collaboration with scientists, veterinarians, researchers and farmers across the globe to maximize practicable, high-welfare farm management, and are publicly available online. We’re proud of AWA’s reputation for being a practical, common-sense program that’s grounded in the realities of everyday farm and ranch life.
