85 percent of meat welfare claims lack evidence, new study finds

Four US senators, Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), called on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to take over. Action to protect consumers from misleading animal welfare claims on meat and poultry products.

The call comes after a recent report by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) found that 85 percent of animal welfare claims analyzed lack sufficient evidence.

In a letter to Sandra Eskin, deputy undersecretary for food safety at USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the lawmakers expressed concern about the agency’s process for evaluating animal-raised claims and questioned whether FSIS plans to strengthen its documentation requirements. To ensure quality guidelines across the industry.

Adobe stock

The senators are urging the USDA to fulfill its responsibility to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make informed choices about the products they purchase and that farmers and producers are able to compete on a level playing field.

They also highlight the fact that meat labeled with sustainability and animal-rearing claims represents one of the fastest-growing segments of the meat industry. Without clear labels, consumers are robbed of their ability to buy according to their values.

Consumers are confused about humane labeling

USDA has the authority under the federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Product Inspection Act to deny the use of labels believed to be false or misleading. However, AWI’s review of USDA’s label approval files over the past decade found that high-welfare labels for meat and poultry have proliferated on the market without USDA approval—or with only marginal evidence to support these claims.

A series of national surveys commissioned by AWI found that most consumers disagreed with the USDA’s practice of allowing conventional producers to define these claims themselves without requiring farm evaluation by the government or an independent third party.

“Consumers are reassured by compelling images, claims, taglines and ‘certifications’ that these products are environmentally friendly and that the animals involved were well cared for,” Dena Jones, AWI’s director of farmed animal programs, said in a statement.

“In effect, USDA allows producers to define claims however they see fit and journey through the approval process rather than promoting meaningful, measurable standards,” Jones said.

Since producers are free to define the promotional terms used on packaging in any way they wish, the same claim may have different meanings on different packages. A producer, for example, might define “humanely raised” to mean that the animals were raised on a diet that was vegetarian or antibiotic-free — practices that say little about the animals’ overall welfare.

In its latest analysis, AWI reviewed 97 label claims from 2013. For nearly half of the claims (48), USDA was unable to provide an application submitted by the producer, suggesting that a significant percentage of meat products on the market may have unauthorized claims. For the remaining claims, most producers provided minimal documentation, such as an affidavit or operational protocol indicating compliance with only basic industry animal care standards.

People image

“USDA’s failure to meaningfully regulate animal husbandry claims such as ‘humanely raised’ and ‘raised without antibiotics’ contributes to consumer confusion and humane laundering,” Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew DeCoriolis said in a statement.

“The public overwhelmingly supports further regulation of meat labeling, and AWI’s findings illustrate USDA’s urgent need to protect the public and ensure a fair market for high-welfare farmers,” Decoriolis said.

The AWI report includes several recommendations, including requirements for producers using animal welfare claims to obtain third-party certification that they adhere to standards that go beyond conventional production practices. Producers must comply with all certification standards and be audited by the certifier at least every 15 months.

A new version of the farm bill

In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to promote more competition in the American economy, directing the USDA to consolidate agricultural sectors that hurt small farmers. AWI, along with other environmental and animal protection organizations, has urged the USDA to address its process for approving animal husbandry claims as part of Biden’s initiative to promote fairer and more open markets.

Similarly, last month, Representative Earl Blumenauers (OR-03) introduced the Food and Farm Act of 2023 as a “new vision” for the farm bill that puts farmers, families and the environment first when it comes to food policy.

Much of the federal spending that shapes the U.S. food system comes through the Agricultural Improvement Act, otherwise known as the “Farm Bill.” Yet this funding only benefits Big Ag, landowners and investors, Blumenauer said, making it harder to grow food and clean up the environment.

Pexels

Endorsed by organizations such as Farm Sanctuary, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Women Advancing Nutrition Dietetics and Agriculture, Food and Farm Act focuses resources on those who need it most. It encourages innovation and encourages investment that helps animals, people and the planet and ensures access to healthy food.

“The current farm bill gives millions to big agribusiness, encourages unhealthy food production, doesn’t support small and medium-sized farmers, and prioritizes process over results in terms of clean air, clean water and healthy soil,” Blumenauer said in a statement.

“In short, it gives a lot to the wrong people to grow the wrong food in the wrong place,” Blumenauer said. “Congress can and should do better.”