When consumers go to purchase animal-based food products, they are often faced with a plethora of information claims on labels, ranging from “organic” and “natural” to “grass-fed,” “humanely raised,” and “pasture-raised.” However, according to experts, the wide range of claims has led to confusion among consumers about their meaning and animal welfare impact.
Marissa Erasmus, an associate professor of animal science at Purdue University who specializes in animal behavior and welfare, emphasizes the need for consumers to educate themselves about these labels—and what they really mean.
For his part, Erasmus and his colleagues actively advocate for humane animal production practices with producers in Indiana and throughout the United States.
adobe
“There is some confusion about food labels regarding animal welfare,” Erasmus said in a statement. “It’s usually up to the consumer to do their homework and figure out what these different claims mean.”
“Labels provide consumers with a choice because, in theory, you can choose products that align with your personal and social values,” he said.
Misleading labeling of meat
Erasmus’ comments come in the wake of recent initiatives by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to tighten restrictions on meat labels in an effort to protect consumers from false and misleading labels. Erasmus and his colleagues are closely monitoring the additional documentation that animal feed manufacturers must provide to substantiate their label claims.
Currently, to obtain approval for certain voluntary claims, food manufacturers must submit relevant information to the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which regulates food labels and claims related to meat products in particular. Some claims require supporting documentation to be submitted before approval.
The Getty
One aspect contributing to consumer confusion is the association of some claims with animal welfare certification organizations that employ third-party verification, Erasmus noted. Producers cooperating with these organizations can affix their seal to products to indicate compliance with specific standards to ensure superior animal welfare. However, the meaning behind these various seals often eludes consumers.
“In general, these standards are intended to provide higher animal welfare than what you would see with a conventional product,” Erasmus said. “But many consumers don’t necessarily know what these different seals mean.”
On the other hand, certain labels primarily cater to consumer perceptions of health benefits and are not necessarily related to animal welfare. Erasmus cautions that an organic label, for example, does not automatically guarantee a better life for the animal than its non-organic counterpart—which is often a false assumption among consumers.
“We definitely want to make sustainable, healthy choices,” Erasmus said. “But just having an organic label on an animal product doesn’t always mean the animal had a better life than an organically raised animal.”
Another label that can be misleading is “no antibiotics added.” Even when antibiotics are used to treat or prevent illness in live animals, a mandatory withdrawal period exists after antibiotic administration so that the drugs are completely out of the animal’s system before the animal is slaughtered and made into a food product.
USDA moves to tighten restrictions
USDA’s push to protect consumers from these misleading labels comes after FSIS received several petitions, comments and letters from stakeholders asking the agency to reevaluate oversight of animal-raised claims, particularly how they are substantiated. Also, the veracity of “negative” antibiotic claims such as “raised without antibiotics” or “no antibiotics” have come into question.
In fact, a recent report by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) found that 85 percent of animal welfare claims analyzed lack sufficient evidence. They also highlighted the fact that meat labeled with sustainability and animal-raised claims represents one of the fastest growing segments of the meat industry. Without clear labels, consumers are robbed of the ability to buy according to their values.
As part of its efforts, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service will conduct a sampling project to assess antibiotic residues in livestock for the “raised without antibiotics” market.
The Getty
A study published last year in an academic journal science It has already found that some cows raised and slaughtered for market “raised without antibiotics” have actually been treated with antibiotics and insists that buyers should not trust those labels. According to the new study, a “significant portion” of cows destined for these antibiotic-free markets have been given antibiotics.
The study’s researchers, which included Lance B. Price and Laura Rogers of George Washington University’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center and Kevin Lowe of the food testing startup Food In-Depth, tested nearly 700 cows from 312 lots and 33 different “raised without antibiotics.” Certified factory farm. The researchers found that at least one animal tested positive on 42 percent of factory farms, representing about 15 percent of the “raised without antibiotics” cows slaughtered during the study period.
“The growing demand for ‘antibiotic-raised’ meat and poultry has the potential to curb the use of antibiotics in food-animal production,” Price said in a statement.
“Until USDA works to rigorously verify these claims or retailers eliminate their safe harbor of ignorance, consumers should not rely on the accuracy of these labels.”
For the latest vegetarian news, read:
Nicole Axworthy is news editor and cookbook author for VegNews DIY Vegan.