The human food chain isn’t merely a series of events describing where we reside in the process of who eats who – at least where animals are concerned. It is also a history of cross-species nutrient quality and consumption targeted by or provided to other animals. We eat what they eat! And there’s a lot of eating, because around 1.2 billion animals are bred and killed annually for human consumption in the UK alone, and that’s excluding fish. Increasingly, people do genuinely want to eat foodstuffs that are carefully categorised, cleaned and – if talking about animals – well cared for; not just for health reasons, but also to clear their consciences on ethical sourcing, treatment and slaughter. Most people never see the inside of a broiler factory or an intensive pig farm, so they must rely on – typically highly sanitised – depictions by producers, and the assurances and labels dished out by trusted voices in animal welfare. But who are these trusted voices? And, more importantly, are they right?
Most people never see the inside of a broiler factory or an intensive pig farm, so they must rely on – typically highly sanitised – depictions by producers, and the assurances and labels dished out by trusted voices in animal welfare
Setting standards – high or low
Given that all farmed animals are recognised as sentient, for many if not all welfare inspectors – and perhaps especially vets – the challenge of overseeing the inescapably brutal despatch of millions of their charges may feel like being a doctor at a human deathcamp. And it is brutal. We are repeatedly told via media commentators and dispassionate civil servants that British standards for welfare are among the highest in the world. Based on what? Compared to some literally welfare-lawless countries in Asia, or Islamic cultures globally, then the UK government’s and food producer’s claims may have legs – at least for longer than their products!
Bad for the goose, bad for the gander
Terms such as “good animal welfare”, “safe transport”, “proper stunning” and “humane slaughter” can be comforting to someone buying their pound (OK, almost half a kilo) of flesh from a shelf in a supermarket. But such terms, to anyone who truly understands the science of what’s happening – always reference bad news for animals. Misleading claims that chickens condensed in dirty huts “cluck because they are happy”, that electrical stunning stops pain or that gas hypoxia is humane are all claims worthy of a farmer who is shovelling something from a pen full of bulls. Likewise, are eggs really humanely produced if, after only one day of life, that system macerates millions of juvenile males as unwanted by-product? Animal farming is humane – is it?
If welfare standards in food production are as bad as the law allows, and as the investigatory reports show, then animals hardly benefit from such standards
Indeed, treat a pet as farming does chickens, turkeys, geese, cattle or pigs, and you will likely find yourself in prison – especially if you Tweet/X about what you’ve done. Even the law acknowledges a far lower welfare bar for livestock than for pets. And as Britain already trails many other countries on animal welfare legislation for pets, what does this really say about farm standards? So, is it a case of a standard in name only, and is the bar so low that animals simply walk right over it to face abuses of production and brutal deaths at slaughter? If welfare standards in food production are as bad as the law allows, and as the investigatory reports show, then animals hardly benefit from such standards. Yet those with vested interests in selling the message and the products are definitely winners.
Assuring assurances
Arguably, three relevant labelling systems lead the way. RSPCA assured is effectively an endorsement on animal welfare standards that must be firmly in place for livestock if a farmer or supplier wants that badge of honour. The guarantees convey inspiring messages about real-life conditions: “No cages…ever”, “Enriched living conditions”, “Humane slaughter”, “More living space”, “Responsible antibiotic usage” and “Traceability for peace of mind”. So far, so good. The Red Tractor label is largely directed at issues of traceability, safety and environmental protection in Britain, but also with some animal welfare interests. The Soil Association has a strong environmental remit including for pesticides and antibiotic use, and “GM” chemicals, but also embraces traceability and outdoor and free-range farming systems, and boasts accreditation for the “highest animal welfare standard of any farming certification”. Overlap for sure, but each definitely different.
Encouragingly, for this article, the RSPCA unhesitatingly clarified that: “…compliance with our standards is achieved through our dual audit system (proactive and reactive). There is 100 percent compliance with no cages and no farrowing crates, as such systems would not even be allowed on the scheme. Compliance with standards such as more space is also clearly set and monitored, and any noncompliance would be dealt with as part of the audit. The same would apply to the slaughter and transport standards. RSPCA standards do not allow non-stun slaughter – all slaughter has to be done in accordance with legislative standards other than salmon and trout, which do not have as yet legislative standards. RSPCA standards again do not allow non-stun slaughter or methods such as the use of carbon dioxide, suffocation in the air or on ice, or bleeding fish without stunning, which can cause significant suffering.”
And further: “RSPCA standards are well above minimum baseline standards as set out in legislation. For instance, the Aquatic Life Institute (ALI) assessed eight global certification schemes and ranked the RSPCA second with a score of 7.3 on our salmon standards (above Soil Association and Red Tractor).” Also, encouragingly, the RSPCA utilises a raft of independent experts to help develop policy.
Despite assurances from Red Tractor regarding their “independent assessors”, the label appears rather light of such input, relying instead on farm industry information. Noted, Red Tractor proudly states: “Achieving balance is a crucial aspect of standard setting…”. But that claim depends on what “balance” means. The company is funded by the food industry and declares six farming and other commercial owners, and multiple directors, all of whom in one or another way represent and hold vested interests in agricultural food production. Part of its mission is that through its “assured” scheme: “Red Tractor logos can give you confidence in the food you buy”, so that you know “…your food’s farmed with care”. What exactly does that mean? Save for one farm animal veterinary advisor, there appears to be little to comfort those hoping for a truly balanced composition emboldened by independent scientific and veterinary experts. That certainly puts farmers in charge of the hen houses, and also in charge of how the public might perceive those houses.
The Soil Association responded quickly and enthusiastically about their accreditation scheme, which can be summarised as: “We hold ISO17065 accreditation (this includes a requirement for impartial scrutiny), which is the international standard for bodies operating product certification systems. Our systems are scrutinised by third-party auditors who assess our methods of inspection, conformity assessment, competence, organisational structure, relationships with related bodies, quality management and internal control. This ensures we are operating a certification system in a consistent and reliable manner.” That, too, is welcome and confidence-inspiring.
We all know that talk, including biased assurance, is cheap. Unlike the RSPCA and the Soil Association, which engaged fully and openly to all questions, Red Tractor diverted every query about possible trade-led and biased assurances back to its website, and then went quiet on the composition of their advisors – which perhaps speaks volumes! That said, maybe no one is perfect – according to reports earlier this year, the RSPCA Assured label is not without recent controversy. However, the Society has not shied away from the scrutiny of a pending independent report – so, if improvements are needed, maybe that campaign will turn out to be a welcome cattle-prod.
Final thoughts
All schemes probably have important merits, but it may be some time before the small print becomes clear, and we can see exactly what’s on the tin
Offering assurance schemes aimed at boosting confidence ought to include comprehensive independent authentication of the very processes on which those schemes are built. Perhaps understandably, many would argue that assurance schemes offer no panacea for production problems and welfare, and that ceasing the consumption of animals as food itself offers the best solution. But assurance labelling is not about that – it is intended to provide a pragmatic step to informed consumption consent, that’s all. Determining the hype from the hyperbole of assurance labelling should not itself rely on trust. All schemes probably have important merits, but it may be some time before the small print becomes clear, and we can see exactly what’s on the tin.
