Blog written by Julie Hurst, volunteer blog writer

“Our farm animal welfare standards are the most comprehensive welfare-focused standards in the world. These standards have been independently proven to make lives better for millions of animals every year”, state the RSPCA in its recently released Kindness Index. The annual UK-wide investigation reports on people’s attitudes towards animals, including those farmed for food, and given the charity’s claims, and the fact that less than 12% of farmed animals in the UK are currently reared under its RSPCA Assured standards, it seems quite understandable that it would like to see this percentage increased to 50% by 2030. However, the report also reveals that despite these ‘world-leading’ standards, only 21% of respondents actually buy so-called ‘higher welfare products’.

The charity acknowledges that progress around ‘higher welfare’ purchasing is slow, and cites cost as a potential barrier. But its data also shows that just over 60% of the people surveyed do check food labels on meat and dairy products for welfare reasons, which seems to indicate that it’s the labels themselves that are the buying barrier. And this isn’t surprising. 

WELFARE LABELLING IS MISLEADING

Research previously undertaken by Lidl revealed that 71% of its customers wanted retailers to be more transparent with their packaging information. In response, the supermarket chain introduced its Welfare Windows to help shoppers “make more informed purchasing decisions”, a move that was applauded by the RSPCA. However, in reality, the imagery and descriptions which appear on these new labels simply serve to further confuse and mislead. For example, on its ‘Indoor’ range of own-brand chicken products the label simply states that ‘Birds are grown to the legal animal welfare standards of the country’. And while Lidl does provide more details to accompany the packaging, these are published on its information-only website, not in stores where the products are being sold. 

The difficulty in determining how animals bred for food are actually raised was acknowledged by the previous government, and earlier this year it launched a consultation on fairer food labelling with the aim of providing consumers with greater transparency. However, not only is the future of this initiative now unclear, following the result of the recent General Election, but in the interim Defra, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responsible for undertaking the consultation, has allowed producers of Scottish salmon to drop the word ‘farmed’ from the labels of their farmed salmon products, a move that will clearly mislead and completely contradicts its own call for transparency.  

WELFARE WASHING IS INDUSTRY WIDE  

Misleading consumers concerning the wellbeing of farmed animals is known as welfare washing, and it is rife. It extends far beyond product labelling and across all aspects of the industry, not only fooling the public but failing over a billion innocent beings who are killed for food in the UK every year. A recent high-profile example of the practice surrounds the move by supermarkets to commit to giving the chickens in their supply chains 20% more space.

Sainsburys was the first supermarket to announce the change in March 2023, followed earlier this year by Morrisons, Coop and Lidl, and most recently, Tesco and Aldi. Each announcement was made with great fanfare, with Coop rebranding its chicken as ‘Space to Thrive’, and an RSPCA spokesperson describing Tesco’s move as “an important step forward for animal welfare and will mean many more chickens have the space to move around and exhibit their natural behaviours.” However, an explanation of what 20% more space actually means has been sorely lacking.

Given that most birds are confined to such an extent that they each have an area less than the size of an A4 sheet of paper to live on means that having 20% more room can hardly be considered ‘space to thrive’. And as the majority of chickens farmed for food are fast-growing breeds, many are physically unable to even stand within a few weeks of growth given their genetically manipulated bodyweight, let alone move around. Therefore, claims that this measure will improve chickens’ lives are highly questionable, and the farming industry is acutely aware of this. Indeed, a source is quoted as saying “we’re almost kidding them (consumers) about the welfare benefits that you’ll get”, a contemptible comment that reflects what welfare actually represents to those responsible  – a barrier to profit. 

THE HIGHER WELFARE SMOKESCREEN

This is succinctly set out by John Masson in The Secret World of Farm Animals, who notes that most farmed animals live in artificial sheds that “resemble human prisons” and that we “concentrate the animals into these places because it is convenient and profitable to do so”. And he goes on to write, “It has nothing to do with and has never had anything to do with the comfort, safety or health of the animals”. Even the RSPCA, which professes to offer a ‘kinder farming system’, subsequently qualifies this in terms of ‘commercial viability’. And it’s not just the financial interests of its RSPCA Assured farms that it’s seeking to safeguard, but its own bottom line – fees from these farms are worth an estimated £4m a year to the charity.

Writing about the true nature of welfare in Why We Love and Exploit Animals, John Sorenson states, “It draws attention away from the reality of the lives of farmed animals and substitutes a false and idealized romantic picture of benevolence and care”. And as own investigations at RSPCA Assured premises have shown, it is being used to sustain a system in which animal suffering is inherent and mistreatment a matter of routine. Whether it’s new-born chicks in vast hatcheries, chickens raised for meat on mega-farms, ‘free-range’ egg-laying hens or pigs and piglets being transported to slaughterhouses, animals kept in supposedly ‘higher welfare’ conditions are being forced to endure a torturous existence.

ANIMALS WHO ARE FARMED DESERVE A LIFE OF THEIR OWN

While the RSPCA maintains that when bred to its standards animals ‘have everything they need for a better quality of life’, can we really believe, as John Masson remonstrates, “that anybody will take care to give an animal a ‘good life’ if the point of that life is to end up as a meal on the table”. And what is a ‘good life’ for an animal who is farmed? As Masson goes on to say, “To the extent that you prevent an animal from living the way he or she evolved to live, you are creating unhappiness for that animal”. 

Whatever the reason or reasons behind the slow uptake of ‘higher welfare’ foods, it’s clear that the public is right to be resistant. But as John Sorenson notes, “it is the use, rather than simply the treatment, of animals that is the essential problem, and the enslavement of other animals is ethically unacceptable regardless of how ‘humane’ it’s purported to be”. And in this respect, there is a real opportunity for the RSPCA to bring its educational arm into play and truly act on its ‘For Every Kind’ message.

THE RSPCA CAN BE A FORCE FOR GOOD FOR ANIMALS WHO ARE FARMED

Rather than continue to support RSPCA Assured and its longstanding ‘Eat Less, Eat Better’ campaign, which advocates eating ‘higher quality animal welfare products to improve people’s health, animal welfare and the planet’ (not only contradicting the ‘For Every Kind’ message but failing to consider the far reaching and devastating consequences of animal agriculture), it could be raising awareness of the plight of animals who are farmed and proactively supporting the adoption of plant-based diets. Animals should not be treated as products, put on this earth to make a profit from, and our most respected animal welfare charity should be campaigning vehemently against this, not colluding in its continuance.

As always,

For the animals.