In today’s consumer-driven world, many individuals are becoming increasingly aware of the ethical implications of their food choices, particularly concerning animal products. The harsh realities faced by animals in agricultural facilities—ranging from overcrowded conditions and painful procedures to premature slaughter—have prompted a significant number of consumers to seek out products that promise humane and ethical treatment. However, the labels on these products, designed to guide conscientious buyers, often obscure the grim truths of standard industry practices.
This article delves into the complexities and often misleading nature of labels such as “humanely raised,” “cage-free,” and “natural.” It examines how the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) approves these claims and highlights the significant gaps between consumer perceptions and the actual conditions animals endure. By exploring the definitions and standards—or lack thereof—behind these labels, the article sheds light on the reality that many so-called humane practices fall short of genuine animal welfare.
Moreover, the discussion extends to third-party certifications, which, while potentially more reliable than FSIS approvals, still perpetuate the notion that ethical animal agriculture is achievable. Through this exploration, the article aims to inform and empower consumers to make more informed decisions, challenging the deceptive marketing that often accompanies animal products.
Animals in agriculture facilities endure cruelty every single day. Many suffer from tight, overcrowded conditions, painful procedures without anesthetic, and slaughter long before they would naturally die. A lot of consumers discover this and rightfully want to avoid animal products made in such a way.
However, the reality is that most labels to help consumers decide how well an animal is raised can actually mask the cruel and inhumane practices that are standard in the industry.
How Does the USDA Approve Food Labels?
Claims on food packaging about how an animal is raised is optional. However, t if a food manufacturer wants to make such claims on their packaging, they need to get approval from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The manufacturer must submit different types of documentation to the FSIS, depending on the kind of claim they want to make.
“Humanely Raised”, “Raised With Care”, “Sustainably Raised”
The term “humanely raised” can be particularly misleading to consumers. The word humane brings to mind images of a human lovingly taking care of an animal. Sadly, this is not the case.
When seeking approval for labels like “humane,” “raised with care,” and “sustainably raised,” the FSIS does not give specific guidelines for what the term means. Instead, they let manufacturers define it themselves by submitting their definition and putting it on their product’s label or on their website.
However, the definition accepted by the FSIS can be loose. This means that chickens in an overcrowded and cruel agricultural facility could be defined as “humanely raised” simply because they get fed vegetarian feed. This does not line up with most people’s idea of “humane,” yet that is how the producer chose to define it.
“Cage-Free,” “Free-Range”, “Pasture Raised”
“Cage-free” likewise brings to mind happy images of chickens getting to do activities like wander around a field. But, “cage-free” simply means that chickens are not kept in tight cages. They may still be in a crowded indoor facility and open to suffering from other cruel practices.
New male chicks that hatch may still immediately be killed because they can’t lay eggs. Female chicks might undergo painful removals of part of the beak to stop abnormal pecking due to stress. Both practices are extremely common in the industry.
“Free-range” and “pasture-raised” go a bit farther but similarly avoid telling about other cruel animal agriculture practices. “Free-range,” means that an animal is given outdoor access for 51% of its life, but how much access is left undefined. “Pasture-raised” means they get that access for their growout period before they are slaughtered.
“Natural”
“Natural,” is defined as being minimally processed and containing no artificial ingredients or added color. This has no relevance for how an animal is treated and as such claims aren’t even handled by the FSIS within the USDA. The billions of animals slaughtered every year in the U.S. by animal agriculture is far from a “natural” world for them.
Third-Party Certifications
A variety of third-party certifications allow manufacturers to adhere to a set of standards and perhaps even independent auditing to earn a seal on their packaging. For a lot of animal-raising claims a third-party certificate might be more reliable than just approval from the FSIS.
But all animal product labels are misleading to a certain extent by promoting the idea that there is a good and just way to do animal agriculture. Even very credible and well-meaning third-party certifications, tend to overlook cruel practices, such as castration without anesthetic.
At the end of the day a pig does not want to give birth to piglets just so they can be raised to be slaughtered. A cow does not want to spend the majority of their life being overmilked. A chicken does not want to be killed years before they would naturally die in the wild. Animal agriculture should not exist full stop. If you haven’t already, consider going vegan at TryVeg.com.
What Animal Outlook is doing to help animals
Animal Outlook has undertaken multiple legal actions against producers that mislead consumers with deceptive labels, including a recent one against Alderfer Farms.
References:
- The Legality of Food Labeling Claims: FSIS’s Regulations for Meat and Poultry Labeling
- Food labels, claims and animal welfare
- Food Safety and Inspection Service Labeling Guideline on Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label Submissions
- How to decipher food labels
- A Consumer’s Guide to Food Labels and Animal Welfare
Notice: This content was initially published on AnimalOutlook.org and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Humane Foundation.
