Legislation/Policy Article from All-Creatures.org

Why "high welfare" labels slow the shift to veganism

From EthicalGlobe.com
November 2024

Only by rejecting compromise and embracing a vision of total liberation can the animal rights movement achieve its ultimate goal. ‘High welfare’ certifications are not a step forward – they’re a distraction. It is time to move beyond them and demand a world where all animals are free from harm, not just a little less harm.

In recent years, ‘high welfare’ certifications and labels, such as RSPCA Assured, have become commonplace in the marketing of animal-derived products.

They claim to signify ethical progress: chickens with more space, sows no longer subjected to farrowing crates, cows grazing outdoors. Yet, the uncomfortable truth is that these labels may not only perpetuate the exploitation of our fellow animals but actively hinder a shift towards plant-based eating and veganism.

The idea that any system of raising and slaughtering sentient beings can be deemed “humane” is a fallacy that undermines the foundational ethos of animal rights.

This blog explores why ‘high welfare’ certifications may increase the consumption of animal flesh and secretions and serve corporate interests more than ethical goals, and why it’s time for the animal freedom movement to reject incremental reforms that validate the exploitation of animals.

Common ‘high welfare’ labels

So-called ‘high welfare’ or animal welfare-friendly (AWF) labels vary worldwide. In the UK, consumers look for labels such as:

• Soil Association Organic
• RSPCA Assured
• Red Tractor
• Pasture for Life
• Organic (UK Origin)
• Pasture Promise
• Free Range
• Scottish Organic Producers Association (SOPA)
• Organic Farmers & Growers (OF&G)

Each label is associated with promises or standards concerning how specific farmed animal species are born, raised, and eventually murdered.

Marketing images for each of these labels tend to feature fit and healthy farmed animals roaming free in lush green fields against a backdrop of clear blue skies. If they are photographed indoors, they’re in clean conditions with plenty of space—a far cry from the reality that 80% of farmed animals in the UK exist in intensive factory environments.

‘High welfare’ labels and moral licensing

‘High welfare’ labels allow consumers to feel good about consuming fellow animals. This is an example of a phenomenon known as moral licensing, which is when people do something that they perceive to be morally good (e.g. buying ‘high welfare’ foods) as a way to offset something they believe to be morally bad (e.g. killing a pig for their flesh). [Moral licensing: a culture-moderated meta-analysis]

Paradoxically, moral licensing can lead to increased consumption of the very products the labels claim to address.

When a package of dead chicken, for example, advertises “certified humane” or “RSPCA Assured,” it signals to consumers that their purchase aligns with their values. But, as we saw with Animal Rising’s investigation into the RSPCA Assured label, consumers can’t always trust what they’re told.

Research published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (“A Steak for Supper If the Cow Does Not Suffer”) demonstrates that consumers are willing to pay more for products with animal welfare certifications.

The article also highlights Dutch market research from 2018 in which “meat products and fresh meat with animal welfare certificates experienced substantial growth in sales of 170% and 35%, respectively”.

This indicates not a demand reduction but a sustained or even heightened commitment to consuming animal-derived products under the illusion of ethical eating.

This mindset directly contradicts the goals of ethical veganism, which seeks to dismantle the systems of exploitation, not repackage them as kinder alternatives.

Why incremental change is a misguided strategy

For decades, the animal freedom movement has championed incremental reforms rather than an overnight end to the animal agriculture industry. ‘High welfare’ labels are an example of this.

Campaigns have called for an end to sow farrowing stalls, more space for chickens, outdoor grazing access for cows in the dairy industry, an end to “Frankenchicken” breeding. While each small change or victory may appear to improve conditions, they fall short of challenging the fundamental injustice of exploiting sentient beings for human benefit.

Such reforms are akin to a human rights organisation campaigning for enslaved children to have occasional play days or better living conditions rather than for the abolition of slavery itself. Most people would recognise that this is morally problematic!

By focusing on incremental changes, the movement risks reinforcing the status quo (i.e. some abuse is acceptable) rather than inspiring the systemic change necessary to end the exploitation of our animal kin.

Corporations and the PR benefits of ‘high welfare’ labels

Corporations quickly align themselves with animal welfare causes, not out of altruism, but because of the public relations benefits.

SIGWATCH is a leading consultancy and data provider on activism that supports corporations in helping them understand and engage with activists and NGOs around emerging trends. In a recent article, this company suggested that “if a corporation wants to make an NGO its friend, it should get behind animal rights.”

Why is this?

As we’ve seen above, the drive for incremental change means that animal freedom campaigns often exist in a moral grey area, where almost any improvement in how farmed animals are kept is seen as progress for the movement.

As a result, animal rights organisations tend to praise companies for adopting higher welfare standards, even though such commitments often prove to be shallow or unfulfilled. SIGWATCH says that animal rights groups are three times more likely to praise corporations than groups from any other cause.

Campaigners may want to use commitments by big-name brands to shame other competitors within the food industry into making an ethical shift. Well-known corporations have the money and influence to reach wider audiences.

The problem is, to quote the words of documentary maker Christopher Shoebridge in a recent LinkedIn post, that there is something of a pattern. Corporations:

1. Make grand promises about improvements to animal welfare
2. Enjoy the marketing boost of great PR and increased sales
3. Delay, obstruct, or eventually drop the improvements entirely when they think everyone’s forgotten

For example, despite significant fanfare when the commitment was initially announced, KFC UK & Ireland recently dropped its pledge to stop using fast-growing chickens (commonly referred to as “Frankenchickens”). The company claims their commitment simply isn’t possible due to a lack of higher-welfare animals.

To soften the backlash, KFC UK and Ireland’s Head of Sustainability, Ruth Edge, is quoted by The Guardian as stating, “We’re not saying we’re never going to, but we’re saying for 2026, and the way the market has developed, or lack of, we’re not going to be able to do it.”

Similarly, many corporations fail to meet their cage-free egg commitments, yet still enjoy positive PR from the initial announcements.

This dynamic allows corporations to benefit from the appearance of ethical responsibility without making meaningful changes. Worse, it perpetuates the myth that “humane meat” is achievable. Both issues are at the core of concerns about welfare washing.

There is no such thing as ‘high welfare’ slaughter

The concept of ‘high welfare meat’ is a contradiction in terms; even the word “meat” masks the reality that we are talking about flesh and secretions from individuals who have complex emotional lives and who deserve equal consideration of their interests, including the right to live.

No amount of space, enrichment, or access to the outdoors can justify the killing of a sentient being for profit. The act of raising and slaughtering certain species of our animal kin for food inherently involves pain, fear, and death. This is not welfare; it’s exploitation.

The animal freedom movement cannot compromise on this fundamental truth. Accepting ‘high welfare’ labels as progress dilutes the movement’s message and legitimises the continued suffering of our fellow animals.

Here at Ethical Globe, we believe the goal must be clear and uncompromising: an end to the use of our fellow animals for food, clothing, and other forms of exploitation.

A call for a change in thinking

While the consumption of animal flesh has fallen by 17% in the UK over the last decade, globally it’s still increasing.

Experts say the figures in the UK can be attributed to smaller portion sizes, the cost-of-living crisis, health concerns, and environmental concerns rather than ethical concerns relating to how farmed animals live and die.

Worldwide, animal welfare-friendly labels don’t appear to be making much of a difference. They’re just covering up a cruel and relentless industry with a veneer of compassion.

To achieve meaningful change, the animal freedom movement must reject incrementalism in favour of bold, systemic advocacy. This doesn’t mean abandoning campaigns for immediate improvements in animal welfare but reframing these efforts as steps toward abolition rather than ends in themselves.

It is time to challenge the narrative that animal exploitation can ever be “humane”. ‘High welfare’ labels do not reduce harm; they obscure it. Instead of encouraging consumers to feel better about eating fellow animals, we must invite them to question the system that makes such choices seem normal.

The path forward

How can we make a difference? Our view is that advocates must:

1. Expose the myth of “humane meat”: Educate the public about the realities of ‘high welfare’ systems and the inherent cruelty of raising and killing fellow animals for food.
2. Hold corporations accountable: Demand transparency and meaningful action from companies that make welfare claims and publicly criticise those who fall short.
3. Promote plant-based alternatives: Focus on building a future where plant-based eating is the norm, reducing demand for animal-derived products entirely.
4. Adopt an abolitionist stance: Shift the movement’s narrative from incremental change to unequivocal opposition to animal exploitation.

Only by rejecting compromise and embracing a vision of total liberation can the animal rights movement achieve its ultimate goal. ‘High welfare’ certifications are not a step forward – they’re a distraction. It is time to move beyond them and demand a world where all animals are free from harm, not just a little less harm. 

---

Posted on All-Creatures.org: December 2, 2024
Return to Legislation/Policy Articles