This section presents and discusses the findings emerging from EU-level and national interviews with regard to the potential scope and design of a future EU-wide AW label, either mandatory or voluntary, in accordance with the respective positions expressed by each stakeholder in this respect (see previous section 5.4.1).
General vs species-specific label
EU and national stakeholders interviewed across all categories consider that the development of an EU-wide AW label based on criteria common to all animal species would bring little added value knowing that the very notion of AW varies to a significant extent across farmed animal species. The development of AW labelling requirements that are modelled on the specific ethological characteristics of the animal and take into account the modern production methods is the most common approach among the labelling systems covering AW that are currently present on the EU market, as illustrated under section 5.3.1.3.
For most EU business stakeholders, the species for which harmonised AW labelling requirements should be developed at EU level in the first place are those currently covered by EU legislation. Only after that EU AW labelling requirements for “secondary” species (e.g. bees) could be elaborated.
Overall, European AW NGOs share also this position, suggesting that broilers could be a good starting point for the development of harmonised AW labelling requirements at EU level. The results of the survey conducted by the German Presidency show that NCAs consider that, as a matter of priority, an EU-wide AW label should cover the following species: pigs, broilers, beef cattle, calves, dairy cows and laying hens. At national level, when present, these priorities generally tend to reflect the most important species in terms of national or local production.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that developing species-specific criteria underpinning AW labelling is quite a challenging endeavour. By way of an example, it took three years to the German NCA to establish AW labelling requirements at national level only for pigs.
Stages of the life of the animal to be covered
1
2
3
7
2
2
6 3
1
2 3
7
10
7
5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Net costs (n=15)
Net savings (n=15)
Loss of commercial opportunities (n=15)
Increase of commercial opportunities (n=16)
High impact Medium impact Low impact No impact Don't know
Implementation of EU legislation on 'on-farm' animal welfare: Potential EU added value from the introduction of animal welfare labelling requirements at EU level Overall, EU and national stakeholders across all categories who were consulted for the elaboration of this research paper have stated to be in favour of an integrated approach to labelling that would cover all stages of the life of the animal that are relevant from an AW standpoint (that is rearing, transport and slaughter). Nevertheless, for few stakeholders this approach might pose some practical challenges, namely if national enforcement authorities were to verify compliance with the applicable labelling requirements. As referred also under section 5.4.1, not only would this raise issues of capacity (the ability of MS NCAs to inspect regularly farms is notoriously limited) but also issues of competence, to apply an audit approach to a wide variety of food business operators (e.g.
farmers, transporters and slaughterhouses).
Going beyond AW
The Farm to Fork strategy, which was published by the EC in May 2020,215 has opened the discussion at EU level on the development of a dedicated policy and legislative framework for the regulation of sustainability labels for food products. This discussion is relevant also for AW as the latter is generally regarded as one among the different aspects enshrined in the concept of sustainability.
In this respect, most EU stakeholders interviewed across all categories – in addition to 84% of the MS that took part in the survey of the German Presidency referred above under section 5.4.1 – consider that the scope of a future EU-wide AW label should cover only AW-related aspects. In fact, it is generally believed that the importance of AW would be somehow diminished in case this extrinsic product dimension is addressed in the context of a labelling system covering other product aspects.
Also, a mixed approach could potentially lead to certain technical contradictions that may be difficult to address: for instance, while for certain species highly intensive animal production systems guarantee lower levels of AW, the same systems may have a reduced impact on the environment and be more effective for managing AH and food safety than extensive production systems (e.g. this would be the case of laying hens and broilers in the view of the European poultry sector). For EU-level AW NGOs, the development of an EU label covering AW alongside other production aspects looks a difficult endeavour technically and politically, which could delay the whole process.
Based on the interviews conducted, only EU-level stakeholders of the meat industry sector appear to be in favour of a more holistic approach to labelling of animal-based products combining AW together other production dimensions and notably sustainability.
Models for an EU-wide label
Having to consider national labelling systems covering AW that could serve as a model for the development of an EU-wide label, Beter Leven keurmerk in the Netherlands and Etiquette Bien-Être Animal in France were those most frequently mentioned by EU-level stakeholders interviewed across all categories.
Both the above referred systems are multi-tier labels. As illustrated earlier under section 5.3.1.4, because of the way they are designed multi-tier or multi-level labelling systems foresee different levels of compliance with progressively higher AW requirements. For EU-level business stakeholders, in particular, these systems present the advantage that they have the status of voluntary certifications and are entirely market-driven. This means that the choice to join the system and evolve towards more virtuous levels of compliance within the system lies entirely with the individual business operator.
Likewise, a multi-tier design is the preferred option by European and national AW NGOs, as such a design generally allows the visual development of easy-to-grasp messages addressed to the final consumer. For most NGOs consulted the pictorial representation of the level of AW that a food product meets needs to be accompanied by a labelling text indicating the specifying method of production (MoP) used at the farm of origin (e.g. enriched cages, free-range etc.).
This is however a position that is far from being consensual in particular among the national business stakeholders that were consulted during the research. Effectively, in some MS (e.g. Italy, Spain) multi-tier labels are considered ill-suited for the national market and its local consumers and even regarded as potentially discriminatory commercial practices.
Finally, account should be given of the fact that national interviews have proved that the range of labels identified as possible models for a future EU-wide label is much wider than the two labels mentioned above. In this context, examples of well-performing labels at national level include the Danish national AW label Bedre Dyrevelfaerd, the German Initiative Tierwohl, the quality label Board Bia in Ireland, and the label of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in the UK, among others.
Implementation of EU legislation on 'on-farm' animal welfare: Potential EU added value from the introduction of animal welfare labelling requirements at EU level