Labelling set in the label’s standard
Audits Distinction between different levels of
non-compliance Multiple N/P N/P National legislation or
guidance
Single N/A N/A International codes or standards
EU legislation or guidance Private rules
Independent auditors/
announced
2 levels
Multiple 3 Hearts Private rules Label’s own
auditors and independent auditors/
unannounced Yes
Single N/A N/A Private rules Independent
auditors/
announced
N/P
Multiple 3 Stars EU legislation or guidance National legislation or
Single N/A N/A International codes or standards
Multiple 5 Score (A-E) International codes or standards
EU legislation or guidance National legislation or
Labelling
system Tier(s) Number of tiers Tiers’
design Basis of AW requirements
set in the label’s standard Audits Distinction between different levels of
non-compliance Single N/A N/A International codes or
standards
EU legislation or guidance National legislation or
Single N/A N/A International codes or standards
EU legislation or guidance National legislation or
Single N/A N/A Private rules Independent
auditors/
unannounced No
N/A N/A N/A More restrictive objective
criteria than EU legislation Independent auditors/to be defined
Not defined yet
Multiple 2 Not defined
yet National legislation or guidance
yet All criteria are higher than the requirements of national
Multiple 2 Colours EU legislation or guidance National legislation or
Multiple 2 Stars Private rules Independent
auditors/
unannounced
2 levels
Single N/A N/A Private rules Independent
auditors/
announced
Yes
Single N/A N/A International codes or standards
EU legislation or guidance National legislation or
Implementation of EU legislation on 'on-farm' animal welfare: Potential EU added value from the introduction of animal welfare labelling requirements at EU level
Market penetration and impacts of the labelling systems
Table 8 shows the number of affiliates/members and the number of products certified per labelling system based on the replies provided in the online survey. It should be noted that the table only lists the labelling systems that provided relevant information.
In accordance with the data provided, the Swedish label KRAV is currently the system with most affiliates/members (approximately 6,800 between farmers and other food businesses such as processors, manufacturers and retailers). Other systems that have a large membership base are:
Label Rouge in France (6,000 farmers and other 250 affiliated food businesses);
Initiative Tierwohl in Germany (6,500 farmers and several other affiliated food businesses);
The Italian label Disciplinare di etichettatura volontaria delle carni di pollame (over 3,640 poultry breeders and few other processors and manufacturers); and
Beter Leven keurmerk (approximately 2,000 members among which 1,800 farmers).
Among the systems with fewer affiliates/members, not surprisingly there are some that have been recently established, including the Portuguese labelling system Best Farmer – Cuidamos do Bem-Estar Animal.
The number of certified/labelled products ranges from a minimum of 10 references in the case of the label Weidemelk/Weidemilch/Lait de Paturage/Meadow Milk up to 5,500 in the case of Beter Leven keurmerk and 7,000 in the case of KRAV. In fact, as previously shown in section 5.3.2.3, KRAV is the system that currently covers the highest number of species and product categories among all the systems analysed. In the case of Etiquette Bien-Être Animal, whereas the exact number of product references that display the label at present is not known, retail sales accounted for 30 million products sold in 2020 and there is the prospect of reaching 45 million transactions in 2021.
Table 8. Number of farmers, processors, manufacturers, retailers and products certified are affiliated to the labelling systems
Labelling system Farmers Processors Manufacturers Retailers Products
certified
380 12 N/P 18 500
1,594 57 6 2,600 N/P
1 0 0 0 N/P
1,800 434 processors, 33 logistics, 4 food services, 22 egg packing stations, 56 chain
managers, 51 slaughterhouses 23 5,500
30 0 0 0 N/P
0 2 2 0 N/P
3,643 19 19 0 N/P
500 200 100 25 N/P
Labelling system Farmers Processors Manufacturers Retailers Products certified
1,100 0 2 5
N/A 30 millions of products sold
in 2020 90% of the Dutch
farmers All the large
processors All the large
manufacturers All the large
retailers N/P
6,500 100 50 All leading
retailers in
Germany N/P
48 11 27 0 N/P
4,000 ± 800 (including processors, retailers, restaurants etc.) ±7,000
6,000 250 companies (including hatcheries, feed
manufacturers, slaughterhouses etc) N/P >220
144 3 3 5 25
425 63 25
Almost all retailers in
Germany 200
17 170 170 25 10
500 50 50 10 25
Legend: N/A = Not applicable; N/P = Not provided | Source: Online survey
Overall, there is little information available on the impact of the labelling systems studied on food businesses as well as on consumer confidence and understanding of AW practices.
Only some among the labelling systems analysed have carried out studies in this respect and very few, in fact, conduct research on a regular basis. By way of an example, Beter Leven keurmerk measures consumer confidence once or twice a year with the latest research showing that 94% of Dutch consumers recognise the label.208 The Danish national labelling system Bedre dyrevelfærd also measures consumer confidence every year with the latest research showing that 75% of Danish consumers trust it.209 Also, various studies indicate that around 97% of French households can recognise the logo of Label Rouge210 to which they associate greater quality, taste and respect of AW.
Based on the responses provided by the labelling systems in the online survey, almost half of the respondents (n=11) clearly indicated that they have never investigated or measured whether their label effectively contributes towards a better consumer understanding of the relevant production systems. This is therefore an aspect on which future consumer research might focus. Likewise, the impact of these labelling systems on the actual welfare of the species covered needs to be further researched as evidence in this respect is generally limited and information collected during this research is primarily based on perceived benefits.
5.3.2. Comparative assessment of selected animal welfare labelling systems
Building on the mapping of the existing labelling systems covering AW generated through the online survey, further research was carried out with the objective to deepen the understanding of
Implementation of EU legislation on 'on-farm' animal welfare: Potential EU added value from the introduction of animal welfare labelling requirements at EU level their functioning and draw comparisons across a more limited sample (n=11), which was selected in accordance with the criteria listed in section 2.3 (‘AW labelling interviews’).
As referred earlier on, to this effect the critical evaluation framework developed by More at al. (2017) was used and adapted to produce a targeted comparison between the labelling systems selected for further analysis in terms of their:
“Scientific substantiation” and namely whether and to what extent the label’s standard underpinning the system:
Is based on science;
May be reviewed in light of scientific progress; and
Takes into account output-based measures alongside input-based measures.
“Effectiveness” and namely whether the governance of the system foresees:
That its overall performance is subject to regular review or evaluation;
Strategies and/or incentives to broaden the membership base as a way to mainstream AW in the relevant production chain(s); and
Strategies and/or incentives to ensure continuous improvements by members as far as AW practices are concerned.
“Efficiency” and namely whether and to what extent:
Clearly defined policies on allocation of costs deriving from the participation in the system are in place;
Coordination with other auditing requirements is in place; and
Synergies with other international, national or local initiatives on AW exist.
“Transparency” and namely whether:
The label’s standard is publicly available;
The governing bodies of the system regularly report on its activities and, if so, how;
Adequate publicity is given to the key activities to be undertaken by the system in future, including the update and the broadening of the scope of the label’s standard;
Specific policies aimed at avoiding situations of conflict of interest in the context of the key activities performed by the system (notably, standard-setting and auditing) are in place; and,
Members can appeal against the decisions taken by the labelling system affecting them.
Scientific substantiation
Table 9 shows how the labelling systems under study perform in terms of scientific substantiation.
Based on the information gathered through the online survey and the interviews of the owners/managers of the labelling systems studied, all systems take science into account to a varying degree for the development of the requirements/criteria underpinning the label’s standard. In a majority of cases (n=6) scientific information relevant to AW is complemented by other criteria, including practical experience gained on AW practices, stakeholders’ technical expertise and/or good practices or recommendations by NGOs. In other cases (n=4) only science provides the basis for the content of the label’s standard.
The scientific sources used for the development of the label’s standard are specific to each system.
Overall, EFSA output and science underpinning EU and/or national legislation or that results from EU funding (e.g. Welfare Quality protocols) are taken into account by the systems studied (n=6). In few cases (n=2) scientific output of national academic or technical research bodies constitutes the starting point for the development of the requirements/criteria of the label’s standard (e.g. Label Rouge and Weidemelk/Weidemilch/Lait de Paturage/Meadow Milk).
Most systems studied have procedures in place allowing the review of the label’s standard to take into account new scientific knowledge and/or changes that may occur in the relevant legal
whereas the governance of other systems (n=4) foresees more flexibility in that respect. Only in one case (Weidemelk/Weidemilch/Lait de Paturage/Meadow Milk) there is no procedure in place, in all likelihood due to the basic nature of the requirements underpinning the label’s standard (i.e. cows in pasture). In the case of the Spanish label Welfair, the update of the label’s standard is out of its remit depending on the review of the quality protocols by the Welfare Quality Network and the Animal Welfare Indicator Network (AWIN).
Finally, the analysis conducted shows that the label’s standard of most systems in the sample (n=8) consists of a mixture of different AW requirements. These include input-based measures, which may be complemented by outcome-based/ABMs211 on the farm and/or at slaughter. In few cases (e.g.
Beter Leven keurmerk and KRAV) ABMs do not constitute formally part of the label’s standard as of yet, although awareness about their importance and implications as AW indicators is raised in the context of advisory programmes or guidance documents addressed to affiliates/members. The Dutch label Weidemelk/Weidemilch/Lait de Paturage/Meadow Milk is the only system that does not rely on ABMs and, once again, this is most likely due to the basic nature of the requirements underpinning the label’s standard.
As it will be shown under section 5.3.2.4, most systems studied make publicly available the label’s standard.
Based on the analysis performed, overall, the level of scientific substantiation of the systems analysed can be considered satisfactory. However, future research may contribute to a better understanding of how the AW science taken as reference by each system has been translated in the label’s standard. Likewise, future research could draw more targeted comparisons in terms of scientific substantiation across systems covering the same animal species.