By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Alex Gonzalez for Nevada News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

American grocery shoppers say they care about animal welfare at the supermarket, and the food industry is paying attention. Branding meat, dairy and eggs with the “humanely raised” label has become increasingly common, and according to the meat industry’s research, these types of labels are enough to satisfy buyers. A 2024 study found 55 percent of Americans “feel good about animal welfare practices” in the United States — up from 43 percent in 2020. Why the uptick in such labels? Not only do they seem to be working, these labels are shockingly easy to obtain — and largely unregulated.

Who’s in Charge of Labeling Claims?

The claims you encounter on meat labels are overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspections Service (FSIS). The agency reviews company claims made on food labels, about how livestock animals are raised.…such as “humanely raised,” “ethically raised,” and the like. But what does a brand have to do in order to get its label approved?

First, the company must fill out a form, and add required documentation, including a sketch, also known as a printer’s proof, of the label, along with written substantiation for any claims. “Processors need to submit documentation explaining what practices were used,” John Bovay, associate professor in food and agricultural policy at Virginia Tech, tells Sentient. The documentation should show “how farms ensured that the practices were used throughout the animal’s life.” The agency reviews the documentation, Bovay says, “and the label is approved or disapproved based on the documentation provided by processors.”

Yet no one actually goes onto farms to inspect that the claims are accurate, Bovay says. “USDA does not send inspectors to farms to verify any label claims, but relies on written substantiation or documentation from processors.”

How is Humane Defined?

Consumers might be surprised to learn there is no legal definition for this marketing claim. “USDA does not define ‘humanely raised’ or other labeling terms related to animal welfare,” Bovay explains, “so processors can create their own definitions.”

“The only thing that the guidelines require is that the company include how it chooses to define humanely raised, either on the package itself or links to where a consumer can find that definition on the company’s website,” Zack Strong, senior attorney and acting director with Animal Welfare Institute’s Farmed Animal program, tells Sentient. In some cases, he says, “humanely raised” might mean not being caged or being fed a vegetarian diet. But it could also refer to what are already standard industry conditions on factory farms.

Bovay concurs. “It appears that ‘humane’ can be used to describe standard farming practices or even concepts unrelated to animal welfare. The current FSIS guidelines on substantiating animal-raising labeling claims provide an example of a product with a ‘humanely raised’ label, where the term ‘humanely raised’ is defined as ‘fed all vegetarian diet with no animal by-products.’” He says “this diet doesn’t strike me as assuring that the animal was humanely raised.”

A 2023 review by the Animal Welfare Institute, which advocates for better labeling oversight, found that for 48 of the 97 the label claims it investigated, “the USDA was unable to provide any application submitted by the producer,” in response to a records request made by the group. In 34 of the claims, the corporate applicant provided either no substantiation at all or insufficient substantiation. In total, AWI found 85 percent of the applications lacked sufficient substantiation.

In the report, AWI researchers provide examples of inefficient substantiation, including documentation showing only minimum industry animal care standards were followed or claims where only one aspect of care, such as diet, was included. The AWI is not aware of any corrective action taken, or penalties imposed by FSIS in response to the findings in the group’s report, Strong says.

In August 2024, the USDA updated its guidelines. It now includes that the FSIS “strongly recommends” substantiating claims by obtaining third-party certification, which is aimed at a range of claims, including antibiotic use and animal welfare. But the new guidelines are a recommendation only, and may not go any further once President-elect Trump heads back to the White House.

The same lack of oversight holds for other marketing materials too, says Strong. “Pamphlets, brochures, website information that might also accompany a product in the store or online — none of that information needs [government] approval,” he says. “The only thing that needs approval is the label itself that’s on the product,” and, as we’ve seen, that approval doesn’t take much to obtain.

The Bottom Line

There are other labeling schemes worth mentioning. Some third party certification programs, such as Animal Welfare Approved, Global Animal Partnership and Certified Humane, do have specific standards around what humane means.

On its website Certified Humane states “Our goal is to ensure that farm animals are raised in humane conditions, free from abnormal distress, and allowed to express their natural behaviors.” Consumers should be aware, however, that unlike Organic, these labels are not defined or regulated by law.

As the market for “humane” food labels continues to grow, a lack of regulation and of clear definitions for humane meat claims leaves consumers vulnerable. The terms “humane” and “humanely raised” can vary widely in meaning, or mean nothing at all. Without more stringent oversight, clearer definitions and on-site verifications, the risk of humane-washing persists, victimizing both consumers and animals.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Pork producers are expected to argue against California's animal welfare laws at a hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Agriculture.

The witnesses all oppose California's Proposition 12, which establishes minimum space requirements for egg-laying hens and breeding pigs and bans the sale of products failing to comply with those standards.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the advocacy group Animal Wellness Action, said factory farms have too much influence on the federal government.

"The American public doesn't support confining an animal so severely that she can't even turn around," Pacelle asserted. "These crates and cages that they jam breeding sows and laying hens into don't give the animals any opportunity to move."

Across the country, 1,200 producers already comply with Proposition 12 and currently supply pork and eggs to California, according to a report released this week by Animal Wellness Action.

Last week, the Department of Justice sued the State of California, seeking to invalidate parts of Proposition 12, arguing the standards are expensive to implement and drive up the cost of eggs.

Pacelle noted avian flu reduced the supply of eggs and drove up prices. He added California pork and egg producers have already spent millions to comply with Proposition 12.

"The egg producers in California want to keep that law," Pacelle contended. "They don't want to be undercut by cheap eggs coming from Mexico or Iowa, where the animals are jammed, wing to wing, shoulder to shoulder, and can't even move. I mean, giving the animal space may cost a couple of pennies more, but it's what's right."

Congress is considering whether the next Farm Bill should include a proposal to invalidate many state animal welfare laws. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act would overturn Proposition 12 and similar laws in other states.


get more stories like this via email

A new "Compassion Calculator" launched by the charity portal FarmKind aims to help Coloradans who eat meat improve their animal welfare footprints by funneling small donations to verified nonprofits, similar to how polluting companies buy offsets to reduce their carbon footprints.

Thom Norman, cofounder of FarmKind, said the calculator makes it easy for anyone to help end the controversial practice of factory farming, where large numbers of animals are confined in small spaces to produce dairy, eggs and meat as cheaply as possible.

"Most people agree that factory farming is bad, almost half of people in America say that they want to see a ban on new factory farms," Norman reported. "But people often don't know what they can do to help with this problem."

Proponents of factory farming have argued it is necessary to meet growing demand from a rising global population but Norman believes the marketplace is shifting. One recipient of the donations, The Humane League, led successful campaigns to get McDonald's, Panera, Starbucks and Taco Bell to stop using eggs from hens confined in cages so small, birds could not stretch their wings or stand upright.

The shift to cage-free eggs has accelerated after 11 states, including Colorado, set regulations on so-called conventional eggs and the recent bird flu crisis, which led to the loss of more than 125 million U.S. hens.

Norman argued the crowded, high stress conditions in cages are not only inhumane, they also present a clear risk of rapid disease transmission.

"It also is a major driver of public health risks, like for example, antibiotic resistant diseases," Norman stressed. "We feed three quarters of all antibiotics to animals."

FarmKind recently announced its first partnership with a major restaurant chain to use the calculator at scale. Animal welfare effects are offset by three cents per hamburger, and just two cents for an omelet. Norman estimated a three cent offset on last year's global burger sales, less than the cost of a ketchup packet, would have generated nearly $80 million to help create a more humane food system.


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota's transition to the warmer months has been rough when factoring in air quality.

Just like in 2023, there are occasional bouts of unhealthy smoke from Canadian wildfires and animal experts said pets need protection, too. The American Humane Society said just like their owners, the respiratory systems of dogs and cats can suffer when smoky conditions come on strong.

Dr. Thomas Edling, chief veterinary officer of the Humane Society, said dogs need their outside time on a daily basis but when the air quality is bad, it should to be limited to mainly bathroom breaks. He discussed complications with dogs unable to resist running around.

"Younger dogs, especially, are very prone to doing that," Edling observed. "And when do that, you just make the situation worse, because you are breathing more air in quickly, more particulate matter, things like that."

He added owners should avoid activities like playing fetch during brief outdoor moments with their dog. The Humane Society said older pets and certain breeds, including French bulldogs and pugs, are more susceptible to poor air quality and require extra vigilance.

Edling echoed guidance from other health experts who said when the air is filled with smoke, pet owners should keep their windows and doors closed. If a pet's food and water bowl is normally placed outside, they need to be brought in.

"Those will be a collection point for the particulate matter in the air as it falls down and that debris will contaminate the food and the water," Edling pointed out.

After any outdoor activity, owners are encouraged to monitor their pet for coughing, sneezing and difficulty breathing. If the animal shows signs it breathed in too much unhealthy air, a veterinarian should be consulted for possible treatment.


get more stories like this via email