Labeling of Humanely or Alternatively Produced Foods

Current Labeling

Three groups in Canada have programs to identify alternatively raised meat, dairy and egg products. All three have their own guidelines with the key requirements being:

• No intensive confinement of animals
• Minimum space allowance
• Antibiotic use for therapeutic purposes only

The groups are the Winnipeg Humane Society, the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA) and the Canadian Farm Animal Care Trust (CANFACT). CANFACT has the use of the brand name ‘Freedom Foods’ which was originally developed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).

Some livestock producers in Canada also market their own ‘alternatively’ produced foods direct to consumers via farm gate sales, Farmer’s Markets and retail outlets.

In the United States, the ‘Certified Humane Raised and Handled’ label is administered by Humane Farm Animal Care. Launched on May 22, 2003 this labeling and certification program has the following auditable producer requirements:

• Housing conditions that provide sufficient space, shelter and company of same-species animals to limit stress
• Quality feed that is free of antibiotics
• No added growth hormones

Meat processors must comply with the American Meat Institute Standards, a higher standard than the Federal (USA) Humane Slaughter Act.

Effects of Labeling

Method of production claims on food has the potential to:

• Provide consumers with choice through product differentiation according to aspects of production that are important to them;
• Raise awareness of certain aspects of food production methods, such as animal handling practices and their impact on animal welfare;
• Lead the way in raising standards; and
• Encourage innovation.

However, labeling can:

• Mislead consumers if the claims are not associated with real improvements;
• Unfairly discredit other acceptable practices by creating the impression that other methods of production are inferior;
• Undermine standards that have been identified through expert input and collaboration, such as Canada’s Recommended Codes of Practice for the care and handling of farm animals; and
• Apply non-scientific criteria that could in fact have an adverse effect, such as animal suffering.

(Stakeholder comments from the annual Meeting of the Expert Committee on Farm Animal Welfare and Behavior, June 2001)

In Alberta

At present, food animal production in Alberta, be it on an intensive or extensive farming operation, is done by people who care about their animals, their environment and the food they produce. They demonstrate this through a number of ways:

• Raising their animals humanely and meeting or exceed the standards of care and handling in Canada’s Recommended Codes of Practice.
• Strongly supporting the enforcement of laws in place to protect livestock welfare on farm, during transport and at abattoirs.
• Strongly supporting the Alberta SPCA which has a mandate to ensure all animals are humanely raised

Consumer choice drives the marketplace. Consumers want safe, healthy food. They want this food to come from animals that have been humanely raised and euthanized. And, they want to purchase this food as cheaply as possible.

At present, those using method of production claims which incorporate words like ‘alternative’, ‘free range’, ‘free farmed’ and ‘humanely raised,’ do so without government accreditation. At present, though many of the auditing processes are endorsed by respected animal welfare groups, scientists and researchers they lack the consistency that federal government accreditation and verification will provide.

The RSPCA has somewhat addressed this situation on its ‘Freedom Food’ website. They state that “free-range systems might not always provide adequate shelter, proper drainage or protection from predators” and that organic systems do not always connote high animal welfare standards.

The assumption that extensive systems provide for better animal welfare than intensive or confined systems is countered by UK evidence. Mr. David Pritchard, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), United Kingdom reported in his presentation at the Universities Federation ‘Science in the Service of Animal Welfare’ Symposium in April 2003 that there is a significant disparity in the level of compliance of his department’s welfare standards between intensive and extensive systems. The latter for grazed animals showed consistently poorer results.

Alberta producer, Simon Goodwin, succinctly sums up the feelings of many involved in the livestock industry. “Animal welfare practices are only as good as the people using them. It’s stockmanship and husbandry that determine the level of animal welfare NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM is used. I don’t want legislation to decide which system is best.”