Archive: Farmed Animals

Eighty-eight percent of American consumers believe that claims such as “humanely raised” or “sustainably farmed” on meat and poultry products should be based on meaningful, measurable standards, according to a newly released survey.

The online survey of more than 2,000 US adults was conducted this month by The Harris Poll on behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). Since 2010, AWI has commissioned five polls evaluating consumer attitudes about the claims used on meat and poultry packaging; in every survey, at least 80% of respondents agreed that food producers should not be allowed to use the claim “humanely raised” on their meat or poultry product labels unless the producers exceed minimum industry animal care standards.

Surveys conducted by other organizations similarly have found that American consumers are increasingly aware of, and concerned about, how animals raised for food are treated.

“Consumers overwhelmingly agree that the meat and poultry industry should no longer be allowed to set its own definition of ‘humanely raised’ and charge a premium for products that have not been independently verified as higher welfare,” said Zack Strong, director of AWI’s Farmed Animal Program. “Our survey results consistently show that the public demands stronger government regulation of animal-raising claims.”

For more than a decade, AWI has been the leading national nonprofit organization that routinely monitors the use of animal welfare claims such as “humanely raised” on meat and poultry packages, documenting in multiple reports how the US Department of Agriculture is failing consumers by continuing to allow deceptive marketing practices.

AWI’s most recent analysis, “Deceptive Consumer Labels,” found that 85% of the label claims reviewed by the USDA from 2019 to 2021 lacked meaningful substantiation, with inadequate or no evidence provided to support use of the claim. Other highlights of the May survey:

• More than 4 in 5 Americans (84%) agree that the government should not allow the use of claims like “humanely raised” on food labels unless producers are independently inspected and verified. A similar proportion (81%) believe that holistic animal-raising claims such as “humanely raised” should not be defined by a single factor (e.g., “vegetarian fed”), as currently permitted by the USDA.
• Seven in ten Americans (70%) agree that claims such as “humanely raised” or “sustainably farmed” found on meat and poultry product packages help them decide what products to purchase.

To help consumers locate products from farms where animals are raised to higher-welfare standards, AWI provides a comprehensive guide to animal-raising claims commonly found on meat, egg, and dairy products. There is also an abundance of cruelty-free, plant-based options available to people and their companion animals.

Survey Method:

This survey was conducted online within the United States by The Harris Poll on behalf of AWI from May 8-12, 2025, among 2,087 adults ages 18+. The sampling precision of Harris online polls is measured by using a Bayesian credible interval. For this study, the sample data is accurate to within +/- 2.5 percentage points using a 95% confidence level.

A new report reveals the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is failing to verify the accuracy of label claims on meat and poultry products sold in the United States.

Released by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) today, Label Confusion: How “Humane” And “Sustainable” Claims On Meat Packages Deceive Consumers exposes the lack of any apparent verification of food label claims used on millions of meat packages, and calls on USDA to require independent third-party certification to prevent consumers from being misled.

The use of animal welfare and sustainability claims has increased dramatically over the past decade, as consumers become more aware of—and concerned about—the well-being of animals raised for food and the negative impacts of animal agriculture on the environment. The public’s interest in these claims makes them ripe for exploitation by companies wanting to lure the growing number of consumers who seek an alternative to products from factory-farming production systems. To protect consumers from misleading or fraudulent claims, USDA is responsible for evaluating and sanctioning any claims made on labels of meat, poultry and egg products sold to US consumers.

Over the past three years, AWI researched the USDA approval process for a number of key animal welfare and environmental claims, such as “humanely raised” and “sustainably farmed,” focusing exclusively on claims that are not third-party certified. The claims appear on popular “natural” meat and poultry products sold by companies such as Applegate Farms, Crescent Foods, Empire Kosher, FreeBird, Kroger’s Simple Truth store brand, A&P’s Mid-Atlantic Country Farms store brand, Niman Ranch, Petaluma Poultry, and Plainville Farms.

AWI found that only two of the claims approved by USDA were substantiated by anything more than a brief statement by the producer—and over 80 percent of the label claims were backed by no supporting evidence whatsoever. This lack of government oversight allows for the use of deceptive labels—confusing consumers and threatening the livelihoods of higher-welfare farmers who have earned the right to use these claims.

“Based on the records we obtained from the department itself, it appears that USDA is merely rubber stamping applications for these claims,” says Dena Jones, AWI’s farm animal program manager and lead author of the report. “There seems to be no requirement whatsoever for substantiation of the claims.”

In a recent public opinion survey on meat labeling commissioned by AWI, almost 90 percent of consumers stated that producers should have to prove any claims like “humanely raised” and “sustainably farmed” on labels, while a majority of consumers believe that a brief statement (signed affidavit) from a producer is not acceptable proof of farming practices.

AWI has submitted a rulemaking petition requesting that USDA require independent third-party certification of humane and sustainable claims. “Until USDA makes significant changes to its approval process, consumers should be wary of any meat products whose label includes an animal welfare or environmental claim that is not accompanied by a statement or logo indicating an independent third party verified the claim,” said Jones.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) announced today that it has sent a written appeal to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), criticizing and requesting revision of the trade association’s guidelines for the care and handling of cattle raised for beef in the United States.

“Cattle raised for food in the United States have no federal legal protections against inhumane treatment on the farm or at feedlots,” said Dena Jones, AWI’s farm animal program manager. “Because there are no legal standards, it is essential that NCBA provide animal care guidelines that ensure good animal welfare. We urge NCBA to revise its standards to provide these animals a better quality of life.”

AWI recently reviewed the animal care guidelines of NCBA’s Beef Quality Assurance program and determined that US beef industry guidelines are not in compliance with the international animal welfare code of the World Organization for Animal Health (known by its French acronym “OIE”), the intergovernmental organization dedicated to improving animal health worldwide. AWI discovered that, unlike Canada’s beef cattle industry, NCBA has not revised its animal care standards since OIE adopted a welfare code for beef cattle production in 2012. While NCBA has been participating in an international process to help countries implement OIE animal welfare standards, it has not taken action to implement those standards within the United States. AWI also found that, in some cases, the NCBA standards are inconsistent with the animal welfare policies of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).

As a result of its review, AWI concluded that the NCBA guidelines fail to provide an acceptable level of animal welfare. Specific deficiencies of the NCBA guidelines, addressed by AWI in its letter to NCBA, include:

• not acknowledging that pain and distress are associated with hot-iron branding, and not encouraging alternative methods of identification, as recommended by both the OIE and AVMA;
• allowing the practice of routine tail docking of cattle, and the practice of housing cattle indoors at high densities on slatted floors;
• not recommending that producers seek guidance from veterinarians on pain control for castration, which is known to induce pain and physiologic stress in cattle;
• not recommending that a veterinarian be consulted for providing pain management for the procedure of dehorning, which is also known to cause significant pain and distress to animals; and
• not providing guidance on protecting cattle from the stress of extreme cold.

The lack of adequate animal care standards for fundamental animal care practices reinforces the public’s concern about the treatment of cattle on farms. A recently released study conducted by researchers at Kansas State University found that only 39 percent of the public believed that US farms and ranches provide appropriate overall care to their cattle.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) stated that changes are needed to US animal export to address the gross violations of international animal welfare code occurring on shipments of farm animals leaving the United States. Some of those changes are reflected in new rules recently proposed by the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Live animal exports are up dramatically. Over the past five years, approximately 625,000 animals—primarily cattle—were sent to distant locations such as Turkey and Russia. Most of these animals were transported by ship on voyages lasting up to three weeks, and at least some of these lengthy journeys resulted in an unacceptably high number of animal deaths.

“We don’t know how many animals become sick or die on these voyages, because even the US exporting authorities don’t have this information,” said Dena Jones, director of AWI’s farm animal program. “However, we do know that these instances are occurring because importing countries have raised serious concerns about US shipments, and at least one country has threatened to stop accepting animals.”

Given the stresses associated with long distance transport—including high noise levels, poor ventilation, and excessive heat and humidity—a disaster involving US cattle was all but inevitable. That inevitability came in August 2012, when more than 1,000 breeding dairy cattle of 3,400 shipped from Galveston, Texas, to Russia died during the voyage or shortly after arrival. The deaths were attributed to a breakdown in manure removal and ventilation systems, causing the animals to suffocate on ammonia fumes. When questioned about the incident, USDA officials admitted they have no knowledge of what happens to animals after leaving the United States or of how many animals fall ill or die.

In communications with USDA officials, Russian authorities cited a number of problems with the shipment that they considered to be a “gross violation” of the World Organization for Animal Health’s animal health code for “Transport of Animals by Sea.” Russia requested an investigation by the USDA and threatened to suspend imports of US cattle by sea if the situation was not satisfactorily resolved. Russian authorities subsequently requested investigations into at least two additional US shipments involving high animal mortality.

The proposed regulations would make a number of improvements to the existing export regulations. Some of the new requirements benefiting animals include: reporting of mortalities for all shipments; onboard back-up systems for feeding, ventilation, and manure removal; reporting of any failure of a major animal life support system; and recertification of any vessel experiencing a life support system failure. The proposed rule change also responds to a 2011 petition from AWI requesting that the USDA add internationally recognized “fitness to travel” requirements to the regulations.

According to AWI, the animal export regulations could be further improved by adding alarms for life support systems; routine monitoring of temperature, humidity and gas concentrations; and a requirement that at least one veterinarian accompany each shipment of animals.

AWI believes that, while amending the export regulations should help reduce mortality, new rules won’t solve the problem. “It’s simply not possible to ensure the health and welfare of animals on such long journeys,” said Jones. “With other alternatives readily available today, there is no justification for shipping live animals around the world on these nightmarish journeys.”

As consumers hit supermarkets this month to prepare for holiday gatherings, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) today issued results from its investigation of approximately 90 brand-name poultry products. The results, presented in a report entitled USDA Gives Producers Free Reign over “Free Range” Product Labels, reveal that the approval process by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for “free range” labels on poultry products is flawed—deceiving shoppers.

AWI’s investigation found that the USDA requires little evidence for approval of the claims “free range” and “range grown.” For example, the USDA approved use of the claims for 44 of the products investigated by AWI, when producers submitted only a short statement that birds have outdoor access. The USDA also approved the claim on 17 products without any evidence to support the claim.

In addition, the investigation showed that the USDA does not require producers to actually meet its vague definition of “free range,” which is simply that birds “have been allowed access to the outside.” According to the department, a producer can keep birds indoors for adverse weather or other reasons and still use the claim, so long as the package states how many days the bird had access to the outdoors. However, not one of the products investigated by AWI stated how many days birds were able to go outside.

“It is very likely that some of the ‘free range’ and ‘range grown’ turkey products being sold this holiday season came from birds that never stepped outside,” said Michelle Pawliger, AWI’s farm animal policy associate. “This is unacceptable; consumers should not be paying for animal welfare claims on food when such claims do not assure a better life for the animals.”

AWI will be asking the department to ensure that the “free range” definition aligns with consumer expectations. The USDA can do this by requiring that birds be provided daily access to the outdoors for a majority of their lives, that the outdoor area have vegetation, and that the outdoor area is large enough to accommodate all birds. Additionally, the organization is encouraging the department to require photographic evidence of the “free range” conditions and a signed animal care protocol demonstrating compliance with the improved definition.

The investigation began in 2011, when AWI requested label approval files for brand-name poultry products from the USDA. However, the records were not received until earlier this year—after AWI sued the department for undue delay.

Click here to view the full report.

A coalition of environmental, social justice, and animal welfare groups announced a campaign today calling on Olive Garden and its parent company, Darden Restaurant Inc., the nation’s largest full-service restaurant employer, to do more to protect animals, the environment and workers by substantially improving their food sourcing and labor practices.

“As the leading casual-dining operator with $6.7 billion in sales and more than 1,500 restaurants worldwide, including Olive Garden, Darden has a unique opportunity and responsibility to use its considerable purchasing power to support a healthier, fairer and more sustainable food system,” said the coalition in a collective statement. “It is clear there is a major gulf between the company’s rhetoric on strong animal and social welfare, workers’ rights and environmental protection, and the actual impacts of its food sourcing and labor management practices. We ask Darden to adopt better labor practices and greener menus that support the well-being of its customers, its workers, farmers, animals and our environment.”

The “Good Food Now!” campaign is a partnership of the Animal Welfare Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Food Chain Workers Alliance, Friends of the Earth, Green America, Restaurant Opportunities Center-United, and the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. More than 50 organizations have signed onto a letter calling for Darden to improve its labor practices and make a commitment to source 20 percent of its purchases under environmental, health, labor and animal welfare criteria aligned with the Good Food Purchasing Policy, including reducing meat and dairy purchases by 20 percent; sourcing meat from producers that adhere to verifiable, higher-than-industry animal welfare standards; and increasing local and organic options. More details of the campaign’s goals are outlined here.

The organizations are focusing on Olive Garden because the chain accounts for a majority of the sales generated by Darden Restaurants, which also owns Bahama Breeze, Seasons 52 and other popular restaurants.

“Darden claims it values and respects animals, but has shown little public commitment to improving animal welfare throughout its supply chain.” said Michelle Pawliger, farm animal policy associate at the Animal Welfare Institute. “We are asking Darden to become a leader in the restaurant arena and source its meat and dairy from producers that adhere to verifiable higher welfare standards.”

“This historic campaign is the first of its kind to bring environmental, worker justice, animal welfare and public health concerns under one umbrella.” said Kari Hamerschlag, senior program manager with Friends of the Earth. “We urge Olive Garden and Darden to meet the growing demand for better meat raised without routine antibiotics and to reduce its carbon and water footprint by putting more plant-based foods on the menu.”

“Olive Garden and Darden have the power to raise millions of workers and their families out of poverty,” said Jose Oliva, co-director of the Food Chain Workers Alliance.“ As the largest restaurant employer with a workforce of more than 150,000, we are urging Darden to raises wages and provide sick leave for its many frontline employees.”

The groups are asking their supporters to take action today by calling Darden at 1-800-331-2729 to demand “Good Food Now!” and to spread the campaign on social media using #GoodFoodNow.

The organizations previously contacted Darden in October and November 2015, asking for a meeting to discuss the campaign’s requests. However, in a written response issued in December, Darden failed to grant the meeting or acknowledge many of the key issues raised by the organizations. Core members of the campaign issued a detailed response outlining the specifics on how the restaurant company could fulfill its rhetoric on social and environmental responsibility contained in the company’s 2014 social responsibility report.

“As the world’s largest full service restaurant and the world’s largest employer of tipped workers, Darden could be a leader in advocating for a fair wage for all workers, but instead spends millions lobbying to keep the minimum wage for tipped workers at $2.13,”said Saru Jayaraman, co-founder and co-director, Restaurant Opportunities Center-United. “As a result we subsidize many Olive Garden and Darden workers wages with our tips, and spend billions on taxpayer-funded public assistance to support their workers’ survival.”

“Darden claims to be committed to ‘people, planet and plate’ but the reality of its impact on workers, the environment and the food system have fallen short,” said Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director with the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re asking Olive Garden and all Darden restaurants to take concrete steps to reduce the environmental impact of its menu like serving smaller meat portions, adding plant-based options and increasing organic foods.”

“Consumers are increasingly concerned about where their food comes from and how it was made, and restaurants are no exception,” said Elizabeth Jardim, director of consumer advocacy at Green America. “Olive Garden needs to meet consumer demand by sourcing more ingredients from local farmers and paying all workers, including those in its supply chain, fairly.“

“As a major player in the restaurant industry, Oliver Garden and its parent company Darden can spearhead reforms that not only improve the working conditions for their employees, but make waves across the entire industry through leading by example,” said Phillip Hamilton, associate for Unitarian Universalist Service Committee’s Economic Justice program.

For more information on the campaign, visit www.Good-Food-Now.com.