EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 28.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1432 
 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  
  
accompanying the  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC  AND SOCIAL CO MMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
  
Options for animal welfare labelling and th e establishment of a European Network of 
Reference Centres for the protec tion and welfare of animals 
   
 
 
{COM(2009) 584 final} 
{SEC(2009) 1433} 
 
 
EN ii   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
List of annexes:............................................................................................................... ........... iv 
Introduction ................................................................................................................... ............. v 
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. ....vii 
Part I: Animal Welfare Labelling............................................................................................vii i 
Part II: European Network of Reference Centres for the Protection and Welfare of 
Animals ....................................................................................................................... i x 
Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties ............................................................ x 
PART I: Animal welfare labelling ........................................................................................... 14 1. Problem definition...................................................................................................... 14 1.1. Drivers for policy change........................................................................................... 14 1.1.1. Consumers demands for animal welfare labelling/information ................................. 14 1.1.2. Lack of consumer awareness of animal  welfare standards provided by existing 
schemes ...................................................................................................................... 16  
1.1.3. Inconsistency of existing animal welfare labelling schemes ..................................... 16 1.1.4. Low market shares of animal welfare schemes.......................................................... 18 1.1.5. Competition issues ..................................................................................................... 1 9 
1.1.6. Stakeholder concerns.................................................................................................. 20  
1.2. Background ................................................................................................................ 21 
1.2.1. Current EU legislation on animal welfare labelling................................................... 21 1.3. How would the problem evolve without a change in policy? .................................... 23 
1.4. Does the EU have the right to act?............................................................................. 23 1.5. Should the EU act?..................................................................................................... 24 2. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 24 
2.1. General objectives:..................................................................................................... 24  
2.2. Specific objectives: .................................................................................................... 24  
3. Options ..................................................................................................................... .. 24 
4. Feasibility assessment ................................................................................................ 26 4.1. General remarks from the stakeholders survey.......................................................... 26 4.2. Conformity of options with guiding principles.......................................................... 26 5. Impact of options........................................................................................................ 30 
 
EN iii   EN 5.1. Who is affected, in which way and to what extent?................................................... 31 
5.1.1. Consumers and citizens in the EU.............................................................................. 31 5.1.2. Farmers, retailers...................................................................................................... .. 31 
5.2. International dimension.............................................................................................. 31 5.3. Impact of options on the animal welfare conditions on farms ................................... 32 5.4. Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 33 
5.4.1. Impact of the options on consumers’ information. .................................................... 33 5.4.2. Impacts on employment ............................................................................................. 34 5.5. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 34 5.5.1. Impact of the options on livestock producers and other food business operations 
participating in the labelling scheme.......................................................................... 35 
5.5.2. Impact of options on the net income  of livestock producers and other food 
business operations participati ng in the labelling scheme ......................................... 38 
5.5.3. Impact of options on consumer prices........................................................................ 40 5.5.4. Impact of options on ex isting private marketing sc hemes referring to animal 
welfare........................................................................................................................ 42 
5.5.5. Impact of options on the enforcem ent costs of public authorities.............................. 43 
5.5.6. Impact of options on imports from third countries (extra EU-trade) ......................... 44 
5.6. Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 45 
5.7. Administrative burden impacts .................................................................................. 45 5.8. Impacts on Small Businesses ..................................................................................... 45 6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 4 6 
PART II: European Network of Reference Centres for the protection and welfare of 
animals ....................................................................................................................... 5 0 
1. Problem definition...................................................................................................... 50 1.1. Main problems perceived by stakeholders................................................................. 50 1.2. Lack of harmonised animal welfare standards/indicators for higher animal 
welfare........................................................................................................................ 51 
2. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 51 
2.1. General objectives:..................................................................................................... 51  
2.2. Specific objectives: .................................................................................................... 52  
3. Options ..................................................................................................................... .. 52 
4. Feasibility assessment ................................................................................................ 53 
 
EN iv   EN 4.1. Conformity of options with guiding principles.......................................................... 53 
4.1.1. Network Centres should complement, not  duplicate, current activities by other 
Community bodies ..................................................................................................... 53 
4.1.2. All areas of animal use should be covered................................................................. 53 4.1.3. The Centre should be independe nt from outside interests ......................................... 53 
4.2. Possible tasks and implications for the feasibility of options .................................... 54 4.2.1. Harmonisation and coordination ................................................................................ 54 4.2.2. Policy advice and best practices................................................................................. 54 4.2.3. Education and communication................................................................................... 54 4.2.4. Research and implementation .................................................................................... 55 4.3. Assessment of options................................................................................................ 55 5. Impacts ..................................................................................................................... .. 58 
5.1. Alternatives for th e scope of a ENRC........................................................................ 59 
5.2. Expected costs............................................................................................................ 60 
6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 62 
L
IST OF ANNEXES : 
Annex I  
Retailers demand for animal welfare friendly products 
Annex II  
Current EU animal welfare legislati on and other relevant legislation  
Annex III  
What is an animal welfare labelling scheme? 
Annex IV  
Minutes of the ISSG meetings 
Annex V  
Report from the feasibility study pa rt 1: Animal Welfare labelling 
Annex VI  
Report from the feasibility study part 2: Co mmunity Reference Centre for the protection 
and welfare of animals 
Annex VII  
Details on the EU centres dealing with animal welfare  
 
EN v   EN INTRODUCTION  
Animal Welfare is an increasing concern of today's society. Today the farming of 
animals is no longer viewed by European consumers simply as a means of food 
production. Instead it is seen as fundamental to other key societal goals such as food 
safety and quality, safeguarding environmen tal protection and sust ainability. Although 
major consumer segments have become increasingly price sensitive, consultations carried out by DG SANCO and the result s of several Eurobarometer surveys revealed that a 
significant percentage of European consumers
1 respond that they are willing to pay more 
or would change shopping habits in order to buy animal welfare friendly products, while 
the vast majority also believes that similar animal welfare standards should be applied to food products imported from outside the EU. A ll these aspects are ta ken into account in 
the development of EU animal welfare policies which are founded upon long-standing 
legislation (Annex III) base d on clear scientific prin ciples, public concerns, and 
stakeholders' input.  
In the course these stakeholde r consultations on an imal welfare it has become clear that a 
strategic framework for EU action is need ed. Options for action covered by this 
framework are included in this  report. This Impact Assessment provides analysis to 
support the development of strate gic orientations in the field of animal welfare labelling 
and the establishment of a network of re ferences centres for animal welfare.  
The aim of the Commission initiative is to a llow an open and informed debate at Council 
and Parliament level on the possibility of establishing animal welfare labelling and a network of reference centre/s for animal welfar e. This initial impact assessment outlines 
the potential sectors impacted by the options outlined. At this stage the Commission does 
not outline any commitments already agreed for action but explores various legislative 
proposals that could be used to establish animal welfare labell ing and a network of 
reference centre/s for animal welfare (areas  highlighted in the Community Action Plan 
on the Protection and Welfare of  Animals). Any firm policy decisions that may be taken 
forward as a result of this debate would be subject to further impact assessment exploring 
the cost of the proposed action. 
 
The first Community Action Plan on the Pr otection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 
(COM (2006) 13 final)2 defines the direction of the Community policies and the related 
activities for the coming years to continue to  promote high animal welfare standards in 
the EU and internationally considering anim al welfare as a business opportunity while 
respecting the ethical and cultura l dimension of the issue.  
This plan highlights the importance of consum er information as part of a comprehensive 
communication strategy on animal welfare.  Enabling consumers to make informed 
purchasing decisions has the potential to give an economi c incentive to  industry to 
improve the welfare of animals. A clear labe l identifying the "level" of welfare applied 
could represent an effective marketing tool as currently used for the identification of 
certain agricultural products with particul ar regional attributes. Such a system of 
                                                 
1 57 % are willing to pay more for hen’s eggs sour ced from an animal welfare friendly production 
system (Special Eurobarometer 229 - Wave 63 (2005)), and 61 % are willing to change their usual place of shopping in order to be able to buy more  animal welfare friendly food products (Special 
Eurobarometer 270 – Wave 66 (2006)). 
2 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/we lfare/com_action_plan230106_en.pdf  
 
EN vi   EN classification will need to be based on standard ised scientific indicators well recognised 
both in the EU and internationally, and underp inned by research, in order to facilitate 
accurate marketing of these products.  
Furthermore, the Action Plan envisages the cr eation of a “European Centre or laboratory 
for the protection and welfare of animals” , which could serve as coordinating body for 
the different initiatives related to the animal  welfare labelling, such as maintenance of 
welfare indicators, certification and auditi ng schemes. In addition, the Centre could 
perform tasks in particular in relation to harmonisation and coordination, policy advice 
and sharing of best practices, education a nd training and dissemina tion of information. 
The Centre should also facilitate the prepar ation of relevant socio-economic studies and 
impact assessments. The Action Plan suggests developing standardis ed animal welfare 
indicators in order to provide a science-base d tool to make animal welfare measurable. 
The Commission already supports  an important research pr oject, the Welfare Quality 
Project3, which will serve as basis for elaborating such indicators and for the 
classification of animal welfare standards ap plied. Such a classifica tion system could be 
used for product labelling providing consumers with transparent and reliable information. 
After assessing the objective of the Action Plan it was considered that considering options for the establishment of a Europ ean Network of Reference Centres for the 
protection and welfare of animals (ENRC) coordinating existing resources would be a 
better way to achieve the goals in the Action Plan rather than establishing a new independent body. An ENRC could in this co ntext provide technical support for the 
further development of the system, including certification of animal welfare conditions.  
The Conference “Animal Welfare – Improvi ng by Labelling?” (Brussels, 28 March 
2007), organised by the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Commission and the German Presidency enable d broad discussions to take place with 
representatives of all stake holder groups. This conference c oncluded that labelling could 
under certain conditions contribute to improving animal welfare. 
The Council of Ministers adopted in Ma y 2007 Conclusions on  Animal Welfare 
Labelling
4, inviting the Commission to present a re port on animal welfare labelling in 
order to allow an in-depth debate on this issue. To further assess this issue, the 
Commission launched in December 2007 a feasib ility study discussing with stakeholders 
the topic of animal welfare labelling in orde r to prepare a Commissi on report. The aim of 
the study was considering options to deliver  to consumers animal welfare-related 
information on products of animal origin in relation to a broader communication strategy 
towards consumers on animal welfare and to  assess different pos sibilities for the 
establishment of a Community Reference Ce ntre for Animal Prot ection and Welfare. 
It should be noted that this initiative goes on in parallel with the planned Communication 
on Agricultural Product Quality policy. SANCO is  aware of the need for this policy to 
complement other existing labelling policies – the EU Organic label,  the Eco-label – and 
potential new policies - DG Agri's produc t quality proposal and SANCO's food 
information policy. It will be important that the systems are coherent and compatible, i.e. they complement one another in delivering po licy outcomes and that they are introduced 
in a consistent manner to prevent stakeholders and consumers receiving mixed and confusing messages. 
                                                
 
3 http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone  
4 http ://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Da ta/docs/pressData/en/agricult/93986.pdf  
 
EN vii   EN A close cooperation between DG SANCO and other DGs has taken place along the 
process through ISSG meetings, bilateral m eetings, written corres pondence to ensure 
coherence and consistency between the new pr oposed labels and the existing schemes in 
place.  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
In 2006, the Community Action Plan on the Pr otection and Welfare of Animals 2006 – 
2010 was adopted. This plan highlights the impor tance of consumer information as part 
of a comprehensive communication strate gy on animal welfare and the planned 
establishment of a European centre for animal welfare. 
Three Eurobarometer surveys were carried out in 2005 and 2006 on animal welfare. The 
results showed that there is strong public support for the idea of a label or logo of some 
type to give information on anim al welfare in food production.  
In December 2006, DG SANCO published a summary of the results for the 
consultation  ‘Labelling: competitiveness, consumer information and better regulation 
for the EU’5, which also covered animal welfare labelling. The vast majority of 
contributors consider information on the anim al welfare conditions under which food is 
produced to be relevant for consumers and a potential marketing opportunity for 
producers and retailers.  
In May 2007, the Council of Ministers adopted  conclusions on animal welfare labelling6, 
inviting the Commission to pres ent a report on this issue in order to allow an in-depth 
debate.  
Following on from the Action Plan and the surveys, DG SANCO has started to explore 
various legislative and non-legislative options  for animal welfare labelling and for a 
network of reference centres for animal welfar e in order to further the debate. However, 
neither initiative is intended to raise animal welfare standards as such. The aim of the labelling initiative is to in crease consumer understanding of  animal welfare, among other 
options, by the information provided on the labe ls, and the proposal for reference centres 
is intended to harmonise accepted animal welfare standards and to promote the sharing and use of best practice in animal welfare systems. To help prepare its report, DG 
SANCO commissioned a study to as sess the feasibility of diff erent options for indicating 
animal welfare-related information on products  of animal origin and for establishing a 
Community Reference Centre for Animal Protection and Welfare. This study was 
conducted by Civic Consulting  (lead), with some input from Agra CEAS Consulting , 
of the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC).  
The study concluded that a key issue for cons umers where animal welfare is concerned 
was the lack of information on food products regarding animal  welfare standards. In the 
course of the study, the consultants found vari ous reasons for the lack of information on 
the market, including: 
                                                
 
5
 http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutri tion/betterregulation/competitiveness_consu
mer_info.pdf . 
6 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/c ms_Data/docs/pressDat a/en/agricult/93986.pdf . 
 
EN viii   EN – the absence of a harmonised system of animal welfare standards for labelling 
purposes; 
– the difficulty in communicating to the consumer in a clear way the difference in 
animal welfare standards across food products; and 
– the evolution of different animal we lfare labelling schemes across Europe, 
creating differentiation between goods and a non-levelled playing field for 
operators. 
Taking into account the findings from the comprehensive stakeholder consultation 
carried out during the external feasibility study, the Commission explores policy options 
in the report to address the current lack of  consumer information and inequities in the 
Single Market, including the possibilities for a voluntary/mandatory animal welfare 
labelling scheme and the establishment of a European Network of Reference Centres to 
share best practice on animal welfare. At  this stage, the report does not outline any 
commitments already agreed for action, but si mply examines various options that could 
be used to address the obj ectives of the Action Plan. 
The Impact Assessment provides analysis to support the development of strategic 
orientations on how to better communicate in  the field of animal welfare and the 
establishment of a network of references centr es for animal welfare, as set out in the 
report. The report, scheduled for autumn 2009, will not contain definitive legislative 
proposals — these will be put forward if needed, and be accompanied by their own 
specific impact assessments. 
Given the different impacts of the areas cove red in the report, the impact assessment has 
been divided into two parts — the first con centrating on the impacts of different options 
for improving the communication to consumers on animal welfare related to livestock 
products and the second exploring the impact s of establishing a Network of Reference 
Centres. 
Part I: Animal Welfare Labelling 
DG SANCO is exploring the possi bility of establis hing a system of animal welfare 
labelling to improve consumer informati on on welfare standards and existing welfare 
schemes and to harmonise the internal ma rket to prevent wide ly differing welfare 
standards being used under the generic ‘welfa re’ term. This initiative does not aim to 
raise the minimum standards laid down in  Community legislation or to improve 
compliance with existing legislative requirements. 
This impact assessment has focused on the options outlined in the report for animal 
welfare labelling to give an idea of the like ly impacts on stakeholde rs of each option. 
Given the early stage of policy development, the impact analysis remains mainly qualitative, but, where possibl e, quantitative estimates of  the potential impact are 
provided.  
For mandatory labelling, seve ral options are considered: 
– mandatory labelling of the welfare sta ndards under which pr oducts of animal 
origin are produced,  
 
EN ix   EN – mandatory labelling of the farming sy stem under which products of animal 
origin are produced, and  
– mandatory labelling of compliance with EU  minimum standards or equivalents.  
The impact assessment also considers voluntary options, including: – establishment of requirements for volunt ary use of animal welfare claims;  
– establishment of a voluntary Community Animal Welfare Label open for all to 
use if they meet the criteria;  
– drafting of guidelines for animal welf are labelling and quality schemes. 
Although this impact assessment does not conclude on any definitive option for animal 
welfare labelling, it does id entify the legislative and non-l egislative options that are 
considered the most feasible at this stage (harmonised requirements for voluntary animal welfare claims and/or a Community animal we lfare label). It is hoped that the report and 
Impact Assessment in combination will help facilitate an in-depth inter-institutional 
debate on the subject to consider if  further EU action is necessary.  
Part II: European Network of Reference Ce ntres for the Protection and Welfare of 
Animals 
The objective of the second pa rt of the impact assessment is to explore and assess the 
feasibility of different options for establis hing a European Network of Reference Centres 
for the Protection and Welfare of Animals (ENRC). 
Consideration of the op tions to develop a central commun ity reference centre was based 
on concerns raised in consultation on: 
• the lack of harmonised animal welfare sta ndards/indicators for higher animal welfare; 
• lack of coordination of existing re sources to share best practices;  
• the need for an independent source of information at EU level and  
• the duplication of activities due to a lack of coordination at EU level. 
Taking this into account the Commission is di scussing options that it hopes will achieve 
greater coordination of existing resources while identifying future needs and will ensure a more consistent and coordinated approach  to animal protection and welfare across 
Commission policy areas.  
The main policy options discussed in the impact assessment are:  
• continuation of the current situation (status quo option),  
• various different options fo r a centralised approach, 
• various options for a decentralised approach and 
• option using a task-specific strategy to de termine central and decentral elements. 
Whilst again the impact assessment at this stage does not identify a preferred option it 
does consider that if EU action was to be take n in this area some form of mixed approach 
based on decentralized and centralized elements would be most feasible.  
 
EN x   EN PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTA TION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
The initiative is a SANCO item in the Commission Agenda Planning of 2009 
(2009/SANCO/037). Stakeholders and other Co mmission services concerned have been 
closely involved in the preparatory process from an early stage.  
Consultation: 
Four case studies of existing animal welfare or animal welfare related private schemes 
were used for the assessment of the different possibilities for animal welfare labelling by 
the contractors. The four case studies of existing schemes cover one scheme devoted 
exclusively to animal welfare (Freedom f oods - UK), a second scheme that focuses on a 
variety of issues including animal welf are (Bioland - Germany), a third scheme 
concentrating on superior qual ity certification for food produ cts (Label Rouge - France), 
and a fourth scheme related to a European legislation designed, inter alia , to inform 
consumers of the production system used to  produce eggs (Egg marketing legislation). 
Also a brief description of animal welfare sc hemes in some selected third countries is 
included in the study. 
Selected relevant stakeholders within the countries operating these schemes were 
contacted for in-depth interv iews (e.g. food industry associa tions, farmer organisations, 
meat producers, wholesalers/retailers, audito rs, animal welfare organisations, consumer 
organisation). 
A total of 12 in-depth interviews were condu cted for the study with  representatives of 
existing bodies, either within the Commission or in the Member States, public or private, 
dealing with animal welfare related issues a nd of similar structures  in other policy areas 
to complement the data colle cted through the other methodologi cal tools. A total of 14 
additional exploratory intervie ws were conducted with variou s stakeholders. The number 
of interviews conducted by type of intervie w is provided in the table below. A more 
detailed list of the interviewees is in cluded in Annex V (page 72 of the annex).  
Number of stakeholders interviewed 
Type of interview Number of interviews 
Bodies dealing with animal welfare related issues and 
of similar structures in other policy areas 12 
Exploratory interviews  14 
Working group meeting Group meeting 
TOTAL 27 
 
The survey of general stakeholders was c onducted also in the framework of the study. 
The table below presents the number of respondents per country: 
 
EN xi   EN Respondents to the general stakeholder survey 
Respondents to general stakeholder survey  Questionnaires received 
Austria 3 
Belgium 7 
Czech Republic  1 
Denmark 3 
Estonia 1 
Spain 29 
EU 8 
Finland  3 
France 3 
Germany 20 
Ireland 1 
Italy 1 
Malta 1 
The Netherlands 10 
Poland  1 
Romania 1 
Sweden 2 
Slovenia 1 
United Kingdom 12 
Non-EU (Australia, Canada) 2 
Total 110 
 
A working group of the Advisory Group on the Food Chain and Animal and Plant Health 
on animal welfare related labe lling was held in Brussels  on 21 April 2008. The meeting 
was mainly informative. The main points of  the Commission feasib ility study and related 
activities in the Welfare Quality Project were  presented as well as examples on existing 
animal welfare labelling sche mes. Citizens’ demands for in formation on food origin and 
 
EN xii   EN production and especially on animal welfare stan dards in relation to the political options 
for delivering this information were discu ssed. Around 20 stakeholder organisations were 
represented in the meeting.  
Inter-service Steering Group 
An Interservice Steering Gr oup consisting of several Commission DGs (DG TAXUD, 
DG RTD, DG AGRI, DG TRADE, DG E NV, DG EMPL, DG MA RE, DG ELAR, SJ, 
SG, JRC-ISPRA, and BEPA) was establis hed to conduct the study and the impact 
assessment process. This Steering Group me t twice during the ev aluation period. The 
comments expressed by the various  DGs represented at the m eetings (and further e-mail 
exchanges) have been taken in to account in this document. The minutes of the meetings 
can be found in Annex IV to this document. 
The analysis carried out during the impact assessment process has been based on the 
results of the study. These results are based on a wide consultation with stakeholders 
(industry, consumer groups, etc) carried out by the consultants during the feasibility 
exercise. 
This initiative is not a legi slative proposal, but a report whos e main purpose is to present 
the results of the feasibility study, outli ne possible options fo r legislative and non-
legislative approaches to take forward actions  in the Animal Welfare Action Plan and to 
open the inter-institutional debate on the i ssue of animal welfare labelling. The analysis 
carried out has been mainly qualitative, in line with the proportionality principle for 
impact assessment. Nevertheless, some quantitative estimation on the possible impacts of the different options has also been included in this document. These estimates are based 
on an in-depth study  of the socio-economic implications of the various systems to keep 
laying hens commissioned by DG SANCO and carried out by Agra CEAS Consulting of 
the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) in 2004
7. In this study, the equilibrium 
displacement model was applied in order to estimate the impacts of changes in several factors that may affect the egg market sector in the EU as explained in more detail later 
in this document. While the object of this study was laying-hen farming systems, some extrapolations can be made to other farming sectors.  
In any case, if a legislative proposal were pres ented in the future, an in-depth quantitative 
impact assessment would be carried out to assess the economic, social and environmental 
impacts of the proposal. In addition, furthe r consumer research (Eurobarometer) would 
also be undertaken to consider if consumer opinions stated in the previous surveys (willingness to pay, etc.) remain valid or whet her different influences are now having an 
impact on consumers' purchasing patterns.  
Impact Assessment Board 
The draft Impact Assessment was subm itted to the Board on 13 March 2009 and 
discussed at the Board meeting of 22 Apr il 2009. The opinion of the Board included a 
number of recommendations for the improvement of the impact assessment report, which were taken into account prior to  the resubmission of the report.  
                                                
 
7 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/fa rm/socio_economic_study_revised_en.pdf  
 
EN xiii   EN This document has taken into account their comments as far as possible. As a 
consequence of the outcome of the opini on of the Impact Assessment Board, some 
changes have been introduced in this document,  in particular, it has been clarified that the 
aim of this initiative is to open an inter-in stitutional debate on the issues raised in the 
Animal Welfare Action Plan and not to rais e minimum animal welfare standards or to 
address problems of compliance with current standards. The objectives of this initiative and their links with the problems identified have been clarified.  
The Impact Assessment Board issued a second opinion on the resubmitted draft impact 
assessment report on the 16 June 2009. The issues raised by the Board in their second opinion have been taken into account in this document, in particular the choice for a 
report for this initiative gi ven the already vast stakehol der consultation undertaken, the 
evidence and criteria that would be used fo r the assessment of future concrete measures 
as well as the identification of the impacts that  are expected to be most significant. In 
addition, some editorial and changes in th e presentation of the document were made. 
 
EN 14   EN PART  I: ANIMAL WELFARE LABELLING  
1. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
– Existing evidence has highlighted a growing interest from stakeholders to know the 
welfare conditions relating to the animal pr oducts they eat in order to make more 
informed choices on the food they buy. At pr esent, whilst voluntary welfare labelling 
schemes exist, there are no harmonised standa rds on the levels of welfare afforded to 
animal by these private schemes: consumers are unable to understand and differentiate 
the welfare standards promoted under thes e schemes in order to make informed 
purchases.  
– This difficulty in providing clear informa tion to the consumer on welfare standards 
has a knock-on effect with very few produc ts providing information and very little 
motivation for more businesses to improve animal welfare in order to display a label. In addition the evolution of different anim al welfare labelling schemes across Europe 
has created differentiation of goods and an unlevelled playing field for the operators. 
– The extent of the problem differs according to the species. Most attention is focussed 
on the intensive production sy stems developed for poultry (a nd eggs), pigs, and veal 
calves.  
– This proposal is focusing on rectifying th e information asymmetry between final 
consumers and producers of animal welfare standards and the market distortion of 
different welfare schemes be ing created with no under pinning standards. This 
proposal does not seek to explore complia nce with the existing EU minimum animal 
welfare standards or ways to improve standards.  
1.1. Drivers for policy change 
1.1.1.  Consumers demands for animal welfare labelling/information 
Although the majority of consum ers are price-sensit ive, the results of  several surveys 
have revealed the existence of  a group of consumers who are interested in high-quality 
products. For these consumers, high quality often includes higher animal welfare standards. This consumer segment seems to be much larger than the growing, but still 
comparatively small group of intensive-buyers of organic products. 
In many countries this quality-seeking consum er segment is not adequately served – due 
to information asymmetry on production methods  - so that there are market opportunities 
for products that combine higher animal we lfare standards with other above-average 
characteristics. 
– The results of two Eurobarometer surveys
8 that were carried out  in 2005 showed that 
there is a strong public support for the idea of a label or logo of some type that could 
give information on animal welfare in food production.  
                                                 
8 Special Eurobarometer 229 "Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals" 
(2005) 
 
EN 15   EN – In December 2006 DG SANCO published the summary of results for the 
consultation  "Labelling: competitiveness, consum er information and better regulation 
for the EU”, which also covered animal welfare labelling. The vast majority of 
contributors consider information on the animal welfare conditions under which food 
is produced as relevant for consumers and a potential marketing opportunity for 
producers and retailers.  
– In a survey conducted by Eu robarometer in 20069, citizens were asked about their 
willingness to change shopping patterns due to welfare considerations. The results indicated that a majority of more than 60% would be prepared  to do this. Around a 
quarter indicated considerable enthusiasm for the prospect and only 9% stated that 
animal welfare considerations would not ch ange their consumption patterns. In the 
same survey, almost three-quarters of re spondents believed that buying animal welfare 
friendly products could have a positive imp act on the protection of farmed animals. 
Furthermore, the results of this survey reve aled that 33% of the interviewees agreed 
that (current) labelling enables them to  identify welfare-frie ndly products and 55% 
disagreed. Consumers’ preferred means of identifying welfare protection systems is 
through labelling. Around four in ten (39 %) say they would like to receive 
information via text on product wrapping, with a similar propor tion (35%) saying 
logos would be a good method of identification. 
Consumers’ interest on animal welfare frie ndly products is not homogeneous across the 
EU but the general trend is an increased purchase of produc ts obtained in more animal 
welfare friendly farming systems. Some re tailers are also demanding animal welfare 
friendly products from their suppliers and promoting this to the consumers (Annex I) 
Box 1 
Increased demand for animal welfar e friendly produ cts (table eggs)  (Source: socio-
economic implications of the various sy stems to keep laying hens, Agra CEAS 
Consulting)  
In some southern Member Stat es where there is relatively little production of, or demand 
for, alternatively produced e ggs, virtually 100% of eggs  sold fresh are from the 
traditional caged system. Moving northwards, the proportion of eggs from alternative 
systems consumed fresh rises sharply. In the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK it is 
estimated that close to 50% of eggs sold  at the retail level are now sourced from 
alternative systems, in Germany and Austria the percentage is es timated to be around 
25%. The proportion sourced via alternative sy stems has gradually increased as some 
large retailers have indicated they will no l onger source fresh eggs from traditional caged 
production. Inasmuch as there is data availabl e, the share of the EU-15 laying hen flock 
held in alternative systems between 1993 and 2003 has risen from 3.56% to 11.93%.  
 
Consumers’ preferences may have changed since 2006, when the last Eurobarometer on 
animal welfare was conducted, due to the curre nt economic crisis. In order to confirm the 
results of the previous surveys and to examine whether consumer interest on animal 
                                                 
9 Special Eurobarometer 270 "Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare" (2006) 
 
EN 16   EN welfare information has waned, a new Eurobarometer will be carried out before issuing 
any proposal.  
1.1.2.  Lack of consumer awareness of animal welfare standards provided by existing 
schemes 
The animal welfare aspects of general cert ification schemes may not be fully understood 
by consumers. Existing standards and claims su ch as organic, free-range or “farm-made” 
already include, to a certain degree, animal welfare aspect s without always being very 
explicit about them. Therefore consumers ar e not able to understand animal welfare 
aspects of current wider certif ication schemes because these schemes are not explicit on 
the animal welfare conditions afforded by the animals Consequently consumer cannot 
tell which scheme offers best animal we lfare conditions and which schemes include 
animal welfare conditions higher than the mi nimum standards which would enable them 
to make informed purchasing decisions. Add itional, consumers may assume that some 
schemes include animal welfare conditions above the minimum standards while this 
might not be the case. 
In this context the majority of stakeholders  consulted requested th at labelling standards 
be clear enough about their contributions to animal welfare, based on a sound scientific 
framework. Both aspects are considered impor tant for avoiding misi nterpretations by and 
confusion of consumers. 
1.1.3.  Inconsistency of existing animal welfare labelling schemes 
The results of the analysis carried out by th e external contractor on existing EU animal 
welfare schemes showed that the inconsistency of animal welfare claims may be an issue. 
Schemes that focus only or mainly on anim al welfare have normally a comprehensive 
understanding of animal welfare (including we lfare at transport and slaughter). Other 
schemes that are based on food quality may have a positive effect on animal welfare (mainly at farm level) but this is not thei r main driver. Other sc hemes are perceived by 
consumers as animal welfare schemes, ev en though they only confirm that minimum 
standards are met. 
                                                
 
10 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Box 2 
The results of a recent poll commissioned by the RSPCA10 on animal welfare labelling 
of pig meat in the UK illustrate this problem 
Only a staggering two per cent of those questioned unde rstand the terms used on pork 
products, such as 'free-range, 'outdoor bred ' or 'outdoor reared', meaning almost all 
shoppers are confused about the conditions  in which pigs are actually reared 
Some 83% of respondents agreed that "anima l welfare is an important consideration 
when buying pork". More than half (60%) said they always bought higher welfare pork 
(RSPCA 'Freedom Food', free ra nge or organic). However, ne arly a quarter (23%) said 
they did not because they "didn't know much about how the pigs are reared".  
 
EN 17   EN The following examples illustrate different  private animal welfare schemes and the 
different standards these schemes afford animal s. It also highlights the proliferation of 
different schemes on the market and the difficulty consumers face when trying to distinguish which products have higher animal  welfare standards than others products on 
the market.  
– Freedom Food  is the only farm assurance scheme in the UK with high animal welfare 
as its primary goal. The scheme is available to farmers, hauliers, abattoirs, processors and packers who can meet the standard s. Species-specific production guides are 
available which set out the precise mana gement prescriptions for production to 
Freedom Food standards. These standards include sections on food and water, the 
environment in which production must take  place (covering housing, handling, etc.), 
animal management, animal health, transport and slaughter.
11 
– Label Rouge 's main focus of the scheme is organole ptic quality of th e product and the 
use of non-intensive production methods (mai nly for environmental, but also for 
animal welfare reasons) and economic su stainability. Partic ipation is open to 
producers and processors of food products after demonstration of their ability to 
comply with the notices techniques , the minimum technical requirements of the label. 
Animal welfare specifications relate to th e type of rearing, the genetics, maximum 
stock densities, the origin and type of feed, the slaughter age and the transport. 
– Organic farming stresses the creation of an appr opriate environment focusing on: 
access to exercise or outdoor areas and past ure; specific housing conditions; sufficient 
resting areas and suitable bedding. The sche me bans mutilation that leads to stress, 
harm, disease or suffering of animals and re stricts it only to be used to improve the 
animals' health, welfare or hygiene and to be carried out applying adequate 
anaesthesia or analgesia. The scheme requi res species-adapted management practices 
e.g. calves older than one week are not allo wed to be kept in single boxes, piglets 
must not be kept on flat decks or in piglet  cages, water foul must have access to an 
open water surface, sows must be kept in groups and poultry must have access to open 
air runs. Besides the minimum animal we lfare requirements of the EU organic 
standard, private organic standards have often introduced stricter animal welfare 
requirements. 
– Bioland provides a private scheme with an  organic standard incl uding animal welfare 
rules that go beyond the EU standard, such as  for instance, long idle periods between 
egg laying periods and keeping in small groups  to establish social hierarchies that 
would occur in nature in poultry production or reduced maximum nu mber of pigs and 
egg layers per hectare farmland. 
– Biodynamic is an organic production method that promotes more natural farming 
methods with strong emphasis on natural pr ocesses. It goes beyond the EU minimum 
standard on some animal welfare issues, but biodynamic farmers do not always share 
the same scientific opinion e.g. on whether anim als should be tethered  in the stable or 
not. 
                                                 
11 All production guides are available from 
http://www.rspca.org. uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=Producerresou
rces&marker=1&articleId=1125906255996 
 
EN 18   EN 1.1.4.  Low market shares of animal welfare schemes 
Although different surveys confirm consum er demand for animal welfare-friendly 
products, the results of the ex ternal study show that market shares for animal welfare 
schemes and schemes that also include anim al welfare tend to be low in most EU 
Member States. There is not a clear explanation of why citizens’ concerns for animal welfare, when asked during a survey, are not tr anslated to the purchase of animal welfare 
friendly products.  
During the development of the policy this issu e needs to be carefully considered, as the 
contradiction between consumers' wishes wh en asked and their pur chasing decisions may 
be even more apparent as the economic situ ation worsens and consumers in Europe have 
less disposal income. However, the study did identify that the lack of information on 
animal welfare standards together with the lack  of availability of animal welfare-friendly 
products in the supermarkets and the prices of these products as the most important 
reasons why consumers purchasing patterns di d not switch to products offering greater 
animal welfare. In addition, difficulties in understanding the labels when information is 
provided may play a role. Further assessment of this issue will be carried out in the future 
if a legislative proposal is presented.  
Table 1: Market data on animal welfare rela ted labelling schemes in EU countries including 
organic labelling (2007)  
MS Source/ 
Notes Livestock producers participating in 
AW related labelling schemes (%) Market shares of products labeled for AW (in 
% in terms of volume) 
  Cattle Pig
s Sheep, 
goats Poultry Other Beef and 
milk 
productsPork 
products Sheep/
goat 
meat 
product
s Poultry 
meat, egg 
products Other
AT 1) 18 4    8.9 
(beef); 12.9 (milk) 1.4  2.1 
(broiler); 8 (eggs)  
BE 2)  5 10 15 5 -- -- -- -- -- -- 
DE 3)  3 3 1 5 -- 3 2 1 
(meat); 5 (milk) 2  
DK 4)  3.5 0.1 -- 10 -- 30 7 -- 12 -- 
EE 5)  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 100 -- 
 
EN 19   EN MS Source/ 
Notes Livestock producers participating in 
AW related labelling schemes (%) Market shares of products labeled for AW (in 
% in terms of volume) 
  Cattle Pig
s Sheep, 
goats Poultry Other Beef and 
milk 
productsPork 
products Sheep/
goat 
meat 
product
s Poultry 
meat, egg 
products Other
ES 6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 
FIN 7) 8 1 6 2 0.4 (horses) 10 0.6 0.1 8 (eggs)  
FR Only 
Label 
Rouge         33 
(household 
purchase of 
poultry)   
IT 8) -- -- -- -- -- 3.5 
(organic) 0.34 
(organic) 9.2 
(organic) Organic: 0.14 
meat; 1.7 
eggs -- 
NL 9) 1.8 0.66 < 1 / 0 
(sheep, 15 
milking 
goats) 0.1 
(broilers / 
50 laying 
hens) -- 2 (beef); 4 
(dairy); 1.5 
(cheese, 
butter) 2 0 0.05 meat; 95 
table eggs; 5 
processed 
eggs -- 
SE 10) 90 (dairy 
cattle); 5 
(other 
cattle) < 5 0 80 to 90 -- 80 (milk), 5 
(beef) 1 (organic 
and 
Swedish 
certified) -- 90 (meat) -- 
UK Only 
Freedom 
Food      0.7 (beef), 
0.9 (dairy 
cattle) 28.2 0.5 
(sheep) 5.2 (chicken), 
21.5 (ducks), 
49.0 (laying 
hens), 1.7 
(Turkey)  
Note: Based on survey conducted by Civic Consulting. Data for to tal of all animal welfare relevant labelling schemes (e.g. orga nic 
labelling schemes, quality schemes, animal welfare schemes). As far as incoherent data was pr ovided by different stakeholder 
organisations, the data considered to be most reliable is pres ented, however, data is not comparable between countries and has to be 
interpreted with care.  
 
1.1.5.  Competition issues 
– Between EU and third country operators: 
EU livestock farmers are required to observe  minimum animal welfare standards. With 
the only exception of the egg-marketing le gislation EU, farmed  products produced 
according to EU minimum welfare standards do not  have to be identified as such in the 
selling-point.  
EU animal welfare legal requirements at fa rms may prevent in some cases the use of 
more economically efficient farming met hods and techniques. EU minimum animal 
welfare standards reflect the legitimate choice s of society and as such, EU farmers ought 
to be able to capitalise on them as an as set and a positive aspe ct of EU production. 
However, they can only do this  if the product’s farming me thod can be identified. As 
outlined before the information asymmetry between farm producti on methods and food 
on the shelves results in EU consumers not be ing able to distingu ish between products 
that have different animal welfare standard s. Therefore they might assume that all 
 
EN 20   EN products available on the EU market have been  produced in line with the same base-line 
production requirements for animal  welfare farming requirements.  In order to correct this 
information asymmetry EU farmers need to be able to communicate effectively and simply the animal welfare standards th ey apply in the EU animal production.  
In summary, the problem concerns the following issues: 
(1) EU producers do not necessarily rece ive full recognition for the value 
to society of their compliance with EU minimum animal welfare which provides important public goods to society. 
(2) EU producers bear production costs which in some cases have a 
‘common good’ element. 
(3) Farmers are not always able to communicate to consumers at the point 
of sale of product the full value of the wider benefits of their 
compliance with EU production requirements. 
The Council has recently drawn attention to th e need for differing international standards 
to be taken into account in Commission im pact assessments. However, there are 
currently no international recommendations on animal welfare labelling at the OIE.
12 
– Amongst EU operators 
Animal welfare is a typical credence attribute. Information asymmetries are typical of 
credence goods, that is, the producer knows much better than the customer, be it a processor, a wholesaler, a retailer or a cons umer, which animal welfare level the product 
complies with. If there are no reliable and trustworthy quality signals available, 
consumers are not able to compare and to properly choose betwee n different schemes. 
Without clarity and common definitions conc erning animal welfare labelling consumers 
can be misled and the single market undermined. 
The pig meat market is an example of how th is lack of a harmonised framework can lead 
to market failure. Castration of piglets is  allowed in the EU with some specific 
restrictions. In some Member States meat from non-castrated pigs have a disadvantage 
because of fear for a specific taste (named boar-taint). In other Member States only meat from pigs castrated under an aesthesia are traded. Different  methods for anaesthesia, the 
use of long term analgesia and the introduc tion of new castration methods cause even 
more barriers to trade. Improving the transpar ency of the market via the harmonising of 
standards and development of harmonised labelling requireme nts could help in avoiding 
these uncertainties in the markets. 
1.1.6.  Stakeholder concerns 
In a large-scale questionnaire-based survey – carried out in the fram ework of the external 
study – stakeholder organisations were aske d to specify the main current problems 
regarding animal welfare-relate d information on products of an imal origin. The results of 
the survey and the assessment carried out ar e explained in the follo wing sections. Details 
on the answers provided by th e stakeholders can be found in Annex V (page 63 of the 
annex). 
                                                
 
12  Council Conclusions, 16.12.2008, 17169/08 ADD 1, section 3: “Draws attention to the need for 
the Commission’s impact analysis to describe and take in to account the economic impact of 
Community rules and the risks and opportunities presented where EU and international standards 
differ.” 
 
EN 21   EN Despite the large variety of an swers provided by the stakehol ders some main issues can 
be observed: 
• The most frequently mentioned point is a lack of harmonisation of animal welfare 
claims in animal products , including related aspects such as the lack of transparency 
of existing animal welfare schemes, the l ack of international acceptance and univocal 
definitions for animal welfare claims.  
• Next come concerns about a lack of scie ntific knowledge and a lack of independent 
audits and certification procedures to protect consumers against false claims.  
• The argument that there is a lack of clear and valid standards  was also raised quite 
often and relates to the la ck of scientific knowledge. 
• Several respondents also refer to  a lack of consumer intere st and awareness and a lack 
of comprehensive schemes that cover all anim al welfare aspects a nd all stages of food 
supply chains (including logist ics, slaughter etc.). Only a small number of respondents 
mention a lack of mandatory standards an d government supervision, the need for 
cooperation with retailers, in adequate penalties and the application to food imported 
from non-EU countries. 
A closer look at the answer s reveals significant  differences betwee n stakeholder groups . 
On the one side, farmers, processors and their associations do not favour a need for 
government intervention. Instead, they refer to  already higher EU sta ndards that allegedly 
give non-EU producers an unfair competitive advantage or emphasise the problem of finding objective, scientifically-sound, practical  animal welfare indicators. On the other 
side, animal welfare organi sations, standard setters an d researchers say they are 
unsatisfied with the animal welfare labe lling systems currently in place and are 
sometimes sceptical concerning  private initiatives and certification schemes. Therefore, 
they see a lack of comprehensiveness and neutrality of existing schemes and advocate more research and more government action with  regard to the definition and enforcement 
of animal welfare standards. 
The lack of comparability of different products , different livestock species, and farming 
systems was also mentioned by respondents in the survey. They consider it very difficult to come up with scientifically-sound and co mprehensive measurement scales for animal 
welfare that allows comparison of standards across different animal species and farming 
systems. 
1.2. Background  
1.2.1.  Current EU legislation on  animal welfare labelling 
Currently there is no EU legisl ation on specific animal welf are labelling of products of 
animal origin
13. As a consequence there are no harmonized requirements for labelling of 
animal welfare standards in the EU, however, a number of private schemes that claim or 
are perceived by consumers as complying w ith higher animal welfare conditions than 
compulsory requirements have emerged in r ecent years . These schemes – outlined in 
Annex III – are referred to in this documen t as animal welfare schemes. The potential 
                                                 
13 In this context it has to be noted that the Marketing Standards on table eggs is not an animal 
welfare labelling scheme although it is perceived as such by the consumers. The egg marketing 
legislation obliges to label the shell-eggs with the farming system under which they have been 
obtained. 
 
EN 22   EN increase of animal welfare schemes, whether at EU level or private and national schemes, 
presents the risk of possibl e inconsistent or misleading schemes which in turn would 
increase information asymmetry for consumers and inequities in the single market.  
– Egg marketing legislation (Reg ulations (EC) 1234/2007 and 589/2008) 
A specific case is the EU egg marketing legislation based on Regulations (EC) 
1234/2007 and 589/2008. Although focussing on fa rming systems (organic, free-range, 
barn, cage.), the egg classification system is  often perceived by stak eholders (including 
consumers) as giving a strong messa ge about the animal welfare. 
The egg marketing legislation is designed, inter alia , to inform consumers of the 
production system used to produce eggs. It provides minimum standards and Member 
States are free to go beyond this should they wish to (e.g. the UK’s Lion code). The common market legislation of the ma rket in eggs (from the species Gallus gallus , i.e. 
chickens) is set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2771/75 and legislation on the 
general labelling of eggs was first esta blished in 1990 under Council Regulation (EEC) 
No. 1907/90. 
The views of stakeholders – including prod ucer organisations and animal welfare 
organisations – were considered  in the drafting of the legi slation. Egg labelling is not 
designed as a specific animal welfare la bel, although the label indications give 
consumers information that they may interpret as an indicator of animal welfare, and use this when purchasing eggs.  
There are four permitted production system labels:
14 eggs from caged hens, barn eggs, 
free-range eggs and organic eggs; these produc tion systems are laid down in legislation 
(Annex V to the regulation).  The mandatory la belling scheme for eggs was introduced in 
2004 following the optional facility to label eggs produced from caged hens as “eggs from caged hens” which had been in ope ration since 1995. This voluntary arrangement 
followed successful lobbying at  the EU level from animal welfare organisations. A 
necessary precondition of the optional labe lling was that this was meaningful to 
consumers and that they were prepared to  pay a price premium for eggs produced in 
systems which they associated with highe r animal welfare criteria. Article 24 of 
Commission Regulation (EC) No  589/2008 sets out provisions for the checking of egg 
producers within Member States. It notes th at Member States wi ll appoint inspection 
services to check compliance with the Regula tion and that these insp ection services will 
check products covered by the Regulation at  all stages of marketing. These checks 
include random, unannounced sampling, as well as checks carried out on the basis of a 
risk analysis that ta kes account of the type and throughput  of the establishment as well as 
the operator’s past record in terms of compliance.   
Since the implementation of th e legislation, the percentage  of non-caged egg production 
has increased significantly in nearly all Member States.
15 The egg marketing legislation 
is likely to have played a role in shifti ng consumer demand for shell eggs from caged 
hens to eggs produced in alternative systems under the assumption that non-caged egg 
production systems confer higher animal welfar e. Egg-marketing legislation is the only 
compulsory labelling of farming system in the EU. It is therefore a good scheme to use 
                                                 
14 These are set out in Council Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection 
of laying hens. 
15 Research conducted by Agra CEAS Consulting. 
 
EN 23   EN for the estimation of some of the options considered in this impact assessment. It is also, 
in a way, a successful animal welfare labelling scheme as since its application a switch in 
demand for more animal welfare friendly eggs has been observed in the EU, significantly 
in some Member States.  
– Requirements for use of reserved terms in poultry meat16  
There are  pieces of legislation for the use of  certain terms (reserved terms) for indicating 
farming systems in the label although they  are not compulsory (e.g., farming method 
indications are precisely defi ned and farmers must comply with specifications laid down 
to use the reserved terms. However, the i ndication of farming method is not mandatory). 
While this is not in the strict sense of the definition animal welfare labelling, the 
categories provide an indication to c onsumers of animal welfare levels. 
 
1.3. How would the problem evolve without a change in policy? 
The baseline of doing nothing would maintain the current situation with the following 
consequences: 
• failure to adapt to consumers needs and demands; • confusion and lack of availability of animal welfare relevant information for 
the consumer; 
• continued lack of clarity on existing  animal welfare labelling schemes. 
• potential proliferation of different sc hemes which could lead to increased 
consumers confusion; 
• inconsistent approach in terms of the content and availability of information 
potentially leading to co nfusion for the consumer; 
1.4. Does the EU have the right to act?  
Article 37  provides the basis for the EU legisla tive measures on Community Agricultural 
Policy. This article also became the basis for the EU legislation on animal welfare at farms as the animal welfare policy is considere d, from a legal perspectiv e, as a part of the 
Common Agricultural Policy adopting the same legislative and administrative 
procedures. Animal welfare is also an essent ial part of the establishment of the Single 
Market and the Trade Policy. 
Article 95 provides basis for the EU legislative meas ures to ensure the functioning of the 
Internal Market, including animal health a nd public health rules for the intra-community 
trade of live animals and animal products. The establishment of the single market 
extended significantly the scope of the CAHP and led to the completion of a 
comprehensive set of veterinary legisla tion including animal health, welfare, and 
zootechniques. 
                                                
 
16 Article 11 and Annex V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying 
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the 
marketing standards for poultry meat 
 
EN 24   EN Article 153  provides for the EU legislative measur es to ensure cons umer protection and 
right to information.  
1.5. Should the EU act? 
There is not a legislative proposal at this st age. The report intends  to collect all the 
necessary data and information in order to be  able to open the debate in the Council and 
the European Parliament and to consider if  the EU should act a nd the possible impacts 
this action might have.  
It is considered that harmonised action at the EU level would deliver better results than a 
series of individual actions at  the Member State level. In addition, Member States do not 
have the competence to establish harmonized cr iteria to facilitate intra-community trade. 
Given the link to the Common Mark et and intra-community trade it is considered that the 
EU is better placed to establish a policy on the provision of animal welfare information to help consumers make informed choices. Nevertheless, proportiona lity of EU action 
would be considered if a legislat ive proposal is deemed necessary.  
2. O
BJECTIVES  
2.1. General objectives: 
The aim of this initia tive is to explore the possible op tions and impacts introducing an 
animal welfare labelling system would have. This  is to facilitate an informed debate in 
the Council and in the European Parliament to  consider whether EU action is needed to: 
• improve animal welfare information on animal-related products to enable 
consumers to make informed purchasing choices 
And if further EU action is considered n ecessary which approach would be best to 
deliver these objectives.  
2.2. Specific objectives: 
• To explore methods to implement a we ll accepted and proportionate labelling 
scheme. 
• To implement a scheme that will harmonize animal welfare information to 
consumers and avoid unfair market distortions.   
• To agree levels of welfare standards that can be easily communicated to 
consumers.  
3. OPTIONS  
Option 0: No change.  Continuation of the current situation (status quo option). 
Option 1:  Mandatory labelling of the welfare standards under which products of 
animal origin are produced : a requirement for all relevant products of animal origin to 
include a label of the standard of animal  welfare achieved for farm animals when 
minimum standards or standards above the minimum are applied.   
 
EN 25   EN Option 2: Mandatory labelling of the farming system under which products of 
animal origin are produced:  a requirement for all relevant products of animal origin to 
include a label of declaration of the system of production of farm animals  (this would 
mean applying something similar to the egg- marketing legislation to the rest of the 
farming sectors).  
Option 3:  Mandatory labelling of compliance with EU minimum standards or 
equivalence with those:  a requirement for all relevant products of animal origin to 
include a label indicating compliance with  EU minimum regulated standards (or 
equivalent). 
Option 4: Harmonised requirements for the voluntary use of claims in relation to 
animal welfare/farming systems or establ ishing requirements for reserved terms: 
EU law will regulate the mandatory standard s that must be achieved when suppliers 
voluntarily label products indicating a certa in standard/measure of animal welfare 
achieved for farm animals. Requirements for the use of reserved terms as marketing 
standards are a DG AGRI competence. 
Option 5 : A Community Animal Welfare Label open for voluntary participation : A 
harmonised EU-wide label would be establ ished, organised, and/or managed in a 
harmonised way, providing for voluntary participa tion similar to the EU organic scheme.  
Option 6: Guidelines for th e establishment of animal welfare labelling and quality 
schemes; Guidelines could be established at an EU level to harmonise the establishment 
of animal welfare labelling and quality schemes. 
All possible options for animal welfare labelli ng are considered and have been analyzed 
in broad sense due to the early  nature of the ini tiative. If a firm pr oposal for EU action 
were to be presented in the future, analysis of the impacts -   farming sector by farming sector - would be carried out. Issues such as animal welfare labelling for fur production, 
feathers production, etc. could also be considered. The impl ementation of the label also 
would have to consider prac tical issues like: where processed products containing 
products of animal origin are covered, the us e of animal welfare claims by the catering 
industry and scope of the animal welfare systems covered by the label (e.g. animal 
welfare at farms only, or also transport and slaughter). 
SANCO also explored an additional option - the possibility of a voluntary option of an 
EU-wide information campaign. However, this  stand alone option wa s dismissed earlier 
on in the policy development process as it wa s not considered sufficient to deliver the 
policy objectives and address the informa tion asymmetry. An information campaign on 
its own will not address the needs of the consumers at the point of sales as clear information on production methods would stil l not be available. In addition an 
information campaign alone would not be able  to harmonise the internal market and 
prevent the use of misleading claims.  
However, it is consider that if any action to  improve animal welfar e labelling is taken at 
the EU level then it would need to be accompanied by a wide communication campaign helping consumers understand what it is  behind the labelling scheme. But the 
characteristics of such campaign could only be  determined after an option is chosen. At 
this stage, as no policy option is certain to oc cur, is not possible to develop further this 
complementary action. The communication as pect of establishing a label will be 
explored further if a proposal were presented in the future.  
 
EN 26   EN In addition, as the policy deve lops further, greater efforts will be made to consider the 
synergies in this labelling proposal with other existing labelling policies – the EU 
Organic label, the Eco-label, DG Agri's  product quality proposal for a label and 
SANCO's food information policy. It will be important that the systems are coherent and compatible, i.e. they complement one another in delivering policy outcomes and that they 
are introduced in a consistent manner to pr event stakeholders a nd consumers receiving 
mixed and confusing messages. 
4. F
EASIBILITY ASSESSMENT  
4.1. General remarks from th e stakeholders survey 
Stakeholders are quite mixed concerning the assessment of most of the options. Most 
options get some support but, at the same time , also have strong opponents. All in all, the 
answers reflect the controversia l standpoints of different stake holder groups with a strong 
focus on economic interests in some cases and a strong focus on animal welfare concerns 
in other cases. 
4.2. Conformity of options wi th guiding principles 
A pre-feasibility assessment of the different options was carried out in order to confirm 
whether or not the different policy options  complied with the guiding principles:  
–  Degree to which options can be based on a sound scientific basi s and benchmarks to 
assess the level of animal welfare : There is currently no harmonised, recognised and 
reliable measuring instrument  for comprehensively assessing animal welfare across 
species, farming systems and supply chain stages available. However, relevant 
initiatives are under way, such as the Comm unity funded Welfare Quality Project. The 
current lack of such an instrument affect s the feasibility of all options, but to a 
different degree. Until a harmonised and reliab le instrument exists, it appears to be 
especially a challenge to implement mandato ry labelling (Options  1 and 2) in a way 
that would be widely r ecognised by stakeh olders as being based on a valid 
measurement of animal welfare. Option 3 is not relevant in this context (its impact would only be on third countries), and is in this respect similar to “no change”. Options 4 to 6 appear more feasible, because  they could be based on current scientific 
knowledge, with (remaining) gaps being le ss relevant. In a voluntary context, 
producers and processors who question the standards implemented would simply not 
opt-in and would consequently not face mandatory assessments. 
 
Box 3 
The Welfare Quality Project 
Welfare Quality is an EU funded project ai med at making animal welfare measurable on-
farm and trying to communicate the outcome  of this work to the public. More 
specifically, the project develops practical strategies to improve animal welfare, develops 
a European wide on-farm animal welfare stan dard, contributes to in formation strategies 
in animal welfare and enhances the informa tion exchange under scie ntific experts. The 
project collaborates with roughl y 250 scientists in 44 research  institutes representing 17 
countries in Europe and Latin America. U nder the project, protocols for cattle (dairy, 
beef and veal), poultry (laying hens and bro ilers) and pigs (fattening pigs and sows) are 
 
EN 27   EN being developed. These are integrated in a categorisation of farms: not classified, 
acceptable, enhanced and excellent. The objectiv e of the Welfare Quality project is to 
apply, if possible, animal based parameters instead of measuring resources or material 
requirements that determine the standards of most current animal husbandry schemes. 
Animal based parameters aim at taking into a ccount the effects of the farmer in terms of 
management. For example, good management practices could compensate for fair 
material standards. Next to the research on animal welfare indicators, a second area of 
work is to involve expert gr oups to analyse consumer concer ns, evaluate potential animal 
welfare markets, welfare label characteristics and inspection schemes. The project started 
in May 2004 and will, after an extension be finalised by the end of 2009.  
 
Stakeholders’ views: 
Mandatory labelling with EU minimum sta ndards is often strongly preferred by 
producers, processors and thei r industry associations, but is strongly disliked by most 
animal welfare organisations because they  cannot see any contri butions to improved 
animal welfare. Retailers also oppose th e mandatory labelling with EU minimum 
requirements because they doubt that complian ce with EU legislation should be labelled 
in the case of animal welfare. All in all, on average mandatory labelling (Options 1 to 3) 
are considered less feasible th an the rest of the options. 
– Degree to which options allow for inspectio n/audit and certifica tion by independent 
certification bodies:  Certification needs operational standards against which farmers, 
animal transport companies and slaught erhouses can be audited. This makes 
mandatory certification of animal welfare (Option 1) the least feasible option in 
absence of a harmonised, recognised a nd reliable measuring instrument for 
comprehensively assessing animal welfare,  which can be applied with reasonable 
costs in an audit process. Options 2 to 6 seem more feasible in this regard. It is needed to carefully evaluate the results of the We lfare Quality Project with respect to the 
practicability of welfare indicators in the certification process.  
Stakeholders’ views: 
Stakeholders see on average only small differen ces between policy options with regard to 
inspection/audit opportunities. Labelling of compliance with EU minimum standards 
(option 3) has a slight lead over other pol icy options. Labelling farming systems (option 
2) is, all in all, considered easier than labelling welfare standard s (option 1). Comments 
often refer to the lack of scientifically sound paramete rs that make audits and 
certification difficult. Furthermore, the larg e spectrum of different farming systems is 
considered an obstacle to  auditing and certification. 
– Degree to which options can cover a broad ra nge of farm animal species in order to 
avoid distortions of competition:  Coverage of a broad range of farm animal species is 
difficult regardless of which policy option is implemented. The consequences are most severe in the case of mandatory labelli ng based on welfare standards (Option 1). 
Mandatory labelling of farming systems (Opti on 2) appears to be somewhat easier and 
will allow quicker expansion of the range of farm animal species covered. Voluntary approaches (Options 4 to 6) are more flexible  in light of the scientific knowledge gaps 
and allow for a faster introduction of new species in the scheme. Whether or not 
 
EN 28   EN market distortions will occur or not very much depends on consumers’ reactions that 
cannot be predicted at this stage. 
Stakeholders’ views: 
Answers of stakeholders vary a lot and in clude some extreme opinions saying that all 
options are very feasible or not feasible at  all. Mandatory labell ing (Options 1 and 2), 
requirements for the use of claims (Option 4) and a Community Animal Welfare Label 
(Option 5) are only rarely considered “very feasible”. Guidelines for animal welfare 
labelling/ quality schemes (Option 6) is seen  on average as the most feasible option in 
this respect. 
A general warning often articulated by indu stry and industry asso ciations is that 
mandatory as well as voluntary standards crea te market distortions if they are not based 
on sound scientific evidence. It also argued that every labelling system will be easily 
misinterpreted by consumers because it may tend them to think that products without labels are not safe since consumers tend to  confuse animal welfare with (intrinsic) 
product quality attribut es such as safety. 
Producer organisations also complain about misleading information on animal welfare 
standards on products that demoni se certain farming systems.  
– Degree to which options can constitute a reliable, user friendly and transparent tool to 
communicate the quality of welfare and enab le consumers to make informed choices : 
Purchasing decisions are complex decisi ons influenced by a wide spectrum of 
interpersonal and intrapersonal factors, and in some cases more information may not have positive effects on consumers’ c hoices due to information overload. 
Nevertheless, the success of some recently  implemented labelling schemes indicates 
that labels can make a difference and ha ve the potential to em power consumers to 
make more informed choices. Mandatory la belling (Options 1 and 2) provides more 
information to consumers than voluntary labelling (Options 4 and 5). Option 3 (labelling compliance with EU minimum sta ndards) has a very limited effect on the 
ability of consumers to make informed choices. 
Stakeholders’ views: 
A majority of respondents to th e survey are to some extent optimistic that animal welfare 
labelling has the potential to  empower consumers. For more details on stakeholders’ 
perceptions on the effects of animal welfar e labelling on consumer behaviour see section 
5.3. 
– Compatibility of the options with international obligations towards third country 
trading partners :  
As of today, WTO jurisprudence has not addr essed in detail the legality of animal 
welfare measures, so that thei r legal characterisation remains to a certain extent uncertain 
and controversial.  
In order to be compatible with the EC's WTO obligations, measures on animal welfare 
applicable to imported products must respect  a series of basic principle such as non-
discrimination and proportionality.  
 
EN 29   EN One aspect of non-discrimination is nationa l treatment, under which imported products 
should be treated no less favourably than dom estic products, both in law and in practice. 
This means that the rules a pplied to imported products not only should be the same as 
those applied to domestic products, but also shou ld not result in a de facto discrimination 
of imported products, for example because the rules are tailor-made on the domestic situation. A way to ensure even-handedness of the measures would be to base any 
standard on international standards a nd sound scientific considerations.  
Another side of the non-discrimination prin ciple is the rule of most-favoured nation 
(MFN): rules applied to imported products  should not favour certain countries over 
others, whether in law or in practice. Agai n, use of international standards and sound 
scientific basis would help ensuring compatibility with this principle.  
As far as proportionality is concerned, the measur es should be as little  trade-restrictive as 
possible in order to achieve thei r desired objective. In this context, voluntary labelling is 
to be preferred over mandatory labelling as it would achieve the objective of informing 
interested consumers with limited trade restrictiveness  
The principles of proportionality and non-di scrimination would also  require effective 
provisions on the recognition of equivalence of  other countries' animal welfare scheme, 
as well as the possibility for foreign privat e operators who voluntarily apply EC animal 
welfare rules to have access to  EC certification and logos.  
Stakeholders’ views: 
Stakeholders only rarely refer to possibl e WTO/OIE problems, mainly in case of 
mandatory labelling. The openness of standards for third country producers is stressed in 
order to avoid WTO (World Tr ade Organisation) compatibili ty problems. Stakeholders 
also refer to the EU egg marketing legislatio n that has been notifie d to the WTO and has 
so far not been challenged by other WTO members.  
Conclusion: 
Voluntary labelling schemes appear to be the most proportionate measure to achieve 
animal welfare objectives. In order to comply  with WTO rules, they would have to be 
non-discriminatory and open to third countries and foreign operators.   
 
 
EN 30   EN Table 2: Assessment of compatibility of the options with guiding principles.  
Option  Based on sound 
scientific basis and 
benchmarks Coverage of broad 
range of farm animal 
species Possibility of third 
party inspection/audit 
and certification Compatibility with 
international obligations 
(WTO) 
Baseline option 
0. No change Not applicable Not applicable Not app licable Not applicable 
Mandatory labelling  
1. Mandatory labelling of the 
welfare standards under which 
products of animal origin are 
produced Current lack of 
harmonised and reliable 
measuring instrument for 
AW  Difficult, currently 
significant knowledge 
gaps Currently least feasible 
option in absence of a 
harmonised, recognised 
and reliable measuring 
instrument for AW Not possible to predict whether 
mandatory labelling could be 
successfully challenged 
2. Mandatory labelling of the 
farming system under which 
products of animal origin are produced Current lack of harmo-
nised, reliable measuring 
instrument, but more 
feasible than option 1  Labelling of farming 
systems easier than 
labelling of welfare 
standards Partly feasible if only a 
limited number of 
alternatives is taken into 
account  Not possible to predict whether 
mandatory labelling could be 
successfully challenged   
3. Mandatory labelling of 
compliance with EU minimum 
standards or equivalence with 
those No welfare-related 
scientific input required, 
however, does not 
contribute to higher AW 
standards in the EU  Possible on the basis of 
existing knowledge, 
however, does not 
contribute to higher AW 
standards in the EU Partly feasible, however, 
does not contribute to 
higher AW standards in 
the EU  Not possible to predict whether 
mandatory labelling could be 
successfully challenged   
Requirements for the voluntary use of claims  
4. Harmonised requirements for 
the voluntary use of claims in 
relation to animal welfare Voluntary claims based 
on current scientific 
knowledge, gaps less 
relevant. Start with 
selected species possible  More compatible with 
knowledge gaps; allows 
step-by-step approach for 
inclusion of species At least partly feasible 
since only auditing of 
those production systems 
that voluntarily apply for 
certification required  Compliance of  
voluntary labelling with WTO 
rules 
Other options  
5. A Community Animal 
Welfare Label open for 
voluntary participation Voluntary claims based 
on current scientific 
knowledge, gaps less 
relevant. Start with 
selected species possible  More compatible with 
knowledge gaps; allows 
step-by-step approach for 
inclusion of species  At least partly feasible 
since only auditing of 
those production systems 
that voluntarily apply for 
certification required  Compliance of  
voluntary labelling with WTO 
rules 
6. Guidelines for the 
establishment of animal welfare 
labelling and quality schemes Voluntary claims based 
on current scientific 
knowledge, gaps less 
relevant. Start with 
selected species possible  More compatible with 
knowledge gaps; allows 
step-by-step approach for 
inclusion of species  No certification required Compliance of  
voluntary labelling with WTO 
rules 
5. IMPACT OF OPTIONS  
The possible impacts of the different options  proposed for animal welfare labelling will 
largely depend on consumers reactions to anim al welfare labelling. It is difficult to 
predict how consumers will react to different  ways of providing information, though it 
looks like the more information provided to consumers, the bigger the impact on consumers behaviour. This is the only im plicit assumption used for estimating the 
impacts. The results of the Eurobaromete rs and surveys have not been used for 
estimating the impacts as they reflect ci tizens concerns and preferences but do not 
transfer over to purchasing behaviour. Th e data provided in the boxes on changes in 
demand due to animal welfare concerns were not extracted from the surveys but from an 
in-depth study commissioned by DG SA NCO and carried out by Agra CEAS 
Consulting
17of the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) in 2004. 
                                                 
17 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/fa rm/socio_economic_study_revised_en.pdf  
 
EN 31   EN 5.1. Who is affected, in which way and to what extent? 
5.1.1.  Consumers and citizens in the EU 
Consumers are key stakeholders groups in the debate of animal  welfare labelling.  
Consumer and citizens secure the societal be nefits arising from the application of EU 
animal welfare requirements on EU farms but they are in general unaware of the 
minimum requirements that EU farmers co mply with regarding animal welfare. 
There is a high level of interest in anim al welfare amongst citizens as demonstrated 
through the results of several Eurobarometer surveys. Citizens said that they will be 
willing to pay more for animal welfare friendl y products but at the same time they are not 
willing/able to process large amounts of information on the selling point. In addition this 
willingness seems not to be translated into th eir purchasing decision at the selling point.  
This may be related among others to the lack  of information on animal welfare. The egg 
labelling has shown that consumer interest on more animal welfar e-friendly products can 
be effectively translated into a switch in demand if adequate information - easily understood - is provided obligator ily at the selling point.  
In any case consumers are heterogeneous and segments of consumers exist: those for 
which price and a general concept of quality/i mage is the most important factor when 
making purchasing decisions and a smaller se gment searching for production-attribute 
and animal welfare friendly products. 
Consumers are affected by the l ack of information on animal welfare at the selling point 
as well as other information problems related to existing animal welfare private schemes 
as explained under the problem definition part  of this document. Possible impacts on 
consumers’ information and on consumers’ pr ices of the different policy options are 
analyzed later in this section.  
5.1.2.  Farmers, retailers 
During the consultation process carried out  for the study, the farming sector and 
processing industry has expresse d concerns about cost associ ated with animal welfare 
labelling. But at the same time animal welfar e is recognized as a market opportunity for 
producers and industry, and an opportunity to communicate to  consumers the efforts of 
EU or third country producers complying w ith certain animal welfare standards.  
The marketing success of animal welfare sche mes and a change of consumer behaviour 
are considered to have an effect on animal  welfare. An improved system of animal 
welfare labelling that will allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions could provide incentives for farmers to improve an imal welfare. The impacts on animal welfare 
of the different policy options for animal welf are labelling is analyzed in depth later in 
this document. 
 
5.2. International dimension 
Third countries may apply domestic anim al welfare measures that may impose 
equivalent requirements on farmers in the th ird country as those of the EU. Individual 
 
EN 32   EN producers in third countries may, for example through membership of a certification 
scheme, apply voluntarily equivalent or high er animal welfare measures (see Annex III 
of this document on existing animal we lfare schemes in third countries).  
Farmers in third countries that comply w ith equivalent EU minimum animal welfare 
standards are in a similar position to EU farmer s, in that they incur the additional effort 
and cost of compliance with the requirements , but they are competing in the EU with 
other third country producers who ha ve not followed those standards. 
Special regard should be paid to the position of farmers in developing countries and their 
capacities of complying with anim al welfare standards. Also the broader effects of trade 
and market access for developing countries should be taken into account.  
Animal welfare labelling cannot be seen sepa rate from the Commission's engagement in 
Fair Trade and other sustaina bility schemes that are aimi ng to improve the working and 
living conditions for producers in developing  countries. In its Co mmunication on Fair 
Trade and other sustainability schemes COM(2009)215, the Commission stresses i) the 
need of greater transparency to allow effi cient market functioning and ii) the importance 
of maintaining the non-governmental nature of Fair Trade and other sustainability 
schemes. A coherent approach towards these various existing labelling schemes will need 
to be considered. 
5.3. Impact of options on the anim al welfare conditions on farms 
Animal welfare schemes can have a positive impact on animal welfare if animal welfare 
conditions are higher than the minimum establ ished by the legislation. But the scale of 
the impact depends mainly on the percentage  of consumers buying these products and the 
uptake of higher welfare standards by  retailers and processing industry. 
The impact of animal welfare schemes on farm animal welfare depends on: (a) the 
success and (b) the validity and reliability of animal welfare labelling systems.  
The validity of the standard s implemented by animal welf are schemes depend on their 
scientific basis and has already been analy zed under point 4.2. The re liability of animal 
welfare schemes depend mainly on the inspect ion/certification procedures applied and 
has also been analyzed under point 4.2. 
The success of labelling systems can be meas ured through the severity of the standards 
developed and implemented and their market penetration (having in mind that severity 
and market penetration might be conflicting cr iteria). The higher the market penetration 
and the higher the severity of the standard, the bigger is the impact on animal welfare.  
Positive examples in this respect are Fr eedom Food and Label Rouge, which have a 
considerable market penetra tion, at least for some products  (see Table in Annex III).  
On the contrary, if there is no market de mand, even the most demanding animal welfare 
labelling system will not have any impact on an imal welfare. As this initiative does not 
intend to raise animal welfare standards, th e impact on animal welfare would be mainly 
determined on how the options would positively influence consumer demand for animal welfare friendly products.  
To estimate the impacts that different opti ons could have on consumer demand is not 
possible. However consumer information is lik ely to have an impact on their behaviour; 
 
EN 33   EN as demonstrated with the egg labelling and the continuing move by industry to extend 
animal welfare standards to composite pr oducts not covered by le gislation. In this 
context mandatory labelling (Options 1 and 2) can be expected to have stronger effects 
on consumer awareness (as all the products in the market would be labelled according to 
their standards or the farming systems followed) than the rest of the options.  
Voluntary options (options 4, 5 and 6) have more indirect effects on consumer awareness 
than mandatory options so their effects on animal welfare are even more difficult to 
predict.  
Stakeholders' views:  On average, respondents expect pos itive results of animal welfare 
labelling. Respondents do not perceive big di fferences between the options suggested 
with regard to impact on animal welfar e on farms – with one exception: Mandatory 
labelling of compliance with EU minimum sta ndards (option 3) is pe rceived least useful 
for improving animal welfare, and comp arable to the “no change” option.  
A closer look at the data reveals, however , remarkable differences between stakeholder 
groups.  
Animal welfare organisations  tend to argue that any form of labelling is better for animal 
welfare standards than no labelling at all. In  this sense, the EU egg marketing legislation 
is considered a blueprint and successful example. Only labelling of compliance with EU minimum standards is rejected by these orga nisations. Animal welfare organisations tend 
to emphasize the high relevance of consumer behaviour for improved animal welfare.  
Processing Industry and industry associations  argue differently a nd they expect that 
labelling of compliance with EU minimum st andards may not contribute to higher animal 
welfare standards in non-EU countries. Furt hermore, they consider it likely that 
mandatory animal welfare labelling will shif t production to non-EU countries with lower 
animal welfare standards. Therefore, they th ink that animal welfare might be worse off 
with labelling as long as WTO rules do not allow the EU to discriminate products produced at lower standards. Therefore, an  EU-only approach is strongly rejected. 
Conclusion:  the option that would have the most significant impact on animal welfare 
seems to be the mandatory labelling of an imal welfare standards but this is highly 
dependant on a significant number of cons umers changing purchasing patterns and 
demanding higher welfare standard products  while the labelling of EU minimum 
standards is regarded as si milar to the no-change option - although stakehol ders groups 
have significant diverg ent views on the issue. 
5.4. Social impacts 
5.4.1.  Impact of the options on c onsumers’ information.  
More information provided by labels allows consumers to make more informed choices; 
however, in some cases more information may also have detrimental effects on 
consumers’ choices due to information overl oad. Consumers are no t however immune to 
information on production method and, when prompted, regard this as a highly significant and important item providing usef ul information for purchase decisions. For 
example, the decline of cage-produced eggs so ld in-shell illustrates the power of such 
labelling. Even if the decline has been due pr imarily to skilful messaging rather than the 
labelling alone, the fact that all products we re labelled according to production method in 
 
EN 34   EN ways that found resonance with consumers must  have assisted rete ntion of the message 
through to the point of sale.  
Mandatory labelling (Options 1 and 2) provide s most information to consumers, whereas 
the effects of voluntary labelling depend on the market shares of labelled products 
(Options 4 and 5). However, option one with different labels for di fferent standards may, 
if it is not clear, create more consumer confusion rather than empower consumers to 
make purchasing decisions Option 3 (labelli ng compliance with EU minimum standards) 
has a very limited effect as it would only allow to distinguish imported products that have not followed EU or equivalent standards.  
Labelling is only likely to have the desire d effects if consumers are a) adequately 
informed on the meaning of the label; b) the information provided is readily understandable; c) consumers (or relevant su b-groups) are in princi ple interested in 
having this information available for their purchasing decisions, as is according to Eurobarometer data the case for products sourced from animal welfare friendly 
production systems and d) other drivers don't in fluence their choice more (i.e. price).  
Stakeholders' views:  
A majority of respondents to the survey are to some extent 
optimistic about the potential of animal  welfare labelling schemes to empower 
consumers. Mandatory labelling (welfare st andards) and mandatory labelling (farming 
systems) are on average seen as ha ving most impact in this respect. 
Retailers tend to be most sceptical about addi tional labelling as, in their view, mandatory 
labelling has the potential to mislead consum ers. Producer organisations also complain 
about misleading information on animal welf are standards on products that demonise 
certain farming systems.  
Animal welfare organisations tend to prefer mandatory labelling of welfare standards or 
farming systems. In their view, consumers s till have to assume or guess the welfare 
standard of some product as long as labelling is not mandatory.  
5.4.2.  Impacts on employment 
Animal welfare labelling may have positive impacts on employment, if the policy option 
chosen allows producers and retailers to communicate effectively to the consumers. 
Animal welfare is recognized as a market opportunity and as a factor for product 
differentiation, therefore it is considered that market share fo r these products may 
increase. This could have a knock-on effect  on businesses and may lead to increased 
employment in this area. However, this is subject to consumer purchasing patterns 
switching.   
5.5. Economic impacts 
As the main purpose of this initiative is to pr esent the results of the feasibility study on 
animal welfare in order to open the debate in the Council and the European Parliament 
the analysis has been mainly qualitative rela ting to the differing impacts of introducing a 
mandatory scheme or a voluntary scheme. At th is stage a full estimation of costs has not 
been carried out. Some quantitative estimati on of the possible impacts of the different 
options was requested in the external study, but stakeholders were unable to properly 
quantify or provide estimates for the impact.  
 
EN 35   EN It is considered that the likely stakeholders that will be significantly affected by this 
proposal will be: farmers, livestock producer s and other food-chain operators, retailers 
and consumers' and the competent authoriti es in the Member States. If the policy 
develops further consultati on with these groups and ot her stakeholders about the 
potential impact of any preferred opti on for action will need to be undertaken. 
In addition a detailed analysis of the im pacts on costs for producers and on consumer 
prices will be carried out. It  has to be born e in mind that this init iative deals only with 
labelling of products an d that the raising of minimum anim al welfare standards in the EU 
is not intended. 
Some examples of animal welfare measures that may trigger changes in demand and in 
production costs for producers have also be en included in this document. These 
estimations are based on an in-depth study  of the socio-economic implications of the 
various systems to keep laying hens commissioned by DG SANCO and carried out by 
Agra CEAS Consulting18of the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) in 2004. 
5.5.1.  Impact of the options  on livestock producers and ot her food business operations 
participating in the labelling scheme  
Certification costs 
Mandatory labelling of welfare standards,  farming systems or compliance with EU 
minimum standards (options 1 to 3) will create certification costs at the farm level only if 
the EU or Member States decide to require third party certificati on. In any case, there 
will be cost associated with th e modification of all labels to adjust to the requirement to 
provide specific information on animal welfar e. It has to be borne in mind that any 
mandatory animal welfare labelling would be subj ected to official controls as established 
by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the Europ ean Parliament and of the Council of 29 
April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with 
feed and food law, animal hea lth and animal welfare rules19 Therefore the scale of the 
economic impacts would depend on whether or  not competent authorities rely on third 
party certification. 
Voluntary options would create certifica tion costs for those farmers who voluntarily 
decide to produce at animal welfare levels  above EU minimum standards. This may 
require some initial investments, for instance in documentation technologies, time spent to implement the standard, external advi sory service or up- front staff training. 
Certification also comes along with operati ng costs such as time spent on documentation 
of day-to-day farm or firm activities (for instance, hygiene management), office material, 
recurring auditing costs or membership fees.  
Some certification schemes are organized as clubs and charge membership fees
 to farms 
participating in the scheme. In some cases cert ification costs are borne by processors as it 
is the case in the German Qualitaet & Sicher heit (QS) certification system. Certification 
costs are based on company size, scope and comp lexity of operation. The cost structure is 
also based on the minimum audit time on site. It is therefore difficu lt to state exact fees. 
Costs differ from certifier to certifier but ar e estimated to lie somewhere between 1000 € 
                                                 
18 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/fa rm/socio_economic_study_revised_en.pdf  
19 OJ L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 1  
 
EN 36   EN and 2500 € for an annual audit of 1-2 days. So me examples of certification costs are 
provided below. 
 
Box 4 
Examples of certification costs estimated for different schemes  
Freedom Food labelling scheme: responsibilit y for auditing lies ini tially with Freedom 
Food Ltd, with additional check s carried out inde pendently by CMi Ce rtification. Most 
certification bodies can offer Freedom Food certification using in spectors trained by 
Freedom Food Ltd, but Freedom Food Ltd must approve these organisations. Participants 
are charged a membership fee (minimum 158 Euro  per year), which covers the cost of 
their annual inspection 
 
Production costs  Production costs involve costs necessary to  meet the requirements of a specific 
certification standard or a mandatory one  (e.g., investments in improved housing 
conditions, new cleaning equipment for improved hygiene management or more 
advanced slaughter technologies and operati ng costs such as additional tests and 
sampling, more intensive veterinary supe rvision, additional labour costs, reduced 
biological performance, etc).  
It has to be clear that this initiative onl y deals with animal we lfare labelling and has 
nothing to do with raising minimum an imal welfare standards in the EU. 
Therefore those farmers and food business opera tors that regardless of the policy option 
implemented for labelling of animal welfar e standards (including mandatory labelling) 
decide to continue to produ ce at EU minimum welfare sta ndards will not face higher 
production costs. But if consumers increas ingly buy products adhe ring to higher animal 
welfare standards, this may reduce their net in come and provide market incentive to them 
to invest in changing their systems.  
If farmers voluntarily (or i nduced by increased demand fo r animal welfare friendly 
products) decide to participate in higher st andard animal welfare scheme, additional 
operating and investment costs will depe nd on the scheme’s requirements and the status 
quo ante  of the farm.  From egg production in Germa ny, we know that the sharply 
decreasing market share of shel l eggs from battery cages and the national ban of battery 
cages resulted in a drop out of small family farms from egg production. Small farmers 
decided not to invest in egg production syst ems with higher animal welfare standards; 
therefore, large and extra-large producers now  have higher market shares in German egg 
production than before.  
In this regard mandatory options could have  a higher impact on consumer awareness and 
demand and thus may trigger  unintended structural side eff ects as the small farmers may 
decide, or may not be able to invest in production systems with higher animal welfare 
 
EN 37   EN standards; therefore, large and extra-large producers could have highe r market shares in 
production than before20. 
Box 5 
Production costs  (Source: socio-economic implications  of the various systems to keep 
laying hens, Agra CEAS Consulting) 
Feed requirements per bird (and feed conversion) are lowe st in the traditional cage 
systems and highest in organi c and free range systems. Ge nerally the more freedom a 
bird has to move about the more energy it need s. As bird density decreases more energy 
will also be needed in order to keep warm. The number of eggs collected per bird per 
year is highest in the caged system and ge ts progressively lower through barn and free 
range to organic 
Fixed costs of alternative systems are highe r and performance per unit of floor space will 
be weaker as a result of greater space allowance. 
 
Costs of labelling: 
If labelling becomes mandatory (Options 1, 2 and 3), processors will have to label all 
their products. This may cause investment cost s (for instance, redesign of food packaging 
or, in some cases, investments in labelling equipment) and operating costs (for instance, 
for labelling material). Furthermore, additiona l certification costs wi ll result if the EU or 
Member States rely on private certification (s ee previous section).Using the estimates 
from the Food Information Proposal regardin g label changes it is  considered that 
redesigning a label per product can vary fr om $380 for a minor change to $16 600 for a 
full label design. Consider ing that any labelling requirement for this proposal is likely to 
be a minor change for most products (adding a logo or symbol) it is considered that the 
impact will be at the lower end of the cost scale. Data provided by the UK indicates that most companies change their labels within  twelve months. Therefore if a mandatory 
system was to be introduced, consideration on transitional arrangement and phase-in times would have to be considered in orde r to keep the re-labelling and associated 
administrative costs to a minimum.  
If mandatory labelling of produc ts is introduced, these costs would add to the costs of 
labelling resulting from other legislative requ irements (marketing standards, traceability, 
etc).  
Costs due to market segmentation: 
Additional costs are likely if the labelling sy stem implemented crea tes different classes 
of products that have to be separated from each other, even if they only fulfil minimum 
requirements. This results in market segmenta tion, increases the risk of out-of-stocks and 
problems with shelf-life of f ood products. Out of stocks re sult in sales losses, whereas 
                                                
 
20 A complete analyses of production costs for different production standards for laying hens and 
broilers are available here:  
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/f arm/socio_economic_study_revised_en.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf  
 
EN 38   EN problems with shelf-life result in additional costs for spoiled products that have to be 
removed from supermarkets shelves or warehouses.  
The implementation of traceability systems wa s compulsorily established by Regulation 
(EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliame nt and of the Council of 28 January 2002 
laying down the general principles and re quirements of food law, establishing the 
European Food Safety Authority and laying do wn procedures in matters of food safety 
for all food products.  
But the "degree" of tr aceability required by EU depends on the product (rules for beef are 
stricter than for other products  due to the BSE crisis) and therefore the impact of the 
options on this costs would also depend on the product.  
Costs of traceability of this products would depend also on wh ether all the stages of the 
production chain are included or not (farming, transport and slaughter). 
5.5.2.  Impact of options on the net income of livesto ck producers and other food 
business operations participati ng in the labelling scheme 
The impacts of the different policy options on the net income of operators would mainly 
depend on consumer demand. Those farmers a nd food business operators that, regardless 
of the policy option implemented for labellin g of animal welfare standards (including 
mandatory labelling), decide to continue to  produce at EU minimum welfare standards 
would not have to bear additional costs (exc ept that processors have to bear some 
minimum costs in the case of mandatory labe lling). Therefore, the effects on their net 
income depend on the demand side. If consum ers increasingly buy pr oducts adhering to 
higher animal welfare standard s, this may reduce their net income and force them to 
invest in changing their systems.  
In this regard, mandatory la belling (options 1 and 2) w ould have probably the biggest 
impact on demand side. As already explained in this document Option 3 (mandatory labelling of minimum animal welfare standa rds) could have an impact on demand as 
regard imported products. 
To estimate the percentage of increased dema nd for animal welfare friendly products is 
not possible at this stage. For the laying hens sector several scenarios considering 
changes in demand were analyzed with the following results: 
 
EN 39   EN Box 6 
Changes in demand  (Source: socio-economic implications of the various systems to 
keep laying hens, Agra CEAS Consulting) 
Scenario 1: reduction in demand for caged  egg production  (of 1%, 5%, 10% and 20% 
where analyzed): 
Producers still gain because th ey are in principle able to switch into production of 
processed and shell eggs from alternative sy stems. This means that even with a 20% 
reduction in demand for caged shell eggs producer surplus rises by some €20 million in 
EU-15 and €27 million in the EU-25. At the sa me time the modelling results demonstrate 
that as demand for shell eggs is reduced domes tically there is a compensating increase in 
imports of 4.47% and 5.11% respectively for the EU-15 and EU-25 in the case of a 20% 
reduction in caged shell demand. These results ar e of course predicated on the ability of 
egg producers to adjust their production mix and clearly this will not happen 
immediately. There will be an adjustment period. The speed of adjustment will, for 
example, depend on the availability of capital. However, it is clear from these results that 
a reduction in demand for one product will force producers to look at alternative forms of 
production and within our model thes e are other types of egg production. 
Operators that decide to part icipate in higher animal welf are programmes would have to 
bear additional costs as explained under th e previous section. Impacts on the income of 
these operators would depend mainly on wh ether additional revenues outweigh higher 
certification and production costs.  
 This depends on consumers’ willingness to pay for more animal welfare and the sharing 
of additional costs and benefits throughout the supply chain. Consumer willingness to 
pay more for animal welfare friendly produc ts is assessed differently depending on the 
stakeholders interviewed. For the results of the several Eurobarometers and other surveys 
it seems clear that there are a significant per centage of consumers that would pay more 
for animal welfare friendly products. Although it should be noted that  these surveys were 
carried out in previous years and that the current economic impact might result in these 
percentages no longer being valid, or at least decreasing, as consumers have less disposal 
income to spend. 
 Box 7 
Placing a value on welfare benefits  (Source: socio-economic implications of the 
various systems to keep laying hens, Agra CEAS Consulting) 
Bennett and Blaney (2003) employed continge nt valuation to e licit UK consumer’s 
willingness to pay for legislation under whic h traditional caged egg production would be 
phased out. They report as a resu lt of their research that th is proposal would yield annual 
benefits of £161 million (or some €240 million). This figure is for the UK alone and if 
we assume that similar estimates were to be  derived across the EU-15 or EU-25 then we 
can see that the non-market benefits of improvements in animal welfare are significant. 
On this basis even where the modelling above projects a decrease in market surplus, the 
net impact bearing in mind the non-mark et aspects could well be positive. 
 
EN 40   EN Consumer willingness to pay more will positiv ely influence the net income of livestock 
producers and food-businesses opera tors who adhere to higher  animal welfare standards 
Stakeholders' views:  Stakeholders are quite sceptical  about the income effects of 
mandatory labelling and, on average, expect negative effects. The expectations are more 
positive with regard to voluntary labelling. With more or less only two exceptions 
(mandatory labelling of welfare standards (option 1) and harmonised requirements for 
the voluntary use of claims (option 5)), expe ctations are close to  zero level indicating 
that stakeholders, at least on averag e, do not expect significant impacts. 
Conclusion:  The impact of animal welfare labelling on net income of livestock 
producers and processors mainly depends on demand side effects.  These effects are 
essential for the impact on ne t income of livestock producer s and processors, regardless 
of whether they adhere to higher animal we lfare standards or not . Mandatory labelling 
(Options 1 and 2) possibly has a somewhat bigger impact  on net income and farm 
structure than other options due to a possibly stronger infl uence on consumer awareness 
and buying decisions. 
5.5.3.  Impact of options on consumer prices  
Food product prices are determined by various  factors (see figure below); costs are only 
one of them.  
     Figure 1: Determinants of food prices 
 
EN 41   EN  
    Source: Spencer (2004).  
As long as EU minimum animal welfare re quirements are not raised and consumers do 
not sharply change their buy ing behaviour, higher consumer  prices are not to be 
expected. This is regardless of which polic y option is implemented. Producers willing to 
participating in a voluntary scheme will f ace additional certifica tion, traceability and 
labelling costs, whether this scheme is private or set at EU level. However, it is very difficult to assess whether th ese costs will be passed on to  the consumers or not. If 
consumers decide to buy animal products  produced under higher animal welfare 
standards, they will very likely have to pay higher prices for the higher (process) quality. Whether (and how many) consumers are willi ng to pay for more animal welfare-friendly 
products particularly given the current  economic climate is an open question. 
Experiences with existing labelling schemes are very diverse, depending on the characteristics of the scheme and the Member State.  
Box 8 
Some examples on impacts on consumers’ pric es: What are we talking about regarding 
price increase due to higher animal welf are standards? (Source: SCAHAW report) 
Assuming that a person consumes an  average of 220 eggs pr year 
Extra costs of buying barn eggs instead of  battery eggs: 5,5 Euro-cents pr week 
Extra costs of buying free range eggs instead of battery eggs: 11 Euro-cents pr week 
The newly adopted standards for broiler chicke ns: Adds 2,5-8 Euro-cents to the cost of 
producing a chicken 
 

 
EN 42   EN The price premium that can be obtained fo r Freedom Food production depends to a large 
extent on the product, but is typically around 10%.  
Stakeholders' views  On average, the majority of stakeh olders expect an  increase although 
not big impact on consumer prices.  
Some producer associations argue that average prices will not change at all due to strong 
market competition. Animal welfare organisatio ns argue that there is no impact of animal 
welfare standards on prices because every pr oducer chooses what standard he or she 
wants to comply with. Therefore, no price change but a shift in  buying patterns is 
expected. 
Several producer, processor a nd retailer organisations ar gue that the increases in 
production costs along the meat supply chain will be reflected in highe r consumer prices. 
Some producer associations also argue that it is very much in the hands of the retailers 
whether prices will rise or not. The possibility to pass extr a costs to consumers (as it was 
done in the egg sector) is questioned. 
There are very diverse assessments of consum ers’ willingness to pay for more animal 
welfare. Some respondents refer to Euroba rometer or Welfare Qu ality surveys that 
indicate a considerable willingness to pay.21 Other, less optimistic respondents – often 
animal welfare organisations or research institutes – see some willingness to pay under certain circumstances (good standard, highl y trusted by consumers, good communication 
concept etc.). Good communication a nd a convincing standard assumed, price 
premiums between 5 and 20 % are deemed realistic.  These organisations also see a 
positive trend in the sense that consumers’ willingness to pay is higher than before, 
although it might be threatened by generally rising food prices.  
Livestock producers, processors, retailers and their associations  are, in general, rather 
pessimistic concerning consumers’ willingne ss to pay. They doubt that many consumers 
are concerned about animal welfare and argue th at price is still the single most important 
criterion for the vast majority of consumers when buying food products.  
5.5.4.  Impact of options on existing private ma rketing schemes referring to animal 
welfare 
Mandatory labelling (Options 1 and 2) or  the introduction of a Community Animal 
Welfare Label (Option 5) would likely w eaken the unique selling proposition of existing 
schemes and, thus, may have negative effect s (although these effects are uncertain in the 
case of mandatory labelling). On the othe r side, a new and widely accepted animal 
welfare scheme may also contribute to growing consumer awareness and a growing 
market share of animal welfar e-friendly products in general. This can lead to a market 
situation in which all schemes are better off than before. This has – at least to a certain degree – happened in the organic food market where the EU label has opened the door to 
new consumer segments. Traditional labels and retail channels have lost market shares 
but, at the same time, most of them have gain ed in absolute numbers with regard to sales 
volume and value. 
                                                
 
21 See special Eurobarometer 229(2)/Wave 64.4: Attitudes of  consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals 
Wave 2 (March 2006).  
 
EN 43   EN Options 4 and 6 do not change the market posit ion of existing schemes as long as no new 
schemes come up and as long as it is easy for existing schemes to meet the new legal 
requirements. So far it is difficult to pr edict whether a change in the regulatory 
framework for using animal welfare-related cl aims or establishing animal welfare labels 
will provoke the emergence of new competing labels. 
Mandatory labelling of compliance with EU  minimum standards (option 3) will not 
affect existing marketing schemes. 
Conclusion:  Impacts on existing private marke ting schemes are more likely under 
mandatory labelling (Options 1 and 2) or  the introduction of a Community Animal 
Welfare Label (Option 5). On the one ha nd, negative impacts are possible as these 
options could weaken the unique selling pr oposition of existing schemes although the 
analyses are very uncertain. On the othe r hand, a new and widely accepted animal 
welfare scheme or mandatory labelling ma y also contribute to growing consumer 
awareness and a growing market  share of animal welfare-fri endly products in general. 
The case of the EU organic labe l indicates that existing schemes may be better off in the 
end despite the loss of thei r unique selling proposition. 
Stakeholders' opinions:  Stakeholders agree that effects on existing private marketing 
schemes very much depend on which option is  chosen. Options 4 (requirements for the 
use of claims) and 6 (guidelines for animal  welfare labelling) are assessed the most 
positively; in these cases the majority of respondents expects somewhat positive or neutral impacts on existing schemes, some even  predict very positive impacts. The other 
policy options are assessed quite sceptically ; most respondents expect somewhat negative 
or very negative effects on existing labelling schemes. Mandatory labelling splits stakeholder opinions and gets a considerable number of both very positive and very negative answers. 
Negative effects are foreseen by some industry and retail associations that expect that 
existing schemes will be eliminated by mandato ry labelling. Others are more optimistic 
in their assessments. They expect that ex isting schemes will have to adapt to a new 
standard and, therefore, it is proposed that integration of st andards should be possible. 
This may include significant changes that  have to be accompanied by intensive 
communication with consumers who are familia r with the existing schemes. Respondents 
also indicate that existing private sche mes have to defend their unique selling 
propositions and will, therefore, likely ex ceed standards required under an EU animal 
welfare labelling scheme. 
Animal welfare organisations tend to have mixed opinions. Whereas one view is to 
expect a general improvement of existing labels  as soon as EU legislation is in place, 
another view is to expect even less animal we lfare if a lower standa rd EU scheme pushes 
existing private schemes with  higher animal welfare sta ndards out of the market. 
5.5.5.  Impact of options on the enforcem ent costs of public authorities 
With regard to existing certification schemes,  public as well as pr ivate certification and 
inspection bodies can be observed. Organic farming certification in Denmark, Sweden 
and France is based on a public inspection sy stem of producers, but there are also other 
countries where organic label ling relies on private certificati on bodies operating within a 
public framework that registers the certific ation bodies and overs ees their activities
 In 
most certification schemes (for instance, ISO st andards, International Food Standard), the 
 
EN 44   EN certification bodies are paid by the companie s that seek to obta in the certificate. 
Therefore, neither voluntary nor mandato ry labelling nor the introduction of a 
Community Animal Welfare Label (Options 1 to  3 and 5) necessarily  mean that public 
authorities have to bear additional certificati on costs, but they will have oversight costs, 
including listing and delisti ng certifiers, if the organi c farming model is followed. 
Harmonized requirements for the use of claims  (Option 4) would normally rely on self-
declaration subject to risk-based pub lic enforcement under Regulation 882/2004, which 
for a non-hygiene and safety measure implies a low priority for public inspection and so 
a low cost . In this case, standard setters would submit a proposal to a competent 
authority that checks compliance with requirements. Nevertheless, since there will only 
be a limited number of animal welfare labe lling schemes, additional costs of public 
authorities are likely be quite limited. 
Stakeholders' opinions:  Most stakeholders agree that labelling needs enforcement and 
that this does not come for free. They also agree widely that the impact on the 
enforcement costs of public authorities depends very much on the policy option 
implemented. The vast majority of responde nts expect that mandatory labelling of 
welfare standards and farming systems will result in very signi ficant or at least 
significant increases of enforcement costs. 
Producers, processors and their associations  stress that mandatory labelling will create 
the highest need for governmental enforcemen t. At the same time, these private actors 
attribute not the highest efficiency to gove rnment services. Some also fear that 
government will try to pass on parts of the add itional costs to industry. All in all, private 
actors tend to show objections against – wh at they consider – too much government 
intervention. 
The other options are perceived as less cost intensive for public authorities. Nevertheless, 
some of the respondents still expect increas es (but only rarely significant increases) 
whereas a considerable number e xpect no cost effects at all. 
Conclusion:  The impact of voluntary or mandatory  labelling or the introduction of a 
Community Animal Welfare Label (Options 1 to  3 and 5) on enforcement costs of public 
authorities are limited, if the system relies on private certification. Enforcement costs 
could result, however, if pub lic inspection systems were to be used. Harmonised 
requirements for the use of claims (Option 4) may need public enforcement or an approval system that could bring some (but not high) costs for authorities. 
5.5.6.  Impact of options on imports from third countries (extra EU-trade) 
Depending on the degree to which third countr ies produce to higher or lower animal 
welfare standards, the impact of options on  imports from third countries can differ. 
Labelling compliance with EU minimum sta ndards (Option 3) can create a competitive 
advantage for EU producers over those third country producers that have problems to 
meet these standards, at leas t where consumer prices for th e competing goods are similar.  
In so far as non-EU producers do not have pr oblems to meet EU standards,  market 
distortion should be very low, regardless of  whether labelling is mandatory (Options 1 
and 2) or voluntary (under Options 4, and 6)  or based on a Community Animal Welfare 
Label (Option 5) open to third country producers.  
Stakeholder opinions:  
Stakeholders neither expect a si gnificant positive nor a negative 
impact on imports from non-EU countries  
 
EN 45   EN Respondents – in many cases from industry an d industry associations  – expecting very 
limited effects often argue that price is the most important criterion for the vast majority of consumers.  
It is also argued that efficient meat produ cers such as Brazil and New Zealand can easily 
adapt to current (or even higher) EU animal welfare standards.  
Those respondents that expect decreasing im ports argue that consumers may prefer 
labelled EU products over non-labelled impor ted products. These stakeholders have a 
strong preference for labelling compliance with EU minimum standards since they think 
that this will drive out low-cost imports pr oduced at lower animal welfare standards.  
A small number of responde nts expect increasing impo rts due to growing cost 
advantages of non-EU producers and that, due  to WTO problems, standards will only be 
enforced within but not outside the EU so th at third country producer will have (unfair) 
competitive advantages. 
5.6. Environmental impacts 
Labelling per se has no dire ct environmental impacts. Possible indirect impacts would 
depend on requirements of the higher animal welfare standard labelled (e.g. concerning 
access to pasture), the natural conditions of a specific country (e.g. the availability of 
pasture and its status) and the market shar e of products labelled with a higher animal 
welfare standard. If the option chosen would have a significant impact on the 
development of private schemes relying on extensive animal husbandry systems indirect environmental impacts can be expected due to changes in land use, waste, pollution, etc. 
These aspects will be assessed in more detail if a proposal were presented in the future. 
5.7. Administrative burden impacts 
As outlined in the Costs of labelling section on page 24 it is not considered at this stage 
that the policy options would impose consider able additional administrative burden costs 
on stakeholders. If a compulsory scheme was to be considered as  a viable option to 
progress the policy objective further work woul d be carried out, usi ng the Standard Cost 
Model to explore the im pacts of certification and labelli ng. Although it is c onsidered that 
any certification schemes would fit within current reporting requirements to prevent 
additional burdens. Whilst the most consider able admin burden cost could stem form 
labelling changes as most companies chan ge their labels with in twelve months 
introducing the requirements with a transiti onal period would be sufficient for businesses 
to normalise the costs.  
 
5.8. Impacts on Small Businesses 
It is hoped that by harmonising the we lfare standards used by companies  to label animal 
products small businesses will be able to meet  the standards and pr ofit from the market 
opportunity.  It is hoped that through the us e of guidance and transitional periods, there 
will not be disproportionately higher impacts on small businesses. Given the fact that the sectors affected by this proposal are predomin ately SMEs a further small business impact 
test will need to be carried out if furt her EU action is considered necessary.  
Table 3: Assessment of impacts of the options 
 
EN 46   EN  AW 
conditions 
on farm Informed 
purchasing 
decisions Production 
costs Producer 
income Consumer 
price Existing 
private 
schemes Enforce-
ment costs 
authorities Imports 
from 3rd  
countries 
Baseline option  
0. No change No impact No impact  No impact  No impact  No impact  No impact  No impact  No impact 
Mandatory labelling 
1. Mandatory 
labelling of 
welfare 
standards  Higher 
pressure on producers 
due to consumers 
awareness 
possible
 Provides 
most 
information  Certification 
costs for producers, 
processors. Limited 
additional 
labelling costs for processors.  Depends on 
demand side effects; on 
average in many cases close to zero
 Higher prices 
only due to changing 
consumption 
patterns
 Poss. loss of 
unique selling 
proposition of existing schemes 
 Limited 
costs Distortive 
effects on markets 
unlikely
 
2. Mandatory 
labelling of 
farming system As 1, but 
weaker 
relationship with AW
 Provides a 
lot of 
information, 
but possibly 
less relevant 
for AW  Certification 
costs for 
producers, 
processors. 
Limited additional 
labelling 
costs for 
processors. 
 Depends on 
demand side 
effects; on 
average in 
many cases 
close to zero  Higher prices 
only due to 
changing 
consumption 
patterns  Poss. loss of 
unique 
selling 
proposition 
of existing 
schemes  Limited 
costs Distortive 
effects on 
markets unlikely
 
3. Mandatory 
labelling of compliance 
with EU 
minimum 
standards  No effects 
on EU farms  Additional 
information 
only for non-
EU products  Very limited 
addit.costs 
for producers, processors 
adhering to 
EU minimum 
standards
 Depends on 
demand side 
effects; on average in 
many cases 
close to zero
 Higher prices 
only due to 
changing consumption patterns
  No effects  Limited 
costs Distortive 
effects on 
markets are 
unlikely  
Requirements for the voluntary use of claims  
4. Harmonised 
requirements 
for use of 
claims in 
relation to AW Indirect and 
difficult to 
predict  Depends on 
market share of labelled 
products
 No costs if 
adhering to EU minimum 
standards
 Depends on 
demand side effects; on 
average in many cases close to zero
 Higher prices 
only due to changing 
consumption 
patterns
 Depends on 
whether existing 
schemes can easily meet requirements
 Poss. low 
costs for running an 
appraisal and enforcement system
 Distortive 
effects on markets are 
unlikely
 
Other options         
5. Community 
Animal Welfare Label 
for voluntary 
participation More direct 
effects, 
depending on market 
share of 
label
 Depends on 
market share 
of labelled 
products  No costs if 
adhering to 
EU minimum 
standards  Depends on 
demand side 
effects; on average in 
many cases 
close to zero
 Higher prices 
only due to 
changing consumption patterns
 Poss. loss of 
unique selling 
proposition, but possible 
increase in 
market size
 No public 
costs if 
private certification 
of farms and 
firms
 Distortive 
effects on 
markets are 
unlikely  
6. Guidelines 
for the establishment 
of schemes Indirect and 
difficult to 
predict  Very 
indirect 
positive effect possible
 No costs if 
adhering to 
EU minimum 
standards  Depends on 
demand side 
effects; on average in 
many cases 
close to zero Higher prices 
only due to 
changing consumption patterns
 Depends on 
whether 
existing schemes can 
easily meet 
requirements No effects, if 
not binding  Distortive 
effects on 
markets are 
unlikely 
 
 
6. CONCLUSIONS  
As the initiative is intended to  open the debate on animal we lfare labelling of products, at 
this early stage none of the options is discar ded. Policy options would be chosen in light 
of the results of the inter-i nstitutional debate and the impact assessment accompanying 
the proposal if a legislative proposal were  to be presented in the future. Careful 
consideration would be made  on which option would better suit each farming sector 
tacking into its characteristics and social , economic and environmental impacts of each. 
It would be possible th at different options or a combina tion of options would be applied 
 
EN 47   EN depending on the farming sector. The impact of each of these options on third countries 
also needs to be considered carefully. 
Also the adequateness of labelling of other pr oducts such as fur or including labelling of 
composite products could be analyzed in th e future depending on the outcome of the 
inter-institutional debate. 
In any case it appears that this initiative is necessary in order to present different 
possibilities for animal welfare labelli ng and allow for discussion on the issue. 
Having said that, the results of the analyses  allow considering the following options as 
less adequate: 
The “no change” option (Option 0): 
This option would not allow for adapting to consumers demands for animal welfare 
information. The potential proliferation of different schemes could lead to increase 
consumer confusion. This option would not profit  from the effectivenes s of labelling as a 
communication tool due to the lack of an EU  framework for animal welfare labelling. 
Inconsistent approach in terms of the cont ent and availability of information would 
continue. 
Mandatory labelling of animal welfare standards (Option 1):  
At this stage of the scientific development th is options does not seem realistic. If in the 
future reliable and internationally recogni zed animal welfare indicators were to be 
available and if to use these indicators in a certification process seems possible from a practical and economic point of  view, mandatory labelling of  animal welfare standards 
could be applied. The results of the Welfare Quality Project are expe cted to bring about 
significant developments in this sense.  
Mandatory labelling of farming systems (Option 2): 
This option is more feasible than option 1 a nd in fact it is alrea dy in place for the egg-
sector. Drawbacks of this option are first of all that the link between farming systems and 
animal welfare is not direct and could in a certain way mislead consumers (as consumers assume that there is a direct link). 
 
EN 48   EN Mandatory labelling of EU mi nimum standards (Option 3): 
Advantages of option 3 is that minimum st andards have already been agreed and are 
established by EU legislation but on the other hand benefits  of this option for animal 
welfare and consumer information are quite limited. In addition, all mandatory options would imply significant costs for operators (certification, labelling) and competent authorities (enforcement costs). 
Voluntary options seem more f easible at this stage although option 6 (Guidelines for 
the establishment of schemes) is considered to provide low added value as regards 
animal welfare, consumers information, and addressing problems of competence among 
operators : 
At this early stage of the policy development, the most feasible options seem to be 
Option 4 (harmonised requirements for th e voluntary use of claims) and Option 5 
(Community Animal Welfar e Label modelled after the EU organic label).  
Harmonized requirements for the use of an imal welfare or farming systems claims 
(Option 4): 
Harmonized requirements for animal welf are claims would be  established by EU 
legislation following a similar approach to  the marketing standards for poultry meat 
established by DG AGRI (reference to farm ing systems) or when animal welfare 
indicators would be available harmonized re quirements for claims on animal welfare 
standards could be established.   
The impact of this option on animal welfar e and consumers' information would depend 
mainly on the number of operators applying labelling.  
Apart from labelling costs, no extra production costs for producers are expected from this 
option (they are expected only if major cha nges in demand were to force some producers 
to change their farming systems) and fluctu ations on their income on average would be 
close to zero.  
Costs for competent authorities would depend on  whether private or public certification 
would be chosen.  
The Community animal welfare label (Option 5)  would allow for a more holistic 
consideration of animal welfare instead of  focusing only on a single aspect as for 
example farming systems.  
This option could provide for a user-frien dly manner to communicate to the consumers 
(through a logo) the animal we lfare standards followed in the production process. It 
would also allow the ranking  of systems according to th e level of animal welfare 
provided and to grant them a label that indicates the level of welfare achieved (for example granting a different number of stars depending on the level of animal welfare). 
The Community animal welfare label woul d be voluntary and would be certified 
privately. However harmonized requirements fo r assessing animal welfare and/or the 
farming systems (depending on the availabi lity of objective indicators) would be 
established at EU level. Community Animal We lfare Label is therefore expected to have 
more direct effects on animal welfare than other voluntary options but this would depend 
 
EN 49   EN on the market share of the label. Negative impacts on existing sche mes are possible, but 
may be (over)compensated by increase of th e overall market size for products produced 
at higher animal welfare standard. As any im provements of the animal welfare conditions 
on farms that a label could bring ultimately depend on consumer demand, it is advisable 
to first introduce the label for certain produc ts and to assess the market success before 
considering further steps. One of its relevant features is that it allows a step-by-step 
approach for inclusion of species, and also  for other ways to extend its scope. For 
example, a Community Animal Welfare Label c ould start with a subset  of most relevant 
species in terms of market volume and focus in the beginning on fresh meat (read meat 
and poultry) and milk/dairy products, as here  the direct connecti on between product and 
animal is most easily conceivable for consumers.  
Compatibility synergies with other labelling schemes: 
A labelling of eggs would need further consideration once we lfare indicators are 
available that allow for better assessment of welfare than the current labelling of 
production systems under the egg marketing legi slation, and legislativ e action would then 
be required to avoid a situation where both systems are used in parallel and provide 
possibly contradictory signals.  
Organic farming is a specific production sy stem, the product widely available on the 
market. Production method concerns are central to  the organic concept, notably the use of 
natural resources, preventive cr op protection methods, restricted use of pesticides mostly 
from animal, plant or microbial origi n, high animal welfare standards, and 
environmentally sustainable production tech niques. Consumers who purchase organic 
products may do so for all of these reasons, or  mainly for one of them (such as high 
animal welfare) or for a completely different reason. Given the importance of animal welfare in the organic system, a number of pot ential conflicts arise with regard to an 
animal welfare labelling scheme. If the eff ect of the animal welfare labelling regime 
creates confusion about the organic farming sc heme in the mind of consumers, or takes 
market share from organic produce, any re sulting fall off in or ganic production could 
indirectly reduce the benefits that flow fr om organic farming. For these reasons a clear 
coherence with organic is ne eded. It is therefore importa nt that the organic animal 
welfare requirements have to be the highest common animal welfare requirements in the 
EU. 
As already explained, the aim of  the initiative is to launch a debate on the issue. Any next 
steps considered necessary will take into  account the results of the Welfare Quality 
project which is expected at the end of the year.  
 
EN 50   EN PART  II: EUROPEAN NETWORK OF REFERENCE CENTRES FOR THE PROTECTION AND 
WELFARE OF ANIMALS  
Part 2 of this IA report explores options fo r the establishment of a European Reference 
Centre, or as we prefer to propose, a European Network of Reference Centres for Animal 
Protection and Welfare (hereafter: ENRC or simply “Network”).  
The background is described in the Comm unity Action Plan on the Protection and 
Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. The plan envisa ges the creation of a reference centre, 
which could serve as a coordinating body for the different initiatives related to the animal 
welfare labelling (introduction of welfare indicators, certification of welfare indicators, auditing schemes, databases related to existin g certified labels). In addition, the Centre 
could perform tasks in partic ular in relation to harmoni sation and coordination, policy 
advice and sharing of best practices, e ducation and training and dissemination of 
information. The Centre should also facilitate  the preparation of re levant socio-economic 
studies and impact assessments. 
Two of the key objectives that  the European Commission wishes to achieve with this 
initiative are to provide gr eater coordination of existing  resources while identifying 
future needs and to ensure a more consis tent and coordinated approach to animal 
protection and welfare across Commission polic y areas. For this aim, the Action Plan 
specifies that efforts will be made to intr oduce standardised anim al welfare indicators 
and to incorporate such specific measurable indicators into Community legislation. This 
would allow the establishing of a legislativ e instrument to validate production systems 
applying higher welfare standards than the Community minimum requirements.  
Given the objectives of the Commission at th is stage was to explore the best way to 
coordinate different initiatives related to the animal welfare this IA considered options wider than just the establishment of an EU body (reference centre). Other options using 
existing methods to see if the policy's objec tive can be delivered better in another way 
have also been explored. These have be deve loped to take into account stakeholder views 
that a establishing an additional separate body was not necessary. 
The purpose of the second part of the feasibility study commissioned by DG SANCO 
was to explore and assess the feasibility of different options for in dicating animal welfare 
related information on products of animal origin and for establishing a Community 
Reference Centre for Animal Protection and Welfare. 
The details of the in terviews and the surv eys conducted in the framework of the study 
can be found in Annex VI (annexes 1, 2, 4 and 6 to the report on the feasibility study part 
2).  
1. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION  
1.1. Main problems perceived by stakeholders  
The main relevant problems perceived by stakeholders are: 
⇒ a lack of harmonised animal welfare standa rds/indicators for hi gher animal welfare 
(marked by 83 respondents);  
 
EN 51   EN ⇒ lack of cooridnation of existing re sources to share best practice; 
⇒ the need for an independent source of in formation at EU level (51 respondents); 
⇒ the duplication of activities  due to a lack of coor dination at EU level (48 
respondents). 
Only 11 respondents marked that there are no current problems.  
However, not all stakeholders groups are in fa vour of a Network of Reference Centres as 
such. In a survey, a large majority of farmer /livestock producer associations did not see a 
need for such a centre and preferred – in contrast to e.g. the responding competent authorities and animal welfare organisations  – the “no change” opt ion. Stakeholders are 
quite mixed. All in all, the answers reflect the controvers ial standpoints of different 
stakeholder groups, with a strong focus on econo mic interests in some cases and a strong 
focus on animal welfare concerns in other cases. 
1.2. Lack of harmonised animal welfare st andards/indicators for higher animal 
welfare 
Animal welfare labelling schemes should be based on harmonized, sound, scientific 
standards. The valid measurement of animal welfare on all relevant stages of the value 
chain (mainly farming, transport and slaughter ) is at the heart of each animal welfare 
labelling system. 
Currently, the validity and reliab ility of most indicators is of ten disputed and there is not 
one single, reliable indicator of animal welfare. Comprehens ive indicators suggested to 
date e.g. “biological response to  stress”, have been criticised  as being too difficult to 
measure. Therefore, combinati ons of indicators are necessary  to reliably measure animal 
welfare, an approach also taken by the Welfare Quality Project (detail on this project are provided in part I section 4.2 of this docum ent). As a consequence, in recent years 
integrative concepts have more and more re placed the formerly characteristic focus on 
housing or farming systems. 
Due to a lack of a single valid, reliable and comprehensive indicator of animal welfare, 
the construction of a measuring instrument or scale that al lows measuring and comparing 
animal welfare across species, farming system s and supply chain stag es appears to be a 
significant challenge.  
2. O
BJECTIVES  
2.1. General objectives: 
The aim of this initiative is to explore th e possible options and impacts establishing a 
European Reference Centre, or a network of such  centres would have. This is to facilitate 
an informed debate in the Council and in th e European Parliament to consider whether 
EU action is needed to: 
– improve the communication and spread on information at a member state 
level on animal welfare in general and  
 
EN 52   EN – promote best practice in relation to animal welfare standards. 
2.2. Specific objectives: 
• establish a communication method to coor dinate and harmonise animal welfare 
approaches amongst Member States, 
• provide independent assessment on animal welfare standards and best practices 
throughout Member States and 
• distribute and share information a nd research throughout the Community. 
3. OPTIONS  
The discussions in the Parliament, the Eu ropean Economic and Social Committee and 
with Member States made clear that the creation of an additional independent body, like 
a Commission agency, would not find the necessary support. It is therefore necessary to 
identify options using existing bodies, eith er within the Commission or in the Member 
States, in order to minimise  the administrative costs. 
A significant number of institutions in the EU a ppear to be able and willing to take on or 
support the necessary functions.  At the EU level, a small core of relevant institutions 
exists (like European Food Safety Authority  - EFSA). However, currently they do not 
cover all areas of expe rtise that could be relevant. At the Member State level, the most 
significant expertise and the largest number of staff working in relevant areas is located 
at universities and research in stitutes. Several government/pub lic agencies also appear to 
be relevant. Animal welfare organisations and other private bodies seem to have less staff 
resources available and therefore do not cover all areas of expertise.  Therefore, options 
that exclusively rely on priv ate institutions are not considered in this document, though 
they were assessed during the study and the reasons for di scarding them are mentioned 
on section 5.  
Details on the structure and the tasks carried  out by existing EU animal welfare centres 
can be found in Annex VI (annex 3 to the re port from the feasibility study part 2). 
 
The main policy options for the establishment of an ENRC 
Option 0: No change. Continuation of the current situation (status quo option) 
Option 1: Centralised approach. Entrusting a Community body or a public body 
already existing in a Member State  
Option 2: Decentralised approaches. Entrusting several bodies already existing in 
Member States with the necessary tasks, working across this network of centres in a coordinated way. 
Option 3: Mixed approach : using a task-specific strategy to determine central and 
decentral elements 
 
EN 53   EN 4. FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT  
4.1. Conformity of options wi th guiding principles 
4.1.1.  Network Centres should complement, not duplicate, current activities by other 
Community bodies 
Under all options it is possibl e to ensure that a Community Reference Centre or Network 
complements, not duplicates, current activiti es by other Community bodies. The mandate 
would need to adequately address areas c overed by current activi ties of Community 
bodies, such as scientific advice and the valid ation of alternative methods in relation to 
the three Rs (Replacement, Re duction, and Refinement).  
With respect to future activities proposed here, a centralised a pproach may provide a 
simpler coordination process than decentralised approaches. However, even under decentralised approaches avoiding a duplication of activities appears to be feasible in 
principle, if a central coordination is foreseen. 
Stakeholders’ opinion:  
Assessment of stakeholders is quite mixed concerning this 
criterion. Some general trends can be observed. Entrusting a single Community body 
(centralised option) is on average considered  the most feasible option to ensure that a 
Community Reference Centre complements, not duplicates, current activities by other 
Community bodies.   
4.1.2.  All areas of animal use should be covered 
A decentralised approach invol ving different bodies seems more feasible to ensure that 
we cover all areas of animal use. But even if  a centralized approach seems more feasible 
decentralised elements would need to be considered such as involving working groups of experts and subcontracting specific tasks to specialised bodies. Relevant private 
institutions seem to have fewer capacities to cover all areas of animal use and appear to 
be least feasible. 
Stakeholders’ opinion:  
In the survey, a larg e majority of respondents that responded 
preferred a broad approach that includes not onl y farm animals but also all other types of 
animal use, except wild animals. With rega rd to the question: 'Which of the options 
ensures that we cover all areas of animal us e?'- the respondents providing an assessment 
again see entrusting a Community body, severa l public bodies existing in EU Member 
States or a combination of pub lic and private bodies as the most feasible options. The 
other options were seen as less feasible, es pecially all options re lying exclusively on 
private bodies.  
4.1.3.  The Centre should be independe nt from outside interests 
Stakeholder trust regarding independence from outside interests is highest for entrusting 
a Community body with the leadership role . Although under all op tions arrangement 
could be made to safeguard independence fr om outside interest, stakeholder trust in 
different arrangements is  a relevant aspect.  
Stakeholders’ opinion:  Concerning the degree to which options ensure independence 
from outside interest (such as  policy business interests and interests of EU and national 
policy makers), entrusting a Community body is seen by far as the most feasible option 
 
EN 54   EN by those respondents that prov ided an opinion. A consider able number of respondents 
also see entrusting several pub lic bodies already existing in EU Member States as 
feasible. All other options, es pecially those strongly relyin g on private institutions, are 
considered to be less feasib le under this criterion.  
4.2. Possible tasks and implications for the feasibility of options 
According to survey results, the most frequently suggested task is the harmonisation of 
animal welfare indicators. A large proportion of stakeholders also see a need for standard 
setting and research on animal welfare practic es. Stakeholder groups differ in their view 
of the scope of tasks. Whereas  animal welfare organisations tend to see a large variety of 
tasks, industry organisations would genera lly opt only for a limited scope of tasks. 
4.2.1.  Harmonisation and coordination 
Standard setting and maintenance , as well as defining and updating harmonised animal 
welfare indicators  are very feasible tasks under all centralised approaches.  These tasks 
are also feasible under approach es where different standards or sets of i ndicators are 
defined and maintained by different bodies, if delineation of areas is feasible and central 
coordination is provided. Fully decentralis ed approach does not appear feasible. 
The operation of databases  is a very feasible task unde r a centralised approach. The 
involvement of experts or bodies in Member States for maintaining the database(s) or 
parts of the technical infrastr ucture is possible, as long as  this does not increase search 
costs for users of the database(s) and allows synergies between the operations of different 
databases. 
4.2.2.  Policy advice and best practices  
Preparation of socio-economic studies and impact assessments, as well as the formulation 
of policy advice, is a feasible task under bot h centralised and decentralised approach. The 
feasibility of a centralised approach depends on heterogeneity of issues and the regularity 
and predictability with such st udies have to be conducted or advice has to be formulated. 
A decentralised approach is better suited if a large variety of research issues is to be 
covered and demand is irregul ar, to reduce the risk of over- or under-capacities of a 
central body. Under a decentralised approach , a central coordination and facilitation 
function is needed. 
The assessment of existing practices and st andards and the collection and dissemination 
of best practices require a mixed approach of  centralised and decentralised elements. The 
most feasible approach relies on expertise avai lable in Member States’ institutions and, at 
the same time, ensures a central perspective and support where this is required, such as 
for the harmonised definition of assessment cr iteria, and the administration of a central 
set of best practices (e.g. through a database) 
4.2.3.  Education and communication  
The task of advising and educating stakeholde rs is feasible under a centralised approach 
only as long as it is restricted to a small group of inte rnationally social ised stakeholder 
representatives. If a broad concept of advice and educati on is implemented that also 
addresses national and regional groups and ot her actors presumably more deeply rooted 
in local cultures, the need for accounting for these local cultures through a decentralised 
 
EN 55   EN approach outweighs the advantages of a central approach. However, a central 
Community Reference Centre could support d ecentralised activities by engaging in the 
training of trainers and in providing relevant educational resources. Similarly, an ENRC 
could provide targeted information to multipliers such as journalists and animal welfare organisations for their information activitie s, without targeting consumers directly. 
4.2.4.  Research and implementation  
Conducting research on animal we lfare and protection practices seems to be less feasible 
under a centralised approach. Research on anim al welfare and protection has to rely on 
the existing infrastructure of research institutions in order to avoid a duplication of work. However, the creation of a central focal point for research could provi de benefits through 
more coordinated research in the EU, improved communication between experts and consequently a higher quality of decentralised research projects. 
Auditing and certification of ex isting animal welfare schemes is to a large extent a 
decentralised service function and it appears no t to be a feasible central task under any of 
the options. A possible related task that coul d be relevant under cen tralised options is 
some coordination and quality control, e .g. to ensure minimum standards for the 
certification and audit process. 
Our proposal here should not contribute to the validation of the Three Rs in the field of 
research animals. In case there should be a dditional need for coordination or research at 
EU level regarding validation of  alternative methods, it appears to be more appropriate to 
channel the work towards the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) rather than to create parallel  structures with overlapping mandates. 
4.3. Assessment of options 
The analysis illustrates (Table 4.) that the feasibility of specific tasks of a possible ENRC 
is strongly influenced by whether a centralis ed or a decentralised approach is chosen. 
Both approaches have some specific advantag es and disadvantages for specific tasks. A 
mix of central and decentral elements could possibly avoid cost and quality 
disadvantages and capture as many advantages as possible. 
Therefore a mixed approach that uses a task -specific strategy to determine central 
and decentral elements of a possible ENRC is suggested. 
This conclusion is to a large extent in line  with the opinions of experts interviewed 
during the preparation of the study. 
• Experts generally agree that coordination tasks (standard setting, harmonisation of 
welfare indicators, and operation of da tabases) require a centralised ENRC. 
• In contrast, policy advice and research and implementation are often not seen as tasks 
of a centralised EU body, although some e xperts disagree rega rding the question 
whether policy advice should be a task of  the ENRC or not, and whether the Centre 
should also initiate (but not  perform) research projec ts, including projects on the 
economic aspects of animal welfare. 
Therefore, a comparatively small central unit is preferred that, for instance, works on 
standard setting, harmonises welfare indi cators and audit procedures, documents 
 
EN 56   EN information and informs consumers through  provision of databases. In a dynamic 
perspective it is also advised to start with so me core tasks and to add extra tasks later on 
without duplicating existing tasks. 
The results of the assessment conducted in th e previous sections are presented in the 
following overview table. It illustrates the advantages of  a mixed approach over other 
options.  
Table 4. Assessment of feasibility of options  
 
EN 57   EN Criteria Centralised  Decentralised  Mixed approach No change  
Existing bodies 
+ ++ ++ Number of bodies 
available/willing to 
contribute to ENRC The most significant expertise located at unive rsities and research institutes in MS. The 
feasibility of options relying on priv ate bodies (options 3 and 5) limited. Continuation of 
activities in MS 
without 
coordination.  
Conformity with principles 
++ + ++ Complementing, not 
duplicating, current 
activities by other Community bodies May provide a simpler 
coordination process than 
decentralised approaches.  Also feasible if a central 
coordination is foreseen.  Combines advantages of 
both approaches.  No 
complementing 
activities.  
+ ++ ++ All areas of animal use 
should be covered (zoos, 
wildlife etc.) Feasible if decentralised 
elements are us ed.  Very feasible to cover all 
areas of use. Combines advantages of 
both approaches.  No coverage.  
+ / ++ (Community body)  + + / ++  (Community body)  The Centre should be 
independent from outside 
interests Stakeholder trust highest for entrusting a Community body. Stakeholders do not 
consider options relying on private b odies (Options 3 and 5) as feasible.  Not applicable. 
Potential tasks: I. Harmonisation and coordination 
++ o / + ++ Standard setting and 
maintenance,  harmonisation of animal 
welfare indicators Very feasible under all centralised approac hes. Also feasible under decentralised 
approaches, if delineation of areas is feasible and central coordination is provided. 
Fully decentralised appr oach not feasible. No standard 
setting and 
harmonised 
indicators.  
++ o / + ++ Databases related to the 
existing animal welfare 
schemes and other areas Very feasible under all centralised approac hes. Decentralised approaches feasible, as 
long as this allows synergies between  the operation of different databases. No databases.  
Potential tasks: II. Policy advice and best practices 
+ / ++ + / ++ ++ Preparation of socio-
economic studies, impact assessments, policy advice Feasible task under all approaches. Decentr alised approach more feasible if large 
variety of research issues is to be covered and demand irregular  No preparation of 
studies through 
ENRC.  
o / + o / + ++ Assessment of existing 
practices and standards, dis-
semination of best practices Requires a mixed approach of centralised and decentralised elemen ts, to use expertise 
available in Member States’ institu tions and ensures central perspective.  No assessment 
and collection of 
best practices.  
Potential tasks: III. Education and communication 
o / + + ++ Advising and educating 
stakeholders Feasible under a centralised approach only as long as it is restricted to a small group 
of stakeholder representatives. If a broad concept of advice and education is 
implemented, a decentralised approach is needed.  No advice and 
education. 
Potential tasks: IV. Research and implementation  
o / + + + Research on animal welfare 
and protection practices  Less feasible under a centralised approach. Cr eation of a focal point for research in 
central ENRC could provide benefits (mixed approach).  No coordination 
of research 
through ENRC. 
o / + o o / + Auditing and certification of 
existing animal welfare 
schemes Decentral service functions. Not a feasible task under any of the options. Relevant 
under centralised options and mixed approach is coordination, quality control.  No EU level 
coordination and 
quality control. 
O o o Development of the Three 
Rs in the field of research 
animals Any tasks of a possible ENRC in this area could potentially lead to overlap of activities 
with ECVAM and are therefore likely to be unfeasible/inefficient. No difference to 
options. 
Source: Civic Consulting. ++ = very  feasible, + = partly feasible, o = not feasible. 
 
EN 58   EN 5. IMPACTS  
Whereas the assessment of feas ibility of the different options clearly documents the 
advantages of a mixed approach compared to  other options, the mi xed approach does not 
significantly differ concerning possible econo mic, social and environmental impacts 
from the centralised or decentralised appro ach. Under all three approaches, the following 
potential benefits can be obtained: 
 Standard setting and harmonisation can lead to benefits in terms of animal 
welfare , to the extent that su ch standards create aw areness among farmers and 
other relevant groups and are effectively implemented; 
 All three options can potentially lead to a better coordination of animal welfare 
related research  in the EU. Under a decentralised  and mixed approach a positive 
impact on existing research bodies is mo re likely, as they are more directly 
involved. A better coordination of animal  welfare related re search could also 
potentially lead to costs savings , as it would contribute to avoiding duplication of 
research in different national instituti ons – however, the extent to which such 
duplication currently occurs is not known, making assessm ent of potential savings 
difficult. 
On the other hand, the “no change” option ca n be expected to pot entially lead to a 
number of negative impacts: 
 Possible economic losses  due to a lack of consumers’ choices, if the lack of 
harmonised standards reduces the feasibilit y of animal welfare labelling systems 
(leading to an imperfect market);  
 Possible continuation of low de gree of coordination  and of potential duplication 
of research in animal welfare; 
 In the long run lower levels of welfare of farm animals  possible compared to other 
options (depending on the effectiv eness of a possible Centre). 
However, contrary to the other options the “no change” option would not imply any 
implementation costs for the Community budget. 
The most feasible approach seems to be a mixed approach combining central and 
decentralised elements in a better coordinated network of existing EU-wide 
expertise (option 3). With this approach, a relatively small central coordinating function 
would become a focal point for coordinati on and harmonisation of Community relevant 
issues in the field of animal welfare, perfor ming its task in close collaboration with and 
support of a network of relevant research  institutions in the Member States. 
 
EN 59   EN Table 5: Assessment of possi ble impacts of options  
Criteria Centralised  Decentralised  Mixed approach No change  
Direct and indirect economic impacts    
- - - o Costs of the centre 
An ENRC will involve direct costs under all approaches. Although reduction 
of costs is possible through exploiting synergies with existing bodies, it 
appears not possible to relate them to specific options without further detail 
concerning possible bodies involved and th e scope of the tasks finally decided 
for an ENRC. No direct costs. 
o / + o / + o / + - /  o Indirect impact on farmers, 
consumers, etc. No indirect costs for stakeholders exp ected, as long as use of standards and 
indicators is voluntary. Standard setting and harmonisation can, however, 
lead to economic benefits such as incr eased choice for consumers, to the 
extent that such standards are effectivel y implemented (e.g. in the framework 
of a AW labelling system). Possible economic losses 
due to a lack of consumers’ 
choices (imperfect market).
Direct and indirect social impacts    
o / + o / + o / + o Impact on welfare of farm 
animals  Standard setting and harmonisation can lead to be nefits in terms of animal 
welfare, to the extent that such standards create awareness among farmers 
and other relevant groups and ar e effectively implemented. No direct impacts. 
However, in the long run 
lower levels of AW 
possible compared to other 
options.  
o / + + + - / o Impact on existing research 
bodies in the area of animal welfare All options can potentially lead to a better coordination of AW related 
research in the EU. Under a decentr alised and mixed approach a positive 
impact on existing research bodies is more  likely, as they are more directly 
involved. Possible continuation of 
low degree of coordination 
and of potential 
duplication of research  
o O o o Impact on employment  
Negligible impacts on employment  under all options. No impacts.  
Direct and indirect environmental impacts    
o O o o Impact on environment  
No direct or indirect impacts under all options. No impacts.  
Source: Civic Consulting ++ = significant pos itive impact, + = somewhat positive impact, o = neutral – – = significant 
negative impact, – = some what negative impact 
5.1. Alternatives for the scope of a ENRC 
The previous section conclude d that a mixed approach has to be considered the most 
feasible option. A mixed approach is an appro ach that uses a task-specific strategy to 
determine central and decentralised elements. Th is would in practical terms mean that the 
ENRC  has the character of a comparatively le an central coordination unit (either at a 
Community body or at one public body in a Me mber State) that cooperates with a 
network of relevant research institutions in the Member States, which take on responsibility for specific sub- tasks (either through institut ional support or on a project 
basis) and participate in working groups. Th is is a well-tried method in the food chain 
area, where Community Reference Laborator ies coordinate networks of National 
Reference Laboratories. Possible sub-tasks conducted by network pa rtner could include 
conducting studies and impact assessments, im plementing targeted research on animal 
welfare  issues with Community relevance, conducting education and dissemination 
activities etc. Of course, this approach in itself can be implement ed in various ways. 
Possible variables are the size of the ENRC  itself and the resources available for the 
 
EN 60   EN network tasks. In this section, three alternatives are explored, namely a minimum, 
medium  and maximum  scope of tasks (see table 6).  
Table 6: Minimum, medium and maxi mum scope of tasks for a possible ENRC   
Tasks Minimum  scope  Medium  scope Maximum  scope 
I. Harmonisation and coordination 
Standard setting and 
maintenance, harmoni-
sation of AW indicators Standard setting, harmonisation of animal welfare indicators 
Database related to the 
existing AW schemes Implementation and maintenance of database on AW schemes 
II. Policy advice and best practices 
Preparation of socio-
economic studies, impact assessments, policy advice Central coordination, 
controlling of studies, impact assessments, 
policy advice Formulation of policy 
advice 
Performance of studies, 
impact assessments, 
formulation of all policy 
advice 
Assessment of existing practices and standards Definition of harmonised 
criteria for assessing practices and standards  Central database of best 
practices 
Identification and 
assessment of practices and 
standards  
Dissemination of best practices Central coordination of coll ection and dissemination of 
best practices Active dissemination of 
best practices 
III. Education and communication 
Advising and educating stakeholders No tasks  Competence centre for 
advice and education of 
stakeholders Active advice and 
education of stakeholders 
Consumer information Basic consumer informati on strategy, implementation 
of website Implementation of strategy 
through multipliers  
IV. Research and implementation 
Research on animal welfare and protection practices  No tasks  Competence centre for 
AW research (including 
central research database) Conducting meta-analysis 
of research on AW 
Auditing and certification 
of existing AW schemes Central coordination and qual ity assurance of auditing and certification of animal 
welfare schemes 
Source: Civic Consulting. 
 
A mixed approach for an ENRC based on a task-specific strategy to determine 
central and decentral elements can be im plemented by assigning alternatively a 
minimum, medium and maximum scope of tasks to the ENRC. Under the minimum 
alternative an ENRC would only focus on t hose tasks that necessarily have to be 
organised centrally in order to avoid a lack of harmonisation and coordination. A 
medium alternative would include setting up competence centres for education of 
stakeholders and research in the field of animal welfare. A maximum alternative would 
involve additional implementation tasks. 
5.2. Expected costs 
Expected costs for the establishment of an ENRC were assessed in the framework of the 
study. The main focus concerning the expected  costs of setting up a Network are annual 
 
EN 61   EN operating costs22. These operating costs can be distingui shed into two categories: costs of 
core activities and costs of network functions. The former are related to activities directly 
performed by the Network, whereas the latter occur due to the integration of MS research 
institutions and experts into the work of the Centres. Therefore, network costs are mainly 
related to travel, meeting, workshops and s ubcontracting of sub-tasks. Network costs 
very much depend on the number of experts pe r EU Member State involved, the intensity 
of cooperation and the type  of tasks subcontracted. 
With regard to the core activities the following cost categories are relevant:  
 Staff costs; 
 Overheads (including costs for rent of  office space and office equipment); 
 Meetings and travel (including per diems).  
With regard to the network functions the followi ng cost categories have been considered:  
 Subcontracting of socio-economic st udies and impact assessments; 
 Subcontracting of Community relevant re search on animal welfare and protection 
practices and/or othe r network functions; 
 Subcontracting of information and dissem ination activities (i ncluding website); 
 Workshops with external experts. 
Tables 7 and 8 provide estimates concerning staff costs and total costs of an ENRC, 
including network functions. The estimates consider a minimum, medium and maximum 
scope of tasks for a European Network of Reference Centres for Animal Protection and 
Welfare as described in this section. Th e methodology of deriving the estimates is 
described on page 45-48 in Annex VI of this re port. According to the estimates, costs for 
an ENRC are as follows: 
Minimum scope ENRC:  635,875 Euro costs of core activ ities and 1,280,160 Euro costs of 
network functions, leading to a total of 1,916,035 Euro per year.  
Medium scope ENRC:  1,334,155 Euro costs of core activities and 2,370,240  Euro costs 
of network functions, leading to a total of 3,704,395  Euro per year.  
Maximum scope ENRC:  2,596,735 Euro costs of co re activities and 3,260,320  Euro costs 
of network functions, leading to a total of 5,857,055 Euro per year.  
The number of units and the unit costs consider ed for the calculations take into account 
data received from similar institutions work ing in related areas and data gathered during 
interviews. Staff costs are approximations ba sed on unit costs from relevant Community 
institutions23. 
                                                 
22 One-off costs for the implementation are not considered separately. As it is not considered to be 
realistic that an ECRC would conduct research its elf and need laboratory equipment, only office 
equipment is relevant. Costs of office equipment ar e, similar to the costs for office space, assessed 
on the basis of rent/leasing costs and are included in the overheads. 
23 In case an ENRC would be implemented at Memb er State Level, unit costs have to be adapted 
accordingly. 
 
EN 62   EN 6. CONCLUSION  
Main problems perceived by stakeholders th at may be relevant for considering the 
establishment of an ENRC are a lack of harm onised animal welfare standards/indicators 
for higher animal welfare, the need for an i ndependent source of information at EU level 
and the duplication of activities due to a lack of coordina tion at EU level. 
A significant number of institutions in the EU a ppear to be able and willing to take on or 
support functions of a possible ENRC. Some of the farmer/livestock producers did not 
see a need for such a centre, however, the pol icy objectives is to provide a tool for the 
competent authorities to share information and not at farmer level.  
Under all options considered in this study it is possible to en sure that an ENRC 
complements, not duplicates, current ac tivities by other Community bodies. Strong 
decentralised elements can ensure that an  ENRC covers all areas of animal use. 
Stakeholder trust regarding independence from outside interests is highest for entrusting 
a Community body with an ENRC.  
The most frequently suggested task that an ENRC should carry out is the harmonisation 
of animal welfare indicators. 
An ENRC would be attached to a body or agen cy already existing at the EU level or in 
an EU Member State. This would allow the re alisation of economies of scale with regard 
to management tasks, office space and ad ministrative services. There are certain 
advantages of a Community body functioni ng as hosting structure for an ENRC, 
including a position close to EU decision makers  and the greater trust of stakeholder in 
its independence. However, possible synergie s between an ENRC and the current work 
of some relevant Member States bodi es (independent pub lic agencies and 
university/research institutes) could also be a relevant consideration. 
Bearing all this in mind a mixed approach that uses a task-specific strategy to 
determine central and decentr al elements of a possible ENRC is suggested (option 
3). 
The expected annual operating costs of an ENRC based on a mixed approach are 
estimated to be in the range of 1.92 million to 5.86 million Euros, depending on whether a minimum, medium or maximum scope of ta sk is envisaged. These estimates include 
the costs of core activities and the costs of network functions. The fo rmer are related to 
activities directly performed by the Networ k, whereas the latter occur due to the 
integration of MS research institutions a nd experts into the work of the Centres. 
 
EN 63   EN Table 7: Estimated annual st aff costs of a possible ENRC 
Minimum scope Medium scope Maximum scope Task 
  Staff Costs per unit (in 
€) Total  
(in €) Staff Costs per unit (in 
€) Total  
(in €) Staff Costs per unit (in 
€) Total  
(in €) 
I. Harmonisation and coordination                    
Standard setting, harmonization of welfare indicators 1.5 99,543 149,314 1.5 99, 543 149,314 1.5 99,543 149,314 
Operation of databases (professional) 0.5 99,543 49,771 0.5 99, 543 49,771 1 99,543 99,543 
Operation of databases (IT staf f) 0 31,585 0 0 31,585 0 0.5 31,585 15,792 
II. Policy advice and best practices          
Preparation of socio-economic studies , impact assessmen ts, policy advice 0.5 99,543 49,771 1 99,543 99,543 4 99,543 398,172 
Assessment of existing practices and stan dards, collection, dissemination of best 
practices 0.5 99,543 49,771 1 99,543 99,543 3 99,543 298,629 
III. EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION          
Consumer information 0.5 99, 543 49,771 0.5 99,543 49,771 1 99,543 99,543 
Advising and education of stakehol ders 0 99,543 0 1 99,543 99,543 2 99,543 199,086 
IV. Research and implementation          
Coordination and quality assurance of auditing of existing AW schemes 0 99,543 0 0.5 99,543 49,771 0.5 99,543 49,771 
Competence centre for research on animal welfare and protection practices 0 _ _ 3 99,543 298,629 6.5 99,543 647,030 
Management           
 
EN 64   EN Minimum scope Medium scope Maximum scope Task 
  Staff Costs per unit (in 
€) Total  
(in €) Staff Costs per unit (in 
€) Total  
(in €) Staff Costs per unit (in 
€) Total  
(in €) 
Director 1 146,681 146,681 1 146,681 146,681 1 146,681 146,681 
Assistant 0.5 31,585 15,792 1 31,585 31,585 2 31,585 63,170 
Total staff number 5   11   23   
Grant total staff costs   510,874   1,074,154.66   2,166,735 
 
 
EN 65   EN Table 8: Total estimated annual op erating costs of a possible ENRC 
Minimum scope Medium scope Maximum scope Task  
Units Costs per unit 
(in €) Total  
 (in €) Units Costs per 
unit (in €) Total  
(in €) Units Costs per 
unit (in €) Total 
 (in €) 
Costs of core activities  
Sum of staff costs   510,875   1,074,155   2,166,735
Overheads (and other office running co sts) 5 10,000 50,000 11 10,000 110,000 23 10,000 230,000 
Meetings and travel (missions for staff, per diems) 1 75,000 75,000 1 150,000 150,000 1 200,000 200,000 
Total core activities   635,875   1,334,155   2,596,735
Costs of network functions  
Subcontracting of socio-ec onomic studies and impact 
assessments 1 500,000 500,000 1 400,000 400,000 1 200,000 200,000 
Subcontracting of Community re levant research on animal 
welfare and protection practices and/or other network functions 1 500,000 500,000 1 1,200,000 1, 200,000 1 1,800,000 1,800,000
Subcontracting of education/  training, information and 
dissemination activities (including website) 1 100,000 100,000 1 500,000 500,000 1 900,000 900,000 
Workshops with external experts (2 days) 10 18,016 180,160 15 18,016 270,240 20 18,016 360,320 
Total network functions   1,280,160   2,370,240   3,260,320
Total costs   1,916,035   3,704,395   5,857,055
Source: Civic Consulting
 
EN nnn   EN Annex I: Retailers demand for animal welfare friendly products  (Source: socio-economic 
implications of the various systems to keep laying hens, Agra CEAS Consulting)  
A number of retailers in the EU are selling onl y alternative egg products. Examples are: Marks & 
Spencer in the UK, Spar and Billa in Austria, Al bert Hein in Belgium and the Netherlands, health 
food shops (‘Reformhäuser’) in Germany. 
McDonald's Europe  (Source: http://www.thegoodeggawards.com/ ) 
Over 117 million eggs per year (across Europe),  Over 400,000 hens per year (across Europe). 
McDonald's is the leading food service operator in the EU. It uses 117 million free-range 'whole' 
eggs in the EU each year in menu items such as Egg McMuffins, scrambled-egg based breakfasts 
and salads. Over 90% of these eggs across 23 EU  countries are now free-range and through the 
Good Egg Awards, McDonald's has committed to phasing out the remaining 'caged' whole eggs in its restaurants across the EU27 by the end of 2010. McDonald's has been free-range for some 
time on eggs in the UK so we're pleased that this  policy will now extend to the rest of Europe. 
Unilever  (Source: http://www.thegoodeggawards.com/ ) 
Western Europe;475 million eggs per ye ar, over 1.7 million hens per year 
Unilever is the second largest food manufacturer in Europe and the global market leader in all the 
food categories in which it operates. Unilever Europe has already started introducing cage-free 
eggs in a number of European countries name ly Austria and Netherlands. In addition all 
Hellmann's mayonnaise in the UK and Ireland w ill be free-range by summer 2008. Unilever wins 
a Good Egg Award as it aims to be cage-free thr oughout Western Europe* in all Unilever brands 
of mayonnaise and dressings by 2012 - these brands  include Hellmann's, Amora, Calve, Maille 
and Ligressa. 
* Western Europe (includes Austria, Belgium,  France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and UK) 
This trend can also be observed in countries outside the EU (Source: The Royal Society for the 
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, RSPCA)  
– In March 2007, Burger King announced the adoption of a number of animal welfare policies; 
it has begun purchasing 2 % of its eggs cage-free and it increased its use by 5 % by the end of the year 2007. It also started purchasing 10 % of its pork from producers that do not confine breeding pigs in gestation and the volume will double to 20% by the end of the year  
– Ice cream producer Ben & Jerry's is phasing out its use of cage eggs. This policy is being 
implemented over four years a nd it will affect 350 000 hens 
– Whole Foods Market which has 170 stores in No rth America and the UK now has a policy to 
refuse to use pork from producers th at confine sows in crates. 
– National chains Foods Market and Wild Oa ts Natural Marketplace are now implementing 
cage-free eggs policies. Wild Oats has 75 stores in the US; 
And a large list of food retailers, restaurants,  food caterers and companies are implementing 
similar animal welfare friendly policies. 
This demonstrates that there is an interest of  consumers for animal welfare-friendly products.
  
 
EN ooo   EN Annex II: Current EU animal welfare legislation and other relevant legislation  
Evolution of animal welfa re legislation in the EU 
In the European Union, legi slation on animal welfare has a longstanding tradition in 
many Member States, going back to the 19th century. A broader public debate in the 
earlier Seventies revealed the need to harm onise the production conditions in farms of 
the Member States and to respond to a growing societal demand for improving the 
welfare of animals. 
Looking back, the first Community legislat ion on animal welfare was adopted in 1974 
and concerned the stunning of animals before slaughter. The recitals of this Directive 
indicate the importance that wa s already attached to animal welfare and the prevention of 
unnecessary suffering: “Whereas the Community  should also take action to avoid in 
general all forms of cruelty to animals; whereas  it appears desirable, as a first step, that 
this action should consist in laying down conditions such as to avoid all unnecessary suffering on the part of animals when being slaughtered”. 
Following this Directive, the Protocol on Pr otection and Welfare of Animals annexed to 
the EC Treaty in 1999 represen ts a milestone for the deve lopment of the Community’s 
animal welfare policy, highlighting the ethical dimension of this policy. This Protocol 
spells out the obligation to pay full regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings 
when formulating and implementing the Community's policies. This commitment to 
animal welfare is reinforced by taking this protocol in to the “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union” (the Li sbon Treaty), as a new article 13. 
The link between animal welfare and food safe ty was subsequently highlighted in 1999 
in the Community White Paper on Food Safety, integrating animal welfare into the food 
chain policy of the EU. In the context of  the EU Common Agricultural Policy recent 
reforms strengthened the role of animal welf are considerations by in troducing the ‘‘cross 
compliance’’ principle, making the complia nce with animal welfare requirements 
conditional for certain farm subsidies. In  addition various support schemes aim at 
facilitating the shift towards welfare friendly husbandry systems.  
The new Animal Health Strategy for the Eu ropean Union (2007-2013) states that the 
concept of animal health covers not only the absence of disease in animals, but also the 
critical relationship between the health of anim als and their welfare. One of the 4 goals of 
the strategy is “To promote farming practices  and animal welfare which prevent animal 
health related threats and minimise envi ronmental impacts in support of the EU 
Sustainable Development Strategy” . Animal health is a concern for all European citizens. 
This concern stems from the public health an d food safety aspects of animal health but 
also from the animal welfare consideratio ns, including the implications of disease 
control. 
The Commission initiated two comprehens ive opinion polls on animal welfare, 
interviewing nearly 25,000 citi zens in the 25 Member States of the European Union in 
2005, and more than 29,000 in 2006. 
Citizens were asked about th eir knowledge of farm anim als, their willingness to pay 
more for animal welfare friendly products an d their capacity to recognise them in the 
 
EN ppp   EN supermarket. Both surveys demonstrate that th ere is a considerable interest in animal 
welfare standards which is reflected in th e demand for more information and in the 
awareness that European public commitment is  relevant for higher welfare standards.  
The second survey shows that animal welfar e is an issue which ci tizens rank highly, 
giving it 8 out of 10 on aver age in terms of importance. The high level of importance 
given to animal welfare is in line with the result of the first survey where 55% of EU citizens said that they be lieve animal welfare and pr otection do not receive enough 
importance in their country's agricultural policy. 
Whilst it should be noted that the outcome of  these surveys reflect consumers' options 
when asked, rather than market trends and purchasing patterns for higher welfare 
products, it does indicate that European citi zens are interested in the animal welfare 
standards involved in the food they eat. As we enter a changing economi c situation in 
Europe, during the policy development, it will be important to monitor whether these interests are maintained or wh ether other factors (i.e. price and value for money) become 
of more interest to consumers.  
List of EU animal welfare legisl ation and other relevant legislation:  
GENERAL 
1. Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Trea ty on European Union, the Treaties 
establishing the European Communities and certain related acts - Protocol 
annexed to the Treaty of the European Community - Protocol  on protection and 
welfare of animals. Offici al Journal C 340 ,10/11/1997 p. 0110 
2. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council on a Community Action Plan on th e Protection and Welfare of Animals 
2006-2010 
3. Commission working document on a Comm unity Action Plan on the Protection 
and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. Strate gic basis for the proposed actions 
ANIMAL WELFARE ON THE FARM ALL FARM SPECIES 
4. Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals 
kept for farming purposes Official  Journal L 221 , 08/08/1998 p. 0023 – 0027 
5. 2006/778/EC: Commission Decision of 14 November 2006  concerning minimum 
requirements for the collection of in formation during the inspections of 
production sites on which certain animals ar e kept for farming purposes (Official 
Journal L 314 p. 39) 
CALVES Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards 
for the protection of calves Official  Journal L 340 , 11/12/1991 p. 0028 - 0032 
 
EN qqq   EN  PIGS 
Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards 
for the protection of pigs Offici al Journal L 340 , 11/12/1991 p. 0033 - 0038  
LAYING HENS Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the 
protection of laying hens Official  Journal L 203 , 03/08/1999 p. 0053 - 0057  
Commission Directive 2002/4/EC of 30 January 2002 on the registration of 
establishments keeping laying hens, covere d by Council Directive 1999/74/EC Official 
Journal L 30 , 31/01/2002  
Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common 
organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural 
products (Single CMO Regul ation) OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1–149  
Commission Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 of 23 June 2008 laying down detailed rules 
for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No  1234/2007 as regards marketing standards 
for eggs OJ L 163, 24.6.2008, p. 6–23  
CHICKENS KEPT FOR MEAT PRODUCTION Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the 
protection of chickens kept for meat production. 
PROTECTION AT THE TIME OF SLAUGHTER AND KILLING 
Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the 
time of slaughter or killi ng Official Journal L 340 , 31/12/1993 p. 0021 - 0034 Amended 
by Council Regulation 1/2005 
PROTECTION DURING TRANSPORT Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004, on the protection of animals 
during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 
93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97  
Commission Regulation (EC) 639/2003 of 9 April 2003 laying down detailed rules 
pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) 1254/1999 as  regards requirements for the granting 
of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (Official 
Journal L 093, 10/04/2003 p.0010 – 0017)  
Commission Decision 2001/298/ EEC of 30 March 2001 amending the Annexes to 
Council Directives 64/432/EEC, 90/426/EEC , 91/68/EEC and 92/65/EEC and to 
Commission Decision 94/273/EC as regards th e protection of anim als during transport 
(Text with EEA relevance) Offici al Journal L 102, 12/04/2001 p.0063 – 0068 
 
EN rrr   EN BAN ON CAT AND DOG FUR 
Regulation (EC) No 152372007 of the European Parliament and of the Council OF 11 
December 2007 banning the placing on the market  and the import to, or export from, the 
community of cat and dog fur, a nd products containing such fur ( OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, 
p. 1–4 ) 
FURTHER EU LEGISLATION Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Pa rliament and of the Council on official 
controls performed to ensure the verifica tion of compliance with feed and food law, 
animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ L 191 p. 1) 
Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes 
under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for 
farmers and amending Regulations (EEC ) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 
1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (E C) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, 
(EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, OJ L 270 p. 1 
COUNCIL OF EUROPE European Convention for the protection of an imals kept for farming purposes Official 
Journal L 323, 17/11/1978  
78/923/EEC: Council Decision of 19 June 1978 concerning the conclusion of the 
European Convention for the protection of an imals kept for farming purposes Official 
Journal L 323 , 17/11/1978 p. 0012 - 0013  
European Convention for the protec tion of animals for slaughter  
88/306/EEC: Council Decision of 16 May 1 988 on the conclusion of the European 
Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter  
 European Convention for the Protection of  Animals during International Transport 
(revised)  
Council Decision of 21 June 2004 on the signing of the European Convention for the 
protection of animals during international transport  
 
EN 71   EN Annex III: What is an animal welfare labelling scheme?  
For the purposes of this analysis, an animal welf are labelling scheme is a certification system 
that specifically targets animal  welfare and certifies an animal  welfare standard above existing 
legal standards. Therefore, what an animal welfare standard is, very much depends on the 
reference point “existi ng legal standard”. 
Animal welfare labelling schemes exist in different forms, namely:  
• Schemes that focus only on animal welfare;  
o Freedom Food , a British farm assurance and food labelling scheme set up by 
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in 1994. 
The Freedom Food standards are based on the “five freedoms”, as defined by 
the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). 
o Travelife Animal Attractions Guidelines , developed by a UK-based 
organisation ensuring that animal attracti ons worldwide, used as part of the 
tourism experience in resorts, meet minimum requirements in animal welfare and protection; 
o Neuland , a German animal welfare label ling scheme founded in 1988 by a 
farmer union and two animal welfare organisations; 
o Animal Index System  in Austria; 
o Tierschutzgeprüft (animal welfare approved): The label was founded by  Vier 
Pfoten (four paws) , an Austrian animal welfare organisation that is also active 
in Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, The Ne therlands, Romania, Switzerland and 
the UK; the label currently only covers free-range eggs. 
 
• Schemes that focus on various as pects including animal welfare;  
o Organic farming:  animal welfare standards ar e one of the pillars of the 
organic concept (together with use of  natural systems and environmental 
sustainability). Organic farmi ng is regulated at EU leve l as a "reference level" 
scheme, meaning that private and nati onal operators may develop their own 
rules, but using the EU standard as  the basis. Only product farmed and 
produced in accordance with the EU organic rules may be marketed as 
'organic', 'biological', 'ecological', or under the diminutives 'bio' or 'eco', 'eko' etc. or any of these words in translat ion. Standards of organic farming include 
the creation of an environmen t that is appropriate to the species (including, for 
instance, permanent access to open air, appropriate pasture and forage to meet nutritional and behavioural needs, prohi bition of permanent tethering or 
isolating of animals, appropriate bedding and litter, low stocking rates, efforts 
to limit transportation times, no slatted floors in resting areas), restricted mutilation (that is, restricting the removal or reduction of tails, beaks or horns), and adoption of management practices adapted to each individual species (for instance, long idle periods between e gg laying periods and keeping in small 
groups to establish social hierarchies that would occur in nature in poultry 
production). Within and subject to the EU framework, there are a variety of 
 
EN 72   EN organic labelling schemes implemente d by private and national operators 
across the EU.  
o Label Rouge  is a French national quality a ssurance scheme for food products 
managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and covers a variet y of meat products. 
Animal welfare is one of the 4 'bases' of the Label Rouge concept. The reference standard is the Notices Techniques Label Rouge Françaises  that, 
amongst others, includes free-range pou ltry production and reduced stocking 
densities during night.  
 
• Schemes that focus on aspects other than animal welfare but have positive side-effects 
on animal welfare 
o PDO/PGI schemes
24 often emphasise more traditional and less intensive 
production methods. Dehesa de Extremadura  from Spain is typical of this type 
of scheme since it is based on a traditio nal acorn-feeding system that allows 
pigs to roam in a natural landscape.25 
S1.1.1.1. Main features of typical existing animal welfare schemes in the EU 
are: 
• It addresses the final consumer , but may also be used by the retailer  to offer differentiated 
product to a segment of consumers;  
• The objective is product differentiation by guaranteeing compliance with animal welfare 
standards above the EU minimum requirements level; 
• They focus on processes , especially on how products of animal origin are produced; 
• They strongly focus on the farm level ; 
• The systems are generally privately run, often with animal welfare organisations 
involved in some way; 
• They have a national focus. 
•  
 
• Existing animal welfare labellin g schemes in third countries 
This section provides an overview of relevant animal welfare schemes in selected countries, 
which are all voluntary schemes. Data was mainly available concerning Switzerland and Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States:  
• In Switzerland
 the government has established tw o animal welfare programs: RAUS 
(Regelmässiger Auslauf ins Freie ) and BTS ( Besonders tierfreundliche Stallhaltung ). 
Nearly all other Swiss animal welfare program s include the RAUS and/ or BTS criteria but 
                                                 
24 PDO = Protected Designation of Origin , PGI = Protected Geographical Indication 
25 See www.dehesa-extremadura.com . 
 
EN 73   EN often add additional aspects due to some shor tcomings of RAUS a nd BTS. Other labels 
are: Kagfreiland, organic labels (Bio-Suisse , M-Bio, Demeter, Fidelio), AgriNatura and 
Natura-Beef.26 
• The Royal New Zealand  SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) has 
launched the RNZSPCA Approved Barn  & Free-Range Eggs program.27 
• The RSCPA Australia  has developed the National Food Accreditation program. It started 
in the 1990s with a set of standards for egg pr oducers. Important principles are that hens 
are not kept in battery cages, have litter in which to dust bathe, space to flap their wings, 
stretch and socialise, nests in which to lay eggs and adequate perch space. The maximum 
stocking density is 7 birds/m2. The retail share of free-range eggs is 23.4 % (plus 5.3 % 
barn-laid eggs) in Australia.28 More recently the RSPCA ha s developed standards for 
animal welfare friendly pork production. Under this  standard a farm will be considered for 
accreditation if all pigs are kept either in  a well managed extensive outdoor system or 
within indoor environments that cater for the behavioural  and physical needs of sows, 
boars and piglets reared for slaughter, and where considerate handling, transportation and 
humane slaughter are observed. Practices such as sow stalls  and nose ringing are not 
permitted. 
• In Canada  the British Columbia SPCA has launched the SPCA Certified. It is a very small 
program that includes 9 egg, 3 broiler, 6 beef/cattle, 2 pig and 2 dairy producers.29 
• In the United States , Humane Farm Animal Care ha s launched the Certified Humane 
Raised & Handled Label that very much parallels the British Freedom Food scheme.30 
Other animal welfare labels in the United States are Animal Welfare Approved and the 
national organic program. Animal Welfare A pproved is a program of the Animal Welfare 
Institute (AWI), a non-profit charitable orga nisation founded in 1951  to reduce the sum 
total of pain and fear inflicted on animals by people.31 The American Humane Association, 
a US animal welfare organisation, has launched the Free Farmed (AHA) program.32 
Furthermore, there are several private animal welfare labels such as Whole Food Market’s 
Farm Animal and Meat Quality Standards.33 
                                                 
26 See www.greenpeace.ch. 
27 See http://rnzspca.org.nz. 
28 Stakeholder survey, response RSPCA Australia. 
29 Questionanire SPCA. 
30 See http://www.certifiedhumane.com. 
31 See http://www.animalw elfareapproved.org. 
32 See http://www.ame ricanhumane.org. 
33 See http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com. 
 
EN 74   EN Market data on animal welfare related labe lling schemes in EU countries including organic 
labelling (2007)  
MS Source/ 
Notes Livestock producers participating 
in AW relat. labelling schemes (%) Market shares of products labeled for AW (in % 
in terms of volume) 
  Cattle Pigs Sheep, 
goats Poultry Other Beef and 
milk 
products Pork 
productsSheep/g
oat 
meat 
product
s Poultry 
meat, egg 
products Other
AT 1) 18 4    8.9 (beef); 
12.9 (milk) 1.4  2.1 (broiler); 
8 (eggs)  
BE 2)  5 10 15 5 -- -- -- -- -- -- 
DE 3)  3 3 1 5 -- 3 2 1 
(meat); 
5 (milk)2  
DK 4)  3.5 0.1 -- 10 -- 30 7 -- 12 -- 
EE 5)  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 100 -- 
ES 6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 
FIN 7) 8 1 6 2 0.4 
(horses)10 0.6 0.1 8 (eggs)  
FR Only 
Label 
Rouge         33 (household 
purchase of 
poultry)   
IT 8) -- -- -- -- -- 3.5 
(organic) 0.34 
(organic)9.2 
(organic
) Organic: 0.14 
meat; 1.7 
eggs -- 
NL 9) 1.8 0.66 < 1 / 0 
(sheep, 
15 
milking 
goats) 0.1 
(broilers 
/ 50 
laying 
hens) -- 2 (beef); 4 
(dairy); 1.5 
(cheese, 
butter) 2 0 0.05 meat; 95 
table eggs; 5 
processed 
eggs -- 
SE 10) 90 
(dairy 
cattle); 
5 
(other 
cattle) < 5 0 80 to 90 -- 80 (milk), 5 
(beef) 1 
(organic 
and 
Swedish 
certified)-- 90 (meat) -- 
UK Only 
Freedom 
Food      0.7 (beef), 
0.9 (dairy 
cattle) 28.2 0.5 
(sheep) 5.2 (chicken), 
21.5 (ducks), 
49.0 (laying 
hens), 1.7 
(Turkey)  
Note: Based on survey conducted by Civic Cons ulting. Data for total of all animal we lfare relevant labelling schemes (e.g. orga nic labelling 
schemes, quality schemes, animal welfare schemes). As far as in coherent data was provided by di fferent stakeholder organisation s, the data 
considered to be most reliable is presented, however, data is not  comparable between countries a nd has to be interpreted with c are.  
 
Examples on inconsistencies of ex isting animal welfare schemes: 
• Freedom Food  is the only farm assurance scheme  in the UK with improved animal 
welfare as its primary goal. The scheme is available to farmers, hauliers, abattoirs, 
processors and packers who can meet the stan dards. Species-specific production guides are 
 
EN 75   EN available which set out the precise manageme nt prescriptions for production to Freedom 
Food standards. These standards include sectio ns on food and water, the environment in 
which production must take place (covering hou sing, handling, etc.), management, health, 
transport and slaughter.34 
• Label Rouge: main focus of the scheme is organoleptic quality of the product and use of 
non-intensive production methods (mainly for envi ronmental, but also for animal welfare 
reasons) and economic sustainability. Partic ipation is open to gr oups of producers and 
processors of food products af ter demonstration of  their ability to comply with the notices 
techniques , the minimum technical requirements  of the label. Animal welfare 
specifications relate to the t ype of rearing, the genetics, maximum stock densities, the 
origin and type of feed, the sl aughter age and the transport. 
• Organic farming Stresses the creation of an  appropriate environment, such as access to 
exercise or outdoor areas and pasture for herbivores, specific housing conditions for 
mammals with non-slippery floors and a suffici ent big, dry and solid resting area with 
ample dry bedding of straw or other suitable na tural litter, banns mutilation that leads to 
stress, harm, disease or suffering of animals a nd restricts it only  for use   in animal 
security or to improve the animals health, welf are or hygiene and to be carried out applying 
adequate anaesthesia or analgesia and asks for species-adapted management practices, for example, calves older than one week are not allowed to be kept in  single boxes, piglets 
must not be kept on flat decks or in piglet cages, water foul must have access to an open 
water surface, sows must be kept in groups and poultry must have access to open air runs, 
as well as pigs and poultry must have acc ess to roughage. Besides the minimum animal 
welfare requirements of the EU standard, priv ate standards have ofte n introduced stricter 
standards. 
• Bioland: organic private standard with animal welfare rules often going beyond the EU 
standard, such as, for instance, long idle peri ods between egg laying periods and keeping in 
small groups to establish social hierarchie s that would occur in nature in poultry 
production or reduced maximum number of pi gs and egg layers per hectare farmland. 
• Biodynamic:  organic production method that is one of the private standards using more 
natural farming methods with strong emphasis on natural processes. It goes beyond the EU 
minimum standard also in some animal we lfare standards, but biodynamic farmers do not 
always share the same scientific opinion on fo r instance whether or not animals should be 
tethered in the stable. 
 
                                                
 
34 All production guides are available from: http://www.rspca.org.uk/  
 
EN 76   EN Annex IV: Minutes of the ISSG meetings  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL 
 Animal health and welfare 
Animal Welfare  
 
  
Brussels, 23 January 2009 
 
NOTE OF INTERSERVICE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING , 14.01.09 
Subject: Establishment and first meeting of  the interservice steering    committee 
on the community communication on  animal welfare labelling and 
establishing of a community referen ce centre for animal protection and 
welfare 
Ref.: Agenda Planning: 2009/SANCO/037 
INTRODUCTION 
HoU Andrea Gavinelli (SANCO D5) explained the background and the purpose of the 
initiative that was to develop a Commission Communication on animal welfare labelling and 
establishing of a community reference centre for animal protection and welfare. The Communication would be adopted in May 2009 and the timing for the IA was driven by that 
deadline. He thanked the participants for the c ontributions so far in the process, where the 
Steering Group on the Community Action Plan for Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-
2010 were consulted on the Terms of Reference for the feasibility study.  The purpose of this 
meeting was to establish formally the Steering Committee and to present the draft final report 
of the feasibility st udy carried out by an external consultant. 
PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT REPORT PART 1: Animal welfare labelling Mr ALLEWELD (Civic Consultant ) presented the draft final re port from Part 1 of the study, 
which was an assessment of the feasibility of the options for indicating animal welfare related information on products of animal origin. The study was conducted by Civic Consulting 
(lead), with a limited contribution of Agra CE AS Consulting, of the Food Chain Evaluation 
Consortium (FCEC).  The report presents the background of the study, de scribes the current 
use of existing animal welfare labelling sche mes, describes the policy options available, 
examines the conformity of options with guidin g principles, and finally assesses in detail the 
impacts of the policy options, before drawing conclusions. The most feasible option for EU 
action empowering consumers to make inform ed purchasing decisions appears to be a 
 
EN 77   EN Community Animal Welfare Label modelled after the EU organic label. This option is to a 
large extent in line with the guiding principles  and also more compatible with limitations 
concerning the currently avai lable scientific knowledge on animal welfare and related 
indicators. It can be expected to have more  direct effects on animal welfare than other 
voluntary options, depending on the market share of the label. Negative impacts on existing 
schemes are possible, but may be (over)compens ated by increase of the overall market size 
for products produced at higher animal welfare st andard. As any improvements of the animal 
welfare conditions on farms that a label could bring ultimately depend on consumer demand, 
it is advisable to first introduce the label for fres h meat and milk/dairy pr oducts, and to assess 
the market success before considering further steps. 
PART 2: establishing of a community refere nce centre for animal protection and welfare 
Mr ALLEWELD (Civic Consultant ) presented the draft final re port from Part 2 of the study, 
which was an assessment of the feasibility of different options for establishing a Community 
Reference Centre for Animal Protection an d Welfare (CRC). The report presents the 
background of the study, explores the policy opti ons available for setting up a CRC, presents 
an overview of current existing bodies dealing w ith animal welfare related issues, assesses the 
conformity of the optio ns with guiding principles, analys es possible tasks of a CRC, and 
finally draws conclusions concerni ng the feasibility of options a nd the structure of the Centre, 
practical settings and related costs. The most feasible approach for establishing a Community 
Reference Centre for Animal Protection an d Welfare seems to be a mixed approach 
combining central and decentral elements. With  this approach, a relatively small CRC at 
central level would become a focal point fo r coordination and harm onisation of Community 
relevant issues in the field of animal welfare,  performing its task in close collaboration with 
and support of a network of relevant rese arch institutions in the Member States. 
After each presentation the Steering Committ ee was given the opportunity to make some 
clarifying questions to the contractor. 
Mr CAPPELLARO (DG AGRI) asked for the opportuni ty to reflect on the presentations and 
come back to SANCO with comments at a later stage. 
Ms LOUHIMIES (DG ENV) gave some clarifying co mments of the role of JRC in relation to 
the 3Rs principle, and asked the contractor to co nsider this in the finalising of the report. 
Conclusion Mr GAVINELLI 
– asked the Steering Committee to send comments and suggestions to be considered in the 
development of the Impact Assessment to Mr Jostein DRAGSET by a deadline set when 
sending out the final report; 
– expressed his appreciation of everybody's participation; 
– informed that DG SANCO will send the final report as soon as it has been received from 
the contractor (by end of January); 
The next meeting is scheduled for end of February or beginning of March 2009 
 
EN 78   EN  
Note prepared by SANCO D5 
  
 
Participants:  
 
AYDIN, Ayse SANCO D5 BERENDS, André TAXUD C3 
BILLAUX, Cécile SANCO 02 
CAINZOS-GARCIA, Marta SANCO D1 CAPPELLARO, Horacio AGRI D3 
CONVENS-BILLERBECK, Dorothee ENV E2 
CRUZ MEDINA, Maria Florentina MARE A2 DRAGSET, Jostein SANCO D5 
ERLBACHER, Friedrich SJ B 
FERRARA, Maria SANCO D5 FERRIER, Jean SG D3 
GAVINELLI, Andrea SANCO D5 
GOERGEN-EZQUERRA, Maria  SANCO D5 HOFHERR, Johann JRC G7 
KIY, Gillian Louise SANCO 02 
KROMMER, Judit SANCO D5 
KUSTER, Laszlo SANCO D1 
LOUHIMIES, Satu Susanna ENV D1 MARIN, Eric SANCO 02 
MEISINGER, Christine ELARG B1 
MIHAYLOVA, Milena SANCO A2 SALVI, Maurizio BEPA 
TISSOT, Daniele RTD E4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 79   EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL  Animal health and welfare 
Animal Welfare  
 
  Brussels, 4 March 2009  Note of Interservice St eering Committee Meeting, 03.03.09 
Subject: Second meeting of the interservi ce steering committee on the Commission 
communication on animal welfare labelling and establishing of a community reference centre 
for animal protection and welfare 
Ref.: Agenda Planning: 2009/SANCO/037 
INTRODUCTION 
DG SANCO explained that the impact assessment report on the initiative will be sent to the 
Impact Assessment Board 9 March. The Commun ication would be adopted in May 2009 and 
the timing for the IA was driven by that deadli ne. The purpose of this meeting was to present 
the final draft IA and discuss this with the IS Steering Committee.  
DG SANCO thanked the other Commission services that already submitted their comments to 
the draft report, and made clear that the comments  were considered in the latest version of the 
document. The animal welfare labelling initiati ve is closely linked to the DG AGRI initiative 
on product quality, and the two documents are ad apted to each other to avoid contradictory 
wordings. 
PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 
PART 1: Animal welfare labelling 
DG SANCO presented the first pa rt of the draft impact assessment report, which was an 
assessment of the feasibility of the options for indicating animal welfare related information on products of animal origin. The report presents  the background of the initiative, points out 
the current problems and drivers, describes the policy options available and finally assesses in 
detail the impacts of the policy options. It was expressed that there will not be any proposals 
in the coming Community communication a nd that the conclusions reflect this. 
 
EN 80   EN In addition to their written comments, SG said  that the purpose of the communication is to 
give background for an in-depth de bate in Council an EP, and that  this should be made clearer 
in the document. Furthermore, the SG raised d oubt about the impact of a labelling scheme on 
the stated objective i.e. “to improve animal welfare in animal production” if the minimum 
AW standards are not changed. AW labelling seems to be more related to improving consumer’s information (and right to choose) and/or to increasing market segmentation of 
agriculture products. SG suggested  exploring more in detail th e link between the EU organic 
label and a possible AW labelli ng scheme including the possible impact of an AW labelling 
scheme on the market share of organic products. Regarding the EU right to act, SG asked if 
this could be based on Art 95 in addition to Art 37 of the Treaty, and asked DG TRADE to 
clarify the implications for inte rnational trade of animal products. Finally SG focused on the 
scope of a possible EU AW label and wanted  to know if processe d products would be 
included and what would be the implications. 
DG AGRI expressed concerns about the possi ble competition between a possible animal 
welfare label and organic labelled products . DG AGRI suggested focusing more on the 
possibility to help producers into the market of animal we lfare friendly products in the 
objectives. If the option of “reserved terms” wo uld be preferred, DG AGRI wish to see neutral 
terms for the baseline production, in order to a void negative focus on production which is in 
line with the legislation. Furthermore DG AGRI warn about using the willingness to pay more 
for animal welfare friendly products as an ar gument for establishing an animal welfare 
labelling scheme, based on the Eurobarometer surv eys. The situation coul d have changed with 
the international finance crisis, and the “citi zens” demands when asked could be different 
from the “consumers” actions in the supermarkets. Regarding option 4 Harmonised requirements for the voluntary use of animal we lfare claims), DG AGRI stated that “farming 
methods” include more than animal welfare i ssues, and that the definition of different 
“farming methods” is within DG AGRI competence. The figures in the IA is based on data on 
the table eggs market (where labelling of  production method is mandatory) and data on 
broilers (where labelling of farming method is voluntary) is more unreliable. DG AGRI will 
provide data on the market situation for the poultry sector. DG AGRI asked for a bilateral meeting with DG SANCO to discuss further speci fic issues for the pig sector and for the 
organic sector. 
DG ENV asked about the scope of a possible anim al welfare labelling scheme, and suggested 
to include wild animals f. ex. kept in zoos. 
DG SANCO expressed that consumer  information is the main goal for the initiative, and that 
a possible animal welfare labelling scheme will have to be followed up by information 
campaigns to the consumers and the producers. Th e aim is to develop a tool for the producers 
to benefit from market possibilities and to en able consumers to make informed purchasing 
decisions. 
PART 2: establishing of a community re ference centre for animal protection and 
welfare 
DG SANCO presented the draft final report from Part 2 of the study, which was an 
assessment of the feasibility of different options for establishing a Community Reference Centre for Animal Protection and Welfare (CRC). The reports presents the background of the 
initiative, explores the policy options availabl e for setting up a CRC, analyses possible tasks 
 
EN 81   EN of a CRC, and finally assess the feasibility of op tions and the structure of the Centre, practical 
settings and related costs. 
DG ENV asked DG SANCO to ensure that the scope of the CRC would not be limited to 
tasks related to the animal we lfare labelling initia tive. A possible CRC should consider tasks 
related to all animal welfare issues, including wi ld animals and animals used in science. The 
need for an international recognised reference centre for animal welfare was raised, and the 
possibility to develop an International Refere nce Centre for Animal Protection and Welfare 
should be considered. 
DG SANCO stated that the IA re port will not restrict the sc ope for the possible CRC to tasks 
related to the animal welfare labelling initiative. 
CONCLUSION 
Mr GAVINELLI 
asked the Steering Committee to send comments an d suggestions to be considered in the 
finalizing of the Impact Assessment re port to Mr Jostein DRAGSET by 5 March; 
appreciated the possibility to have a bilatera l meeting with the relevant units in DG AGRI 
expressed his appreciation of everybody's participation; informed that DG SANCO will circulate the IA  report to the IS Steering Committee when it 
has been submitted to the IAB; 
 Note prepared by SANCO D5 
Participants:  
 
BERENDS, André TAXUD C3 CAINZOS-GARCIA, Marta SANCO D1 
CAPPELLARO, Horacio AGRI D3 
DRAGSET, Jostein SANCO D5 FAY, Francis AGRI H2 
FERRIER, Jean SG D3 
FIORE, Gianluca JRC/IPSC GAVINELLI, Andrea SANCO D5 
KIY, Gillian Louise SANCO 02 
KROMMER, Judit SANCO D5 PLANK, Irene ENV E2 
SALVI, Maurizio BEPA 
 
EN 82   EN Annex V: Report from the feasibility study part 1: Animal Welfare labelling  
P:\jd2009\Labe lling\
Final report\AW Labe 
 
EN 83   EN Annex VI: Report from the feasibility study part 2: Community Reference Centre for 
the protection and welfare of animals  
P:\jd2009\Labe lling\
Final report\AW-Lab e 
 
EN 84   EN Annex VII: Existing bodies dealing with an imal welfare related issues  
A large number of existing bodies within the EU are dealing with an imal welfare related 
issues. To provide an updated picture of their ar eas of expertise, an additional EU wide survey 
of animal welfare institutions was conducted duri ng the study. It was specifically targeted at 
public or private institutions, operating at EU a nd/or Member State level that could take on or 
support the necessary functions through their e xpertise in animal protection and welfare. 
Relevant bodies include: 
• Community institutions and bodies:  these are the ECVAM – part of the Institute 
for Health and Consumer Pr otection in the DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) and 
the European Food Safety Authority (E FSA). Together, these bodies employ a 
total of 28 staff members in the area of animal welfar e. Although both institutions 
do not seem to cover all areas of expertis e that could be relevant for an ENRC, 
gaps are limited if the expertise of both or ganisations is considered together. If 
considered separately, neither of the two bodies would cover more than half of the 
areas.   
• Universities and research institutes  in the Member States: together, responding 
institutes report to employ a total of 414 staff members specifically working in the 
area of animal welfare. Overall, resear ch institutions cover all areas that were 
identified as having relevance for a Co mmunity Reference Centre. Institutions 
directly belonging to the government  or being independent p ublic agencies from 7 
Member States reported to employ 128 st aff specifically working in the area of 
animal welfare. Additionally, a total of seven animal welfare organisations and 
other private bodies  represented in eight Member States responded to the survey. 
These organisations reported to employ at  least 94 staff members specifically 
working in the area of animal welfare (not all respondents provided a figure). 
These organisations cover only to some ex tent the areas that were identified as 
having relevance. 
Details on the EU centres dealing with animal welfare 
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  EFSA was set up in January 2002, following a series  of food crises in the late 1990s, as an 
independent source of scientific advice and co mmunication on risks associated with the food 
chain. EFSA was created as part of a comprehensive program to improve EU food safety, ensure a high level of consumer protection an d restore and maintain confidence in the EU 
food supply.  
EFSA is an independent European agency f unded by the EU budget that operates separately 
from the European Commission, European Parliament and EU Member States. 
EFSA’s Scientific Committee and Panels are composed of highly qualified experts in 
scientific risk assessment. All members are a ppointed through an open selection procedure on 
the basis of proven scientific excellence, incl uding experience in risk assessment and peer-
reviewing scientific work and publications. 
The Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHA W) deals with animal health and welfare 
issues. The AHAW Panel provides independent scientific advi ce on all aspects of animal 
 
EN 85   EN diseases and animal welfare. Its work chie fly concerns food producing animals, including 
fish.  
The Panel carries out risk assessments in orde r to produce scientific opinions and advice for 
risk managers. Its risk assessment approach is  based on reviewing scientific information and 
data in order to evaluate the risks as consequence of a given hazard. This helps to provide a 
science-based foundation for Europ ean policies and legislation a nd supports risk managers in 
taking balanced and timely decisions 
The Panel works independently and transparently to deliver timely scientific opinions/advice 
of the highest standards to  support the policies and deci sions of risk managers.  
It carries out its work either in response to reque sts for scientific advice from risk managers or 
on its own initiative. Most commonly, the Eu ropean Commission asks EFSA to provide 
scientific advice on a particular issue. The Pa nel always undertakes work on the basis of a 
specific mandate (terms of reference) wh ich guides its approach to each question.  
The Panel regularly sets up Working Groups i nvolving external scien tists with relevant 
expertise on specific matters. The Working Group drafts the scientific report (containing the 
relevant scientific data and the risk assessment if required) that will be the basis for the scientific opinions. The Panel itself meets regul arly in plenary sessions to discuss work in 
progress and to adopt finalised scientific opinions. Each scientific opinion results from a 
collective decision-making process with every Panel member having an equal say. 
European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) 
ECVAM was created by a Communication from  the Commission to the Council and the 
Parliament in October 1991
35, pointing to a requirement in Directive 86/609/EEC36 on the 
protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes , which requires that 
the Commission and the Member States should actively support the development, validation 
and acceptance of methods which c ould reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals 
ECVAM has been established in 19 92 as a unit of the Environment Institute, part of the Joint 
Research Centre, and has been transferred to, at  that time, newly formed Institute for Health 
and Consumer Protection in Ispra, Italy in 1998 of which ECVAM is still part of. 
Duties of ECVAM as defined in the Communica tion of the European Commission to Council 
and the European Parliament are the following: 
• To coordinate the validation of  alternative test methods at the European Union level.  
• To act as a focal point for the exchange of information on the development of alternative 
test methods. 
• To set up, maintain and manage a da ta base on alternative procedures. 
                                                 
35  SEC(91)1794, Communication of the European Commission to Council and the European Parliament 
36  Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulation and administrative 
provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other 
scientific purposes, OJ L Nº 358, 18.12.1986. 
 
EN 86   EN • To promote dialogue between legislators, in dustries, biomedical scientists, consumer 
organisations and animal welfare groups, with a view to the developm ent, validation and 
international recognition of alternative test methods. 
ECVAM is leading (pre)validation and performs  research on the development of advanced 
testing methods. These activities are carried out  by, both, non laboratory international network 
activities, as well as these activities can be  collaborative laboratory based studies with 
research groups in the EU Member States fo cusing on the evaluation and prevalidation of new 
in vitro tests. 
Moreover, over the past years, ECVAM has in creasingly been involved to actively support the 
implementation of the new EU policies on cosmetics (Council Directive 2003/15/EC) and chemicals (REACH) which call for the use of anim al alternatives and testing strategies as 
soon as possible.