Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Options for animal welfare labelling and the establishment of a European Network of Reference Centres for the protection and welfare of animals {COM(2009) 584 final} {SEC(2009) 1433}
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal production, animal welfare, consumer information, labelling, protection of animals, public awareness campaign, trans-European network

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN 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 COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Options for animal welfare labelling and the establishment of a European Network of 
Reference Centres for the protection and welfare of animals 

{COM(2009) 584 final} 
{SEC(2009) 1433} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of annexes:.......................................................................................................................... iv 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ v 

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................vii 

Part I: Animal Welfare Labelling ............................................................................................viii 

Part II: European Network of Reference Centres for the Protection and Welfare of 

Animals ....................................................................................................................... ix 

Procedural issues and consultation 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 ..................................................................................................... 19 

1.1.6.  Stakeholder concerns.................................................................................................. 20 

1.2. 

Background ................................................................................................................ 21 

1.2.1.  Current EU legislation on animal welfare labelling................................................... 21 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

How would the problem evolve without a change in policy? .................................... 23 

Does the EU have the right to act? ............................................................................. 23 

Should the EU act? ..................................................................................................... 24 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 24 

General objectives:..................................................................................................... 24 

Specific objectives: .................................................................................................... 24 

Options ....................................................................................................................... 24 

Feasibility assessment ................................................................................................ 26 

General remarks from the stakeholders survey .......................................................... 26 

Conformity of options with guiding principles .......................................................... 26 

Impact of options........................................................................................................ 30 

EN 

ii 

   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. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

International dimension.............................................................................................. 31 

Impact of options on the animal welfare conditions on farms ................................... 32 

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 participating in the labelling scheme ......................................... 38 

5.5.3. 

Impact of options on consumer prices........................................................................ 40 

5.5.4. 

Impact of options on existing private marketing schemes referring to animal 
welfare........................................................................................................................ 42 

5.5.5. 

Impact of options on the enforcement costs of public authorities.............................. 43 

5.5.6. 

Impact of options on imports from third countries (extra EU-trade) ......................... 44 

5.6. 

5.7. 

5.8. 

6. 

Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 45 

Administrative burden impacts .................................................................................. 45 

Impacts on Small Businesses ..................................................................................... 45 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 46 

PART II: European Network of Reference Centres for the protection and welfare of 

animals ....................................................................................................................... 50 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

3. 

4. 

Problem definition...................................................................................................... 50 

Main problems perceived by stakeholders ................................................................. 50 

Lack of harmonised animal welfare standards/indicators for higher animal 
welfare........................................................................................................................ 51 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 51 

General objectives:..................................................................................................... 51 

Specific objectives: .................................................................................................... 52 

Options ....................................................................................................................... 52 

Feasibility assessment ................................................................................................ 53 

EN 

iii 

   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 independent 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. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 58 

Alternatives for the scope of a ENRC ........................................................................ 59 

Expected costs ............................................................................................................ 60 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 62 

LIST OF ANNEXES: 

Annex I 

Retailers demand for animal welfare friendly products 

Annex II 

Current EU animal welfare legislation 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 part 1: Animal Welfare labelling 

Annex VI 

Report from the feasibility study part 2: Community Reference Centre for the protection 
and welfare of animals 

Annex VII 

Details on the EU centres dealing with animal welfare  

EN 

iv 

   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  environmental  protection  and  sustainability.  Although 
major consumer segments have become increasingly price sensitive, consultations carried 
out  by  DG  SANCO  and  the  results  of  several  Eurobarometer  surveys  revealed  that  a 
significant percentage of European consumers1 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. All these aspects are taken into account in 
the  development  of  EU  animal  welfare  policies  which  are  founded  upon  long-standing 
legislation  (Annex  III)  based  on  clear  scientific  principles,  public  concerns,  and 
stakeholders' input.  

In the course these stakeholder consultations on animal welfare it has become clear that a 
strategic  framework  for  EU  action  is  needed.  Options  for  action  covered  by  this 
framework  are  included  in  this  report.  This  Impact  Assessment  provides  analysis  to 
support the development of strategic orientations in the field of animal welfare labelling 
and the establishment of a network of references centres for animal welfare.  

The aim of the Commission initiative is to allow 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 welfare. 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  labelling  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 Protection 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  animal  welfare  as  a  business  opportunity  while 
respecting the ethical and cultural dimension of the issue.  

This plan highlights the importance of consumer information as part of a comprehensive 
communication  strategy  on  animal  welfare.  Enabling  consumers  to  make  informed 
purchasing  decisions  has  the  potential  to  give  an  economic  incentive  to  industry  to 
improve the welfare of animals. A clear label identifying the "level" of welfare applied 
could  represent  an  effective  marketing  tool  as  currently  used  for  the  identification  of 
certain  agricultural  products  with  particular  regional  attributes.  Such  a  system  of 

1 

2 

57 % are willing to pay more for hen’s eggs sourced 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)). 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/com_action_plan230106_en.pdf 

EN 

v 

   EN 

 
                                                 
classification will need to be based on standardised scientific indicators well recognised 
both  in  the  EU  and  internationally,  and  underpinned  by  research,  in  order  to  facilitate 
accurate marketing of these products.  

Furthermore, the Action Plan envisages the creation 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  auditing  schemes.  In  addition,  the  Centre  could 
perform  tasks  in  particular  in  relation  to  harmonisation  and  coordination,  policy  advice 
and  sharing  of  best  practices,  education  and  training  and  dissemination  of  information. 
The Centre should also facilitate the preparation of relevant socio-economic studies and 
impact  assessments.  The  Action  Plan  suggests  developing  standardised  animal  welfare 
indicators  in  order to provide  a science-based  tool  to  make  animal  welfare  measurable. 
The  Commission  already  supports  an  important  research  project,  the  Welfare  Quality 
Project3,  which  will  serve  as  basis  for  elaborating  such  indicators  and  for  the 
classification of animal welfare standards applied. Such a classification 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  European  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  context  provide  technical  support  for  the 
further development of the system, including certification of animal welfare conditions.  

The  Conference  “Animal  Welfare  –  Improving  by  Labelling?”  (Brussels,  28  March 
2007),  organised  by  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  the  European 
Commission  and  the  German  Presidency  enabled  broad  discussions  to  take  place  with 
representatives of all stakeholder groups. This conference concluded that labelling could 
under certain conditions contribute to improving animal welfare. 

The  Council  of  Ministers  adopted  in  May  2007  Conclusions  on  Animal  Welfare 
Labelling4,  inviting  the  Commission  to  present  a  report  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 feasibility study discussing with stakeholders 
the topic of animal welfare labelling in order to prepare a Commission 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  possibilities  for  the 
establishment of a Community Reference Centre for Animal Protection 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  product  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 policy outcomes and that they are introduced 
in  a  consistent  manner  to  prevent  stakeholders  and  consumers  receiving  mixed  and 
confusing messages. 

3 
4 

http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/agricult/93986.pdf 

EN 

vi 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  close  cooperation  between  DG  SANCO  and  other  DGs  has  taken  place  along  the 
process  through  ISSG  meetings,  bilateral  meetings,  written  correspondence  to  ensure 
coherence and consistency between the new proposed labels and the existing schemes in 
place.  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2006, the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006 – 
2010 was adopted. This plan highlights the importance of consumer information as part 
of  a  comprehensive  communication  strategy  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 animal 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 animal 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  present  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 welfare 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 increase consumer understanding of animal welfare, among other 
options, by the information provided on the labels, 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 assess the feasibility of different 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 consumers 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 various reasons for the lack of information on 
the market, including: 

5

6 

EN 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/betterregulation/competitiveness_consu

mer_info.pdf. 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/agricult/93986.pdf. 

vii 

   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  welfare  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 simply examines various options that could 
be used to address the objectives 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  centres  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 covered in the report, the impact assessment has 
been divided into two parts — the first concentrating on the impacts of different options 
for  improving  the  communication  to  consumers  on  animal  welfare  related  to  livestock 
products  and  the  second  exploring  the  impacts  of  establishing  a  Network  of  Reference 
Centres. 

Part I: Animal Welfare Labelling 

DG  SANCO  is  exploring  the  possibility  of  establishing  a  system  of  animal  welfare 
labelling  to  improve  consumer  information  on  welfare  standards  and  existing  welfare 
schemes  and  to  harmonise  the  internal  market  to  prevent  widely  differing  welfare 
standards  being  used  under  the  generic  ‘welfare’  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  likely  impacts  on  stakeholders  of  each  option. 
Given  the  early  stage  of  policy  development,  the  impact  analysis  remains  mainly 
qualitative,  but,  where  possible,  quantitative  estimates  of  the  potential  impact  are 
provided.  

For mandatory labelling, several options are considered: 

– 

mandatory  labelling  of  the  welfare  standards  under  which  products  of  animal 
origin are produced,  

EN 

viii 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

mandatory  labelling  of  the  farming  system  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 voluntary 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 welfare labelling and quality schemes. 

Although this impact assessment does not conclude on any definitive option for animal 
welfare  labelling,  it  does  identify  the  legislative  and  non-legislative  options  that  are 
considered the most feasible at this stage (harmonised requirements for voluntary animal 
welfare claims and/or a Community animal welfare 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 Centres for the Protection and Welfare of 

Animals 

The  objective  of  the  second  part  of  the  impact  assessment  is  to  explore  and  assess  the 
feasibility of different options for establishing a European Network of Reference Centres 
for the Protection and Welfare of Animals (ENRC). 

Consideration of the options to develop a central community reference centre was based 
on concerns raised in consultation on: 

•  the lack of harmonised animal welfare standards/indicators for higher animal welfare; 
•  lack of coordination of existing resources 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 discussing 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 for a centralised approach, 
•  various options for a decentralised approach and 
•  option using a task-specific strategy to determine 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 taken in this area some form of mixed approach 
based on decentralized and centralized elements would be most feasible.  

EN 

ix 

   EN 

 
PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The  initiative  is  a  SANCO  item  in  the  Commission  Agenda  Planning  of  2009 
(2009/SANCO/037). Stakeholders and other Commission 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 foods - UK), a second scheme that focuses on a 
variety  of  issues  including  animal  welfare  (Bioland  -  Germany),  a  third  scheme 
concentrating on superior quality certification for food products (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  schemes  in  some  selected  third  countries  is 
included in the study. 

Selected  relevant  stakeholders  within  the  countries  operating  these  schemes  were 
contacted  for  in-depth  interviews  (e.g.  food  industry  associations,  farmer  organisations, 
meat  producers,  wholesalers/retailers,  auditors,  animal  welfare  organisations,  consumer 
organisation). 

A  total  of  12  in-depth  interviews  were  conducted  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 and of similar structures in other policy areas 
to complement  the  data collected through the other methodological tools. A total of 14 
additional exploratory interviews were conducted with various stakeholders. The number 
of  interviews  conducted  by  type  of  interview  is  provided  in  the  table  below.  A  more 
detailed list of the interviewees is included 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 

Exploratory interviews  

Working group meeting 

TOTAL 

12 

14 

Group meeting 

27 

The  survey  of  general  stakeholders  was  conducted  also  in  the  framework  of  the  study. 
The table below presents the number of respondents per country: 

EN 

x 

   EN 

 
 
Respondents to the general stakeholder survey 

Respondents to general stakeholder survey  

Questionnaires received 

Austria 

Belgium 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

EU 

Finland  

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Malta 

The Netherlands 

Poland  

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

United Kingdom 

Non-EU (Australia, Canada) 

Total 

3 

7 

1 

3 

1 

29 

8 

3 

3 

20 

1 

1 

1 

10 

1 

1 

2 

1 

12 

2 

110 

A working group of the Advisory Group on the Food Chain and Animal and Plant Health 
on animal welfare related labelling was held in Brussels on 21 April 2008. The meeting 
was mainly informative. The main points of the Commission feasibility study and related 
activities in the Welfare Quality Project were presented as well as examples on existing 
animal welfare labelling schemes. Citizens’ demands for information on food origin and 

EN 

xi 

   EN 

 
 
production and especially on animal welfare standards in relation to the political options 
for delivering this information were discussed. Around 20 stakeholder organisations were 
represented in the meeting.  

Inter-service Steering Group 

An  Interservice  Steering  Group  consisting  of  several  Commission  DGs  (DG  TAXUD, 
DG RTD, DG AGRI, DG TRADE, DG ENV, DG EMPL, DG MARE, DG ELAR, SJ, 
SG,  JRC-ISPRA,  and  BEPA)  was  established  to  conduct  the  study  and  the  impact 
assessment  process.  This  Steering  Group  met  twice  during  the  evaluation  period.  The 
comments expressed by the various DGs represented at the meetings (and further e-mail 
exchanges) have been taken into 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 legislative proposal, but a report whose main purpose is to present 
the  results  of  the  feasibility  study,  outline  possible  options  for  legislative  and  non-
legislative approaches to take forward actions in the Animal Welfare Action Plan and to 
open the inter-institutional debate on the issue 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 20047. 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 presented 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,  further  consumer  research  (Eurobarometer)  would 
also  be  undertaken  to  consider  if  consumer  opinions  stated  in  the  previous  surveys 
(willingness to pay, etc.) remain valid or whether different influences are now having an 
impact on consumers' purchasing patterns.  

Impact Assessment Board 

The  draft  Impact  Assessment  was  submitted  to  the  Board  on  13  March  2009  and 
discussed  at  the  Board  meeting  of  22  April 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/farm/socio_economic_study_revised_en.pdf 

EN 

xii 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This  document  has  taken  into  account  their  comments  as  far  as  possible.  As  a 
consequence  of  the  outcome  of  the  opinion  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-institutional  debate  on  the  issues  raised  in  the 
Animal  Welfare  Action  Plan  and  not  to  raise  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  given  the  already  vast  stakeholder  consultation  undertaken,  the 
evidence and criteria that would be used for 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 the presentation of the document were made. 

EN 

xiii 

   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  products  they  eat  in  order  to  make  more 
informed choices on the food they buy. At present, whilst voluntary welfare labelling 
schemes exist, there are no harmonised standards on the levels of welfare afforded to 
animal by these private schemes: consumers are unable to understand and differentiate 
the  welfare  standards  promoted  under  these  schemes  in  order  to  make  informed 
purchases.  

–  This  difficulty  in  providing  clear  information  to  the  consumer  on  welfare  standards 
has  a  knock-on  effect  with  very  few  products  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 animal 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 systems developed for poultry (and eggs), pigs, and veal 
calves.  

–  This  proposal  is  focusing  on  rectifying  the  information  asymmetry  between  final 
consumers  and  producers  of  animal  welfare  standards  and  the  market  distortion  of 
different  welfare  schemes  being  created  with  no  underpinning  standards.  This 
proposal does not seek to explore compliance 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  consumers  are  price-sensitive,  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 consumer segment is not adequately served – due 
to information asymmetry on production methods - so that there are market opportunities 
for  products  that  combine  higher  animal  welfare  standards  with  other  above-average 
characteristics. 
–  The results of two Eurobarometer surveys8 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 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  In  December  2006  DG  SANCO  published  the  summary  of  results  for  the 
consultation "Labelling: competitiveness, consumer 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 Eurobarometer 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  change  their  consumption  patterns.  In  the 
same survey, almost three-quarters of respondents believed that buying animal welfare 
friendly  products  could  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  protection  of  farmed  animals. 
Furthermore,  the  results of this  survey revealed that 33% of the interviewees agreed 
that  (current)  labelling  enables  them  to  identify  welfare-friendly  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  proportion  (35%)  saying 
logos would be a good method of identification. 

Consumers’ interest on animal welfare friendly products is not homogeneous across the 
EU but the general trend is an increased purchase of products obtained in more animal 
welfare  friendly  farming  systems.  Some  retailers  are  also  demanding  animal  welfare 
friendly products from their suppliers and promoting this to the consumers (Annex I) 

Box 1 

Increased  demand  for  animal  welfare  friendly  products  (table  eggs)  (Source:  socio-
economic  implications  of  the  various  systems  to  keep  laying  hens,  Agra  CEAS 
Consulting) 

In some southern Member States where there is relatively little production of, or demand 
for,  alternatively  produced  eggs,  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  estimated  to  be  around 
25%.  The  proportion  sourced  via  alternative  systems  has  gradually  increased  as  some 
large retailers have indicated they will no longer source fresh eggs from traditional caged 
production. Inasmuch as there is data available, 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 current 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 

15 

   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 certification schemes may not be fully understood 
by consumers. Existing standards and claims such as organic, free-range or “farm-made” 
already  include,  to  a  certain  degree,  animal  welfare  aspects  without  always  being  very 
explicit  about  them.  Therefore  consumers  are  not  able  to  understand  animal  welfare 
aspects of current wider certification 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  welfare  conditions  and  which  schemes  include 
animal welfare conditions higher than the minimum standards which would enable them 
to  make  informed  purchasing  decisions.  Additional,  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 that labelling standards 
be clear enough about their contributions to animal welfare, based on a sound scientific 
framework. Both aspects are considered important for avoiding misinterpretations by and 
confusion of consumers. 

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  understand  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  "animal  welfare  is  an  important  consideration 
when buying pork". More than half (60%) said they always bought higher welfare pork 
(RSPCA  'Freedom  Food',  free  range  or organic). However,  nearly a quarter (23%) said 
they did not because they "didn't know much about how the pigs are reared". 

1.1.3.  Inconsistency of existing animal welfare labelling schemes 

The results of the analysis carried out by the 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  animal  welfare  have  normally  a  comprehensive 
understanding  of  animal  welfare  (including  welfare  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 their main driver. Other schemes are perceived by 
consumers  as  animal  welfare  schemes,  even  though  they  only  confirm  that  minimum 
standards are met. 

10 

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  following  examples  illustrate  different  private  animal  welfare  schemes  and  the 
different  standards  these  schemes  afford  animals.  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  standards.  Species-specific  production  guides  are 
available  which  set  out  the  precise  management  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 organoleptic quality of the product and the 
use  of  non-intensive  production  methods  (mainly  for  environmental,  but  also  for 
animal  welfare  reasons)  and  economic  sustainability.  Participation  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  the  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  appropriate  environment  focusing  on: 
access to exercise or outdoor areas and pasture; specific housing conditions; sufficient 
resting  areas  and  suitable  bedding.  The  scheme  bans  mutilation  that  leads  to  stress, 
harm,  disease  or  suffering  of  animals  and  restricts  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 requires species-adapted management practices 
e.g.  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.  Besides  the  minimum  animal  welfare  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 including 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 number 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 processes. 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 animals 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 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.1.4.  Low market shares of animal welfare schemes 

Although  different  surveys  confirm  consumer  demand  for  animal  welfare-friendly 
products,  the  results  of  the  external  study  show  that  market  shares  for  animal  welfare 
schemes  and  schemes  that  also  include  animal  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 translated to the purchase of animal welfare 
friendly products.  

During the development of the policy this issue needs to be carefully considered, as the 
contradiction between consumers' wishes when asked and their purchasing decisions may 
be even more apparent as the economic situation 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  did  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 related 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 
products

Pork 
products 

Other

Poultry 
meat,  egg 
products 

Sheep/
goat 
meat 
product
s 

AT 

1) 

18 

4 

8.9 
(beef); 
12.9 
(milk) 

BE 

2)  

DE 

3)  

5 

3 

10  15 

3 

1 

5 

5 

-- 

-- 

-- 

3 

1.4 

-- 

2 

2.1 
(broiler); 
8 (eggs) 

-- 

-- 

2 

-- 

1 
(meat); 
5 
(milk) 

DK 

EE 

4)  

5)  

EN 

3.5 

0.1  -- 

10 

-- 

30 

7 

-- 

12 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

100 

-- 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ES 

FIN 

FR 

IT 

NL 

6) 

7) 

Only 
Label 
Rouge 

8) 

9) 

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 
products

Pork 
products 

Other

Poultry 
meat,  egg 
products 

Sheep/
goat 
meat 
product
s 

0 

8 

0 

1 

0 

6 

0 

2 

0 

0.4 (horses)

0 

10 

0 

0.6 

0 

0.1 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1.8 

0.66 

< 1 / 0 
(sheep, 15 
milking 
goats) 

0.1 
(broilers / 
50 laying 
hens) 

-- 

-- 

3.5 
(organic) 

0.34 
(organic) 

9.2 
(organic) 

2 

0 

< 5 

0 

80 to 90 

-- 

SE 

10) 

90 (dairy 
cattle); 5 
(other 
cattle) 

UK 

Only 
Freedom 
Food 

0 

-- 

8 (eggs) 

33 
(household 
purchase of 
poultry)  

Organic: 0.14 
meat; 1.7 
eggs 

0.05 meat; 95 
table eggs; 5 
processed 
eggs 

-- 

-- 

2 (beef); 4 
(dairy); 1.5 
(cheese, 
butter) 

80 (milk), 5 
(beef) 

0.7 (beef), 
0.9 (dairy 
cattle) 

1 (organic 
and 
Swedish 
certified) 

28.2 

-- 

90 (meat) 

-- 

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 total of all animal welfare relevant labelling schemes (e.g. organic 
labelling  schemes,  quality  schemes,  animal  welfare  schemes).  As  far  as  incoherent  data  was  provided  by  different  stakeholder 
organisations, the data considered to be most reliable is presented, 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  legislation  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  farms  may  prevent  in  some  cases  the  use  of 
more  economically  efficient  farming  methods  and  techniques.  EU  minimum  animal 
welfare standards reflect the legitimate choices of society and as such, EU farmers ought 
to  be  able  to  capitalise  on  them  as  an  asset  and  a  positive  aspect  of  EU  production. 
However,  they  can  only  do  this  if  the  product’s  farming  method  can  be  identified.  As 
outlined before the information asymmetry between farm production methods and food 
on  the  shelves  results  in  EU  consumers  not  being  able  to  distinguish  between  products 
that  have  different  animal  welfare  standards.  Therefore  they  might  assume  that  all 

EN 

19 

   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 they apply in the EU animal production.  

In summary, the problem concerns the following issues: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

EU producers do not necessarily receive full recognition for the value 
to  society  of  their  compliance  with  EU  minimum  animal  welfare 
which provides important public goods to society. 

EU  producers  bear  production  costs  which  in  some  cases  have  a 
‘common good’ element. 

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 the need for differing international standards 
to  be  taken  into  account  in  Commission  impact  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 consumer, 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  between  different  schemes. 
Without clarity and common definitions concerning animal welfare labelling consumers 
can be misled and the single market undermined. 

The pig meat market is an example of how this 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 anaesthesia are traded. Different methods for anaesthesia, the 
use  of  long  term  analgesia  and  the  introduction  of  new  castration  methods  cause  even 
more barriers to trade. Improving the transparency of the market via the harmonising of 
standards and development of harmonised labelling requirements 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 framework of the external 
study  –  stakeholder  organisations  were  asked  to  specify  the  main  current  problems 
regarding animal welfare-related information on products of animal origin. The results of 
the survey and the assessment carried out are explained in the following sections. Details 
on the answers provided by the 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  into  account  the  economic  impact  of 
Community rules and the risks and opportunities presented where EU and international standards 
differ.” 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Despite the large variety of answers provided by the stakeholders 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 lack of international acceptance and univocal 
definitions for animal welfare claims.  

•  Next  come  concerns  about  a  lack  of  scientific 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 lack of scientific knowledge. 

•  Several respondents also refer to a lack of consumer interest and awareness and a lack 
of comprehensive schemes that cover all animal welfare aspects and all stages of food 
supply chains (including logistics, slaughter etc.). Only a small number of respondents 
mention  a  lack  of  mandatory  standards  and  government  supervision,  the  need  for 
cooperation  with  retailers,  inadequate  penalties  and  the  application  to  food  imported 
from non-EU countries. 

A closer look at the answers reveals significant differences between 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 standards 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  organisations,  standard  setters  and  researchers  say  they  are 
unsatisfied  with  the  animal  welfare  labelling  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 comprehensive 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 legislation on specific animal welfare labelling of products of 
animal origin13. 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  with  higher  animal  welfare  conditions  than 
compulsory  requirements  have  emerged  in  recent  years  .  These  schemes  –  outlined  in 
Annex  III  –  are  referred  to  in  this  document  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 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
increase of animal welfare schemes, whether at EU level or private and national schemes, 
presents  the  risk  of  possible  inconsistent  or  misleading  schemes  which  in  turn  would 
increase information asymmetry for consumers and inequities in the single market.  

–  Egg marketing legislation (Regulations (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  farming  systems  (organic,  free-range, 
barn, cage.), the egg classification system is often perceived by stakeholders (including 
consumers) as giving a strong message 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  market  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 established in 1990 under Council Regulation (EEC) 
No. 1907/90. 

The  views  of  stakeholders  –  including  producer  organisations  and  animal  welfare 
organisations  –  were  considered  in  the  drafting  of  the  legislation.  Egg  labelling  is  not 
designed  as  a  specific  animal  welfare  label,  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 production systems are laid down in legislation 
(Annex V to the regulation).  The mandatory labelling 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 operation since 1995. This voluntary arrangement 
followed  successful  lobbying  at  the  EU  level  from  animal  welfare  organisations.  A 
necessary  precondition  of  the  optional  labelling  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  higher  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  that  Member  States  will  appoint  inspection 
services to check compliance with the Regulation and that these inspection 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 takes 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 the 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  shifting  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 welfare. Egg-marketing legislation is the only 
compulsory labelling of farming system in the EU. It is therefore a good scheme to use 

14 

15 

These are set out in Council Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection 
of laying hens. 
Research conducted by Agra CEAS Consulting. 

EN 

22 

   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 defined and farmers must comply with specifications laid down 
to use the reserved terms. However, the indication 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 consumers 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  schemes  which  could  lead  to  increased 
consumers confusion; 

•  inconsistent  approach  in  terms  of  the  content  and  availability  of  information 
potentially leading to confusion for the consumer; 

1.4. 

Does the EU have the right to act?  

Article 37 provides the basis for the EU legislative 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 considered, from a legal perspective, as a part of the 
Common  Agricultural  Policy  adopting 
legislative  and  administrative 
procedures.  Animal  welfare  is  also  an  essential  part  of  the  establishment  of  the  Single 
Market and the Trade Policy. 

the  same 

Article 95 provides basis for the EU legislative measures to ensure the functioning of the 
Internal Market, including animal health and 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  legislation  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 

23 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Article 153 provides for the EU legislative measures to ensure consumer protection and 
right to information.  

1.5. 

Should the EU act? 

There  is  not  a  legislative  proposal  at  this  stage.  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 and 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 criteria to facilitate intra-community trade. 
Given the link to the Common Market 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,  proportionality  of  EU  action 
would be considered if a legislative proposal is deemed necessary.  

2.  OBJECTIVES 

2.1. 

General objectives: 

The  aim  of  this  initiative  is  to  explore  the  possible  options  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  necessary  which  approach  would  be  best  to 
deliver these objectives.  

2.2. 

Specific objectives: 

•  To  explore  methods  to  implement  a  well  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 

24 

   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  establishing  requirements  for  reserved  terms: 
EU  law  will  regulate  the  mandatory  standards  that  must  be  achieved  when  suppliers 
voluntarily  label  products  indicating  a  certain  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  established,  organised,  and/or  managed  in  a 
harmonised way, providing for voluntary participation similar to the EU organic scheme.  

Option 6: Guidelines for the 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 labelling are considered and have been analyzed 
in broad sense due to the early nature of the initiative. If a firm proposal 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 implementation of the label also 
would  have  to  consider  practical  issues  like:  where  processed  products  containing 
products of animal origin are covered, the use 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 was dismissed earlier 
on  in  the  policy  development  process  as  it  was  not  considered  sufficient  to  deliver  the 
policy objectives and address the information 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  still  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 welfare 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 occur, is not possible to develop further this 
complementary  action.  The  communication  aspect  of  establishing  a  label  will  be 
explored further if a proposal were presented in the future.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
In  addition,  as  the  policy  develops  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  prevent  stakeholders  and  consumers  receiving 
mixed and confusing messages. 

4.  FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT 

4.1. 

General remarks from the 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 controversial standpoints of different stakeholder 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 with 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 basis 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 Community funded Welfare Quality Project. The 
current  lack  of  such  an  instrument  affects  the  feasibility  of  all  options,  but  to  a 
different  degree.  Until  a  harmonised  and  reliable  instrument  exists,  it  appears  to  be 
especially a challenge to implement mandatory labelling (Options 1 and 2) in a way 
that  would  be  widely  recognised  by  stakeholders  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  less  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 aimed 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 standard, contributes to information strategies 
in  animal  welfare  and  enhances  the  information  exchange  under  scientific  experts.  The 
project collaborates with roughly 250 scientists in 44 research institutes representing 17 
countries  in  Europe  and  Latin  America.  Under  the  project,  protocols  for  cattle  (dairy, 
beef and veal), poultry (laying hens and broilers) and pigs (fattening pigs and sows) are 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
being  developed.  These  are  integrated  in  a  categorisation  of  farms:  not  classified, 
acceptable,  enhanced  and  excellent.  The  objective  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 account 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 groups to analyse consumer concerns, 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  standards  is  often  strongly  preferred  by 
producers,  processors  and  their  industry  associations,  but  is  strongly  disliked  by  most 
animal  welfare  organisations  because  they  cannot  see  any  contributions  to  improved 
animal  welfare.  Retailers  also  oppose  the  mandatory  labelling  with  EU  minimum 
requirements because they doubt that compliance 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 than the rest of the options. 

–  Degree  to  which  options  allow  for  inspection/audit  and  certification  by  independent 
certification  bodies:  Certification  needs  operational  standards  against  which  farmers, 
animal  transport  companies  and  slaughterhouses  can  be  audited.  This  makes 
mandatory  certification  of  animal  welfare  (Option  1)  the  least  feasible  option  in 
absence  of  a  harmonised,  recognised  and  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  Welfare  Quality  Project  with  respect  to  the 
practicability of welfare indicators in the certification process.  

Stakeholders’ views: 

Stakeholders see on average only small differences between policy options with regard to 
inspection/audit  opportunities.  Labelling  of  compliance  with  EU  minimum  standards 
(option 3) has a slight lead over other policy options. Labelling farming systems (option 
2) is, all in all, considered easier than labelling welfare standards (option 1). Comments 
often  refer  to  the  lack  of  scientifically  sound  parameters  that  make  audits  and 
certification  difficult.  Furthermore,  the  large  spectrum  of  different  farming  systems  is 
considered an obstacle to auditing and certification. 

–  Degree to which options can cover a broad range 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  labelling  based  on  welfare  standards  (Option  1). 
Mandatory labelling of farming systems (Option 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 

27 

   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  include  some  extreme  opinions  saying  that  all 
options  are  very  feasible  or  not  feasible  at  all.  Mandatory  labelling  (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  industry  and  industry  associations  is  that 
mandatory as well as voluntary standards create 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 attributes such as safety. 

Producer  organisations  also  complain  about  misleading  information  on  animal  welfare 
standards on products that demonise certain farming systems.  

–  Degree to which options can constitute a reliable, user friendly and transparent tool to 
communicate the quality of welfare and enable consumers to make informed choices: 
Purchasing  decisions  are  complex  decisions  influenced  by  a  wide  spectrum  of 
interpersonal and intrapersonal factors, and in some cases more information may not 
have  positive  effects  on  consumers’  choices  due 
information  overload. 
Nevertheless,  the  success  of  some  recently  implemented  labelling  schemes  indicates 
that  labels  can  make  a  difference  and  have  the  potential  to  empower  consumers  to 
make  more  informed  choices.  Mandatory  labelling  (Options  1  and  2)  provides  more 
information  to  consumers  than  voluntary  labelling  (Options  4  and  5).  Option  3 
(labelling  compliance  with  EU  minimum  standards)  has  a  very  limited  effect  on  the 
ability of consumers to make informed choices. 

to 

Stakeholders’ views: 

A majority of respondents to the 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 welfare 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  addressed  in  detail  the  legality  of  animal 
welfare measures, so that their 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 

28 

   EN 

 
One  aspect  of  non-discrimination  is  national  treatment,  under  which  imported  products 
should be treated no less favourably than domestic products, both in law and in practice. 
This  means  that  the  rules  applied  to  imported  products  not  only  should  be  the  same  as 
those applied to domestic products, but also should 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 and sound scientific considerations.  

Another  side  of  the  non-discrimination  principle  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.  Again,  use  of  international  standards  and  sound 
scientific basis would help ensuring compatibility with this principle.  

As far as proportionality is concerned, the measures should be as little trade-restrictive as 
possible in order to achieve their 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-discrimination  would  also  require  effective 
provisions on the recognition of equivalence of other countries' animal welfare scheme, 
as well as the possibility for foreign private operators who voluntarily apply EC animal 
welfare rules to have access to EC certification and logos.  

Stakeholders’ views: 

Stakeholders  only  rarely  refer  to  possible  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  Trade  Organisation)  compatibility  problems.  Stakeholders 
also refer to the EU egg marketing legislation that has been notified 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 

29 

   EN 

 
 
Table 2: Assessment of compatibility of the options with guiding principles.  

Option 

Baseline option 

0. No change 

Mandatory labelling 

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) 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

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 

3. Mandatory labelling of 
compliance with EU minimum 
standards or equivalence with 
those 

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  

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 

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 

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 

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 

No certification required 

Compliance of  
voluntary labelling with WTO 
rules 

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  animal  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  implicit  assumption  used  for  estimating  the 
impacts.  The  results  of  the  Eurobarometers  and  surveys  have  not  been  used  for 
estimating  the  impacts  as  they  reflect  citizens  concerns  and  preferences  but  do  not 
transfer  over  to  purchasing  behaviour.  The  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  SANCO  and  carried  out  by  Agra  CEAS 
Consulting17of the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) in 2004. 

17 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/socio_economic_study_revised_en.pdf 

EN 

30 

   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  benefits  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 comply with regarding animal welfare. 

There  is  a  high  level  of  interest  in  animal  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 friendly 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 their 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 welfare-friendly products can 
be  effectively  translated  into  a  switch  in  demand  if  adequate  information  -  easily 
understood - is provided obligatorily 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/image  is  the  most  important  factor  when 
making  purchasing  decisions  and  a  smaller  segment  searching  for  production-attribute 
and animal welfare friendly products. 

Consumers are affected by the lack 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’  prices  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  expressed  concerns  about  cost  associated  with  animal  welfare 
labelling. But at the same time animal welfare 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 with certain animal welfare standards.  

The marketing success of animal welfare schemes 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 animal welfare. The impacts on animal welfare 
of the different policy options for animal welfare labelling is analyzed in depth later in 
this document. 

5.2. 

International dimension 

Third  countries  may  apply  domestic  animal  welfare  measures  that  may  impose 
equivalent  requirements  on  farmers  in  the  third  country  as  those  of  the  EU.  Individual 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
producers  in  third  countries  may,  for  example  through  membership  of  a  certification 
scheme, apply voluntarily equivalent or higher animal welfare measures (see Annex III 
of this document on existing animal welfare schemes in third countries).  

Farmers  in  third  countries  that  comply  with  equivalent  EU  minimum  animal  welfare 
standards are in a similar position to EU farmers, 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 have not followed those standards. 

Special regard should be paid to the position of farmers in developing countries and their 
capacities of complying with animal 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 separate from the Commission's engagement in 
Fair Trade and other sustainability schemes that are aiming to improve the working and 
living  conditions  for  producers  in  developing  countries.  In  its  Communication  on  Fair 
Trade and other sustainability schemes COM(2009)215, the Commission stresses i) the 
need of greater transparency to allow efficient 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 animal welfare conditions on farms 

Animal welfare schemes can have a positive impact on animal welfare if animal welfare 
conditions  are higher than the  minimum established 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  standards  implemented  by  animal  welfare  schemes  depend  on  their 
scientific basis and has already been analyzed under point 4.2. The reliability of animal 
welfare  schemes  depend  mainly  on  the  inspection/certification  procedures  applied  and 
has also been analyzed under point 4.2. 

The success of labelling systems can be measured through the severity of the standards 
developed  and  implemented  and  their  market  penetration  (having  in  mind  that  severity 
and market penetration might be conflicting criteria). 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  Freedom  Food  and  Label  Rouge,  which  have  a 
considerable market penetration, at least for some products (see Table in Annex III).  

On the contrary, if there is no market demand, even the most demanding animal welfare 
labelling system will not have any impact on animal welfare. As this initiative does not 
intend to raise animal welfare standards, the 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  options  could  have  on  consumer  demand  is  not 
possible. However consumer information is likely to have an impact on their behaviour; 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
as  demonstrated  with  the  egg  labelling  and  the  continuing  move  by  industry  to  extend 
animal  welfare  standards  to  composite  products  not  covered  by  legislation.  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  positive  results  of  animal  welfare 
labelling.  Respondents  do  not  perceive  big  differences  between  the  options  suggested 
with  regard  to  impact  on  animal  welfare  on  farms  –  with  one  exception:  Mandatory 
labelling of compliance with EU minimum standards (option 3) is perceived least useful 
for improving animal welfare, and comparable 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 organisations. Animal welfare organisations tend 
to emphasize the high relevance of consumer behaviour for improved animal welfare.  

Processing  Industry  and  industry  associations  argue  differently  and  they  expect  that 
labelling of compliance with EU minimum standards may not contribute to higher animal 
welfare  standards  in  non-EU  countries.  Furthermore,  they  consider  it  likely  that 
mandatory animal welfare labelling will shift production to non-EU countries with lower 
animal welfare standards. Therefore, they think 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  animal  welfare  standards  but  this  is  highly 
dependant  on  a  significant  number  of  consumers  changing  purchasing  patterns  and 
demanding  higher  welfare  standard  products  while  the  labelling  of  EU  minimum 
standards is regarded as similar to the no-change option - although stakeholders groups 
have significant divergent views on the issue. 

5.4. 

Social impacts 

5.4.1.  Impact of the options on consumers’ 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 overload. Consumers are not however immune to 
information  on  production  method  and,  when  prompted,  regard  this  as  a  highly 
significant and important item providing useful information for purchase decisions. For 
example,  the  decline  of  cage-produced  eggs  sold  in-shell  illustrates  the  power  of  such 
labelling. Even if the decline has been due primarily to skilful messaging rather than the 
labelling alone, the fact that all products were labelled according to production method in 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
ways that found resonance with consumers must have assisted retention of the message 
through to the point of sale.  

Mandatory labelling (Options 1 and 2) provides 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 different standards may, 
if  it  is  not  clear,  create  more  consumer  confusion  rather  than  empower  consumers  to 
make purchasing decisions Option 3 (labelling 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  desired  effects  if  consumers  are  a)  adequately 
informed  on  the  meaning  of  the  label;  b)  the  information  provided  is  readily 
understandable;  c)  consumers  (or  relevant  sub-groups)  are  in  principle  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 influence 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  standards)  and  mandatory  labelling  (farming 
systems) are on average seen as having most impact in this respect. 

Retailers tend to be most sceptical about additional labelling as, in their view, mandatory 
labelling  has  the  potential  to  mislead  consumers.  Producer  organisations  also  complain 
about  misleading  information  on  animal  welfare  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  still  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  for  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 present 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 relating to the differing impacts of introducing a 
mandatory scheme or a voluntary scheme. At this stage a full estimation of costs has not 
been  carried  out.  Some  quantitative  estimation  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 

34 

   EN 

 
It  is  considered  that  the  likely  stakeholders  that  will  be  significantly  affected  by  this 
proposal  will  be:  farmers,  livestock  producers  and  other  food-chain  operators,  retailers 
and  consumers'  and  the  competent  authorities  in  the  Member  States.  If  the  policy 
develops  further  consultation  with  these  groups  and  other  stakeholders  about  the 
potential impact of any preferred option for action will need to be undertaken. 

In  addition  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  impacts  on  costs  for  producers  and  on  consumer 
prices will be carried out. It has to be borne in mind that this initiative deals only with 
labelling of products and that the raising of minimum animal 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  been  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 other 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  certification.  In  any  case,  there 
will be cost associated with the modification of all labels to adjust to the requirement to 
provide  specific  information  on  animal  welfare.  It  has  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  any 
mandatory animal welfare labelling would be subjected to official controls as established 
by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European 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  health  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  certification  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  advisory  service  or  up-front  staff  training. 
Certification also comes along with operating 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 certification costs are borne by processors as it 
is the case in the German Qualitaet & Sicherheit (QS) certification system. Certification 
costs are based on company size, scope and complexity of operation. The cost structure is 
also based on the minimum audit time on site. It is therefore difficult to state exact fees. 
Costs differ from certifier to certifier but are estimated to lie somewhere between 1000 € 

18 
19 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/socio_economic_study_revised_en.pdf 
OJ L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 1 

EN 

35 

   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:  responsibility  for  auditing  lies  initially  with  Freedom 
Food Ltd, with additional checks carried out independently by CMi Certification. Most 
certification  bodies  can  offer  Freedom  Food  certification  using  inspectors  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  operating  costs  such  as  additional  tests  and 
sampling,  more  intensive  veterinary  supervision,  additional  labour  costs,  reduced 
biological performance, etc).  

It  has  to  be  clear  that  this  initiative  only  deals  with  animal  welfare  labelling  and  has 
nothing to do with raising minimum animal welfare standards in the EU. 

Therefore those farmers and food business operators that regardless of the policy option 
implemented  for  labelling  of  animal  welfare  standards  (including  mandatory  labelling) 
decide  to  continue  to  produce  at  EU  minimum  welfare  standards  will  not  face  higher 
production costs. But if consumers increasingly buy products adhering to higher animal 
welfare standards, this may reduce their net income and provide market incentive to them 
to invest in changing their systems.  

If  farmers  voluntarily  (or  induced  by  increased  demand  for  animal  welfare  friendly 
products)  decide  to  participate  in  higher  standard  animal  welfare  scheme,  additional 
operating and investment costs will depend on the scheme’s requirements and the status 
quo  ante  of  the  farm.  From  egg  production  in  Germany,  we  know  that  the  sharply 
decreasing market share of shell 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  systems  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 effects as the small farmers may 
decide,  or  may  not  be  able  to  invest  in  production  systems  with  higher  animal  welfare 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
standards; therefore, large and extra-large producers could have higher 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  lowest  in  the  traditional  cage 
systems  and  highest  in  organic  and  free  range  systems.  Generally  the  more  freedom  a 
bird has to move about the more energy it needs. 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  gets  progressively lower through barn and free 
range to organic 

Fixed costs of alternative systems are higher 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 costs (for instance, redesign of food packaging 
or, in some cases, investments in labelling equipment) and operating costs (for instance, 
for labelling material). Furthermore, additional certification costs will result if the EU or 
Member  States  rely  on  private  certification  (see  previous  section).Using  the  estimates 
from  the  Food  Information  Proposal  regarding  label  changes  it  is  considered  that 
redesigning a label per product can vary from $380 for a minor change to $16 600 for a 
full label design. Considering 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  order  to  keep  the  re-labelling  and  associated 
administrative costs to a minimum. 

If  mandatory  labelling  of  products  is  introduced,  these  costs  would  add  to  the  costs  of 
labelling resulting from other legislative requirements (marketing standards, traceability, 
etc).  

Costs due to market segmentation: 

Additional costs are likely if the labelling system implemented creates different classes 
of products that have to be separated from each other, even if they only fulfil minimum 
requirements. This results in market segmentation, increases the risk of out-of-stocks and 
problems  with  shelf-life  of  food  products.  Out  of  stocks  result  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/farm/socio_economic_study_revised_en.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf  

EN 

37 

   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 was compulsorily established by Regulation 
(EC)  No  178/2002  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  January  2002 
laying  down  the  general  principles  and  requirements  of  food  law,  establishing  the 
European  Food  Safety  Authority  and  laying  down  procedures  in  matters  of  food  safety 
for all food products.  

But the "degree" of traceability 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 whether 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  livestock  producers  and  other  food 

business operations participating 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 and food business operators that, regardless 
of  the  policy  option  implemented  for  labelling  of  animal  welfare  standards  (including 
mandatory  labelling),  decide  to  continue  to  produce  at  EU  minimum  welfare  standards 
would  not  have  to  bear  additional  costs  (except  that  processors  have  to  bear  some 
minimum  costs  in  the  case  of  mandatory  labelling).  Therefore,  the  effects  on  their  net 
income depend on the demand side. If consumers increasingly buy products adhering to 
higher  animal  welfare  standards,  this  may  reduce  their  net  income  and  force  them  to 
invest in changing their systems.  

In  this  regard,  mandatory  labelling  (options  1  and  2)  would  have  probably  the  biggest 
impact  on  demand  side.  As  already  explained  in  this  document  Option  3  (mandatory 
labelling  of  minimum  animal  welfare  standards)  could  have  an  impact  on  demand  as 
regard imported products. 

To estimate the percentage of increased demand 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 

38 

   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  they  are  in  principle  able  to  switch  into  production  of 
processed  and  shell  eggs  from  alternative  systems.  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 domestically 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 are 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 these are other types of egg production. 

Operators that decide to participate in higher animal welfare programmes would have to 
bear additional costs as explained under the previous section. Impacts on the income of 
these  operators  would  depend  mainly  on  whether  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  products  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 percentage 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  contingent  valuation  to  elicit  UK  consumer’s 
willingness to pay for legislation under which traditional caged egg production would be 
phased out. They report as a result of their research that this 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-market aspects could well be positive. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
Consumer willingness to pay more will positively influence the net income of livestock 
producers and food-businesses operators 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)),  expectations  are  close  to    zero  level  indicating 
that stakeholders, at least on average, 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 net income of livestock producers and processors, regardless 
of  whether  they  adhere  to  higher  animal  welfare  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 influence 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 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
    Source: Spencer (2004).  

As long as EU minimum animal welfare requirements are not raised and consumers do 
not  sharply  change  their  buying  behaviour,  higher  consumer  prices  are  not  to  be 
expected. This is regardless of which policy option is implemented. Producers willing to 
participating  in  a  voluntary  scheme  will  face  additional  certification,  traceability  and 
labelling  costs,  whether  this  scheme  is  private  or  set  at  EU  level.  However,  it  is  very 
difficult  to  assess  whether  these  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 willing 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’ prices: What are we talking about regarding 
price increase due to higher animal welfare 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 chickens: Adds 2,5-8 Euro-cents to the cost of 
producing a chicken 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
The price premium that can be obtained for Freedom Food production depends to a large 
extent on the product, but is typically around 10%.  

Stakeholders' views On average, the majority of stakeholders 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 organisations argue that there is no impact of animal 
welfare  standards  on  prices  because  every  producer  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  and  retailer  organisations  argue  that  the  increases  in 
production costs along the meat supply chain will be reflected in higher 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 extra costs to consumers (as it was 
done in the egg sector) is questioned. 

There  are  very  diverse  assessments  of  consumers’  willingness  to  pay  for  more  animal 
welfare.  Some  respondents  refer  to  Eurobarometer  or  Welfare  Quality  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, highly trusted by consumers, good communication 
concept  etc.).  Good  communication  and  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’ willingness to pay. They doubt that many consumers 
are concerned about animal welfare and argue that 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  marketing  schemes  referring  to  animal 

welfare 

Mandatory  labelling  (Options  1  and  2)  or  the  introduction  of  a  Community  Animal 
Welfare Label (Option 5) would likely weaken the unique selling proposition of existing 
schemes and, thus, may have negative effects (although these effects are uncertain in the 
case  of  mandatory  labelling).  On  the  other  side,  a  new  and  widely  accepted  animal 
welfare  scheme  may  also  contribute  to  growing  consumer  awareness  and  a  growing 
market  share  of  animal  welfare-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 gained 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 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Options 4 and 6 do not change the market position 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  predict  whether  a  change  in  the  regulatory 
framework for using animal welfare-related claims 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  marketing  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  hand,  negative  impacts  are  possible  as  these 
options  could  weaken  the  unique  selling  proposition  of  existing  schemes  although  the 
analyses  are  very  uncertain.  On  the  other  hand,  a  new  and  widely  accepted  animal 
welfare  scheme  or  mandatory  labelling  may  also  contribute  to  growing  consumer 
awareness  and  a  growing  market  share  of  animal  welfare-friendly  products  in  general. 
The case of the EU organic label indicates that existing schemes may be better off in the 
end despite the loss of their 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 mandatory labelling. Others are more optimistic 
in  their  assessments.  They  expect  that  existing  schemes  will  have  to  adapt  to  a  new 
standard  and,  therefore,  it  is  proposed  that  integration  of  standards  should  be  possible. 
This  may  include  significant  changes  that  have  to  be  accompanied  by  intensive 
communication with consumers who are familiar with the existing schemes. Respondents 
also  indicate  that  existing  private  schemes  have  to  defend  their  unique  selling 
propositions  and  will,  therefore,  likely  exceed  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 welfare if a lower standard EU scheme pushes 
existing private schemes with higher animal welfare standards out of the market. 

5.5.5.  Impact of options on the enforcement costs of public authorities 

With regard to existing certification schemes, public as well as private certification and 
inspection  bodies  can  be  observed.  Organic  farming  certification  in  Denmark,  Sweden 
and France is based on a public inspection system of producers, but there are also other 
countries where organic labelling relies on private certification bodies operating within a 
public  framework  that  registers  the  certification  bodies  and  oversees  their  activities  In 
most certification schemes (for instance, ISO standards, International Food Standard), the 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
certification  bodies  are  paid  by  the  companies  that  seek  to  obtain  the  certificate. 
Therefore,  neither  voluntary  nor  mandatory  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 certification costs, but they will have oversight costs, 
including  listing  and  delisting  certifiers,  if  the  organic  farming  model  is  followed. 
Harmonized requirements for the use of claims (Option 4) would normally rely on self-
declaration subject to risk-based public 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  labelling  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  respondents  expect  that  mandatory  labelling  of 
welfare  standards  and  farming  systems  will  result  in  very  significant  or  at  least 
significant increases of enforcement costs. 

Producers,  processors  and  their  associations  stress  that  mandatory  labelling  will  create 
the  highest  need  for  governmental  enforcement.  At  the  same  time,  these  private  actors 
attribute  not  the  highest  efficiency  to  government  services.  Some  also  fear  that 
government will try to pass on parts of the additional costs to industry. All in all, private 
actors  tend  to  show  objections  against  –  what  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  increases  (but  only  rarely  significant  increases) 
whereas a considerable number expect 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  public  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  countries  produce  to  higher  or  lower  animal 
welfare  standards,  the  impact  of  options  on  imports  from  third  countries  can  differ. 
Labelling compliance with EU minimum standards (Option 3) can create a competitive 
advantage  for  EU  producers  over  those  third  country  producers  that  have  problems  to 
meet these standards, at least where consumer prices for the competing goods are similar.  
In  so  far  as  non-EU  producers  do  not  have  problems  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  significant  positive  nor  a  negative 
impact on imports from non-EU countries  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
Respondents  –  in  many  cases  from  industry  and  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 producers such as Brazil and New Zealand can easily 
adapt to current (or even higher) EU animal welfare standards.  

Those  respondents  that  expect  decreasing  imports  argue  that  consumers  may  prefer 
labelled  EU  products  over  non-labelled  imported  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 produced at lower animal welfare standards.  

A  small  number  of  respondents  expect  increasing  imports  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 that third country producer will have (unfair) 
competitive advantages. 

5.6. 

Environmental impacts 

Labelling  per  se  has  no  direct  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  share  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 considerable 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 would be carried out, using the Standard Cost 
Model to explore the impacts of certification and labelling. Although it is considered that 
any  certification  schemes  would  fit  within  current  reporting  requirements  to  prevent 
additional  burdens.  Whilst  the  most  considerable  admin  burden  cost  could  stem  form 
labelling  changes  as  most  companies  change  their  labels  within  twelve  months 
introducing the requirements with a transitional period would be sufficient for businesses 
to normalise the costs.  

5.8. 

Impacts on Small Businesses 

It is hoped that by harmonising the welfare standards used by companies to label animal 
products small businesses will be able to meet the standards and profit from the market 
opportunity.  It is hoped that through the use 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 predominately SMEs a further small business impact 
test will need to be carried out if further EU action is considered necessary.  

Table 3: Assessment of impacts of the options 

EN 

45 

   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 

No impact 

No impact 

No impact 

No impact 

No impact 

No impact 

No impact 

No impact 

Baseline option 
0. No change 
Mandatory labelling 
1. Mandatory 
labelling of 
welfare 
standards  

Higher 
pressure on 
producers 
due to 
consumers 
awareness 
possible 

2. Mandatory 
labelling of 
farming system 

As 1, but 
weaker 
relationship 
with AW 

Provides 
most 
information  

Provides a 
lot of 
information, 
but possibly 
less relevant 
for AW  

No effects 
on EU farms 

Additional 
information 
only for non-
EU products  

3. Mandatory 
labelling of 
compliance 
with EU 
minimum 
standards  
Requirements for the voluntary use of claims 
Depends on 
Indirect and 
4. Harmonised 
market share 
difficult to 
requirements 
predict 
of labelled 
for use of 
products 
claims in 
relation to AW 

Certification 
costs for 
producers, 
processors. 
Limited 
additional 
labelling 
costs for 
processors.  
Certification 
costs for 
producers, 
processors. 
Limited 
additional 
labelling 
costs for 
processors.  
Very limited 
addit.costs 
for producers, 
processors 
adhering to 
EU minimum 
standards 

No costs if 
adhering to 
EU minimum 
standards 

Other options 

5. Community 
Animal 
Welfare Label 
for voluntary 
participation 

6. Guidelines 
for the 
establishment 
of schemes 

More direct 
effects, 
depending 
on market 
share of 
label 
Indirect and 
difficult to 
predict 

Depends on 
market share 
of labelled 
products 

No costs if 
adhering to 
EU minimum 
standards 

  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 

Poss. loss of 
unique 
selling 
proposition 
of existing 
schemes  

Limited 
costs 

Distortive 
effects on 
markets 
unlikely 

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 

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 

Depends on 
demand side 
effects; on 
average in 
many cases 
close to zero 

Depends on 
demand side 
effects; on 
average in 
many cases 
close to zero 
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 

Higher prices 
only due to 
changing 
consumption 
patterns 

Higher prices 
only due to 
changing 
consumption 
patterns 

Poss. loss of 
unique selling 
proposition, 
but possible 
increase in 
market size 
Depends on 
whether 
existing 
schemes can 
easily meet 
requirements 

No public 
costs if 
private 
certification 
of farms and 
firms 
No effects, if 
not binding  

Distortive 
effects on 
markets are 
unlikely 

Distortive 
effects on 
markets are 
unlikely 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

As the initiative is intended to open the debate on animal welfare labelling of products, at 
this early stage none of the options is discarded. Policy options would be chosen in light 
of  the  results  of  the  inter-institutional  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 that different options or a combination of options would be applied 

EN 

46 

   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 products such as fur or including labelling of 
composite  products  could  be  analyzed  in  the  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 labelling 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 effectiveness of labelling as a 
communication tool due to the lack of an EU framework for animal welfare labelling. 

Inconsistent  approach  in  terms  of  the  content  and  availability  of  information  would 
continue. 

Mandatory labelling of animal welfare standards (Option 1):  

At this stage of the scientific development this options does not seem realistic. If in the 
future  reliable  and  internationally  recognized  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 expected to bring about 
significant developments in this sense.  

Mandatory labelling of farming systems (Option 2): 

This option is more feasible than option 1 and in fact it is already 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 

47 

   EN 

 
Mandatory labelling of EU minimum standards (Option 3): 

Advantages  of  option  3  is  that  minimum  standards  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  feasible  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  the  voluntary  use  of  claims)  and  Option  5 
(Community Animal Welfare Label modelled after the EU organic label).  

Harmonized requirements for the use of animal welfare or farming systems claims 
(Option 4): 

Harmonized  requirements  for  animal  welfare  claims  would  be  established  by  EU 
legislation  following  a  similar  approach  to  the  marketing  standards  for  poultry  meat 
established  by  DG  AGRI  (reference  to  farming  systems)  or  when  animal  welfare 
indicators  would  be  available  harmonized  requirements  for  claims  on  animal  welfare 
standards could be established.   

The impact of this option on animal welfare 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 changes in demand were to force some producers 
to change their farming systems) and fluctuations 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-friendly manner to communicate to the consumers 
(through  a  logo)  the  animal  welfare  standards  followed  in  the  production  process.  It 
would  also  allow  the  ranking  of  systems  according  to  the  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  would  be  voluntary  and  would  be  certified 
privately.  However  harmonized  requirements  for  assessing  animal  welfare  and/or  the 
farming  systems  (depending  on  the  availability  of  objective  indicators)  would  be 
established at EU level. Community Animal Welfare Label is therefore expected to have 
more direct effects on animal welfare than other voluntary options but this would depend 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
on the market share of the label. Negative impacts on existing schemes are possible, but 
may be (over)compensated by increase of the overall market size for products produced 
at higher animal welfare standard. 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  certain  products  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 could 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 connection 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  welfare  indicators  are 
available  that  allow  for  better  assessment  of  welfare  than  the  current  labelling  of 
production systems under the egg marketing legislation, and legislative 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  system,  the  product  widely  available  on  the 
market. Production method concerns are central to the organic concept, notably the use of 
natural resources, preventive crop protection methods, restricted use of pesticides mostly 
from  animal,  plant  or  microbial  origin,  high  animal  welfare  standards,  and 
environmentally  sustainable  production  techniques.  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  potential  conflicts  arise  with  regard  to  an 
animal  welfare  labelling  scheme.  If  the  effect  of  the  animal  welfare  labelling  regime 
creates confusion about the organic farming scheme in the mind of consumers, or takes 
market  share  from  organic  produce,  any  resulting  fall  off  in  organic  production  could 
indirectly reduce the benefits that flow from organic farming. For these reasons a clear 
coherence  with  organic  is  needed.  It  is  therefore  important  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 

49 

   EN 

 
PART II: EUROPEAN NETWORK OF REFERENCE CENTRES FOR THE PROTECTION AND 
WELFARE OF ANIMALS 

Part 2 of this IA report explores options for 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  Community  Action  Plan  on  the  Protection  and 
Welfare  of  Animals  2006-2010.  The  plan  envisages  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  existing  certified  labels).  In  addition,  the  Centre 
could  perform  tasks  in  particular  in  relation  to  harmonisation  and  coordination,  policy 
advice  and  sharing  of  best  practices,  education  and  training  and  dissemination  of 
information. The Centre should also facilitate the preparation of relevant socio-economic 
studies and impact assessments. 

Two  of  the  key  objectives  that  the  European  Commission  wishes  to  achieve  with  this 
initiative  are  to  provide  greater  coordination  of  existing  resources  while  identifying 
future  needs  and  to  ensure  a  more  consistent  and  coordinated  approach  to  animal 
protection  and  welfare  across  Commission  policy  areas.  For  this  aim,  the  Action  Plan 
specifies  that  efforts  will  be  made  to  introduce  standardised  animal  welfare  indicators 
and to incorporate such specific measurable indicators into Community legislation. This 
would  allow  the  establishing  of  a  legislative  instrument  to  validate  production  systems 
applying higher welfare standards than the Community minimum requirements.  

Given  the  objectives  of  the  Commission  at  this  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  objective  can  be  delivered  better  in  another  way 
have also been explored. These have be developed 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 indicating 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  interviews  and  the  surveys  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. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

1.1.  Main problems perceived by stakeholders  

The main relevant problems perceived by stakeholders are: 

⇒  a  lack  of  harmonised  animal  welfare  standards/indicators  for  higher  animal  welfare 

(marked by 83 respondents);  

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
⇒  lack of cooridnation of existing resources to share best practice; 

⇒  the need for an independent source of information at EU level (51 respondents); 

⇒  the  duplication  of  activities  due  to  a  lack  of  coordination  at  EU  level  (48 

respondents). 

Only 11 respondents marked that there are no current problems.  

However, not all stakeholders groups are in favour 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” option. Stakeholders are 
quite  mixed.  All  in  all,  the  answers  reflect  the  controversial  standpoints  of  different 
stakeholder groups, with a strong focus on economic interests in some cases and a strong 
focus on animal welfare concerns in other cases. 

1.2. 

Lack of harmonised animal welfare standards/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 reliability of most indicators is often disputed and there is not 
one  single,  reliable  indicator  of  animal  welfare.  Comprehensive  indicators  suggested  to 
date  e.g.  “biological  response  to  stress”,  have  been  criticised  as  being  too  difficult  to 
measure. Therefore, combinations 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  document).  As  a  consequence,  in  recent  years 
integrative  concepts  have  more  and  more  replaced  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 allows measuring and comparing 
animal welfare across species, farming systems and supply chain stages appears to be a 
significant challenge.  

2.  OBJECTIVES 

2.1. 

General objectives: 

The  aim  of  this  initiative  is  to  explore  the  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 the 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 

51 

   EN 

 
–  promote best practice in relation to animal welfare standards. 

2.2. 

Specific objectives: 

•  establish  a  communication  method  to  coordinate  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 and research throughout the Community. 

3.  OPTIONS 

The  discussions  in  the  Parliament,  the  European  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,  either  within  the  Commission  or  in  the  Member 
States, in order to minimise the administrative costs. 

A significant number of institutions in the EU appear 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 expertise 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 institutes. Several government/public 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 private institutions are not considered in this document, though 
they were assessed during the study and the reasons for discarding 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 report 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 

52 

   EN 

 
 
4.  FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT 

4.1. 

Conformity of options with guiding principles 

4.1.1.  Network  Centres  should  complement,  not  duplicate,  current  activities  by  other 

Community bodies 

Under all options it is possible to ensure that a Community Reference Centre or Network 
complements, not duplicates, current activities by other Community bodies. The mandate 
would  need  to  adequately  address  areas  covered  by  current  activities  of  Community 
bodies, such as scientific advice and the validation of alternative methods in relation to 
the three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement).  

With  respect  to  future  activities  proposed  here,  a  centralised  approach  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  involving 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  large  majority  of  respondents  that  responded 
preferred a broad approach that includes not only farm animals but also all other types of 
animal  use,  except  wild  animals.  With  regard  to  the  question:  'Which  of  the  options 
ensures that we cover all areas of animal use?'- the respondents providing an assessment 
again  see  entrusting  a  Community  body,  several  public  bodies  existing  in  EU  Member 
States  or  a  combination  of  public  and  private  bodies  as  the  most  feasible  options.  The 
other  options  were  seen  as  less  feasible,  especially  all  options  relying  exclusively  on 
private bodies.  

4.1.3.  The Centre should be independent from outside interests 

Stakeholder trust regarding independence from outside interests is highest for entrusting 
a  Community  body  with  the  leadership  role.  Although  under  all  options  arrangement 
could  be  made  to  safeguard  independence  from  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 

53 

   EN 

 
by  those  respondents  that  provided  an  opinion.  A  considerable  number  of  respondents 
also  see  entrusting  several  public  bodies  already  existing  in  EU  Member  States  as 
feasible.  All  other  options,  especially  those  strongly  relying  on  private  institutions,  are 
considered to be less feasible 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 practices. 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 generally 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  approaches  where  different  standards  or  sets  of  indicators  are 
defined and maintained by different bodies, if delineation of areas is feasible and central 
coordination is provided. Fully decentralised approach does not appear feasible. 

The  operation  of  databases  is  a  very  feasible  task  under  a  centralised  approach.  The 
involvement  of  experts  or  bodies  in  Member  States  for  maintaining  the  database(s)  or 
parts of the technical infrastructure 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 both centralised and decentralised approach. The 
feasibility of a centralised approach depends on heterogeneity of issues and the regularity 
and predictability with such studies 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  irregular,  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 standards and the collection and dissemination 
of best practices require a mixed approach of centralised and decentralised elements. The 
most feasible approach relies on expertise available 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 criteria, 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 stakeholders is feasible under a centralised approach 
only as long as it is restricted to a small group of internationally socialised stakeholder 
representatives.  If  a  broad  concept  of  advice  and  education  is  implemented  that  also 
addresses national and regional groups and other actors presumably more deeply rooted 
in local cultures, the need for accounting for these local cultures through a decentralised 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
approach  outweighs  the  advantages  of  a  central  approach.  However,  a  central 
Community  Reference  Centre  could  support  decentralised  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 activities, without targeting consumers directly. 

4.2.4.  Research and implementation  

Conducting research on animal welfare and protection practices seems to be less feasible 
under a centralised approach. Research on animal 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 provide 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  existing  animal  welfare  schemes  is  to  a  large  extent  a 
decentralised service function and it appears not to be a feasible central task under any of 
the  options.  A  possible  related  task  that  could  be  relevant  under  centralised  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 additional 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  centralised  or  a  decentralised  approach  is  chosen. 
Both approaches have some specific advantages 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 databases) 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  experts  disagree  regarding  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  projects,  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  indicators  and  audit  procedures,  documents 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
information  and  informs  consumers  through  provision  of  databases.  In  a  dynamic 
perspective it is also advised to start with some core tasks and to add extra tasks later on 
without duplicating existing tasks. 

The  results  of  the  assessment  conducted  in  the  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 

56 

   EN 

 
Criteria 

Existing bodies 

Number of bodies 
available/willing to 
contribute to ENRC 

Complementing, not 
duplicating, current 
activities by other 
Community bodies 

All areas of animal use 
should be covered (zoos, 
wildlife etc.) 

The Centre should be 
independent from outside 
interests 

Standard setting and 
maintenance,  
harmonisation of animal 
welfare indicators 

Databases related to the 
existing animal welfare 
schemes and other areas 

Preparation of socio-
economic studies, impact 
assessments, policy advice 

Assessment of existing 
practices and standards, dis-
semination of best practices 

Advising and educating 
stakeholders 

Research on animal welfare 
and protection practices  

Auditing and certification of 
existing animal welfare 
schemes 

Development of the Three 
Rs in the field of research 
animals 

Centralised  

Decentralised  

Mixed approach 

No change  

+ 

++ 

++ 

The most significant expertise located at universities and research institutes in MS. The 
feasibility of options relying on private bodies (options 3 and 5) limited. 

Conformity with principles 

++ 

+ 

++ 

May provide a simpler 
coordination process than 
decentralised approaches. 

Also feasible if a central 
coordination is foreseen. 

Combines advantages of 
both approaches. 

Continuation of 
activities in MS 
without 
coordination. 

No 
complementing 
activities. 

+ 

++ 

++ 

No coverage. 

Feasible if decentralised 
elements are us ed. 

Very feasible to cover all 
areas of use. 

Combines advantages of 
both approaches. 

+ / ++ (Community body) 

+ 

+ / ++ (Community body) 

Not applicable. 

Stakeholder trust highest for entrusting a Community body. Stakeholders do not 
consider options relying on private bodies (Options 3 and 5) as feasible. 

Potential tasks: I. Harmonisation and coordination 

++ 

o / + 
Very feasible under all centralised approaches. Also feasible under decentralised 
approaches, if delineation of areas is feasible and central coordination is provided. 
Fully decentralised approach not feasible. 

++ 

++ 

o / + 
Very feasible under all centralised approaches. Decentralised approaches feasible, as 
long as this allows synergies between the operation of different databases. 

++ 

Potential tasks: II. Policy advice and best practices 

+ / ++ 

+ / ++ 

++ 

Feasible task under all approaches. Decentralised approach more feasible if large 
variety of research issues is to be covered and demand irregular 

o / + 

o / + 
Requires a mixed approach of centralised and decentralised elements, to use expertise 
available in Member States’ institutions and ensures central perspective. 

++ 

Potential tasks: III. Education and communication 

o / + 

+ 

++ 

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. 

Potential tasks: IV. Research and implementation 

o / + 

+ 

+ 

Less feasible under a centralised approach. Creation of a focal point for research in 
central ENRC could provide benefits (mixed approach). 

o / + 

o 
Decentral service functions. Not a feasible task under any of the options. Relevant 
under centralised options and mixed approach is coordination, quality control. 

o / + 

O 

o 
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. 

o 

No standard 
setting and 
harmonised 
indicators. 

No databases. 

No preparation of 
studies through 
ENRC. 

No assessment 
and collection of 
best practices. 

No advice and 
education. 

No coordination 
of research 
through ENRC. 

No EU level 
coordination and 
quality control. 

No difference to 
options. 

Source: Civic Consulting. ++ = very feasible, + = partly feasible, o = not feasible. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
5.  IMPACTS 

Whereas  the  assessment  of  feasibility  of  the  different  options  clearly  documents  the 
advantages of a mixed approach compared to other options, the mixed approach does not 
significantly  differ  concerning  possible  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts 
from the centralised or decentralised approach. Under all three approaches, the following 
potential benefits can be obtained: 

(cid:137)  Standard  setting  and  harmonisation  can  lead  to  benefits  in  terms  of  animal 
welfare,  to  the  extent  that  such  standards  create  awareness  among  farmers  and 
other relevant groups and are effectively implemented; 

(cid:137)  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  more  likely,  as  they  are  more  directly 
involved.  A  better  coordination  of  animal  welfare  related  research  could  also 
potentially lead to costs savings, as it would contribute to avoiding duplication of 
research  in  different  national  institutions  –  however,  the  extent  to  which  such 
duplication currently occurs is not known, making assessment of potential savings 
difficult. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  “no  change”  option  can  be  expected  to  potentially  lead  to  a 
number of negative impacts: 

(cid:137)  Possible  economic  losses  due  to  a  lack  of  consumers’  choices,  if  the  lack  of 
harmonised standards reduces the feasibility of animal welfare labelling systems 
(leading to an imperfect market);  

(cid:137)  Possible continuation of low degree of coordination and of potential duplication 

of research in animal welfare; 

(cid:137) 

In the long run lower levels of welfare of farm animals possible compared to other 
options (depending on the effectiveness 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 coordination and harmonisation of Community relevant 
issues in the field of animal welfare, performing its task in close collaboration with and 
support of a network of relevant research institutions in the Member States. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
Table 5: Assessment of possible impacts of options  

Criteria 

Centralised  

Decentralised  

Mixed approach  No change  

Direct and indirect economic impacts 

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 the scope of the tasks finally decided 
for an ENRC. 

o 

No direct costs. 

Indirect impact on farmers, 
consumers, etc. 

o / + 

o / + 

o / + 

- / o 

No indirect costs for stakeholders expected, as long as use of standards and 
indicators is voluntary. Standard setting and harmonisation can, however, 
lead to economic benefits such as increased choice for consumers, to the 
extent that such standards are effectively 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 

Impact on welfare of farm 
animals  

Impact on existing research 
bodies in the area of animal 
welfare 

Impact on employment  

o / + 

o / + 

o / + 

o 

Standard setting and harmonisation can lead to benefits in terms of animal 
welfare, to the extent that such standards create awareness among farmers 
and other relevant groups and are effectively implemented. 

No direct impacts. 
However, in the long run 
lower levels of AW 
possible compared to other 
options. 

o / + 

+ 

+ 

- / o 

All options can potentially lead to a better coordination of AW related 
research in the EU. Under a decentralised 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 
Negligible impacts on employment under all options. 

o 

Direct and indirect environmental impacts 

Impact on environment  

o 

O 
No direct or indirect impacts under all options. 

o 

o 
No impacts. 

o 
No impacts. 

Source: Civic Consulting ++ = significant positive impact, + = somewhat positive impact, o = neutral – – = significant 
negative impact, – = somewhat negative impact 

5.1. 

Alternatives for the scope of a ENRC 

The  previous  section  concluded  that  a  mixed  approach  has  to  be  considered  the  most 
feasible  option.  A  mixed  approach  is  an  approach  that  uses  a  task-specific  strategy  to 
determine central and decentralised elements. This would in practical terms mean that the 
ENRC  has  the  character  of  a  comparatively  lean  central  coordination  unit  (either  at  a 
Community  body  or  at  one  public  body  in  a  Member  State)  that  cooperates  with  a 
network  of  relevant  research  institutions  in  the  Member  States,  which  take  on 
responsibility  for  specific  sub-tasks  (either  through  institutional  support  or  on  a  project 
basis)  and  participate  in  working  groups.  This  is  a  well-tried  method  in  the  food  chain 
area,  where  Community  Reference  Laboratories  coordinate  networks  of  National 
Reference Laboratories. Possible sub-tasks conducted by network partner could include 
conducting  studies  and  impact  assessments,  implementing  targeted  research  on  animal 
welfare  issues  with  Community  relevance,  conducting  education  and  dissemination 
activities  etc.  Of  course,  this  approach  in  itself  can  be  implemented  in  various  ways. 
Possible  variables  are  the  size  of  the  ENRC  itself  and  the  resources  available  for  the 

EN 

59 

   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 maximum 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 

Database related to the 
existing AW schemes 

Standard setting, harmonisation of animal welfare indicators 

Implementation and maintenance of database on AW schemes 

II. Policy advice and best practices 

Preparation of socio-
economic studies, impact 
assessments, policy advice 

Assessment of existing 
practices and standards 

Central coordination, 
controlling of studies, 
impact assessments, 
policy advice 

Definition of harmonised 
criteria for assessing 
practices and standards  

Formulation of policy 
advice 

Central database of best 
practices 

Performance of studies, 
impact assessments, 
formulation of all policy 
advice 

Identification and 
assessment of practices and 
standards  

Dissemination of best 
practices 

Central coordination of collection 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 information 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 quality 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  implemented  by  assigning  alternatively  a 
minimum, medium and maximum scope of tasks to the ENRC. Under the minimum 
alternative  an  ENRC  would  only  focus  on  those  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 

60 

   EN 

 
 
operating costs22. These operating costs can be distinguished 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  subcontracting  of  sub-tasks.  Network  costs 
very much depend on the number of experts per 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:  

(cid:137)  Staff costs; 

(cid:137)  Overheads (including costs for rent of office space and office equipment); 

(cid:137)  Meetings and travel (including per diems).  

With regard to the network functions the following cost categories have been considered:  

(cid:137)  Subcontracting of socio-economic studies and impact assessments; 
(cid:137)  Subcontracting of Community relevant research on animal welfare and protection 

practices and/or other network functions; 

(cid:137)  Subcontracting of information and dissemination activities (including website); 
(cid:137)  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.  The  methodology  of  deriving  the  estimates  is 
described on page 45-48 in Annex VI of this report. According to the estimates, costs for 
an ENRC are as follows: 

Minimum scope ENRC: 635,875 Euro costs of core activities 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 core 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 considered for the calculations take into account 
data received from similar institutions working in related areas and data gathered during 
interviews. Staff costs are approximations based on unit costs from relevant Community 
institutions23. 

22 

23 

One-off costs for the implementation are not considered separately. As it is not considered to be 
realistic that an ECRC would conduct research itself and need laboratory equipment, only office 
equipment is relevant. Costs of office equipment are, similar to the costs for office space, assessed 
on the basis of rent/leasing costs and are included in the overheads. 
In  case  an  ENRC  would  be  implemented  at  Member  State  Level,  unit  costs  have  to  be  adapted 
accordingly. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6.  CONCLUSION 

Main  problems  perceived  by  stakeholders  that  may  be  relevant  for  considering  the 
establishment of an ENRC are a lack of harmonised animal welfare standards/indicators 
for higher animal welfare, 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. 

A significant number of institutions in the EU appear 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 policy 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  ensure  that  an  ENRC 
complements,  not  duplicates,  current  activities  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 agency already existing at the EU level or in 
an EU Member State. This would allow the realisation of economies of scale with regard 
to  management  tasks,  office  space  and  administrative  services.  There  are  certain 
advantages  of  a  Community  body  functioning  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 synergies between an ENRC and the current work 
of  some 
(independent  public  agencies  and 
university/research institutes) could also be a relevant consideration. 

relevant  Member  States  bodies 

Bearing  all  this  in  mind  a  mixed  approach  that  uses  a  task-specific  strategy  to 
determine central and decentral 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  task  is  envisaged.  These  estimates  include 
the costs of core activities and the 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. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
Table 7: Estimated annual staff costs of a possible ENRC 

Task 

Minimum scope 

Medium scope 

Maximum scope 

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 

Operation of databases (professional) 

Operation of databases (IT staff) 

II. Policy advice and best practices 

Preparation of socio-economic studies, impact assessments, policy advice 

Assessment of existing practices and standards, collection, dissemination of best 
practices 

III. EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION 

1.5 

0.5 

0 

0.5 

0.5 

Advising and education of stakeholders 

IV. Research and implementation 

Coordination and quality assurance of auditing of existing AW schemes 

Competence centre for research on animal welfare and protection practices 

0 

0 

0 

Management  

EN 

99,543 

149,314

1.5 

99,543 

149,314 

1.5 

99,543 

149,314 

99,543 

49,771 

0.5 

99,543 

49,771 

1 

99,543 

99,543 

31,585 

0 

0 

31,585 

0 

0.5 

31,585 

15,792 

99,543 

49,771 

99,543 

49,771 

1 

1 

99,543 

99,543 

99,543 

99,543 

4 

3 

1 

2 

99,543 

398,172 

99,543 

298,629 

99,543 

99,543 

99,543 

199,086 

99,543 

_ 

0 

_ 

0.5 

3 

99,543 

49,771 

0.5 

99,543 

49,771 

99,543 

298,629 

6.5 

99,543 

647,030 

63 

EN 

Consumer information 

0.5 

99,543 

49,771 

0.5 

99,543 

49,771 

99,543 

0 

1 

99,543 

99,543 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Task 

Director 

Assistant 

Total staff number 

Grant total staff costs 

Minimum scope 

Medium scope 

Maximum scope 

Staff Costs per unit (in 

€) 

Total  
(in €) 

Staff Costs per unit (in 

€) 

Total  
(in €) 

Staff Costs per unit (in 

€) 

Total  
(in €) 

1 

0.5 

5 

146,681 

146,681

31,585 

15,792 

1 

1 

11 

146,681 

146,681 

31,585 

31,585 

1 

2 

23 

146,681 

146,681 

31,585 

63,170 

510,874

1,074,154.66

2,166,735 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8: Total estimated annual operating costs of a possible ENRC 

Task  

Minimum scope 

Medium scope 

Maximum scope 

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 

Overheads (and other office running costs) 

Meetings and travel (missions for staff, per diems) 

Total core activities 

Costs of network functions 

Subcontracting of socio-economic studies and impact 
assessments 

Subcontracting of Community relevant research on animal 
welfare and protection practices and/or other network functions 

Subcontracting of education/ training, information and 
dissemination activities (including website) 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

10,000 

75,000 

510,875 

50,000 

75,000 

635,875 

1,074,155 

2,166,735

11 

1 

10,000 

110,000 

150,000 

150,000 

23 

1 

10,000 

230,000 

200,000 

200,000 

1,334,155 

2,596,735

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

100,000 

100,000 

1 

1 

1 

400,000 

400,000 

1,200,000 

1,200,000 

500,000 

500,000 

1 

1 

1 

200,000 

200,000 

1,800,000 

1,800,000

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 

Total costs 

Source: Civic Consulting

1,280,160

1,916,035

2,370,240 

3,704,395 

3,260,320

5,857,055

EN 

65 

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 only alternative egg products. Examples are: Marks & 
Spencer in the UK, Spar and Billa in Austria, Albert 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 year, 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  namely  Austria  and  Netherlands.  In  addition  all 
Hellmann's mayonnaise in the UK and Ireland will be free-range by summer 2008. Unilever wins 
a Good Egg Award as it aims to be cage-free throughout 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 and it will affect 350 000 hens 

–  Whole Foods Market which has 170 stores in North America and the UK now has a policy to 

refuse to use pork from producers that confine sows in crates. 

–  National  chains  Foods  Market  and  Wild  Oats  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 

nnn 

   EN 

 
Annex II: Current EU animal welfare legislation and other relevant legislation 

Evolution of animal welfare legislation in the EU 

In  the  European  Union,  legislation  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  harmonise  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  legislation  on  animal  welfare  was  adopted  in  1974 
and  concerned  the  stunning  of  animals  before  slaughter.  The  recitals  of  this  Directive 
indicate the importance that was 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 Protection and Welfare of Animals annexed to 
the EC Treaty in 1999 represents a milestone for the development  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 Lisbon Treaty), as a new article 13. 

The link between animal welfare and food safety 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 welfare considerations by introducing the ‘‘cross 
compliance’’  principle,  making  the  compliance  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  European  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 animals 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  environmental  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 and food safety aspects of animal health but 
also  from  the  animal  welfare  considerations,  including  the  implications  of  disease 
control. 

The  Commission  initiated  two  comprehensive  opinion  polls  on  animal  welfare, 
interviewing  nearly  25,000  citizens  in  the  25  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  in 
2005, and more than 29,000 in 2006. 

Citizens  were  asked  about  their  knowledge  of  farm  animals,  their  willingness  to  pay 
more  for  animal  welfare  friendly  products  and  their  capacity  to  recognise  them  in  the 

EN 

ooo 

   EN 

 
supermarket.  Both  surveys  demonstrate  that  there  is  a  considerable  interest  in  animal 
welfare  standards  which  is  reflected  in  the  demand  for  more  information  and  in  the 
awareness that European public commitment is relevant for higher welfare standards.  

The  second  survey  shows  that  animal  welfare  is  an  issue  which  citizens  rank  highly, 
giving  it  8  out  of  10  on  average  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  believe  animal  welfare  and  protection  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  citizens  are  interested  in  the  animal  welfare 
standards  involved  in  the  food  they  eat.  As  we  enter  a  changing  economic  situation  in 
Europe,  during  the  policy  development,  it  will  be  important  to  monitor  whether  these 
interests are maintained or whether other factors (i.e. price and value for money) become 
of more interest to consumers.  

List of EU animal welfare legislation and other relevant legislation: 

GENERAL 

1.  Treaty  of  Amsterdam  amending  the  Treaty  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. Official 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 the Protection and Welfare of Animals 
2006-2010 

3.  Commission  working document  on a Community  Action Plan on  the Protection 

and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. Strategic 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  information  during  the  inspections  of 
production sites on which certain animals are 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 

ppp 

   EN 

 
 PIGS 

Council  Directive  91/630/EEC  of  19  November  1991  laying  down  minimum  standards 
for the protection of pigs Official 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,  covered  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 Regulation) 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 killing 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  the  protection  of  animals  during  transport 
(Text with EEA relevance) Official Journal L 102, 12/04/2001 p.0063 – 0068 

EN 

qqq 

   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, and products containing such fur (OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, 
p. 1–4) 

FURTHER EU LEGISLATION 

Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official 
controls  performed  to  ensure  the  verification  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, (EC) 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  animals  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  animals  kept  for  farming  purposes  Official 
Journal L 323 , 17/11/1978 p. 0012 - 0013  

European Convention for the protection of animals for slaughter  

88/306/EEC:  Council  Decision  of  16  May  1988  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 

rrr 

   EN 

 
Annex III: What is an animal welfare labelling scheme? 

For the purposes of this analysis, an animal welfare 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 “existing 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  attractions  worldwide,  used  as  part  of  the 
tourism  experience  in  resorts,  meet  minimum  requirements  in  animal  welfare 
and protection; 

o  Neuland,  a  German  animal  welfare  labelling  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  Netherlands,  Romania,  Switzerland  and 
the UK; the label currently only covers free-range eggs. 

•  Schemes that focus on various aspects including animal welfare;  

o  Organic  farming:    animal  welfare  standards  are  one  of  the  pillars  of  the 
organic  concept  (together  with  use  of  natural  systems  and  environmental 
sustainability). Organic farming is regulated at EU level as a "reference level" 
scheme,  meaning  that  private  and  national  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 translation. Standards of organic farming include 
the creation of an environment that is appropriate to the species (including, for 
instance, permanent access to open air, appropriate pasture and forage to meet 
nutritional  and  behavioural  needs,  prohibition  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  egg  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 

71 

   EN 

 
 
organic  labelling  schemes  implemented  by  private  and  national  operators 
across the EU.  

o  Label Rouge is a French national quality assurance scheme for food products 
managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and covers a variety 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  poultry  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  schemes24  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  traditional  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 labelling 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  two  animal  welfare  programs:  RAUS 
(Regelmässiger  Auslauf  ins  Freie)  and  BTS  (Besonders  tierfreundliche  Stallhaltung). 
Nearly all other Swiss animal welfare programs include the RAUS and/or BTS criteria but 

24 
25 

PDO = Protected Designation of Origin, PGI = Protected Geographical Indication 
See www.dehesa-extremadura.com. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
often  add  additional  aspects  due  to  some  shortcomings  of  RAUS  and  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 producers. 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  has  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  has  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 Approved is a program of the Animal Welfare 
Institute  (AWI),  a  non-profit  charitable  organisation  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 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

See www.greenpeace.ch. 
See http://rnzspca.org.nz. 
Stakeholder survey, response RSPCA Australia. 
Questionanire SPCA. 
See http://www.certifiedhumane.com. 
See http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org. 
See http://www.americanhumane.org. 
See http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Market  data  on  animal  welfare  related  labelling  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, 

Poultry  Other  Beef and 

goats 

milk 
products 

Pork 
products

Sheep/g
oat 
meat 
product
s 

Other

Poultry 
meat, egg 
products 

AT 

BE 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FIN 

FR 

IT 

NL 

1) 

2)  

3)  

4)  

5)  

6) 

7) 

Only 
Label 
Rouge 

8) 

9) 

18 

4 

5 

3 

10 

3 

15 

1 

3.5 

0.1 

-- 

0 

8 

-- 

0 

1 

-- 

-- 

0 

6 

5 

5 

10 

-- 

0 

2 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1.8 

0.66 < 1 / 0 
(sheep, 
15 
milking 
goats) 

0.1 
(broilers 
/ 50 
laying 
hens) 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

0 

0.4 
(horses)

-- 

-- 

< 5 

0 

80 to 90

-- 

SE 

10) 

90 
(dairy 
cattle); 
5 
(other 
cattle) 

UK 

Only 
Freedom 
Food 

8.9 (beef); 
12.9 (milk) 

1.4 

2.1 (broiler); 
8 (eggs) 

-- 

3 

30 

-- 

0 

10 

-- 

2 

7 

-- 

0 

-- 

1 
(meat); 
5 (milk)

-- 

-- 

0 

-- 

2 

12 

100 

0 

0.6 

0.1 

8 (eggs) 

33 (household 
purchase of 
poultry)  

3.5 
(organic) 

0.34 
(organic)

9.2 
(organic
) 

Organic: 0.14 
meat; 1.7 
eggs 

2 

0 

0.05 meat; 95 
table eggs; 5 
processed 
eggs 

2 (beef); 4 
(dairy); 1.5 
(cheese, 
butter) 

80 (milk), 5 
(beef) 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

90 (meat) 

-- 

1 
(organic 
and 
Swedish 
certified)

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 total of all animal welfare relevant labelling schemes (e.g. organic labelling 
schemes, quality schemes, animal welfare schemes). As far as incoherent data was provided by different stakeholder organisations, the data 
considered to be most reliable is presented, however, data is not comparable between countries and has to be interpreted with care.  

Examples on inconsistencies of existing 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 standards. Species-specific production guides are 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
available  which  set  out  the  precise  management  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.), 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 environmental, but also for animal welfare 
reasons)  and  economic  sustainability.  Participation  is  open  to  groups  of  producers  and 
processors of food products after demonstration of their ability to comply with the notices 
techniques, 
label.  Animal  welfare 
technical  requirements  of 
specifications  relate  to  the  type  of  rearing,  the  genetics,  maximum  stock  densities,  the 
origin and type of feed, the slaughter age and the transport. 

the  minimum 

the 

•  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  sufficient  big,  dry  and  solid  resting  area  with 
ample dry  bedding of straw or other suitable natural  litter,  banns  mutilation  that  leads  to 
stress,  harm,  disease  or  suffering  of  animals  and  restricts  it  only    for  use      in  animal 
security or to improve the animals health, welfare 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  access  to  roughage.  Besides  the  minimum  animal 
welfare requirements  of  the  EU  standard, private standards have often introduced stricter 
standards. 

•  Bioland:  organic  private  standard  with  animal  welfare  rules  often  going  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 number of pigs 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 welfare standards, but biodynamic farmers do not 
always share the same scientific opinion on for instance whether or not animals should be 
tethered in the stable. 

34 

All production guides are available from: http://www.rspca.org.uk/ 

EN 

75 

   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 reference 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  contributions  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 study carried out by an external consultant. 

PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT REPORT 

PART 1: Animal welfare labelling 

Mr ALLEWELD (Civic Consultant) presented the draft final report 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 CEAS Consulting, of the Food Chain Evaluation 
Consortium (FCEC).  The report presents the background of the study, describes the current 
use  of  existing  animal  welfare  labelling  schemes,  describes  the  policy  options  available, 
examines the conformity of options with guiding 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  informed  purchasing  decisions  appears  to  be  a 

EN 

76 

   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  available  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)compensated  by  increase  of  the  overall  market  size 
for products produced at higher animal welfare standard. 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 fresh meat and milk/dairy products, and to assess 
the market success before considering further steps. 

PART 2: establishing of a community reference centre for animal protection and welfare 

Mr ALLEWELD (Civic Consultant) 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  report  presents  the 
background of the study, explores the policy options available for setting up a CRC, presents 
an overview of current existing bodies dealing with animal welfare related issues, assesses the 
conformity  of  the  options  with  guiding  principles,  analyses  possible  tasks  of  a  CRC,  and 
finally draws conclusions concerning the feasibility of options and the structure of the Centre, 
practical settings and related costs. The most feasible approach for establishing a Community 
Reference  Centre  for  Animal  Protection  and  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 for coordination and harmonisation of Community 
relevant issues in the field of animal welfare, performing its task in close collaboration with 
and support of a network of relevant research institutions in the Member States. 

After  each  presentation  the  Steering  Committee  was  given  the  opportunity  to  make  some 
clarifying questions to the contractor. 

Mr CAPPELLARO (DG AGRI) asked for the opportunity to reflect on the presentations and 
come back to SANCO with comments at a later stage. 

Ms LOUHIMIES (DG ENV) gave some clarifying comments of the role of JRC in relation to 
the 3Rs principle, and asked the contractor to consider 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 

77 

   EN 

 
Note prepared by SANCO D5 

Participants: 

AYDIN, Ayse 

BERENDS, André 

BILLAUX, Cécile 

CAINZOS-GARCIA, Marta 

CAPPELLARO, Horacio 

SANCO D5 

TAXUD C3 

SANCO 02 

SANCO D1 

AGRI D3 

CONVENS-BILLERBECK, Dorothee  ENV E2 

CRUZ MEDINA, Maria Florentina 

MARE A2 

DRAGSET, Jostein 

SANCO D5 

ERLBACHER, Friedrich 

SJ B 

FERRARA, Maria 

FERRIER, Jean 

GAVINELLI, Andrea 

SANCO D5 

SG D3 

SANCO D5 

GOERGEN-EZQUERRA, Maria  

SANCO D5 

HOFHERR, Johann 

KIY, Gillian Louise 

KROMMER, Judit 

KUSTER, Laszlo 

LOUHIMIES, Satu Susanna 

MARIN, Eric 

MEISINGER, Christine 

MIHAYLOVA, Milena 

SALVI, Maurizio 

TISSOT, Daniele 

JRC G7 

SANCO 02 

SANCO D5 

SANCO D1 

ENV D1 

SANCO 02 

ELARG B1 

SANCO A2 

BEPA 

RTD E4 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL 

Animal health and welfare 

Animal Welfare 

Brussels, 4 March 2009 

Note of Interservice Steering Committee Meeting, 03.03.09 

Subject: 
Second  meeting  of  the  interservice  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 Communication would be adopted in May 2009 and 
the timing for the IA was driven by that deadline. 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 initiative is closely linked to the DG AGRI initiative 
on product quality, and the two documents are adapted to each other to avoid contradictory 
wordings. 

PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 

PART 1: Animal welfare labelling 

DG  SANCO  presented  the  first  part  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 and that the conclusions reflect this. 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  addition  to  their  written  comments,  SG  said  that  the  purpose  of  the  communication  is  to 
give background for an in-depth debate in Council an EP, and that this should be made clearer 
in the document. Furthermore, the SG raised doubt 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 the link between the EU organic 
label and a possible AW labelling 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 international trade of animal products. Finally SG focused on the 
scope  of  a  possible  EU  AW  label  and  wanted  to  know  if  processed  products  would  be 
included and what would be the implications. 

DG  AGRI  expressed  concerns  about  the  possible  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  welfare  friendly  products  in  the 
objectives. If the option of “reserved terms” would be preferred, DG AGRI wish to see neutral 
terms for the baseline production, in order to avoid 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  argument  for  establishing  an  animal  welfare 
labelling scheme, based on the Eurobarometer surveys. The situation could have changed with 
the  international  finance  crisis,  and  the  “citizens”  demands  when  asked  could  be  different 
from  the  “consumers”  actions  in  the  supermarkets.  Regarding  option  4  Harmonised 
requirements for the voluntary use of animal welfare claims), DG AGRI stated that “farming 
methods”  include  more  than  animal  welfare  issues,  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  specific  issues  for  the  pig  sector  and  for  the 
organic sector. 

DG ENV asked about the scope of a possible animal 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. The aim is to develop a tool for the producers 
to  benefit  from  market  possibilities  and  to  enable  consumers  to  make  informed  purchasing 
decisions. 

PART  2:  establishing  of  a  community  reference  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 available for setting up a CRC, analyses possible tasks 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
of a CRC, and finally assess the feasibility of options 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 welfare labelling initiative. A possible CRC should consider tasks 
related to all animal welfare issues, including wild 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  Reference  Centre  for  Animal  Protection  and  Welfare 
should be considered. 

DG SANCO stated that the IA report will not restrict the scope for the possible CRC to tasks 
related to the animal welfare labelling initiative. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr GAVINELLI 

asked  the  Steering  Committee  to  send  comments  and  suggestions  to  be  considered  in  the 
finalizing of the Impact Assessment report to Mr Jostein DRAGSET by 5 March; 

appreciated the possibility to have a bilateral 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 

CAINZOS-GARCIA, Marta 

CAPPELLARO, Horacio 

DRAGSET, Jostein 

FAY, Francis 

FERRIER, Jean 

FIORE, Gianluca 

GAVINELLI, Andrea 

KIY, Gillian Louise 

KROMMER, Judit 

PLANK, Irene 

SALVI, Maurizio 

TAXUD C3 

SANCO D1 

AGRI D3 

SANCO D5 

AGRI H2 

SG D3 

JRC/IPSC 

SANCO D5 

SANCO 02 

SANCO D5 

ENV E2 

BEPA 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Annex V: Report from the feasibility study part 1: Animal Welfare labelling 

P:\jd2009\Labelling\
Final report\AW Labe 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
Annex  VI:  Report  from  the  feasibility  study  part  2:  Community  Reference  Centre  for 
the protection and welfare of animals 

P:\jd2009\Labelling\
Final report\AW-Labe 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
Annex VII: Existing bodies dealing with animal welfare related issues  

A  large  number  of  existing  bodies  within  the  EU  are  dealing  with  animal  welfare  related 
issues. To provide an updated picture of their areas of expertise, an additional EU wide survey 
of animal welfare institutions was conducted during the study. It was specifically targeted at 
public or private institutions, operating at EU and/or Member State level that could take on or 
support  the  necessary  functions  through  their  expertise  in  animal  protection  and  welfare. 
Relevant bodies include: 

•  Community  institutions  and  bodies:  these  are  the  ECVAM  –  part  of  the  Institute 
for  Health  and  Consumer  Protection  in  the  DG  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  and 
the  European  Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA).  Together,  these  bodies  employ  a 
total of 28 staff members in the area of animal welfare. Although both institutions 
do  not  seem  to  cover  all  areas  of  expertise  that  could  be  relevant  for  an  ENRC, 
gaps  are  limited  if  the  expertise  of  both  organisations  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,  research  institutions  cover  all  areas  that  were 
identified  as  having  relevance  for  a  Community  Reference  Centre.  Institutions 
directly belonging to the government or being independent public agencies from 7 
Member  States  reported  to  employ  128  staff  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  extent  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 communication 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  and  restore  and  maintain  confidence  in  the  EU 
food supply.  

EFSA is an independent European agency funded 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 appointed through an open selection procedure on 
the  basis  of  proven  scientific  excellence,  including  experience  in  risk  assessment  and  peer-
reviewing scientific work and publications. 

The  Panel  on  Animal  Health  and  Welfare  (AHAW)  deals  with  animal  health  and  welfare 
issues.  The  AHAW  Panel  provides  independent  scientific  advice  on  all  aspects  of  animal 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
diseases  and  animal  welfare.  Its  work  chiefly  concerns  food  producing  animals,  including 
fish.  

The Panel carries out risk assessments in order 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 European policies and legislation and 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 decisions of risk managers.  

It carries out its work either in response to requests for scientific advice from risk managers or 
on  its  own  initiative.  Most  commonly,  the  European  Commission  asks  EFSA  to  provide 
scientific  advice  on  a  particular  issue.  The  Panel  always  undertakes  work  on  the  basis  of  a 
specific mandate (terms of reference) which guides its approach to each question.  

The  Panel  regularly  sets  up  Working  Groups  involving  external  scientists  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  regularly  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  199135,  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 could reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals 

ECVAM has been established in 1992 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 Communication 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 data base on alternative procedures. 

35  
36  

SEC(91)1794, Communication of the European Commission to Council and the European Parliament 
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 

85 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  To  promote  dialogue  between  legislators,  industries,  biomedical  scientists,  consumer 
organisations and animal welfare groups, with a view to the development, 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 focusing on the evaluation and prevalidation of new 
in vitro tests. 

Moreover, over the past years, ECVAM has increasingly 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  animal  alternatives  and  testing  strategies  as 
soon as possible.  

EN 

86 

   EN