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 {SEC(2009) 1432} {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 
COM(2009) 584 final 

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 

{SEC(2009) 1432} 
{SEC(2009) 1433} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
INTRODUCTION 

The  debate  on  how  to  improve  the  communication  to  consumers  on  animal  welfare  in 
livestock production has been running in the EU for several years, at least since the adoption 
in 2002 of the Community report on "Animal welfare legislation on farmed animals in Third 
Countries and the implications for the EU". 

The  conference  “Animal  Welfare  –  Improving  by  Labelling?”  (Brussels,  28/03/2007), 
organised by the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Commission and 
the  German  Presidency  of  the  Council  enabled  a  first  broad  discussion  to  take  place  with 
representatives of all stakeholder groups. Following the conference the Council of Ministers 
adopted in May 2007 conclusions on Animal Welfare Labelling, inviting the Commission to 
present a report in order to allow an in-depth debate on the issue.  

Therefore  the  Commission  invited  an  external  contractor  to  carry  out  a  feasibility  study1 
together with a wide stakeholder consultation in order to assess the issue further and collect 
the largest number of contributions on this issue from stakeholders in the EU and outside. The 
study concluded in January 2009. 

The  first  Community  Action  Plan  on  the  Protection  and  Welfare  of  Animals  2006-20102 
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  the  business  opportunities  which  animal  welfare  offers  to  producers  while 
respecting  the  ethical  and  cultural  dimension  of  the  issue.  Organic  farming  and  voluntary 
schemes  like  "Label  Rouge"  or  "Freedom  Food"  are  clear  examples  of  such  business 
opportunities. 

A  specific  "information  platform  on  animal  welfare",  established  within  the  7th  EU 
Framework Programme and aiming at facilitating the dialogue and exchange of experiences 
between stakeholders, is a key element for the implementation of the Action Plan.3 Improved 
information  to  consumers  offers  the  prospect  of  a  virtuous  cycle  where  consumers  create  a 
demand  for  food  products  sourced  in  a  more  animal  welfare  friendly  manner  which  is 
transmitted  through  the  supply  chain  back  to  the  primary  producer,  who  may  be  able  to 
receive a premium price for their product and thus recoup a portion of any associated higher 
production costs. Since improved animal welfare often results in higher production there are 
many  possibilities  for  producers  to  have  a  win-win  situation  with  this  system.  Indeed, 
dialogue  between  animal  welfare  organisations,  governmental  authorities,  politicians, 
producers, retailers and consumers can help increase awareness and produce improvements in 
farming practices, consumer choice and legislation. 

Both  the  feasibility  study  and  the  views  expressed  by  stakeholders  support  integrating  the 
different policy areas related to animal protection. In relation to animal protection, wide areas 
of  work  like  the  establishment  of  communication  strategies  to  citizens  on  the  value  of 
products  with  higher  animal  welfare  standards  or  the  development  of  European  strategic 

1 

2 
3 

The complete study including conclusions can be found at the following web address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/labelling_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/actionplan_de.htm 
http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
investments in the area of research were perceived as appropriate areas for proper European 
coordination.  

The  overall  goal  of  policy  in  this  area  is  to  make  it  easier  for  consumers  to  identify  and 
choose  welfare-friendly  products  and  thereby  give  an  economic  incentive  to  producers  to 
improve the welfare of animals. 

1. 

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL OBJECTIVES 

The results of the feasibility study showed the need for deepening the discussion on 
how  to  improve  information  on  animal  welfare  and  fine-tune  the  most  appropriate 
tools.  With  this  report,  the  Commission  seeks  to  facilitate  a  political  discussion, 
notably  with  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, in light of the feasibility study. 
The methodology followed in preparing this report is in line with the approach taken 
by the Commission in its general agricultural quality policy. 

This  report  argues  that  the  EU's  policy  on  information  about  animal  welfare  in 
livestock production should in future give EU farmers the policy support they need to 
win the quality battle – in other words, to deliver the qualities and communicate what 
they do well that consumers are looking for, and to win premiums in return. 

Issues examined in this report are: 

– 

– 

– 

to  what  extent  the  current  instruments,  legal  framework  and  measures  that 
affect the information on animal welfare quality of EU husbandry products are 
achieving this goal; 

if and how they could be improved to achieve this goal better; and 

what new mechanisms are needed (if any) to help achieve this goal. 

The  outcome  of  the  political  debate  on  this  report  will  also  be  considered  in  the 
framework of the evaluation of animal welfare Community policy that is ongoing in 
the Commission and will continue in 2010. 

2. 

HOW  TO  INCREASE  AWARENESS  AND  TRANSPARENCY  WITH  REGARD  TO  ANIMAL 
WELFARE 

Animal husbandry in the EU has a reputation for its high animal welfare standards. 
Legislation  on  animal  welfare  in  the  EU  has  a  longstanding  tradition  and  the  first 
Community legislation was adopted in 1974. The present Community legislation on 
animal welfare contains the minimum standards all producers are bound to respect. 
Where  higher  animal  welfare  standards  are applied  producers  have  to  find  ways  to 
obtain  a  price  for  their  produce  which  corresponds  to  the  added  value  this  gives  to 
the products and compensates them for the investments made. One possibility is to 
follow  the  approach  of  organic  production  that  on  the  basis  of  a  specific  European 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
action  plan4  highlighted  the  importance  of  market  driven  policies.  Voluntary 
communication on the product's animal welfare characteristics (e.g. Freedom Food) 
represents another complementary way to stimulate consumer interest. 

Both the analysis of the outcome of two Eurobarometer surveys5 and the feasibility 
study6  on  animal  welfare  labelling  suggest  that  animal  welfare  labelling,  based  on 
sound  scientific  knowledge  and  assessed  on  the  basis  of  harmonised  requirements, 
could enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and make it possible 
for producers to benefit from market opportunities. 

It is important to consider how the requirements and standards met by farmers, that 
today  go  beyond  the  minimum  animal  welfare  standards  provided  in  the  European 
legislation,  could  be  made  better  known  in  the  EU  and  outside.  A  further  issue  for 
discussion is whether this objective is best achieved by labelling (based on public or 
private standards), public information campaigns or a combination of different tools. 

3. 

ANIMAL WELFARE AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS  

The  feasibility  study  examined  several  quality  labels  like  Label  Rouge,  Freedom 
Food and Neuland, and additional independent European studies are ongoing in this 
area (Welfare Quality7; EconWelfare8; Q-PorkChains9; EAWP10). Organic farming is 
already  associated  by  consumers  with  higher  animal  welfare  standards  throughout 
the EU and outside. Furthermore, organic is easily identified by consumers thanks to 
the EU logo, which will be renewed and become compulsory by 1 July 2010. 

Both  the  marketing  strategies  for  the  labels  and  the  studies  are  highlighting  that  a 
significant  proportion  of  citizens  wish  to  be  informed  not  just  about  the  "physical 
qualities”, such as the contents of desired and undesired ingredients, but also about 
other  qualities  of  the  food  they  buy,  which  include  the  ethical  factors  related  to 
production and the way animals are treated.11  

4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

European Action plan for organic food and farming COM(2004)415 final 
Eurobarometer surveys 2005 and 2006: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/index_en.htm 
Key conclusion from the “Feasibility study on animal welfare labelling and establishing a Community 
Reference Centre for Animal Protection and Welfare” submitted by Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 
and  published  together  with  this  report  (hereafter  referred  to  as  “the  feasibility  study”):  “There  is  a 
broad consensus among stakeholders that there are a multitude of current problems regarding animal 
welfare  related  information  on  products  of  animal  origin.  Two  areas  are  frequently  indicated  by 
relevant  stakeholder  organisations:  Problems  with  animal  welfare  standards/claims,  and  a  lack  of 
consumer awareness and understanding of logos/labels. Hardly any of the respondents to an EU-wide 
survey of stakeholder organisations perceived that there are no relevant problems.” 
Welfare Quality®: Science and society improving animal welfare in the food quality chain – EU funded 
project (http://www.welfarequality.net). 
EconWelfare:  Good  animal  welfare  in  a  socio-economic  context:  Project  to  promote  insight  on  the 
impact  for  the  animal,  the  production  chain  and  European  society  of  upgrading  animal  welfare 
standards – EU funded project (http://www.econwelfare.eu). 
Q-PorkChains:  Improving  the  quality  of  pork  for  the  consumers  –  EU  funded  project  (http://www.q-
porkchains.org). 
EAWP: European Animal Welfare Platform: Progressing animal welfare through the food chain – EU 
funded project (http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu) 
Welfare Quality®: Science and society improving animal welfare in the food quality chain – EU funded 
project (http://www.welfarequality.net). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
From the consumers’ perspective, animal welfare is a typical credence attribute. This 
means  that  consumers  in  many  cases  are  not  able  today  to  verify  themselves  the 
actual  level  of  animal  welfare  when  such  claims  are  made.  However,  in  relation  to 
the  totality  of  the  food  market  of  the  EU  such  products  still  only  represent  a  small 
segment of it. The surveys indicate that this might reflect a lack of information and 
market transparency.  

In the EU there are no harmonized requirements for the labelling of animal welfare 
standards or how to assess them. Certain stakeholders supported the principle that the 
more private animal welfare labels are present on the retailing market, the more we 
need to determine a methodology to assess and compare animal welfare standards. 

This  raises  the  question  of  whether  there  are  any  pressing  issues  raised  by  the 
multiplication  of  private  welfare  labelling  schemes  at  national  level  which  would 
justify  the  creation  of  an  EU  level  scheme.  Clearly  any  such  EU  scheme,  which 
could  avoid  segmentation  of  the  internal  market  as  well  as  facilitating  intra-
Community trade, would need to demonstrate that it can add value both to existing 
private schemes and to the organic regulation12 without harming them. 

Although the majority of consumers are price-sensitive, the results of several surveys 
in  the  last  years  have  revealed  the  existence  of  groups  of  consumers  who  are 
interested  in  buying  products  with  specific  qualities  and  characteristics  including 
animal  welfare  attributes.  In  many  Member  States  this  quality-seeking  consumer 
segment is generating market opportunities for products with higher animal welfare 
standards,  as  stand-alone  quality  criteria  or  together  with  other  above-average 
characteristics. One particularly relevant example is the organic food market, where 
the  EU  harmonisation  has  opened  the  door  to  new  consumer  segment:  the  organic 
farming  logo  offers  consumers’  confidence  about  the  origins  and  qualities  of  their 
food  and  drink  and  its  presence  on  any  product  ensures  compliance  with  the  EU 
organic  farming  Regulation,  which  provides  assurance  for  higher  animal  welfare 
standards through effective inspection and certification throughout the EU. 

Some  existing  labelling  schemes  address  animal  welfare  requirements  alongside 
other quality standards, such as organic farming or environmental protection. For this 
reason, the added value of a possible EU animal welfare labelling scheme in view of 
existing schemes will need to be carefully considered, as well as how to avoid any 
possible overlap.  

4. 

CONSUMER INFORMATION AND MARKETING STRATEGIES 

The introduction of "reserved terms" is a way to inform buyers and consumers about 
product characteristics and farming attributes. Mandatory or voluntary requirements 
for  the  use  of  animal  welfare  "reserved  terms"  based  on  farming  methods  or 
standardised  welfare  indicators  would  require  the  elaboration  of  specific  European 
standards  and  would  need  to  cover  relevant  species  and  products  with  a  general 
framework. 

12 

Council Regulation n° 834/2007 and its implementing rules: Commission Regulation n° 889/2008 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
An example of existing mandatory use of "reserved terms" in the EU is the marketing 
standards on table eggs. The egg marketing legislation obliges to label the shell-eggs 
with  the  farming  system  under  which  they  have  been  obtained.  There  are  four 
permitted  production  system  labels:  eggs  from  caged  hens,  barn  eggs,  free-range 
eggs and organic eggs; the requirements for these production systems are laid down 
in  legislation,  and  the  label  indications  give  consumers  information  that  they  may 
interpret as an indicator of animal welfare, and use this when purchasing eggs. Since 
the  implementation  of  the  legislation,  the  percentage  of  non-caged  egg  production 
has  increased  significantly  in  nearly  all  Member  States.  The  egg  marketing 
legislation is likely to have played a role in enabling consumers to shift from buying 
shell  eggs  from  caged  hens  to  eggs  produced  in  alternative  systems  under  the 
assumption that non-caged egg production systems confer higher animal welfare. In 
addition  examples  of  existing  optional  "reserved  terms"  are  laid  down  in  the 
marketing standards on poultry meat, where farming method indications are precisely 
defined and farmers must comply with specifications laid down to use the "reserved 
terms". 

It  will  be  important  to  weigh  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  laying  down 
definitions of optional or mandatory "reserved terms" in marketing standards at EU 
level in relation to systems of farming that indicate certain levels of animal welfare, 
in particular when going above the minimum standards provided in the legislation. 

5. 

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS 

It is known that in addition to price, consumers’ purchasing decisions are influenced 
by a large number of interpersonal (culture, societal norms, social status, group and 
family  influences)  and  intrapersonal  (involvement,  emotions,  motives,  attitudes, 
norms, personality) determinants. In principle, more information provided by labels 
should  allow  consumers  to  make  more  informed  choices.  Unless  they  have  reliable 
knowledge  about  the  added-value  of  animal  welfare-friendly  products,  they  cannot 
be expected to pay a price that reflects the higher product quality. 

The feasibility study shows that labelling is mainly 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;  and  c)  consumers  (or  relevant  sub-
groups)  are  in  principle  interested  to  have  this  information  available  for  their 
purchasing decisions. According to Eurobarometer data, this is the case for products 
sourced from animal welfare-friendly production systems.  

The  results  of  the  feasibility  study  show  that  animal  welfare  labelling  may  raise 
consumer  awareness  and  accelerate  market  penetration  of  animal  welfare-friendly 
products that go beyond the minimum standards foreseen in EU legislation. This was 
one of the main goals for several stakeholders. As a consequence the development of 
new  animal  welfare  practices  would  be  more  motivated  by  market  demand. 
Additional  specific  communication  initiatives  would  contribute  further  to  raise 
awareness among citizens, operators and producers on animal welfare issues. It was 
pointed out by stakeholders that communication has to be based on a solid scientific 
background. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Consumers'  information  and  education  activities  have  been  developed  recently  to 
raise  awareness  on  the  farming  of  animals  and  on  the  origin  of  livestock  products. 
These communication activities have been welcomed by stakeholders and have been 
proven  useful  to  increase  the  appreciation  of  general  public  for  the  initiatives  on 
animal welfare undertaken both at European and national level. At the same time the 
visibility of EU policies in this area increased with major trading partners. 

An  important  issue  for  further  discussion  is  the  role  which  public  information 
campaigns  could  play  in  raising  the  awareness  of  European  consumers  on  animal 
welfare  and  increasing  the  market  share  of  welfare  friendly  products.  Successful 
examples of EU level communication on animal welfare include the "Farmland" web 
site  for  children  and  the  online  toolbox  which  forms  part  of  the  recent  organic 
farming  promotional  campaign.13  In  addition,  it  should  also  be  considered  if 
information  campaigns  and  education  programmes  on  animal  welfare  should  be 
developed and organised at EU and/or at Member State level. 

6. 

INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION 

Based  on  the  analyses  made  by  the  Commission  voluntary  labelling  schemes  are 
permitted  under  WTO  law  provided  that  they  are  proportionate  and  open  to  third 
country  producers,  while  mandatory  labelling  would  face  more  controversy  in  the 
WTO  framework.  The  discussion  on  trade  implications  of  policy  responses  to 
societal  concerns  such  as  animal  welfare  is  pertinent  to  current  developments  at 
international  level.  WTO,  OECD,  OIE  and  CODEX  are  currently  debating  issues 
related to private and public standards and  their effects on trade  and  market  access 
for developing countries. 

The impact of voluntary certification based on harmonised requirements for animal 
welfare for importing into the EU would probably be positive for countries already 
considering sustainable forms of animal production and for production derived from 
less  intensive  forms  of  animal  keeping.  Harmonisation  would  allow  better  market 
access and long-term planning for investments. 

In  view  of  the  EU’s  international  trade  obligations  it  will  be  important  to  consider 
modalities  ensuring  that  a  non-EU  product  which  complies  with  EU  production 
requirements is eligible to use any EU quality scheme, and that the latter meets the 
EU's  WTO  commitments.  It  will  be  important  to  consider  the  implications  of  any 
such scheme for third countries, with a special focus on developing country partners 
and their ability to adapt. 

7. 

DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND THEIR COMPARISON 

Surveys show that a majority of European consumers said that they lack information 
on the level of animal welfare provided in the production of the goods they buy. This 
is why the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-
2010 suggests the development of standardised animal welfare indicators, in order to 

13 

http://www.farmland-thegame.eu 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/animal-welfare_en 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
provide  for  a  science-based  tool  to  make  animal  welfare  measurable,  more 
enforceable  and  easier  to  communicate  to  people.  The  "Welfare  Quality"  project 
intends  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  the  elaboration  of  animal  based  scientific  indicators. 
This  could  lead  to  a  system  based  not  on  production  method,  but  on  animal-based 
outcomes  to  classify  animal  welfare  which  could  be  useful  to  provide  consumers 
with transparent and reliable information. In this context, several stakeholders have 
highlighted that a European network of reference centres (ENRC) for the protection 
and  welfare  of  animals  could  constitute  a  concrete  option  to  provide  technical 
support for the further development of the system. 

The further development of a measuring instrument or scale that allows comparison 
of animal welfare standards across species, farming systems and supply chain stages 
is a current trend in markets around the world and at the core of scientific research. 
The  assessment  of  animal  welfare  at  all  relevant  stages  of  the  value  chain  (mainly 
farming,  transport  and  slaughter)  is  at  the  heart  of  each  animal  welfare  labelling 
system.  The  feasibility  study  revealed  that  the  validity  and  reliability  of  most 
indicators  is  often  disputed.  Comprehensive  indicators  suggested  so  far,  such  as 
“biological  response  to  stress”,  have  been  criticised  (in  particular  by  scientists  and 
producers) as being difficult to measure.  

Some  stakeholders  however  take  the  view  that  the  scientific  and  transparent 
validation  of  farming  systems  would  make  it  easier  for  producers  to  communicate 
higher  animal  welfare  standards  to  the  public.  The  question  is  whether  such 
validation should take place at European level, and if so how.  

8. 

TRANSPARENCY AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON ANIMAL WELFARE 

According to the stakeholder consultation, wide areas of work like the establishment 
of communication strategies to citizens on the value of products with higher animal 
welfare standards or the development of European strategic investments in the area 
of research are appropriate areas for proper European coordination. 

Furthermore,  the  2006  Community  Action  Plan  on  Animal  Welfare  had  already 
foreseen  that  the  management,  upgrading  and  diffusion  of  the  animal  welfare 
standards  as  well  as  the  preparation  of  relevant  socio-economic  studies  and  impact 
assessments could become more efficient with a coordinated European approach. As 
a  consequence,  several  stakeholders  have  reflected  on  the  possibility  of  better 
coordinating  and  using  expertise  at  European  level  to  serve  policy  making  in  this 
area. 

In the EU a small core of relevant institutions working in the area of animal welfare 
already  exists,  such  as  the  European  Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA),  the  Joint 
Research Centre (JRC) and national reference laboratories. However, currently their 
mandate does not cover all areas of expertise needed and in particular the function of 
coordinating  animal  welfare  issues  at  EU  level  as  pointed  out  by  different 
stakeholders.  

In  addition,  the  European  scientific  community  is  concluding  five  years  of  close 
cooperation in the framework of the “Welfare Quality” project. Scientists consulted 
have urged on several occasions the importance to give priority to the establishment 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
of a permanent European network. Furthermore, several international trade partners 
of  the  EU14  both  in  the  area  of  science  and  economy  have  also  called  for  the 
collaborative network approach exemplified by “Welfare Quality” to be sustained. In 
addition,  main  stakeholders  perceived  the  need  for  an  independent  source  of 
information at EU level and the current risk of duplication of activities.  

Against this backdrop, the feasibility study analysed the different models of network 
of  reference  and  their  related  costs.  As  a  preferred  option  it  concludes  that  a 
European  Network  of  Reference  Centres  (ENRC),  which  could  provide  technical 
support  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  animal  welfare  policies, 
including  regarding  certification  and  labelling,  should  be  based  on  a  central 
coordination institute that cooperates with a network of relevant research institutions 
in the Member States – all recognised by the Community. This is a well-tried method 
in  the  food  chain  area,  where  Community  Reference  Laboratories  coordinate 
networks  of  National  Reference  Laboratories.15  Possible  sub-tasks  conducted  by 
network  partners  could  include:  conducting  studies  and  impact  assessments, 
implementing targeted research on animal welfare issues with Community relevance, 
conducting education and dissemination activities, etc.  

It  will  be  necessary  to  consider  whether  the  advantages,  including  in  respect  of 
administrative burden, would outweigh the disadvantages of developing a European 
network  of  national  reference  centres  to  validate  scientifically  welfare  standards 
adopted on voluntary bases and contribute to the development of a variety of animal 
welfare  policies.  One  option  would  be  to  use  as  a  reference  the  existing  model  of 
Community  Reference  Laboratories  for  animal  health.  Community  reference 
laboratories  are  funded  by  the  so  called  "veterinary  fund"  (Council  Decision 
2009/470/EC)  for  providing  certain  defined  services  and  coordinating  national 
reference laboratories in the interest of the Community. 

9. 

CONCLUSION 

This report has presented a range of issues concerning animal welfare labelling and 
communication, and the possible establishment of a European Network of Reference 
Centres for the protection and welfare of animals, based on the results of the external 
study provided to the Commission in January 2009. The purpose of the report is to 
enable  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions to undertake the in-depth discussion of 
animal welfare labelling called for by the Council. This inter-institutional discussion 
will  provide  the  basis  for  the  Commission's  reflections  in  shaping  possible  future 
policy  options16.  Any  concrete  proposals  resulting  from  the  political  debate  will  be 
subject to further thorough impact assessment.  

14 
15 

16 

Partners of “Welfare Quality”: http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/26562/7/0/22. 
An  external  evaluation  of  the  CRL  system  has  been  carried  out  for  the  Commission  and  will  be 
concluded by the end of 2009. 
See also the impact assessment report accompanying this report (COM(2009)xxxx).  

EN 

9 

   EN