“Animals are treated humanely”

Evidence quality

Evidence that production systems can create specific welfare hazards is moderate to high for well-studied species and practices. EFSA scientific opinions synthesize peer-reviewed literature with structured expert assessment, but prevalence and severity vary by country, farm, genotype, and enforcement regime (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2022a; EFSA AHAW Panel, 2023a; EFSA AHAW Panel, 2023b). A single binary description such as humane or inhumane therefore does not measure welfare performance.

Housing and behavioral restriction

EFSA's assessment of pig production identified highly relevant welfare consequences across housing systems and linked them to space, flooring, enrichment, group conditions, and management. For rearing pigs, identified consequences included restriction of movement, resting problems, group stress, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behavior, locomotor disorders, soft-tissue lesions, and respiratory disorders (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2022a).

For calves, EFSA identified different hazard profiles in individual and group systems. Individual housing was associated with isolation stress, restricted movement, and inability to perform social and play behavior, while large-group systems could increase group stress and infectious-disease exposure. The assessment recommended stable social groups, more space, suitable lying surfaces, adequate milk, gradual weaning, and other management changes, illustrating that welfare outcomes depend on both housing design and implementation (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2023a).

Breeding and productivity

Selection for rapid growth in commercial broilers has increased growth rate and breast-muscle yield. EFSA linked high growth rate and body weight with locomotor and musculoskeletal disorders, cardiovascular disease, impaired exploratory and foraging behavior, and mortality risk. The opinion also noted that fast-growing broilers are normally slaughtered at about 37 days, before sexual maturity, and that breeder birds may undergo substantial feed restriction to avoid obesity and reproductive problems (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2023b). These findings document welfare trade-offs associated with productivity-oriented breeding without implying that every flock has identical outcomes.

Painful procedures

Castration and disbudding are common cattle-management procedures recognized as painful. A review of 47 pharmacokinetic and 44 pain-control publications reported that these procedures were frequently performed without pain mitigation in the United States and that no drugs were then federally approved specifically for procedural pain in cattle. The review also found important variability and methodological limitations in the evidence for analgesic protocols (Wagner et al., 2021).

For pigs, EFSA identifies castration as painful and states that routine tail docking should not be performed. Its opinion describes alternatives and measures to reduce harm when a procedure occurs, while documenting that housing and management can alter the risk of tail biting and other welfare consequences (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2022a).

Transport and slaughter

Welfare risk does not end at the farm. EFSA identified ten highly relevant consequences during pig transport, including handling, group, heat, and motion stress; injury; hunger; thirst; restricted movement; and resting problems. Identified hazards included unfamiliar mixing, handling methods, vehicle deficiencies, road conditions, and adverse microclimates (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2022b).

At cattle slaughter, EFSA identified 12 welfare consequences and 40 potential hazards across arrival, unloading, lairage, handling, restraint, stunning, and bleeding. The assessment attributed most identified hazards to inadequate staff skills or fatigue and described structural and managerial prevention measures (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2020).

Label meaning and verification

The term humane is not a single cross-jurisdictional production standard. In the United States, FSIS reviews voluntary animal-raising claims on meat and poultry labels and requires supporting documentation, but the nature of the documentation depends on the claim. Its 2024 guidance strongly encourages independent third-party certification because of limits on FSIS jurisdiction; the guidance itself is nonbinding (USDA FSIS, 2024). Certification can therefore convey additional standards, but the standard, audit scope, frequency, and enforcement mechanism must be examined label by label.