Comparison of 12 Different Animal Welfare Labeling Schemes in the Pig Sector

Simple Summary Welfare requirements from an animal point of view are the same regardless of the country. However, differing requirements of animal welfare schemes make it hard for consumers to make informed choices. Therefore, an open and coherent labeling scheme that provides information on farm animal welfare will be beneficial from the consumer perspective. We reviewed 12 pig welfare schemes. We aimed to identify consistencies and differences in welfare requirements between these schemes. The studied welfare requirements were heterogeneous in the potential each scheme had to advance pig welfare. Certain requirements barely exceeded the minimum standards for the protection of pigs in European Union (EU) legislation, but the more demanding tiers of multitier schemes had the potential to enhance animal welfare. The most ambitious tiers could improve animal welfare substantially and, in terms of resources available to the animal, they often were convergent with organic animal farming standards. Because of variation of welfare requirements between the labels, it was challenging to compare existing labeling schemes. Adopting a harmonized labeling terminology and standard, increased use of animal-based measures, and open communication will make labeling more reliable and transparent, which will contribute to the availability of standardized animal-friendly products and will be equitable from an animal welfare perspective. Animal welfare labeling schemes have been developed to respond to consumers' expectations regarding farm animal welfare. They are designed to certify that labeled products comply with certain animal welfare standards. In this study, 12 pig welfare labeling schemes were reviewed, and their criteria related to pig welfare were compared. Information regarding farrowing criteria, space allowance, outdoor access, mutilations, and provision of enrichments and bedding material were gathered from the labels' internet pages and documentation. The results indicated a substantial variation between the labels in terms of the level of animal welfare they ensure. While certain schemes barely exceeded the minimum standards for the protection of pigs in the European Union, more demanding tiers of the multitier schemes had the potential to improve animal welfare substantially. The most ambitious tiers of multistage schemes were often comparable to organic standards providing outdoor facilities and additional space. The heterogeneity of the labels' standards complicates the comparison of labels.