‘Truth in labeling?’ Only if it hurts the meat industry’s plant-based competition

As families across the country resolve to eat better in the new year, those committed to purchasing meat and poultry advertised as “humanely raised” will be confronted with a dizzying (and deceptive) selection of products, labels and claims — all sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Eager to capitalize on increasing consumer demand for environmentally friendly dietary alternatives, producers slap labels such as “humanely raised” or “sustainably farmed” on their packaging without offering meaningful evidence to buttress their claims. While the USDA has no jurisdiction over how billions of animals are treated on the farm — the majority of them raised in horrendous conditions — the department is tasked with reviewing and approving claims about how animals are raised.

Yet the USDA’s lack of oversight allows producers to exploit the system, according to recent research by AWI, the Animal Welfare Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit. AWI analyzed a selection of USDA label approval files from 2014 to 2018, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

We found that vague, subjective terms such as “thoughtfully raised” and “ethically raised” are meaningless when it comes to animal welfare, in large part because there are no regulatory standards governing their use. Instead, the USDA allows producers to make animal welfare and environmental stewardship claims so long as the producer’s definition for the language can be found somewhere on the package — even if it is irrelevant or misleading. Consumers remain in the dark, because most producers refuse to make their actual standards available to the public.

While the USDA ostensibly requires additional documentation from producers to justify their claims, the department failed to provide any substantiation for half of the 23 claims reviewed by AWI. When so-called “verification” was included, it was grossly inadequate. For instance, the USDA approved a “humanely raised” claim for a Pennsylvania turkey producer based on an affidavit containing only two sentences. Other producers used third-party certifications to bolster their claims, but submitted expired certificates.

In the end, producers can easily make animal-welfare claims on their packages — and charge a premium — without actually improving the treatment of animals raised under their care.

Surveys consistently show that consumers don’t trust health and welfare statements on food labels, yet lawmakers have refused to address the problem. Instead, they would rather placate the meat lobby by focusing on the supposed “confusion” between animal meat and plant-based or cell-cultured alternatives.

The federal Real Marketing Edible Artificials Truthfully Act, or Real MEAT Act, introduced last October by Reps. Anthony Brindisi of New York and Roger Marshall of Kansas, would require plant-based beef substitutes, such as the popular Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger lines, to carry prominent “imitation” labeling. Earlier this month, Sen. Deb Fischer, a Nebraska Republican, introduced a companion measure in the Senate, endorsed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and other meat industry groups.

“Americans deserve to know what’s on their dinner plate,” Fischer explained. “The Real MEAT Act will protect consumers from deceptive marketing practices and bring transparency to the grocery store.”

This legislation simply highlights the hypocrisy of the meat industry: “truth in labeling” only when it gives animal products a leg up.

The USDA’s failure to enforce animal-raising claims is unacceptable, particularly at a time when consumers are demanding more transparency in food production. It also harms producers who pay for independent certifications and adhere to higher standards, such as ensuring that every animal has access to fresh air and space to engage in natural behaviors.

To help consumers avoid contributing to animal suffering, AWI publishes a comprehensive guide to food labels. We list A Greener World’s “Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW,” Global Animal Partnership’s “Animal Welfare Certified” Steps 4 and 5 and other third-party-certified labels among the best choices.

Families also might consider incorporating more plant-based alternatives as they prepare holiday meals and make their New Year’s resolutions. As more people reduce meat consumption and select legitimate, high-welfare products, producers will eventually learn they can do the right thing — treat animals with compassion — while remaining profitable.

Erin Sutherland is the staff attorney for the farm animal program at the Animal Welfare Institute.

This story was originally published January 3, 2020 at 4:59 AM with the headline "‘Truth in labeling?’ Only if it hurts the meat industry’s plant-based competition."