By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Alex Gonzalez for Nevada News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

American grocery shoppers say they care about animal welfare at the supermarket, and the food industry is paying attention. Branding meat, dairy and eggs with the “humanely raised” label has become increasingly common, and according to the meat industry’s research, these types of labels are enough to satisfy buyers. A 2024 study found 55 percent of Americans “feel good about animal welfare practices” in the United States — up from 43 percent in 2020. Why the uptick in such labels? Not only do they seem to be working, these labels are shockingly easy to obtain — and largely unregulated.

Who’s in Charge of Labeling Claims?

The claims you encounter on meat labels are overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspections Service (FSIS). The agency reviews company claims made on food labels, about how livestock animals are raised.…such as “humanely raised,” “ethically raised,” and the like. But what does a brand have to do in order to get its label approved?

First, the company must fill out a form, and add required documentation, including a sketch, also known as a printer’s proof, of the label, along with written substantiation for any claims. “Processors need to submit documentation explaining what practices were used,” John Bovay, associate professor in food and agricultural policy at Virginia Tech, tells Sentient. The documentation should show “how farms ensured that the practices were used throughout the animal’s life.” The agency reviews the documentation, Bovay says, “and the label is approved or disapproved based on the documentation provided by processors.”

Yet no one actually goes onto farms to inspect that the claims are accurate, Bovay says. “USDA does not send inspectors to farms to verify any label claims, but relies on written substantiation or documentation from processors.”

How is Humane Defined?

Consumers might be surprised to learn there is no legal definition for this marketing claim. “USDA does not define ‘humanely raised’ or other labeling terms related to animal welfare,” Bovay explains, “so processors can create their own definitions.”

“The only thing that the guidelines require is that the company include how it chooses to define humanely raised, either on the package itself or links to where a consumer can find that definition on the company’s website,” Zack Strong, senior attorney and acting director with Animal Welfare Institute’s Farmed Animal program, tells Sentient. In some cases, he says, “humanely raised” might mean not being caged or being fed a vegetarian diet. But it could also refer to what are already standard industry conditions on factory farms.

Bovay concurs. “It appears that ‘humane’ can be used to describe standard farming practices or even concepts unrelated to animal welfare. The current FSIS guidelines on substantiating animal-raising labeling claims provide an example of a product with a ‘humanely raised’ label, where the term ‘humanely raised’ is defined as ‘fed all vegetarian diet with no animal by-products.’” He says “this diet doesn’t strike me as assuring that the animal was humanely raised.”

A 2023 review by the Animal Welfare Institute, which advocates for better labeling oversight, found that for 48 of the 97 the label claims it investigated, “the USDA was unable to provide any application submitted by the producer,” in response to a records request made by the group. In 34 of the claims, the corporate applicant provided either no substantiation at all or insufficient substantiation. In total, AWI found 85 percent of the applications lacked sufficient substantiation.

In the report, AWI researchers provide examples of inefficient substantiation, including documentation showing only minimum industry animal care standards were followed or claims where only one aspect of care, such as diet, was included. The AWI is not aware of any corrective action taken, or penalties imposed by FSIS in response to the findings in the group’s report, Strong says.

In August 2024, the USDA updated its guidelines. It now includes that the FSIS “strongly recommends” substantiating claims by obtaining third-party certification, which is aimed at a range of claims, including antibiotic use and animal welfare. But the new guidelines are a recommendation only, and may not go any further once President-elect Trump heads back to the White House.

The same lack of oversight holds for other marketing materials too, says Strong. “Pamphlets, brochures, website information that might also accompany a product in the store or online — none of that information needs [government] approval,” he says. “The only thing that needs approval is the label itself that’s on the product,” and, as we’ve seen, that approval doesn’t take much to obtain.

The Bottom Line

There are other labeling schemes worth mentioning. Some third party certification programs, such as Animal Welfare Approved, Global Animal Partnership and Certified Humane, do have specific standards around what humane means.

On its website Certified Humane states “Our goal is to ensure that farm animals are raised in humane conditions, free from abnormal distress, and allowed to express their natural behaviors.” Consumers should be aware, however, that unlike Organic, these labels are not defined or regulated by law.

As the market for “humane” food labels continues to grow, a lack of regulation and of clear definitions for humane meat claims leaves consumers vulnerable. The terms “humane” and “humanely raised” can vary widely in meaning, or mean nothing at all. Without more stringent oversight, clearer definitions and on-site verifications, the risk of humane-washing persists, victimizing both consumers and animals.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Industrial farming practices could be boosting the spread of bird flu.

Avian influenza has been detected in poultry across the country, including in North Carolina, where 3.3 million birds had to be culled because of the disease at one farm alone in January.

Rania Masri, co-director of the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network, said concentrated animal feeding operations used for poultry are a breeding ground for disease.

"CAFOs by design amplify the formation, the mutation and the spread of new viruses," Masri explained. "Which can very simply and quickly transform into a full-blown epidemic."

Masri pointed out industrial farms in North Carolina disproportionately affect low income communities and communities of color. Her organization signed a letter with other public interest groups calling for more transparent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The North Carolina Environmental Justice Network is also calling on the state to be more transparent with its data.

Craig Watts, a farmer and director of the contract grower transition program for the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, said diseases like bird flu at large industrial operations can create bottlenecks, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic when farms did not have workers and had to kill their birds.

"While they're killing those birds in the field, now our shelves are empty," Watts observed. "If you have smaller, more localized, regional, you might have an issue in, say, North Carolina but maybe it wouldn't affect Nebraska like a breakdown in the industrial system will."

Masri believes the control of the industry by a small handful of corporations is bad for democracy.

"The only thing that the industrial farming is good for is the shareholders of these mega-corporations," Masri contended.


get more stories like this via email

A tragic case of neglect that claimed the life of a senior dog in 2021 is now driving change in Michigan, as lawmakers recently introduced "Buddy's Law" to protect animals. The Bipartisan bills aim to close a loophole that hinders authorities from rescuing animals stranded in extreme weather without access to adequate shelter. The bills stalled last year.

Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou, D-East Lansing, reintroduced the legislation last week, alongside Republican Rep. Joseph Aragona, R-Clinton Township and Rep. Brian BeGole, R-Antrim Township. The effort gained momentum after petitions from citizens sharing the story of Buddy, who froze to death after being left in the cold.

"If we can pass on something like this, this will go a long way, allowing our animal control and humane organizations, as well as our law enforcement, to get those dogs inside," Tsernoglou said.

Adequate shelter for dogs must be weatherproof, insulated and elevated to protect against the elements, while allowing enough space for comfort and movement. "Buddy's law" is now in the Judiciary Committee for review.

The bills expand the current definition of "shelter" to include "insulation and protection from the cold and damp." Tsernoglou stresses that she and her colleagues carefully designed the legislation to empower authorities to take action when needed.

"Certain standards have to be met," Tsernoglou said. "So, I mean these were things that we worked on with various humane organizations, as well as animal control officers to make sure that we were putting the right language in there."

Michigan residents are encouraged to report suspected animal abuse or neglect to local authorities or animal welfare organizations.


get more stories like this via email

The New Mexico state House of Representatives has advanced an appropriations bill advancing funding for new wildlife migration-crossing corridors to keep large animals and vehicles out of each other's path. It goes to the state Senate next week. The measure allots $50 million for constructing underpasses and overpasses to allow elk, deer, bears and other migrating animals to avoid crossing roadways.

Jim Hirsch, wildlife coordinator in District 4 with the New Mexico Department of Transportation, says the crossings keep both drivers and animals out of harm's way.

"You can have a reduction of well over 95% in wildlife vehicle collisions. Research with trail cameras have demonstrated that these structures are indeed used by a variety of wildlife," he said.

There are at least 1,200 such crashes reported to law enforcement each year, costing drivers nearly $20 million in vehicle damage, emergency response and hospital bills. An adult male elk can weigh up to 600 pounds and do catastrophic damage to a car or truck in a collision.

The Wildlife Corridors Act was passed with bipartisan support during the 2023 legislative session, but lawmakers failed in 2024 to approve funding for the project. State officials say if the Appropriations Bill is approved, they will plan and build dozens of bridge-like structures over the next few years.

Garrett Vene Klasen, director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, says the project is critical.

"These projects are incredibly expensive. An overpass can cost upwards of 150 million or more. I mean, they're absolutely crucial for both people's safety, public safety, and for the wildlife themselves," he explained.

Wildlife Migration Corridors have been built in several other states, including California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming. A federal Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program was included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure package signed into law in 2021.


get more stories like this via email