← FAT Research Library

📅 Prepared January 10, 2026  |  🔄 Revised May 2, 2026

✍️ Dirk Adams

⌛ 14 min read

WELFARE & LABELING RESEARCH SERIES | RESEARCH PAPER

Animal Welfare in U.S. Meat Production:

What the Term Means in Science and Regulation, and How to Read Welfare Claims on Meat and Poultry Labels

Animal welfare is one of the most frequently cited — and least uniformly defined — concepts in U.S. meat production and labeling. In scientific and government usage, welfare is not limited to whether animals are alive, productive, or legally processed; USDA’s National Agricultural Library and the broader animal-welfare science literature describe it as a function of biological functioning, emotional state, and the ability to express natural behaviors. Federal law does not provide a comprehensive on-farm welfare standard for food animals: the Animal Welfare Act generally excludes livestock and poultry raised for food, and federal oversight is concentrated at specific control points — label approval, transport, inspection, and slaughter.^1,2,3,4

Prepared for publication by Farm Animal Transparency | Originally January 10, 2026 · Revised May 2, 2026 (academic and government research citations added)

At a glance

Executive Summary

Animal welfare is one of the most frequently cited — and least uniformly defined — concepts in U.S. meat production and labeling. In scientific and government usage, animal welfare is not limited to whether animals are alive, productive, or legally processed. USDA’s National Agricultural Library describes welfare assessment as requiring consideration of biological functioning, emotional state, and the animal’s ability to express natural behaviors.¹ A widely cited animal-welfare science framework similarly identifies three overlapping concerns: whether animals function well, feel well, and can live in ways consistent with their natural adaptations and capabilities.²

From a U.S. regulatory perspective, there is no single comprehensive federal welfare standard that applies across all stages of food-animal production. Federal oversight is strongest at specific control points — label approval, transport, inspection, and slaughter — while most on-farm husbandry standards are governed by state law, private standards, industry programs, or voluntary third-party audits. The Animal Welfare Act generally excludes livestock and poultry used or intended for use as food or fiber, and USDA’s Animal Welfare Information Center states that USDA regulatory authority under that law does not extend to farm animals used for food, fiber, or other agricultural purposes.³

For FAT, the core transparency problem is that animal-welfare claims on labels may signal very different underlying practices. Terms such as “humanely raised,” “animal welfare certified,” “pasture-raised,” “free range,” or “raised with care” should be interpreted as claims requiring evidence, not as self-explanatory proof of higher welfare. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) treats animal-raising claims as voluntary special statements or claims and strongly encourages third-party certification to substantiate them.⁴

I. What animal welfare means in scientific research

Animal welfare is multidimensional. Scientific assessment typically combines animal-based measures, resource-based measures, and management-based measures. Animal-based measures include direct evidence from the animal, such as lameness, injury, body condition, lesions, fear responses, vocalization, mortality, morbidity, ability to move, and behavioral expression. Resource-based measures include housing, stocking density, bedding, ventilation, outdoor access, feed, water, and enrichment. Management-based measures include handling protocols, veterinary care, pain mitigation, transport procedures, slaughter procedures, and audit systems.

The Five Domains model is one influential welfare-assessment framework. It organizes welfare considerations into nutrition, physical environment, health, behavioral interactions, and mental state, and has been updated to include human-animal interactions as a major welfare factor.⁵ This is important for meat production because welfare can be compromised at multiple stages: breeding, rearing, housing, feeding, handling, loading, transport, lairage, stunning, and slaughter.

FAT should therefore avoid reducing welfare to a single binary question such as “humane” versus “not humane.” A more accurate transparency framework asks: Which species? Which production stage? Which welfare indicators? Which claim? Which verification system? Which evidence?

II. U.S. regulatory context for animal welfare in meat production

U.S. federal law does not create a unified welfare code for all farm animals from birth to slaughter. The Animal Welfare Act is a major federal animal-welfare statute, but it generally excludes livestock and poultry used or intended for food or fiber.⁶ As a result, many husbandry practices that matter to welfare — such as confinement systems, stocking density, outdoor access, painful procedures, enrichment, and routine handling — are not governed by a single federal on-farm welfare standard.

USDA/FSIS has important authority over inspection, labeling, and slaughter. The Federal Meat Inspection Act requires inspection of livestock before slaughter and includes humane methods of slaughter provisions.⁷ The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act requires the handling and slaughtering of livestock to be carried out by humane methods, and FSIS humane-handling guidance applies to livestock slaughter establishments.⁸

Poultry is treated differently. FSIS verifies poultry handling under “Good Commercial Practices” within the poultry inspection framework rather than under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS guidance states that poultry must be slaughtered in accordance with Good Commercial Practices and in a manner that ensures breathing has stopped before scalding.⁹ For FAT, this distinction is important because consumers may assume “humane slaughter” protections apply uniformly across meat and poultry when the legal mechanisms differ by species.

Transport is another limited federal control point. The Twenty-Eight Hour Law requires livestock transported for longer than 28 consecutive hours to be unloaded for at least five consecutive hours for feed, water, and rest, subject to statutory exceptions.¹⁰ This provides a basic transport safeguard, but it does not by itself measure fitness for transport, heat stress, loading injuries, handling quality, or total welfare outcomes.

III. Species-specific baselines in animal welfare

Animal welfare outcomes are strongly influenced by species biology and production-system design. The same label claim may mean very different things for cattle, pigs, chickens, turkeys, lamb, or bison. A “pasture-raised” or “free range” claim for poultry, for example, does not necessarily tell the consumer how often birds went outdoors, what percentage of their lives was spent indoors, how dense the indoor housing was, or whether outdoor access was practically usable.

Cattle and other ruminants. Beef cattle may have more physical mobility and outdoor exposure than animals in more intensive indoor systems, but pasture or range access alone does not prove high welfare. Research on pasture-based ruminant systems notes that outdoor and extensive systems may allow more natural behavior, but also create welfare challenges related to weather, parasites, nutrition, predation, terrain, and monitoring difficulty. The same review calls for shared methodologies and animal-based indicators when welfare claims are made for pasture-based systems.¹¹

Pigs. Swine welfare is highly affected by housing, stocking density, flooring, enrichment, group management, handling, transport stress, lameness, lesions, and slaughter conditions. A 2025 systematic review of pig-welfare indicators at slaughter identified feasible indicators across behavioral, health, post-mortem, physiological, and product-quality categories, including falling, slipping, vocalization, body lesions, tail lesions, lameness, dead animals, and non-walking animals.¹²

Broiler chickens and turkeys. Poultry welfare is closely tied to genetics, growth rate, stocking density, litter quality, ventilation, leg health, contact dermatitis, light programs, heat stress, and handling during catching and slaughter. A review of broiler welfare identifies stocking density as a central welfare issue and links high stocking density to litter and air-quality problems, contact dermatitis, heat-stress risk, and leg-health concerns.¹³

This species context is essential for FAT because identical label language can mask very different lived experiences. A welfare claim should be interpreted against the biological needs of the species and the practical realities of the production system.

IV. Core animal-welfare practices in U.S. meat production

Key components of animal welfare in meat production include housing conditions, stocking density, bedding, ventilation, feed and water access, ability to move, outdoor access where claimed, environmental enrichment, health management, painful-procedure management, handling, loading, transport, lairage, stunning, and slaughter. Improvements in welfare often require changes to infrastructure, labor practices, genetics, management protocols, veterinary oversight, and audit systems.

Objective welfare auditing is especially important at slaughter. Temple Grandin’s work on slaughter-plant auditing helped establish measurable handling and stunning indicators such as effective stunning on the first attempt, insensibility, vocalization, slipping, falling, and electric-goad use.¹⁴ Later work emphasized that animal-based outcome measures can reveal welfare problems that are not captured by written policies alone.¹⁵

FAT should distinguish between policy claims and outcome evidence. A policy may say that animals are handled carefully, but outcome evidence asks whether animals actually fell, slipped, vocalized, arrived lame, arrived dead, were mishandled, or were stunned effectively.

V. Animal-welfare claims on meat labels

Welfare-related claims such as “humanely raised,” “animal welfare certified,” “pasture-raised,” “free range,” “cage free,” and similar language are increasingly common on meat and poultry labels. FSIS evaluates animal-raising and environment-related claims case by case and requires supporting documentation when such claims appear as special statements or claims. In its updated guidance, FSIS strongly encourages third-party certification and more robust documentation for animal-raising and environment-related claims.¹⁶

However, label review is not the same as a uniform welfare standard. FSIS states that animal-raising claims are voluntary, and the agency has not codified all animal-raising claim definitions in regulation. The 2024 FSIS notice explains that producers’ practices and consumer expectations change over time, and that FSIS evaluates supporting documentation rather than imposing one fixed federal definition for every animal-raising claim.¹⁷

Government oversight has also identified weaknesses in label controls. A USDA Office of Inspector General audit evaluated FSIS controls over meat, poultry, and egg product labels to determine whether approvals were accurate and supported, and made recommendations related to supporting documentation, standard operating procedures, periodic review, and inspector verification.¹⁸

Recent consumer research reinforces the transparency problem. A 2026 Journal of Animal Science study of 1,485 U.S. respondents found that consumers generally had low trust across meat and poultry claim categories; animal-welfare and environment-related claims were among the least trusted, while third-party certification could enhance trust.¹⁹

VI. Certification and verification in welfare claims

Third-party certification can improve transparency, but certifications are not equivalent. Programs differ in their baseline requirements, species coverage, audit frequency, public standards, scoring methods, use of animal-based indicators, allowance of confinement systems, transport requirements, slaughter requirements, and corrective-action procedures.

For FAT, a welfare certification should be evaluated by asking:

• Does the standard publish clear species-specific requirements?
• Does it measure animal-based welfare outcomes, not just written policies?
• Does it cover the full life cycle or only a limited production stage?
• Does it include transport and slaughter?
• Are audits performed by an independent third party?
• Are audit results, corrective actions, or scoring thresholds public?
• Does the certifier allow practices that many consumers would not associate with the claim?

Because certifications vary, FAT should treat certification as a source of evidence, not as a final answer. A strong certification provides clear standards, independent audits, animal-based outcome measures, traceability, and lifecycle scope. A weak certification may provide little more than a label-facing assurance.

VII. Limits of label-based transparency

Animal welfare cannot be fully conveyed through brief label claims. Labels rarely disclose stocking density, time outdoors, indoor housing conditions, breed or growth rate, transport duration, mortality, lameness, injury rates, enrichment, stunning success, or whether animals were excluded from the claim due to exceptions. Labels also rarely reveal whether a claim applies to the full life of the animal or only to one stage.

This creates a risk of overinterpretation. Consumers may read “pasture-raised,” “humane,” or “welfare certified” as meaning that animals had consistently high welfare. In reality, these claims may vary widely depending on species, standard, certifier, farm, processor, and evidence base.

VIII. FAT transparency standard for animal-welfare claims

FAT should evaluate animal-welfare claims using a structured evidence framework rather than a yes/no label interpretation. Each product or supplier should be reviewed across the following categories:

A strong welfare claim should be supported by a published standard, independent verification, species-specific practices, animal-based outcomes, and traceable records. A weak welfare claim relies mainly on vague language, supplier self-attestation, or marketing descriptions without measurable evidence.

The FAT perspective

Animal welfare in U.S. meat production cannot be reduced to a single label, certification mark, or marketing phrase. Welfare outcomes depend on species biology, housing, handling, transport, slaughter, management quality, and the rigor of verification systems. Academic research shows that welfare includes physical health, emotional experience, and natural behavior. Government sources show that U.S. regulation is fragmented, with limited federal coverage of on-farm food-animal welfare and stronger oversight at labeling, transport, inspection, and slaughter control points.

For FAT, the most transparent approach is to treat animal-welfare claims as evidence claims. The central question should not be whether a package uses welfare language. The central question should be:

Endnotes

1. USDA National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center, “Housing, Care and Welfare of Animals,” accessed May 2, 2026, nal.usda.gov. ↩
2. David Fraser, Daniel M. Weary, E. A. Pajor, and B. N. Milligan, “A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns,” Animal Welfare 6, no. 3 (1997): 187–205, doi:10.1017/S0962728600019795. ↩
3. USDA National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center, “Animal Welfare Act,” accessed May 2, 2026, nal.usda.gov. ↩
4. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Constituent Update — August 30, 2024: FSIS Announces Availability of Guideline on Substantiating Animal-Raising or Environment-Related Labeling Claims,” August 30, 2024, fsis.usda.gov. ↩
5. David J. Mellor et al., “The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare,” Animals 10, no. 10 (2020): 1870, doi:10.3390/ani10101870; David J. Mellor, “Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare,” Animals 7, no. 8 (2017): 60, doi:10.3390/ani7080060. ↩
6. USDA National Agricultural Library, “Animal Welfare Act Quick Reference Guides,” accessed May 2, 2026, nal.usda.gov. ↩
7. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Federal Meat Inspection Act,” accessed May 2, 2026, fsis.usda.gov. ↩
8. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Humane Handling,” accessed May 2, 2026, fsis.usda.gov; USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Humane Methods of Slaughter Act,” last updated June 9, 2023, fsis.usda.gov. ↩
9. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Verification of Poultry Good Commercial Practices,” FSIS Directive 6110.1, fsis.usda.gov. ↩
10. USDA National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center, “Twenty-Eight Hour Law,” accessed May 2, 2026, nal.usda.gov. ↩
11. Chiara Spigarelli, Anna Zuliani, Monica Battini, Silvana Mattiello, and Stefano Bovolenta, “Welfare Assessment on Pasture: A Review on Animal-Based Measures for Ruminants,” Animals 10, no. 4 (2020): 609, doi:10.3390/ani10040609. ↩
12. Nancy F. Huanca-Marca et al., “Assessment of Pig Welfare at Slaughterhouse Level: A Systematic Review of Animal-Based Indicators Suitable for Inclusion in Monitoring Protocols,” Meat Science 220 (2025): 109689, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109689. ↩
13. W. Bessei, “Welfare of Broilers: A Review,” World’s Poultry Science Journal 62, no. 3 (2006): 455–466, doi:10.1017/S0043933906001085. ↩
14. Temple Grandin, “Objective Scoring of Animal Handling and Stunning Practices at Slaughter Plants,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 212, no. 1 (1998): 36–39. ↩
15. Temple Grandin, “Auditing Animal Welfare at Slaughter Plants,” Meat Science 86, no. 1 (2010): 56–65, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.022. ↩
16. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, “USDA Releases Updated Guideline to Strengthen Substantiation of Animal-Raising and Environment-Related Claims on Meat and Poultry Labels,” August 28, 2024, usda.gov. ↩
17. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Availability of FSIS Guideline on Substantiating Animal-Raising or Environment-Related Labeling Claims,” Docket No. FSIS-2024-0010, September 10, 2024, fsis.usda.gov. ↩
18. USDA Office of Inspector General, “Controls Over Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product Labels,” Audit Report No. 24601-0002-23, June 18, 2020, usdaoig.oversight.gov. ↩
19. Andrew Dilley, Brandon R. McFadden, James L. Mitchell, and Jada M. Thompson, “Claiming Confidence: U.S. Consumer Trust in Meat and Poultry Claims,” Journal of Animal Science 104 (2026): skag032, doi:10.1093/jas/skag032. ↩