📅 Prepared January 10, 2026 | 🔄 Revised October 15, 2026 | ✍️ Dirk Adams with the assistance of AI | ⌛ 18 min read, 25 sources

ANIMAL WELFARE 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 October 15, 2026

“Welfare claims on meat and poultry labels — ‘humanely raised,’ ‘pasture-raised,’ ‘free range,’ ‘animal welfare certified’ — should be read as evidence claims, not as self-explanatory proof of higher welfare. The legal architecture treats them as voluntary marketing claims; the science treats welfare as multidimensional. The right question is not whether the package uses the word, but what verifiable practices and animal-based outcomes sit behind it.”

Photo: Dairy Cow by Smudge 9000, CC BY 2.0, via Flickr.

At a glance

• Animal welfare in scientific use is multidimensional. USDA’s National Agricultural Library and the Fraser et al. framework describe welfare as covering biological functioning, emotional state, and the ability to express natural behaviors. The Five Domains model organizes welfare into nutrition, physical environment, health, behavioral interactions, and mental state; its 2020 update considers human–animal interactions within the behavioural-interactions domain rather than as a sixth domain.^1,2,5

• U.S. federal law does not impose a comprehensive on-farm welfare standard for food animals. The Animal Welfare Act generally excludes livestock and poultry used for food, fiber, or other agricultural purposes; USDA’s Animal Welfare Information Center confirms USDA’s AWA authority does not extend to those animals.^3,6

• Federal oversight is strongest at four control points: label approval, transport, inspection, and slaughter. The Federal Meat Inspection Act and Humane Methods of Slaughter Act govern livestock slaughter; the Twenty-Eight Hour Law governs long-distance transport.^7,8,10

• Poultry is treated differently. FSIS verifies poultry handling under “Good Commercial Practices” inside the poultry inspection framework rather than under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.⁹

• Animal-raising claims such as “humanely raised,” “pasture-raised,” and “free range” are treated by FSIS as voluntary special statements or claims. FSIS reviews supporting documentation case by case and strongly encourages third-party certification.^4,16,17

• A 2026 Journal of Animal Science survey of 1,485 U.S. consumers found generally low trust across all nine meat and poultry claim categories tested, with animal-welfare and environment-related claims among the least trusted; respondents said third-party certification would raise their trust, a stated expectation rather than a measured effect.¹⁹

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 its 2020 update brings human–animal interactions into the behavioural-interactions domain rather than adding a sixth domain. A framework for assessing welfare is not, by itself, a validated numerical score for a label.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. Federal protection is fragmented rather than absent, however: certified organic livestock operations, for example, must meet federal health-care and living-condition rules, and organic status does not justify withholding necessary treatment.²⁰

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 oversight applies at federally inspected livestock slaughter establishments, through “at least equal to” state programs, and, in periodic reviews rather than continuous inspection, to custom-exempt livestock slaughter operations.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 regulations require that poultry be slaughtered “in accordance with good commercial practices in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding of the carcasses and ensure that breathing has stopped prior to scalding” (9 CFR 381.65(b)), and FSIS describes adherence as “a process control issue and not a bird-by-bird performance standard issue.”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. For transportation the Twenty-Eight Hour Law covers — by rail, express, or common carrier other than air or water — animals generally may not be confined for more than 28 consecutive hours without being unloaded for feed, water, and at least five consecutive hours of rest. The statute allows a 36-hour extension on the owner’s written request, extra time for sheep when the 28-hour period ends at night, exceptions for unavoidable delays, and an exception when the vehicle itself provides food, water, space, and an opportunity to rest. It is not an unconditional 28-hour maximum for every livestock journey.^10,21 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.

Federal control point	Authority	What it covers	Welfare gap
On-farm husbandry	Animal Welfare Act	Excludes livestock and poultry raised for food, fiber, or other agricultural purposes.^3,6	No universal federal on-farm code; specific federal programs, including organic, apply.
Livestock slaughter	Federal Meat Inspection Act; Humane Methods of Slaughter Act; FSIS humane-handling guidance	Requires humane handling and slaughter at federally inspected livestock plants.^7,8	Slaughter-stage only; federal, state-inspected, and (by periodic review) custom-exempt livestock operations.
Poultry slaughter	FSIS Directive 6110.1, “Good Commercial Practices”	Verifies poultry handling within the poultry inspection framework — not under HMSA.⁹	Different legal mechanism than livestock; inconsistent consumer expectations.
Long-distance transport	Twenty-Eight Hour Law	For covered carriers, a 5-hour rest, feed, and water break after 28 consecutive hours, with statutory extensions and exceptions.^10,21	Does not measure fitness for transport, heat stress, or handling quality.
Label claims	FSIS animal-raising claims guidance	Reviews supporting documentation; encourages third-party certification.^4,16,17	Voluntary; no codified federal definition for many animal-raising claims.

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 pose welfare challenges such as variable climate, parasites, and predation. The review focuses on animal-based measures and calls for shared assessment procedures for animals on pasture.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. 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 (2006) 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 five recommendations covering labels with insufficient supporting documentation, internal standard operating procedures, periodic review of approved labels, outreach on generic labels, and inspector verification of mandatory label features. OIG lists all five as closed. Closure is an administrative status for the controls examined in 2020, not evidence that every label is now accurate or that any particular welfare claim has been verified.¹⁸

Recent consumer research reinforces the transparency problem. A 2026 Journal of Animal Science study of 1,485 U.S. respondents analyzed 1,485 usable responses to a survey fielded in December 2024. It reported that all nine claim categories tested received generally low levels of trust; animal-welfare and environment-related claims were among the least trusted, breed and source/traceability claims the most trusted, and the authors conclude that third-party certifications can enhance trust, with respondents mainly trusting USDA to certify claims. The certification finding reflects respondents’ stated expectations, not a measured change in trust or purchasing.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:

FAT review category	Evidence to request
Species and system	Species, breed or strain where relevant, production system, housing type, pasture/outdoor access, and production stage covered.
Claim definition	Written definition of each welfare-related claim as used on the package or supplier website.
Legal baseline	Whether the claim exceeds federal or state minimum requirements, and whether it applies to livestock, poultry, or both.
Management practices	Protocols for stocking density, enrichment, health care, painful procedures, handling, transport, and slaughter.
Animal-based outcomes	Lameness, injuries, lesions, mortality, vocalization, falls, stunning effectiveness, non-ambulatory animals, and other measurable indicators.
Verification	Third-party certification, audit reports, corrective actions, scope of audit, and chain-of-custody documentation.
Traceability	Lot-level traceability from farm or ranch to processor, segregation of conforming and nonconforming animals, and label records.

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.

These are editorial questions for evaluating disclosure and support. They are not a substitute for observing animals, a certification decision, or a validated numerical welfare score, and they sit within FAT’s existing 16-category framework rather than replacing it.

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:

What exactly happened to the animal, how was it verified, and what measurable welfare outcomes support the claim?

Revision note

Reviewed October 15, 2026. This revision corrects identified legal, numerical, and citation issues using the sources cited here; source-access limits are stated where they apply, and historical findings are not presented as current rates. A second pass the same day, responding to an outside review, adds organic animal-care rules to the federal-coverage summary, qualifies the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, places human–animal interactions within the Five Domains model, limits the poultry discussion to broilers, describes the 2026 trust survey’s certification finding as stated expectations, restores the verified Grandin issue number, and adds working endnote links. The first pass narrows the description of the 2020 pasture-welfare review to the challenges that review names, restates the 2026 consumer-trust findings in the authors’ terms, quotes the poultry slaughter regulation directly, completes the OIG recommendation summary and its status, and corrects the Five Domains author list. Companion papers: Humane Handling Enforcement at U.S. Slaughter Establishments, Animal Welfare Certifiers in the U.S. Meat Supply, and Third-Party Animal Welfare Certification Programs.

Endnotes

USDA National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center, “Housing, Care and Welfare of Animals,” accessed May 2, 2026, nal.usda.gov. ↩
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. ↩
USDA National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center, “Animal Welfare Act,” accessed May 2, 2026, nal.usda.gov. ↩
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. ↩
David J. Mellor, Ngaio J. Beausoleil, Katherine E. Littlewood, Andrew N. McLean, Paul D. McGreevy, Bidda Jones, and Cristina Wilkins, “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. ↩
USDA National Agricultural Library, “Animal Welfare Act Quick Reference Guides,” accessed May 2, 2026, nal.usda.gov. ↩
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Federal Meat Inspection Act,” accessed May 2, 2026, fsis.usda.gov. ↩
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. ↩
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Verification of Poultry Good Commercial Practices,” FSIS Directive 6110.1, July 3, 2018, and 9 CFR 381.65(b), fsis.usda.gov. ↩
USDA National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center, “Twenty-Eight Hour Law,” accessed May 2, 2026, nal.usda.gov. ↩
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. ↩
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. ↩
W. Bessei, “Welfare of Broilers: A Review,” World’s Poultry Science Journal 62, no. 3 (2006): 455–466, doi:10.1017/S0043933906001085. ↩
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. ↩
Temple Grandin, “Auditing Animal Welfare at Slaughter Plants,” Meat Science 86, no. 1 (2010): 56–65, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.022. ↩
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. ↩
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. ↩
USDA Office of Inspector General, “Controls Over Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product Labels,” Audit Report No. 24601-0002-23, June 18, 2020, oig.usda.gov. ↩
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. ↩
7 CFR §205.238, “Livestock health care practice standard,” and §205.239, “Livestock living conditions,” law.cornell.edu; USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, “Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards,” ams.usda.gov. ↩
49 U.S.C. §80502, “Transportation of animals,” law.cornell.edu. ↩

Sources

Working paper. Figures are as reported by the sources cited. Corrections welcome: dirkadams@farmanimaltransparency.com.