How FAT Scores Labels
Farm Animal Transparency evaluates every meat, poultry, and seafood label using the same three-step analysis. We never grade on a curve. Each step is assessed independently and surfaced for the consumer:
- What is disclosed?
- How credible is the disclosure?
- Who stands behind the label?
The result is a FAT Score from 0 to 100 — not a quality rating, not a nutrition score — a measure of how much a label actually tells you and how well it backs that up.
The Problem with Animal Protein Labels
Meat, poultry, and seafood labels are designed to market, not to inform. Walk into any grocery store and you will see dozens of different claims — “Natural,” “Humanely Raised,” “Sustainably Sourced,” “Grass-Fed,” “Wild-Caught” — that sound meaningful but carry no consistent legal definition and no standardized verification requirement.
The regulatory picture is fragmented by design. USDA FSIS governs beef, pork, poultry, and catfish. FDA governs all other seafood. Neither agency requires producers to disclose where an animal was raised, what it was fed, what drugs it received, what the processing facility’s enforcement record looks like, or who ultimately owns the brand on the package. Those gaps are not oversights — they reflect decades of lobbying to keep label requirements minimal.
FAT does not accept that this is the consumer’s problem to solve. It is a disclosure problem, and disclosure can be measured.
The Three Steps of a FAT Score
Every label — beef, pork, chicken, turkey, lamb, wild fish, farmed fish, shellfish, catfish — is run through the same three-step analysis.
Step 1 — What Is Disclosed
For each of 16 transparency categories, FAT records whether the information appears on the label and how specifically.
- ✔ Known — the label clearly discloses the information with enough specificity to be meaningful.
- ◑ Partial — some information is present but limited, vague, or non-specific.
- ✕ Missing — the label does not address this category. Absence is recorded as a disclosure gap, not as misconduct.
The 16 categories cover USDA/FSIS or FDA required basics, species, breed or strain, country of origin, farm/ranch (or vessel/fishery for seafood), age at slaughter or harvest timing, processor, Who (corporate ownership), brand, feed (or production method for seafood), animal welfare or handling, medicine, hormones where relevant, quality and palatability, organic or certification status, and supply-chain intermediaries.
Step 2 — How Credible Is the Disclosure
A “Known” disclosure is only as trustworthy as the entity standing behind it. FAT rates every Known and Partial disclosure on a four-tier credibility scale:
- Third-party audited — independent inspection body with a documented audit trail (USDA Organic, GAP, AWA, Certified Humane, MSC, ASC, BAP). Highest weight.
- USDA-reviewed — FSIS or AMS-approved label language, or a USDA Process Verified Program (PVP). Government-backed, no independent audit.
- Producer-affidavit — documented at the producer level but without independent or agency audit.
- Unverified marketing — appears on the label, allowed if not misleading, but has no documented backing.
When a category is Missing there is nothing to rate for credibility — the label simply did not address it.
Step 3 — Who Stands Behind the Label
A label is only as credible as the entities behind it. FAT surfaces the accountability chain on every score:
- The processor, identified by FSIS establishment number (meat, poultry, catfish) or FDA registration (other seafood) — and the processor’s public enforcement record: recalls, residue violations, humane-handling actions, FDA import alerts.
- The brand owner and the corporate parent — who actually controls the label.
- Beneficial ownership and foreign ownership — particularly relevant when foreign-controlled entities make claims about U.S. animals or seafood (Smithfield is owned by China’s WH Group; National Beef is owned by Brazil’s Marfrig).
- Economic concentration — Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) and market-structure data for the relevant species and regulatory regime, because concentrated systems shape what gets disclosed and what gets standardized away.
The accountability chain is the part of the score that a producer cannot rewrite. It is the public record.
The FAT Score
A 0–100 transparency index, built on two equal pillars — Disclosure (Step 1) and Credibility (Step 2) — each worth up to 50 points. Step 3 is reflected in Categories 7 (Processor), 8 (Who), 9 (Brand), and 16 (Supply-Chain Intermediaries), and in the public-record fields attached to those categories.
Pillar 1 — Disclosure (0–50 points)
FAT evaluates 16 transparency categories on every label. Each category earns points based on its disclosure status:
- Known — full credit (1.0×)
- Partial — partial credit (0.4×)
- Missing — no credit (0×)
Pillar 2 — Credibility (0–50 points)
For each disclosed category, FAT assesses how strongly the claim is backed. The credibility weight of each disclosed claim:
- Third-party audited — full weight (1.0×)
- USDA-reviewed — strong weight (0.7×)
- Producer-affidavit — moderate weight (0.4×)
- Unverified marketing — low weight (0.1×)
Credibility is averaged across all disclosed categories. A label with nothing disclosed earns 0 credibility points — there are no claims to evaluate.
FAT Score Grade Scale
| Grade | Range | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| A | 80–100 | Comprehensive disclosure, strongly backed claims |
| B | 65–79 | Good disclosure with solid credibility |
| C | 50–64 | Moderate disclosure or mixed credibility |
| D | 35–49 | Limited disclosure or weakly backed claims |
| F | 0–34 | Minimal disclosure, little or no verification |
What the FAT Score does not measure: Product quality, taste, or palatability. Nutritional value or health benefits. Sustainability or environmental impact in absolute terms. Price, value, or purchasing recommendation. A high FAT Score means the producer told you more and backed it up better. What you do with that information is your decision.
Color-Coded Results
Every FAT result uses a consistent three-color system. The same color always means the same thing — across every category, every screen, and every product type.
- ● Green — the category is fully disclosed and the claim is third-party audited or confirmed by a government audit program.
- ● Amber — the category is partially disclosed, or the claim is USDA-reviewed / producer-affidavit but not independently audited.
- ● Red — the category is not disclosed, or the disclosure is unverified marketing only. A missing disclosure is recorded as a gap, not a violation.
The FAT App applies this same color system on screen as colored indicator bars along the left edge of each category card, so a consumer standing in the meat aisle can read the full transparency profile of a label at a glance without needing to read every word.
What FAT Scores — and What It Does Not
FAT does score: whether a label discloses each of 16 transparency categories; how credible each disclosed claim is; what enforcement records are linked to the processor on the label; what the corporate structure behind the brand actually is; and what supply-chain intermediaries sat between the farm and slaughter.
FAT does not score: food safety, taste, or nutritional quality; whether a production practice is ethically right or wrong; whether a product is worth buying. A label that discloses everything transparently scores well regardless of whether you approve of the production method — and a label that discloses little scores poorly even if the product is excellent.
Enforcement Data — Step 3 in Action
One element of the FAT scoring system goes beyond what appears on the label itself. When a label carries a USDA FSIS establishment number — required on all USDA-inspected meat, poultry, and catfish — FAT retrieves real-time enforcement data from public FSIS datasets and links it to that label. This covers six enforcement areas: recalls, administrative actions, humane handling violations, quarterly enforcement actions, chemical residue violations, and pathogen testing results.
For FDA-regulated seafood, FAT queries FDA import alert history and Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) compliance records linked to the processor. No other consumer-facing tool connects this enforcement data to the label at the point of purchase.
Category-by-Category Scoring Details
The 16 categories are adapted for each product type. Choose the relevant page for full definitions.
- 🥩 How FAT Scores Meat Labels → — the full 16-category meat scoring methodology, including USDA establishment lookup, FSIS enforcement data, foreign ownership, HHI, and supply-chain intermediaries for beef, pork, chicken, turkey, and lamb.
- 🐟 How FAT Scores Seafood Labels → — the full 16-category seafood scoring methodology, including the Siluriformes exception, wild vs. farmed, MSC / ASC / BAP credibility tiers, chain-of-custody intermediaries, and how seafood categories differ from meat.
- 🛒 For Consumers — Shopping with FAT Labels →
- 🚜 For Producers — Enhancing Transparency in Farm Animal Production →
Last reviewed: May 2026