Hormones: What Meat Labels Really Mean
What consumers think this claim means. When shoppers see claims like no hormones, hormone-free, or raised without added hormones, most assume the animal was never exposed to hormones and that the meat is therefore safer or more natural.That intuition is common—but often misleading.
Hormone claims differ sharply by species, and in some cases the claim describes what is already required by law rather than a production choice.
What hormone claims legally mean
In the United States, hormone use is regulated differently across species:
- Beef cattle may legally receive certain approved growth-promoting hormones.
- Poultry and pork are prohibited by federal law from receiving added hormones.
As a result:
- Claims such as no hormones added on chicken or pork describe a legal baseline, not a special practice.
- Hormone-related claims on beef describe production choices that go beyond the minimum legal requirements.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) may review hormone-related label language, but it does not certify animals as “hormone-free.”
How hormone claims are typically supported
Hormone claims generally fall into the following categories:
Species-based legal baseline
For poultry and pork, “no hormones” reflects existing federal law and does not require additional verification.
Producer records and affidavits
For beef, claims often rely on producer documentation showing that no approved growth hormones were administered.
USDA-reviewed label language
Some claims are reviewed by USDA for accuracy, based on representations and recordkeeping requirements.
Program participation
Certain branded or retailer programs prohibit hormone use as part of broader production protocols.
Marketing language
Some labels use hormone-related phrasing without clarifying species rules or verification methods.
Why similar hormone claims are not equivalent
Two packages may both state no hormones, but convey very different information.
- On poultry or pork, the claim does not distinguish the product from conventional alternatives.
- On beef, the claim may reflect a meaningful production choice—but only if supported by records or audits.
Without species context and verification detail, hormone claims can easily confuse rather than inform.
How FAT evaluates hormone claims
Farm Animal Transparency (FAT) uses a tiered, partial-credit approach for hormone-related claims:
Tier A — Full Credit
Claims supported by:
- third-party verification,
- audited production protocols,
- or rigorous program participation that prohibits hormone use and verifies compliance.
Tier B — Partial Credit
Claims supported by:
- producer records,
- USDA-reviewed affidavits,
- or structured programs without independent audits.
These claims provide information, but less assurance.
Tier C — Minimal or No Credit
Claims that:
- reflect species-wide legal prohibitions,
- rely on undefined marketing language,
- or do not disclose verification methods.
These claims may be accurate but offer little additional transparency.
Learn more: the evidence behind hormone claims
For detailed analysis of hormone use, species-specific rules, and label approval practices, see:
- FAT Research: Hormone Use in U.S. Meat Production
- FAT Research: Voluntary Production Claims and USDA Review
These research papers explain how hormone claims are regulated, reviewed, and often misunderstood.
FAT scores reflect disclosure quality and verification. Learn how FAT scores meat labels →