HIGHER welfare standards for British bacon and eggs could boost UK farmer incomes, as consumers are willing to pay more for food with labelled welfare scores, research has shown.
Proposals for higher animal welfare were laid out in the UK government’s new Animal Welfare Strategy for England, which was published last month.
While they have been welcomed as a step-change in farm animal welfare standards, some farmers have expressed concerns that more expensive, high-welfare UK produce could be undercut by lower-welfare, cheaper food imports.
A professor at the University of Reading has created an animal welfare evaluation tool which was used the by the government as part of their information gathering strategy.
The research found that animal welfare concerns influence the purchasing decisions of around two-thirds (66%) of household food shoppers.
Most shoppers believe that higher-welfare food products are healthier (68%), taste better (64%) and are better for the environment (73%).
The report provides the economic evidence base for a number of proposed policies, including banning cages for laying hens and farrowing crates in pig farming.
Professor Bennett led the research at the School of Agriculture, Policy and Development at the University of Reading. He was commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to develop a standardised method for valuing animal welfare improvements in policy decisions.
The University of Reading’s contribution to the strategy also extends to disease cost estimates. Calculations from Professor Bennett’s earlier research on endemic livestock diseases were used to help show that animal diseases, often linked to lower welfare standards, cost British farmers more than £300 million every year.
He said his research shows that consumers will pay more if the link between higher prices and welfare standards is made clear.
“The government strategy acknowledges that consumers currently lack the information they need to make informed decisions about animal welfare standards,” Professor Bennett said.
“There is a clear public appetite for transparency, with eight in ten shoppers asking for welfare scores on food labels.
“Our evaluation tool provides a score out of 100 that could give clear, comparable evidence on the welfare standards of the animal-sourced foods we see on supermarket shelves.”
“It is gratifying to see this research directly helping to inform national policy.”
He explained: “The Animal Welfare Strategy identifies phasing out colony cages and farrowing crates as priority actions in farming–our economic analysis shows the value the UK public places on these welfare improvements.
“Shoppers would pay more, but they need to be able to see the impact of their purchasing decisions on the welfare of animals.”
The Reading study found that phasing out colony cages in egg production would increase caged laying hen welfare scores from 32 to 51 out of 100, a change for which UK shoppers would pay the equivalent of 20p more per egg, equal to £496 million per year. For typical indoor pig farming using farrowing crates, eliminating these crates would raise welfare scores from 27 to 47, boosting the value of pork products to consumers by £1.4 billion annually.
