Is “Humane Meat” Marketing or Reality?

Yet, recent surveys indicate that most Americans claim that “the animal foods I purchase … usually come from animals that are treated humanely.”

So are we eating “humane meat”? What is “humane meat” anyway?

The facts about “humane meat”

Ethical consumerism is increasingly popular. Animal products marked “cage free,” “free range,” or “all natural” have special appeal to the modern consumer. These labels offer a perception of better animal welfare, more sustainable farming practices, and healthier, more natural foods. Research suggests that the majority of US consumers are more concerned about farm animal welfare now than they were just a few years ago. One study found that animal welfare and “natural” claims on animal product packaging increased the intent to purchase for more than half of consumers. Despite the appeal of these labels, behind the scenes, animals used for food rarely experience the peaceful green pastures that consumers imagine.

The illusion of ethical treatment

Labels on animal products, like "free range," "organic," or "grass-fed," often represent meaningful differences in the lives of animals, but they can also create an inaccurate picture of ethical treatment. The vast majority of meat production occurs within industrialized factories that prioritize profit margins and efficiency over animal welfare. Most farm animals’ lives are crowded and filthy, with extremely limited access to any “natural” conditions.

Cage-free eggs offer a useful example. Cage-free eggs represent an important incremental change in animal farming. In conventional poultry farming, these birds are trapped in battery cages and cannot even fully spread their wings. But cage-free birds, as defined by the USDA, must be allowed to move freely. In cage-free operations, hens can express natural behaviors such as walking, nesting, and perching. Estimates suggest that the transition from caged to cage-free production represents thousands of hours of pain prevented for every hen raised in a cage-free operation versus a battery cage.

However, even though the birds in cage-free operations are not confined to cages, their living conditions still precipitate suffering. Cage-free birds have roughly the same total space per bird, but instead of living in cages, they share a large shed with thousands of other birds. In these conditions of extreme overcrowding, surrounded by their own excrement, stressed birds have been known to peck each other excessively, even to the point of death. Many consumers are unaware that cage-free birds often have no access to the outdoors.

While cage-free egg systems remain flawed, cage-free egg production represents a positive step forward in improving the lives of hens in the egg industry.

Humane washing

Even in facilities touted as "humane," investigators have documented unthinkable cruelty, revealing the stark contrast between consumers' idyllic perceptions and the grim reality of modern factory farms. Take the well-known milk company Fairlife, stylized as fa!rlife, for example. As their name implies, Fairlife has built its brand around care for animals.

The Fairlife website states: “Great care for the animals that provide us with milk will always be a top priority at Fairlife. It begins with setting industry-leading standards, guided by third-party experts, and continues by partnering with like-minded supplying farms that share Fairlife’s commitment to well-cared-for cows.”

However, undercover video captured in 2019 by Animal Recovery Mission at Fair Oaks Farms—a supplier for Fairlife at the time and owned by the owner of Fairlife—tells a different story. The video footage shows workers dragging, throwing, hitting, and force-feeding newborn calves, leading to public outrage and prompting a law enforcement investigation. Beyond these acute incidences of abuse, the video also revealed the broader living conditions of the calves—a dirty, congested, and excessively hot facility. Allegations suggest that supervisors and farm owners were aware of the abuse.

Fairlife is not the only company misleading consumers. Tyson Foods—the largest chicken company in the US—advertises that it treats its animals humanely, raising “happy” and “healthy” birds. However, in 2022, an undercover investigation by Animal Outlook documented horrific abuses at a farm supplying Tyson Foods. Following a flock of 150,000 birds packed tightly together inside massive barns, the investigation found countless birds suffering ill health, living with severe injuries and deformities, without proper veterinary care. On multiple occasions, the birds lacked access to food or water, for up to 52 hours. Confined to filthy conditions, the birds lived alongside a rat infestation and bugs crawling in their feed.

Tyson was aware of the abuse. In audio recorded during the investigation, a farm manager discusses with a technician how other companies handle free range chickens. The technician states: “Those birds don’t go outside—you know that. They don’t all go out… Look that up online… That is strictly for commercial [advertising] purposes. They pick the prettiest birds [for commercials] and they toss ’em out in the grass.”

Increasingly, major corporations like Fairlife and Tyson are taking advantage of consumers’ good intentions by touting their products as good for animals, when the reality does not reflect the marketing. This advertising tactic, creating an illusion of ethical treatment without substantiating these claims, is sometimes referred to as “humane washing.” Humane washing misleads consumers, fostering a false sense of assurance regarding the welfare of animals. By obscuring the reality of industrial farming practices, humane washing undermines efforts towards genuine animal welfare improvements. As a result, consumers may unknowingly support practices that do not reflect their ethical values, perpetuating a cycle of misinformation and lack of accountability within the industry.

What’s in a name?

Despite humane washing, labels on animal products can sometimes communicate useful and accurate information if a consumer knows how to decipher the terms. Let’s start with a few common labels:

Labels with strict welfare standards:

• “Certified Humane” is a third party non-profit certification that reflects dozens of requirements for basic animal health and well-being. The requirements include minimum space allowances, bedding material, and enrichment like hay bales or perches for chickens. Animal products from “Certified Humane” producers are never confined in cages and are able to display natural behaviors.
• “Animal Welfare Approved” is a third party certification that prohibits cages that significantly restrict movement. Access to pasture and enrichment that promotes natural behaviors are required.

Labels with few welfare standards:

• “Free range” animals must have access to the outdoors for at least 51% of their lives, but this label does not define the amount of space required per animal.
• “USDA Organic” producers must grant animals some outdoor access, provide organic feed, and not administer routine antibiotics or hormones. However, this label does not include any explicit animal welfare requirements and permits standard mutilations like tail docking in piglets, without use of pain relievers.

Labels with no welfare standards:

• “Humanely raised” is not defined by the USDA, and thus reflects little to no verifiable information regarding the well-being of the animals used.
• "Natural” and “naturally raised” are defined by the USDA as products containing no artificial ingredients or added colors, but conveys no information about animal welfare.

Few farms or products reflect a holistic approach to animal welfare. The discrepancy between the consumer perception and the reality of animals’ lives highlights a pervasive misunderstanding of the nature of meat production.

“Humane meat:” a contradiction in terms?

The concept of "humane meat" suggests that animals raised for food can be treated humanely and slaughtered ethically. Yet animals in these systems are still bred and raised specifically for human consumption, depriving them of the right to exist freely. Despite efforts to provide better living conditions, the ultimate purpose of the industry remains the same—to end animal lives for human consumption.

Even in "humane" operations, industrialized animal agriculture implies cruelty to animals. The sheer scale of demand often compromises animal welfare. Labels can create a false sense of comfort among consumers, making them believe they are supporting ethical animal treatment. This can lead to complacency and divert attention from more compassionate dietary choices, such as plant-based alternatives that don't involve the exploitation or killing of animals.

While some welfare measures importantly improve the conditions of animal farming, the inherent ethical dilemma of raising sentient beings for slaughter remains unchanged. The notion of "humane meat" fails to address the core ethical concerns surrounding animal agriculture and the consumption of animal products. A well-known, unattributed saying in the animal protection movement is: “You cannot humanely kill an animal who doesn’t want to die.”

It’s important to note that, even though animal products may never be fully humane, moving towards more ethically raised options makes a difference. Incremental consumer changes can help bring us closer to a world where animals can express natural behaviors, move freely, and feel the sun on their skin. Incrementalism acknowledges that change is often gradual, and that small but persistent steps can lead to lasting change.

By advocating for incremental changes in policy and practice, we can build a more effective latticework of institutional policies and structures that prioritize the welfare of animals. This can include measures such as improving animal welfare standards in the agriculture industry, promoting plant-based alternatives, and encouraging transparency in labeling and marketing. By implementing these changes gradually, we can ultimately create a world where no animals are abused for food.

Defining humane: beyond animal welfare

The term “humane” refers to the showing of compassion. Extending this term only to animals within the meat industry is incomplete. Truly “humane meat” would necessitate compassion for humans involved in the production of animal products as well.

The notorious conditions of human labor on factory farms and slaughterhouses warrant consideration. Low wages, grueling labor, and substantial risks to physical and mental health plague workers in the meat industry, who are disproportionately immigrants, refugees, and people of color.

Moreover, the environmental toll of meat production is staggering, contributing significantly to climate change, deforestation, pollution, and biodiversity loss. The vast amount of resources required for animal agriculture, including land, water, and feed, further exacerbate the environmental issues that threaten our very future. Recent findings reveal that increased consumption of animal products is precipitating a groundwater crisis in the US.

Even if the treatment of animals improves, the meat industry must address its stewardship of other stakeholders in order to truly meet the standard for “humane” products.

The silver lining

A 2019 survey found that most Americans agree that “people have an obligation to avoid harming all animals.” This value is reflected in consumers’ increased interest in food labels reflecting—accurately or inaccurately—animal welfare.

Despite some flaws in food labeling, consumer demand for higher welfare standards is making meaningful change for animals. During the last decade, the percentage of hens living in US cage-free operations soared from 4% in 2010 to 24% in 2020. In 2024, the cage-free flock went up to 40.2%. State bans on battery cages, corporate welfare pledges, and consumer demand all contributed to this seismic shift in the landscape of the food industry. This change impacted the lives of 70 million birds who could not previously spread their wings. While these birds’ lives remain short and difficult, these improvements make a significant difference for animals trapped in factory farms.

As consumers continue to prioritize animal welfare, even more meaningful changes for animals may lie ahead.

Towards a more humane future

Growing consumer interest in “humane meat” offers a glimmer of hope for animals. More ethical choices like “free range” and “cage free” animal products represent important improvements in the lives of animals. Yet welfare measures fall short of addressing the fundamental issues surrounding the commodification of animals for human consumption. By advocating for stricter welfare standards, supporting alternatives like plant-based eating, and fostering a deeper cultural shift towards compassion, we can create a future where all animals can thrive.