Animal welfare labelling on food products varies enormously across countries. International comparisons reveal which labelling systems provide genuine welfare information and which are primarily marketing.
Welfare labelling should be simple, transparent and meaningful - in practice, it is often none of these. 'Free range', 'natural', 'farm fresh' and similar terms often describe production environment inputs that have ambiguous or no welfare implications. Third-party certification schemes (RSPCA Assured, organic) provide more reliable welfare information but are not universally available or understood. The ideal welfare label would be: mandatory, standardised, outcome-based, independently audited and easily understood by the average consumer. International comparison shows that this is achievable - Denmark's tiered system demonstrates that mandatory, clear welfare labelling can be implemented successfully.