Two prominent animal welfare groups have criticised Britain’s largest assurance label, which they claim offers little in terms of welfare standards. Farm animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming and animal charity OneKind made the criticisms after producing the report Farm Assurance Schemes and Animal Welfare.

The organisations said they carried out their study as, in their words, “a lack of clear information on the welfare standards for the animals used in the production of different products is a significant barrier to ethical purchasing and consumer choice.”

They said their report aims to provide clarity over the wide range of animal welfare labels appearing on food products. Animal welfare and environmental consideration plays an increasing role in decisions made by consumers in the UK and Europe, though Compassion and OnKind argued that the number of different labels claiming high welfare standards cause confusion as to what is genuinely ethically produced food.

The report examined farm assurance schemes in England and Scotland and compared them with the minimum welfare standards agreed within the UK farming industry. The two groups examined living conditions, animal husbandry, transport, slaughter, breeding and auditing of schemes including Red Tractor, Lion Code, Quality Meat Scotland, Soil Association organic certification and RSPCA Freedom Food and scored them out of a hundred, ranking welfare from bronze (acceptable) to gold (high).

The report shows none of the assurance schemes merited a ‘gold rating’ for any animal, suggesting there is “significant room for improvement across all schemes.” Overall, the Soil Association fared best, and Scottish Organic Producers Association and RSPCA schemes both did well.

However, Red Tractor assurance, Quality Meat Scotland and Lion Code schemes were found to offer few welfare benefits beyond meeting the UK minimum legal requirements, which Compassion in World Farming pointed out are inadequate in some cases, although the group acknowledged that “UK minimum legal requirements do still offer much better welfare standards than those in other countries.”

The Assured Food Standards scheme failed to score even bronze in most cases, for most animals investigated, leading the welfare organisations to conclude the assurance scheme is little more than a flag waving exercise and not, as it professes to be, a mark of higher welfare. The scheme allows mutilation of pigs, tethering of sheep and cattle and zero grazing for dairy cattle, as well has permitting meat from cloned animals and their offspring; the process of cloning has severe welfare implications.

The welfare groups said in a joint statement in April, “Both Compassion in World Farming and OneKind hope these findings will encourage the originators of the various farm assurance schemes to incorporate the welfare assessments from the report into their standards.”

In response, Red Tractor CEO David Clarke called the joint investigation a “Shockingly poor report” and accused the welfare organisations of inaccuracy and elitism. He said that much of the food on sale in the UK does not meet any quality standard and his scheme guarantees traceability and food safety.

Clarke railed, “It is biased and inaccurate and several statements about Red Tractor are just plain wrong. It is not a report by independent experts it is propaganda from a campaign group who are attacking not just Red Tractor standards but the structure and fabric of our entire livestock industry.

“The report has created a theoretical ‘ideal standard’ against which it measures the various schemes. Their benchmark is totally unrealistic, in most cases not even the most expensive organic products meet them. The report has no regard for the cost of production and what shoppers can afford.”

However, Philip Lymbery, CEO of Compassion in World Farming reiterated that, whilst it may guarantee a certain standard of production, Assured Standards masquerading as high welfare is misleading customers over the food they buy. He stated, “Increasingly, consumers want to shop ethically and therefore rely on labels to guide them to meat and dairy that has been produced to the high animal welfare standards they expect. However, all too often, the labels are confusing and consumers are misled.

“Ten years ago Compassion looked at the main farm assurance schemes and found that, when it came to animal welfare, Red Tractor assured little more than compliance with minimum legislation. Our 2012 study has shown that today the situation is largely the same. When shopping for meat, milk and eggs from animals kept to higher welfare standards, it’s best to look for products labelled free range, organic or Freedom Food.”

Tweet