Higher welfare standards for British bacon and eggs could help protect farm incomes, as research shows shoppers are willing to pay more when animal welfare information is made clear.
The findings come as the UK government sets out its new Animal Welfare Strategy for England, published last month, which proposes significant changes to farm animal welfare standards.
The research suggests that welfare improvements could add billions of pounds of value across the pig and egg sectors, provided higher standards are clearly reflected in the marketplace.
While the strategy has been welcomed as a step-change in welfare, farmers have raised concerns that higher-cost British produce could be undercut by cheaper imports produced to lower standards.
Industry groups have warned that without equivalent welfare requirements on imports, UK producers could face unfair competition, particularly if higher production costs are not passed back through the supply chain.
The government has said it will continue to uphold welfare standards in trade negotiations, but farmers have called for clearer safeguards to ensure that improving welfare does not come at the expense of competitiveness.
Research underpinning the strategy indicates that clearer welfare labelling could help address this risk by allowing farmers to capture added value from higher standards, rather than absorbing costs at farmgate level.
Professor Richard Bennett, who developed the animal welfare valuation tool used by the government, said his work shows consumers are prepared to pay more when the link between price and welfare is transparent.
“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.”
Supporters of welfare labelling argue that a standardised system could help bridge the gap between farm standards and consumer understanding, particularly where higher welfare costs are not currently reflected in prices.
They also say consistent labelling could reduce confusion caused by the wide range of assurance schemes already in use.
The research found animal welfare considerations influence the purchasing decisions of around two-thirds of household food shoppers.
Most consumers believe higher-welfare products are healthier, taste better and are more environmentally sustainable, reinforcing the commercial case for improved standards.
The report provides the economic evidence base for several policy proposals set out in the strategy, including banning cages for laying hens and phasing out farrowing crates in pig farming.
Any move away from existing systems would require significant investment on farm, particularly for pig and egg producers facing housing changes.
The strategy acknowledges the need for phased implementation alongside support to help businesses adapt, but farmers have stressed that timelines, capital grants and reliable market returns will be critical to whether higher welfare can be delivered sustainably.
Professor Bennett led the work at the University of Reading’s School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, after being commissioned by Defra to create a standardised way of valuing welfare improvements in policy decisions.
“It is gratifying to see this research directly helping to inform national policy,” he said.
“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 study found that removing colony cages in egg production would increase welfare scores for caged laying hens from 32 to 51 out of 100.
UK shoppers would be willing to pay the equivalent of 20p more per egg for that improvement, representing an estimated £496 million per year.
In indoor pig systems using farrowing crates, eliminating the crates would raise welfare scores from 27 to 47.
That change would increase the value of pork products to consumers by an estimated £1.4bn annually.
The research also highlights the link between animal welfare, productivity and long-term resilience on farm.
Improved welfare is associated with healthier animals, lower disease risk and reduced reliance on veterinary intervention, which supporters argue could help offset some of the costs of transition.
The University of Reading’s contribution to the strategy also drew on earlier research into livestock disease costs.
Professor Bennett’s previous work was used to estimate that endemic livestock diseases, often linked to poorer welfare, cost British farmers more than £300m every year.
Taken together, the findings suggest that while higher welfare comes with upfront costs, clearer market signals could allow farmers to recoup investment while improving animal health, resilience and long-term viability.
