A study conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge compared various pig farming methods, such as woodland, free range, RSPCA assured, Red Tractor certified, and organic, to assess their impact on land use, greenhouse gas emissions, antibiotics use, and animal welfare.
The findings revealed that none of the farm types consistently excelled in all four areas, which could have significant implications for environmentally conscious consumers. Despite some farms performing well above average across all measures, current label or assurance schemes were unable to predict which farms these would be.
The current food labelling narrative does not accurately reflect the sustainability of pork products, potentially misleading consumers. Harriet Bartlett, a research associate at the University of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, emphasized the need for a shift towards rewarding and incentivizing farms based on meaningful outcomes for people, the planet, and animal welfare.
Organic farming systems, often viewed as environmentally friendly, were found to have significantly higher CO2 emissions and land use compared to more intensive systems like Red Tractor or RSPCA assured. However, they also used almost 90% fewer antibiotic medicines and provided improved animal welfare.
Bartlett called for a reevaluation of how livestock farms are classified to address the expanding livestock production sector, particularly within pork production. The report highlighted the need to identify and promote farms that successfully mitigate their impacts across all areas of concern.
Notably, Ingredion’s latest research predicts that clean label products will constitute 70% of food and drink ingredient portfolios within the next two years, indicating a growing trend towards cleaner ingredient formulations in the industry.
