British consumers are willing to pay billions of extra pounds for high-welfare meat, milk and eggs, according to groundbreaking research that could change the way the government and supermarkets value animal welfare.
The research, led by Professor Richard Bennett from the University of Reading, has developed the first economic tool to measure the true value of animal welfare improvements across farming systems.
The framework links welfare scores to the amount British households are prepared to pay for better conditions, a step that could change the way policy and retail decisions are made.
Professor Bennett said: “For too long, it has been difficult to incorporate animal welfare into policy-making because there was no standardized way to measure its value. This study finally provides that tool.”
He added: “Farmers, retailers and governments can now assess whether benefit improvements are good value for money using benefit scores based on independent expert judgment and actual public preferences.”
The new system assigns each farming method a score from 0 to 100. 0 represents extreme suffering and 100 represents the best achievable welfare.
A panel of 13 animal scientists evaluated a variety of systems, from caged chickens to free-range chickens to indoor pig breeding units, taking into account the animals’ health, mental well-being and ability to display natural behaviors throughout their lives.
More than 3,000 UK households were then surveyed to calculate how much people would pay for improved welfare. The results show that consumers value improvements most highly in areas where current standards are lowest, suggesting strong public demand for improved welfare across intensive systems.
The research comes as supermarkets face increasing pressure to raise welfare standards and increase transparency on food labels amid growing consumer interest in ethical sourcing.
The findings show that moving all caged chickens to a free-range system would increase their welfare score from 32 to 51 and be worth £496 million a year, or around 20p per egg.
Giving broiler chickens more space would raise the score from 38 to 47, equating to £997m a year, or 92p per chicken. Eliminating pig farrowing crates would increase the score from 27 to 47, with a value of £1.4 billion a year, or £2.52 per kilogram of pork.
In the dairy sector, reducing cow lameness from 30% to 5% would increase welfare scores from 43 to 56 points and be worth £1.7bn a year, equivalent to 11p per liter of milk.
Using painkillers to castrate lambs increases the welfare score from 53 to 56, worth £320 million a year, while stopping castration altogether increases the score to 60, worth £717 million a year.
The survey found strong support for improving welfare, with 85% of respondents agreeing that there is a moral obligation to protect livestock and 86% supporting regulations to improve the welfare of all species.
Until now, the Treasury’s Green Book (the government’s cost-benefit framework) lacked a standardized method for assessing animal welfare improvements.
Professor Bennett’s model provides a missing tool, allowing policy makers to estimate economic benefits and weigh them against implementation costs.
For example, improving chicken welfare from a score of 40 to 45 would result in a benefit of £22.14 per household per year, or £628.8 million nationally.
The framework leverages five internationally recognized areas of animal welfare and extends the existing EU model to include mental health and life experiences, rather than just physical health.
Some analysts have cautioned that stated willingness-to-pay figures do not necessarily translate into actual purchasing behavior, suggesting that the results should be seen as an indicator of public priorities rather than a literal spending forecast.
The research, commissioned by Defra and developed at the School of Agricultural Policy and Development at the University of Reading, aims to help governments, retailers and producers make evidence-based welfare decisions.
Professor Bennett said the new system could “bring animal welfare into the same decision-making framework as the economy and the environment”, allowing policy makers to “reflect both public values and the needs of animals”.
