Podcast episode: The Swiss animal welfare label compass: why «animal welfare» is the wrong term here

The article criticises the label compass of the Swiss animal welfare organisation not primarily for individual ratings, but for its underlying logic: it assesses the conditions of animal husbandry, yet does not question the killing of the animals. In this way, so the central thesis, it administers a system that it ought actually to overcome.

Wild beim Wild editorial team — 2 August 2026

Wild beim Wild · Podcast

Wild beim Wild · 2 August 2026

0:00

The new label compass of the STS classifies meat, egg and dairy products into four categories: from «very good» to «unsatisfactory».

This sounds like guidance and greater respect towards animals. But Wild beim Wild asks: what does «animal welfare» mean if the animals continue to be killed despite better labels?

In 2025, more than 86 million so-called livestock animals were slaughtered in Switzerland – more than in the previous year. The article sees in this the decisive contradiction: while the label landscape expands and husbandry standards are assessed in a more differentiated way, the number of animals killed continues to rise. Labels can improve individual conditions, but they save no animal from the system of exploitation and slaughter.

According to its own statement, the STS advocates the approach of improving the conditions of a socially existing production of animal-based foods. This is precisely what animal rights organisations criticise: even in highly rated label-based production, severe forms of suffering are permitted, such as the CO₂ stunning of pigs or injuries to laying hens. Moreover, a good label can trigger a moral relief effect: people continue to consume because they already feel they are on the right side through their purchasing decision.

The article classifies this criticism as a question of speciesism: why is the killing and eating of certain animals considered normal, while it would be socially and legally condemned in the case of dogs or cats? From this perspective, «animal welfare» is a misleading term if it protects neither life nor physical integrity, but above all regulates husbandry and killing within an existing system.

Added to this are the health, ecological and climatic consequences of a high consumption of animal products. The core message is therefore: a label can alleviate abuses in specific areas, but it cannot resolve the scale of animal husbandry, the number of animals killed, or the fundamental use of sentient beings. The label compass is thus understood not as an exit from the system, but as an instrument that can stabilise its acceptance.

A compass can provide orientation, but what is decisive is where it points: towards less suffering and fewer animals in the system, or merely towards a slightly better-labelled «business as usual».

More on the subject of recreational hunting: The scientific evidence is presented in the overview Studies on the Effects of Recreational Hunting.

The position of IG Wild beim Wild: IG Wild beim Wild rejects recreational hunting. Our model is the canton of Geneva, which has managed without recreational hunting since 1974: without hunting seasons, without hunting dogs, without driven hunts, without high seats, without the animal cruelty and crime that go hand in hand with hunting season elsewhere. What has worked there for over fifty years disproves every position paper by JagdSchweiz. An association that bases its policy on claims it refutes in its own documents is not a professional organisation, but a factory for misinformation.