Yesterday, the Swiss Federal Council introduced mandatory labeling requirements for food derived from non-human animals subjected to painful procedures without anesthesia. Animal welfare groups welcome the regulation but favor an import ban on animal-derived food produced using practices banned in Switzerland because of their cruelty.

The new labeling rules apply to the following products:

• Beef from animals that have been castrated or dehorned without anesthesia
• Pork if castration, tail docking, or teeth clipping was performed without anesthesia
• Eggs and meat from chickens whose beaks were clipped without pain relief
• Milk from cows dehorned without pain relief
• Frog legs obtained without anesthesia
• Geese or duck liver from force-fed production (foie gras).

All businesses that sell these foods, including restaurants and retailers, must fully comply with the labeling requirement by the end of a two-year transition period. The information must be prominently displayed on product packaging to help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions.

Schweizer Bauernverband (Swiss Farmers’ unio) supports the new labeling rules because they help Swiss farmers compete with foreign producers operating in less-regulated countries. For instance, force-feeding has been banned in Switzerland for over 40 years, but is still permitted in France, notably for foie gras production.

“It is important for us [Swiss farmers] to be able to position Swiss production on the market with its many regulations and prohibitions,” Sandra Helfenstein, head of communications at Schweizer Bauernverband, tells Food Ingredients First.

Meanwhile, Swiss Animal Protection (SAP) welcomes the labeling requirement as a positive step forward for animal welfare, but ultimately considers it insufficient.

“An import ban would also be appropriate for products subject to the declaration requirement, as the corresponding production methods qualify as clear animal cruelty according to Swiss standards,” Simon Hubacher, head of the media office at SAP, tells us.

“Furthermore, the selecion of practices subject to the declaration requirement appears arbitrary. A comprehensive declaration of animal welfare practices in connection with the production of animal products would be more appropriate.”

Empowering ethical choices

We also spoke to Eurogroup for Animals about the impacts of Switzerland’s new labeling rules on consumer purchasing decisions and the potential knock-on effects for the EU.

“This groundbreaking move could significantly influence consumer behavior and the animal products industry,” says Caterina Rispoli, food policy project officer at Eurogroup for Animals.

“Recent Eurobarometer data show that EU citizens — and increasingly, consumers across Europe — care deeply about animal welfare. When given transparent information, such as whether animals were subjected to painful procedures without anesthesia, people are more likely to make informed and ethical purchasing decisions.”

However, the new labeling’s effect on meat and dairy product prices remains to be seen. Rispoli suggests that products that meet higher welfare standards might initially be more expensive, but economies of scale could help lower prices over time as demand grows.

“In this sense, consumer choices will play a key role in shaping the market,” she says. “By making animal welfare more visible at the point of sale, Switzerland empowers consumers to make choices aligned with their values, provided the system is properly enforced, given the two-year transition and the fact that businesses have to assess regulatory compliance with a self-monitoring process.”

Switzerland’s regulation could also create ripple effects in the EU. Although Switzerland is not an EU member, Rispoli highlights that other countries could feel encouraged, or even pressured, to introduce similar rules, especially if consumers demand similar levels of transparency.

Psychological suffering

Animal welfare is not limited to the absence of physical pain. Psychological suffering, such as stress, fear, or deprivation, is also a major concern for animal protection groups.

“In the long term, expanding labeling criteria to reflect the full spectrum of animal welfare will be essential. If we want to truly respect animals as sentient beings, their psychological well-being must be part of the conversation,” Rispoli tells Food Ingredients First.

However, Rispoli acknowledges that the Swiss Federal Council’s focus on physical pain is a pragmatic decision.

“It’s a cautious and strategic step aimed at ensuring the regulation is workable for consumers, industry, and other stakeholders. Including psychological suffering from the outset might have made the policy harder to implement or enforce, especially given the current limitations in how such suffering is measured,” she explains.

In a step backward for animal welfare, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled in May that food products made entirely from plant-based protein are prohibited from referencing non-human animal names, even if supported by clarifying terms like “vegan pork” or “planted chicken.”