Woolworths must amend animal welfare claims after consumer appeal

Share current article via EmailShare current article via FacebookShare current article via TwitterShare current article via LinkedInErnest MabuzaJournalist

Opens in new windowOpens in new windowEnter fullscreen mode displaying this image.ExpandThe ruling concerns advertising claims. It does not require Woolworths to stop using CO2 stunning or to stop sourcing from the supplier. Picture: 123RF/KADMY Stock photo. Story audio is generated using AI

Woolworths must amend two animal welfare statements on its website after the Advertising Regulatory Board’s Final Appeal Committee (FAC) partially upheld a consumer’s appeal.

In its November 11 decision, the committee found that the retailer’s sustainable farming statement was likely to mislead consumers by conveying an unsupported claim that no harm occurs. It also required Woolworths to make clear that its commitment to the Five Freedoms of animal welfare is an aspiration, rather than a standard it has already achieved.

The complaint by consumer Emma Russell concerned Woolworths’ animal welfare advertising in the context of carbon dioxide (CO2) stunning of pigs in its supply chain. The FAC recorded that it was not disputed that at least one abattoir in that supply chain, Molare, uses CO2 gas to stun pigs before slaughter.

The ruling concerns advertising claims. It does not require Woolworths to stop using CO2 stunning or to stop sourcing from the supplier.

Russell challenged two statements on the retailer’s website. The first, under the heading “sustainable farming”, reads: “We’re committed to farming in a way that doesn’t harm people, animals or the environment.”

The second, accessed through a “read more” link, appears in the website’s sustainability section:

“We believe that it’s our responsibility to ensure our suppliers treat the animals in our supply chain with respect, in the most humane way possible, and are committed to a journey of continuous improvement. We work with our suppliers to improve animal welfare and minimise any potential harm, stress or pain, and aim to meet the Five Freedoms that describe the ideal state of animal welfare.”

The Five Freedoms are an internationally recognised framework describing the ideal state of animal welfare: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress.

Russell argued that the sustainable farming statement’s words “doesn’t harm” were unqualified and described current practice. A statement that harm does not occur was materially different from a claim that harm was being reduced, she submitted.

Woolworths argued that the question was whether its advertising was misleading, rather than whether consumers held differing views on animal slaughter.

“It does not claim that no harm occurs in animal production or slaughter, nor that no stress occurs, and it submits that no reasonable consumer would read its statements as absolute,” the FAC said in summarising Woolworths’ submissions.

The committee found that the sustainable farming statement could not be read as aspirational.

“The operative words describe the manner in which Woolworths’ suppliers presently operate, and the reasonable consumer would understand ‘doesn’t harm’ as a statement about what is happening now,” it said.

Woolworths’ own case was that it sought to minimise and reduce suffering, and it expressly disavowed any claim that no harm occurs in animal farming and slaughter.

“A claim that no harm occurs is, therefore, not one that its own evidence supports.”

The FAC found the statement likely to mislead, in contravention of clause 4.2.1 of section II of the Code of Advertising Practice.

“Had Woolworths said that it is committed to farming in a way that minimises or reduces harm to animals, the statement would have accorded with its own description of its practices and would not have been objectionable.”

It upheld Russell’s appeal on that statement and required Woolworths to amend it to refer to minimising or reducing harm, rather than not causing harm.

On the second statement, the committee said: “In respect of the welfare statement, the AAC’s finding that the Five Freedoms claim is aspirational is confirmed, subject to the requirement that it be expressed in clearly aspirational terms.”

Woolworths must frame its Five Freedoms claims as an aim, using wording such as “aims to align with the Five Freedoms”. Unqualified assurances in the same passage must not convey that the standard has already been achieved.

Woolworths had also argued that CO2 stunning was lawful and that there was no scientific consensus against it.

“Nothing turns on this. The ARB enforces the Code, not the law. The question is not whether CO2 stunning is lawful, but whether the claim is likely to mislead, and it is not within our purview to decide which method of stunning is preferable.”

The FAC considered an appeal against the Advertising Appeals Committee’s (AAC) July 20 2026 ruling. That committee had dismissed Russell’s appeal against the ARB Directorate’s March 20 2026 decision, which found that the website statements did not contravene the code.

The directorate accepted that CO2 gassing causes distress, but held that slaughter is by its nature distressing and that the average consumer understands this. It found that none of the statements was an absolute claim and dismissed the complaint.

Animal Law Reform South Africa welcomed the decision, saying it had supported Russell during the appeal process with research and technical input into her submissions and hearing preparation.

Beauty Without Cruelty South Africa (BWC) also welcomed the decision.

“This is an important victory for transparency and accountability, and for everyone who has worked to bring the treatment of pigs into public view.”

Would you like to comment on this article?Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.