Organic certification does not replace animal-based welfare evidence

“Organic” is not, by itself, a sufficient welfare indicator. That is the central finding of a systematic review published on August 25 in *Organic Agriculture*. The team analysed 86 comparative studies from commercial farms in Europe and North America, published between 1990 and June 2023, covering 623 comparison pairs between organic and conventional systems in cattle, pigs, poultry and small ruminants. The result is not a rejection of organic livestock production. Organic rules offer potential for good welfare, including more space, outdoor access, bedding and limits on slatted flooring. Yet the review found no consistently clear overall advantage in individual welfare outcomes. Organic systems performed better in 28% of comparison pairs, no clear difference was found in 56%, and conventional systems performed better in 16%. The authors assign particular importance to farm-level management. More grazing access may support natural behaviour but can also increase parasite risks without sound preventive management. Bedding hygiene illustrates the same principle: it can improve comfort, while poor management can raise health risks. Moreover, most of the available comparisons addressed animal health; behaviour and emotional state were assessed much less often. The practical implication for labels, trade and advisory work is clear. A system designation communicates production conditions, but it does not replace measurement of animal outcomes. The review recommends combining process requirements with transparent, standardised and feasible audits using animal-based indicators. For the meat chain, welfare claims become more credible when they are connected to verifiable observations on health, behaviour and management—not certification category alone.