Why schemes like RSPCA Assured are welfare washing a hopeless existence for farmed animals

Welfare washing is the latest betrayal of public trust – a repackaging of cruelty disguised as care.

Imagine believing you’re choosing compassion with the products you buy, only to learn that the label you trust is concealing suffering. This is the reality behind welfare washing, with trusted labels like RSPCA Assured offering consumers a comforting story while obscuring the actual conditions for farmed animals behind closed doors.

In the UK, many people trust the RSPCA’s mission to protect our fellow animals, believing that an “RSPCA Assured” label guarantees compassion in the lives and deaths of farmed animals destined for their plates.

But recent campaigns, like the powerful For Charlie initiative (explored below), remind us that farming a living being can never truly be compassionate. Over the past sixteen years, almost a hundred investigations into RSPCA Assured farms by a range of pro-animal organisations—most recently by Animal Rising—have exposed widespread suffering and neglect, leaving the animal-loving British public to wonder: What, exactly, is the RSPCA assuring?

This question is driving a growing movement-wide campaign to challenge the RSPCA’s role in legitimising animal farming and its associated suffering.

Can we trust the RSPCA to safeguard animals when the charity profits from the very systems that harm them? Or is it time to demand real change, starting with dismantling welfare labels that mislead us all?

What is Welfare Washing?

If you happen to go on the London Underground over the next few weeks, you may spot one of 2,750 ads in Tube carriages warning, “Don’t trust the RSPCA Assured label.” This campaign, launched by welfarewashing.org, aims to bring awareness to hidden cruelty wrapped in the guise of care.

But what is welfare washing?

Similar to greenwashing (where companies mislead consumers about their environmental impact), welfare washing describes the practice of companies and organisations giving the impression of ensuring animal welfare while concealing the reality of animal suffering.

In the case of the RSPCA, the charity promises to protect “every kind” of animal. This message is central to the recent Respect #foreverykind advertising campaign, which shows (among other things) farmed animals being liberated from factories into a free-roaming life under vast blue summer skies.

This isn’t the first advert of this kind. In one 2020 campaign, people were reassured about buying their Christmas turkey by an ad showing RSPCA Assured turkeys strolling through magical, fairy light-draped woods, while a 2022 ad for Pancake Day suggested that RSPCA Assured egg-laying hens live on sprawling, serene farmland.

These images starkly contrast with the suffering documented by Animal Rising’s investigations on over forty RSPCA Assured farms.

The welfarewashing.org campaign seeks to expose the lie being sold to consumers: that farmed animals can live with dignity and respect within systems designed for profit, not compassion.

Why the RSPCA Assured Scheme is problematic

The RSPCA Assured Scheme is one of the UK’s most influential welfare labels. It promotes the idea that there is an ethical way to farm fellow animals for food.

A recent poll by Animal Think Tank found that 89% of UK consumers care about the welfare of farmed animals, and, for 74%, concern about the welfare of farmed animals strongly influences what products they buy. “Higher welfare” options like RSPCA Assured products lead these consumers to believe they are supporting farms where animals enjoy a good quality of life.

The imagery used to promote RSPCA Assured sells this fantasy.

However, while RSPCA Assured is a charity that is not run for profit, it has a symbiotic relationship with the farming industry.

Hatcheries, farms, hauliers, and abattoirs pay membership fees for RSPCA certification, and food manufacturers must pay for their products to carry the Assured label. This income funds farm assessments, brand communication, and marketing, creating a mutually beneficial relationship between the industry and the welfare label that endorses it.

The critical issue here is that the Assured Scheme promotes an illusion: that animals can be raised and killed kindly within an industry built on exploitation.

For Charlie: A story of hope amid despair

In June 2024, Animal Rising’s investigation of forty-five RSPCA Assured farms across the UK revealed widespread and heartbreaking suffering and uncovered 280 breaches of welfare standards and 94 violations of DEFRA codes of practice. (You can read our blog about it here.)

One shining light amid these grim findings was the story of Charlie, a piglet rescued by undercover investigators with a large, untreated growth on her head. After receiving medical treatment, she now lives safely in a sanctuary. Free from the bleak industrial farm where she was waiting to be killed, Charlie wags her tail with the enthusiasm of the happiest puppy. She’s intelligent, curious, playful, mischievous, and loves affection.

Charlie’s story reminds us that every animal who is farmed has the potential to live a joyful, fulfilled life if they were freed from human exploitation.

The For Charlie campaign is a call to speak up for the billions of animals who, unlike Charlie, won’t escape the cruelty of being farmed but equally deserve compassion.

The campaign has called on the RSPCA to end its Assured Scheme and live up to its core values of preventing cruelty and protecting “every kind” of animal.

An open letter to the RSPCA, signed by over 170 individuals and organisations, including celebrities such as Ricky Gervais and Joanna Lumley, former RSPCA Board members, veterinary professionals, legal experts, and over sixty pro-animal organisations, asks the RSPCA to stop endorsing the exploitation of farmed animals and promote a kinder plant-based future. You can read the open letter here.

The public’s view on welfare washing

Following Animal Rising’s investigation, the poll commissioned by Animal Think Tank showed the public’s complex feelings about the RSPCA Assured Scheme.

Prior to viewing the investigation footage, 68% of participants were aware of the scheme, and 89% expressed strong concern for the welfare of farmed animals, with 74% noting that this concern influences their purchasing choices.

After viewing the footage, participants’ trust in the RSPCA dropped by a third, and 29% of participants believed the Assured Scheme should end.

A striking 89% of respondents agreed that welfare washing is a serious issue, underscoring a growing awareness that welfare labels provide only a comforting illusion rather than a meaningful solution.

The RSPCA’s response to criticisms

As highlighted by these recent campaigns, many believe the RSPCA’s endorsement of the Assured label misleads consumers, offering false reassurance about the conditions under which animals who are farmed live and die.

Labels like these create a sense of ethical detachment, as consumers assume that the RSPCA has already scrutinised these practices, relieving them of the responsibility to look more closely.

In response to concerns raised by the Animal Rising investigation, the RSPCA positions its Assured Scheme as the last line of defence for farmed animals and argues that abandoning it would leave millions of animals without even minimal protection.

However, the RSPCA could still champion farmed animals’ welfare by actively promoting a plant-based transition, ending its association with the Assured Scheme, while also lobbying for mandatory government labelling of animal ‘products’ based on the method of production and slaughter. This shift would better align with the RSPCA’s broader values without creating a conflict of interest and legitimising the farming of animals.

In email responses to individual complaints, the RSPCA has made additional points, including the claim that some critics are using the Assured Scheme to gain publicity for “anti-farming agendas”.

While the RSPCA’s position is that it respects calls for a plant-based future, this language comes across as dismissive, framing genuine welfare concerns as extreme. In light of evidence captured by Animal Rising’s investigations, these responses could be seen as deflecting from the valid criticism that the welfare label is legitimising and endorsing the farming of animals and encouraging their consumption.

It’s notable that the RSPCA’s response to the Animal Rising investigation includes the statement that “We are working against some very wealthy vested interests who actively resist progress at every stage”.

This is one explanation as to why the RSPCA will not put its head above the parapet and drive a change away from farming animals.

The Crowe Review

In response to Animal Rising’s investigation, the RSPCA commissioned Crowe, a financial auditing firm, to review the Assured Scheme. However, Crowe’s lack of expertise in animal welfare raises questions about the review’s validity. Trained by RSPCA staff, Crowe may have been influenced by those with a vested interest in preserving the scheme, introducing bias into the assessment.

It’s also unlikely that the Crowe reviewers have the requisite veterinary or behavioural knowledge to evaluate welfare outcomes.

Moreover, the full report and raw data remain inaccessible, limiting transparency. Without public access to these findings, questions about the review’s integrity remain unanswered, casting serious doubt on the objectivity of the Assured Scheme’s evaluations.

A call for real change, not welfare illusions

The RSPCA’s position as a defender of farmed animals stands on shaky ground.

While welfare labels may comfort consumers, they ultimately do nothing to challenge the systemic exploitation of animals. Instead, they provide a “compassionate” mask for an industry built on suffering.

True kindness cannot be compartmentalised within a system that exists to exploit. As the For Charlie campaign reminds us, each farmed animal – like Charlie, who escaped her grim fate – is an individual with a will to live, capable of joy, and deserving of life free from human use.

We call on the RSPCA and all organisations that claim to stand for animal welfare to reimagine their role, moving away from endorsing “higher welfare” labels and toward actively creating a future that does not require the exploitation of animals. A future where compassion means protecting animals, not endorsing and justifying their suffering.

For a genuine path forward, we need transparency, accountability, and a commitment to ending the farming of animals rather than legitimising it. The animal-loving public deserves to know the truth about their choices, and fellow animals deserve a life free from harm.

Welfare washing only perpetuates the illusion; it’s time for the RSPCA to step off the fence and stand true to its promise of “for every kind”.

Support the For Charlie campaign to hold RSPCA Assured accountable and advocate for a future free from animal exploitation.