The food system works best when consumers trust what’s on their plate. But misleading labels and hidden production practices can erode that trust. On World Consumer Rights Day, attorneys Amy P. Wilson and Michaela Tafani-du Preez from Animal Law Reform South Africa are calling for greater transparency in South Africa’s food industry.
Today, 15 March, is World Consumer Rights Day. The 2026 theme, Safe Products, Confident Consumers, could not be more important in South Africa’s food system.
Ask yourself: Are you a confident consumer? Are you fully informed about the products in your trolley?
Perhaps you check labels for allergens or certifications, avoid certain ingredients, or rely on trusted brands for quality. But even so, very few consumers truly understand how products, especially animal-sourced foods, are produced or the realities behind their production.
Cracking open your brekkie
When buying eggs, few spare a thought for the chickens who laid them. Despite their sentience and capacities, around 95% of egg-laying hens in South Africa are kept in cruel battery cages – tiny wire enclosures, unable to spread their wings, dust-bathe, perch, or perform many natural behaviours.
Similarly, ordering bacon rarely prompts thoughts of pigs – highly intelligent and social beings – squealing for mercy in gas chambers and stunned to unconsciousness before slaughter.
It’s understandable that consumers avoid these realities, as food is linked to comfort and enjoyment. Industrial animal agriculture relies on this distance and functions best when production methods go unquestioned.
Behind the barn doors
Most animals used for food live behind closed doors. Those who profit from their suffering don’t want consumers to witness the conditions in which animals are bred, raised, transported, and killed.
Marketing often presents a curated image of animals roaming green pastures alongside reassuring language about ethical farming and humane treatment. This practice, called “humane-washing” (much like greenwashing), uses misleading claims to create the impression of compassionate farming even when production relies on intensive confinement.
Consumer rights and company claims
Consumers have legal rights to fair marketing and disclosure, stemming from the Constitution, the Consumer Protection Act, and court decisions affirming the public’s right to know about animal treatment.
When consumers lack accurate information about products they buy, their ability to exercise these and other rights is compromised.
Many companies, including major retailers, publicly promote ethical and sustainability commitments, often highlighting animal welfare on websites or in annual reports. But a closer look at in-store sourcing practices often tells a different story – perhaps because they know that consumers actually care about animal treatment.
Risky business
This issue is not only about choice; it’s also about safety.
Industrial animal agriculture has repeatedly been linked to serious food safety risks. The 2017 listeriosis outbreak, the largest recorded globally, killed 218 people and was linked to ready-to-eat processed meat.
The foot-and-mouth disease crisis – a national disaster – causes immense animal suffering, disrupts trade and plagues farmers, while the 2023 highly pathogenic avian flu outbreak led to 7.5 million infected chickens being killed.
Related stories
- The fine print: Food labelling rules and regulations
- Cheap potatoes bring relief to consumers, pain to farmers
- Meat safety: What every consumer needs to know
- Calls to ensure food safety from farm to fork
Exploring constitutional dimensions
Some may argue these concerns are secondary, given the challenges we face as a country and in our food system. Despite the constitutional right to food, national data shows that 63% of households experience inadequate access to food, with roughly 13 million people facing moderate to severe hunger.
Should the focus then be solely on feeding people rather than questioning how food is produced?
Understanding where products come from connects directly to constitutional rights, including the right to food, and other rights. Courts have also affirmed that environmental, access to information, freedom of expression, and property rights are connected to animal protection.
The Constitutional Court has further recognised animals as sentient beings with intrinsic value as individuals.
Labelling inequities and deficiencies
Despite the risks of animal-sourced products, recent regulatory attention has focused heavily on plant-based foods such as meat analogues. Restrictive labelling requirements effectively impose higher standards on these products than those from animals.
This is particularly concerning given evidence of mislabelling in animal-sourced food. A recent study of canned and ready-to-eat meat products in South Africa found undeclared animal species in 27% of tested products. Products labelled “no-pork” tested positive for pig’s meat, while others contained undeclared chicken’s, cow’s, or sheep’s meat.
Misleading or inaccurate labelling is not merely inconvenient; it can be harmful. It undermines people’s ability to align their diets with their personal beliefs (also constitutionally protected), from religious or ethical considerations to health concerns and allergies.
Transparency loading
So, what’s the solution?
Greater transparency is a start. One practical step would be mandatory labelling on products, such as eggs, clearly indicating whether hens were raised in caged, barn, or free-range systems. This builds off existing frameworks such as Regulation 345, the work of advocates in the cage-free movement, and recent initiatives supported by civil society organisations.
Clear labelling influences consumer behaviour. Front-of-pack warning labels help consumers identify “unhealthy” products and reduce purchases, while pictorial warning labels on animal products can steer consumers toward higher-welfare options, similar to health warning labels on smoking rates.
But, transparency must be matched by accountability (for corporations, industry bodies and other stakeholders).
Accountability approaching
Misleading corporate claims are increasingly being challenged. In 2020, the Advertising Regulatory Board ruled on appeal that Fair Cape Dairies could not use the terms “humane” and “#happycows” in advertising, for being inconsistent with the conditions in which the animals were treated, while in 2024, the ARB ruled that TotalEnergies’ sustainability claims were misleading given its status as a major global greenhouse gas emitter.
These decisions reinforce that companies must ensure claims are truthful and evidence-based. For instance, a retailer promoting animal welfare commitments while sourcing most eggs from cruel systems may find itself compelled to justify its practices.
Reforming our food system
Public attention on South Africa’s food system is growing. The South African Human Rights Commission has launched a national investigation into systemic issues like governance, corporate influence, and justice.
Organisations like Animal Law Reform South Africa have contributed to this process, highlighting issues with animal-sourced foods and advocating for shifts towards more sustainable and ethical food systems.
While the investigation will reveal flaws, shining a light on them is the first step toward meaningful reform.
Are you still feeling confident?
Genuine consumer confidence doesn’t come from marketing or idyllic farm images. It comes from transparency, responsibility, and accountability.
Next time you shop: ask where your food comes from, how it was produced, and the impacts it carries.
Informed choices by consumers, companies, and policymakers are essential to building a just, ethical, and sustainable food system for people, animals, and the planet.
- Amy P. Wilson is an attorney and the executive director, and Michaela Tafani-du Preez is an attorney and the programmes lead for Animal Law Reform South Africa (ALRSA). ALRSA is South Africa’s first dedicated animal law non-profit organisation and utilises law and policy as a tool to address intersectional issues and ensure justice for all who require it. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Food For Mzansi.
READ NEXT: Why SA is importing FMD vaccines from Argentina
