Criticism of the poultry sector generates losses and is not a self-extinguishing flame, despite the sector’s ill-advised tendency to view it that way.
I will therefore provide some professional considerations on the topic outlined in the title below before presenting a more in-depth and detailed report on the following pages, which will address the Italian situation. These reports can easily be considered indicative of what is happening around the world, given that the poultry sector is managed in a largely uniform and widely criticized manner.
As you’ll often note on this blog and at https://nutriamocidibuonsenso.it/ , the content I publish is always aimed at supporting the poultry industry and providing accurate information to consumers. My knowledge of the sector is particularly in-depth, and I’ve set myself the goal of acting as a “cultural mediator” between the poultry industry and its end customers (consumers), having noted that the problem plaguing the relationship between these two entities is language. A language that lacks adequate “translations and mediations” that make it comprehensible both ways.
For some time now, I have been observing and analyzing the frequent accusations leveled against the poultry sector, which fails to formulate an effective “defense” policy. It remains entrenched in its true awareness of being a complex tool for producing affordable food. It’s a shame, however, that this awareness is incapable of allaying the tensions and fears of those consumers who aren’t registered as such and those who, due to the circulating accusations, become ex-consumers.
I’ve heard from some industry insiders who claim that they view the accusations leveled at the sector as marginal disruption, describing them as “periodic flare-ups that, however, die down on their own.” This attitude has always left me very perplexed, as I believe it poses a high potential risk. Not only an economic risk, but also a social one, as disruptions to the sector can have serious repercussions on the food supply chain that provides quality, accessible, and controlled food.
I have attempted to convey this observation to the industry several times and through various channels, but have yet to receive a genuine response. As a communications professional, I analyze the weaknesses of corporate communications. However, regarding the sector in question, my personal background is complemented by a personal passion for the poultry sector, which impacts human nutrition. Although I have not yet received any assignments, I have been actively working for some time to produce content to support the sector and “lost consumers (in the broadest sense)” and to prevent the various types of losses I will attempt to illustrate below. Some of these losses have already occurred, even if they are seemingly offset by the sector’s ability to intervene along the economic value chain.
It must be said clearly that the criticisms faced by the poultry sector certainly generate losses, the exact extent of which is difficult to calculate since they are influenced by multiple interconnected factors. However, we can analyze the various aspects. I have done so for you in the following report.
NB: WE REMAIN AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO INTERVENE WITH GREATER PRECISION SHOULD THE COMPANIES AND ENTITIES MENTIONED DEEMED IT RIGHT TO SEND US CLARIFICATIONS CONCERNING THEM.
What do economic criticisms generate?
Increase in production costs
Regulatory adjustments – Pressures to improve animal welfare (e.g., increased space availability, environmental enrichment, changes to stunning practices) require significant investments for farmers, increasing management costs.
Raw Material Costs – While not directly linked to welfare criticism, the overall increase in feed (grain, soy) and energy costs has already put a strain on the sector, with production costs rising by 21.1% for poultry meat and 50% for eggs in 2022. Criticism may push for less intensive practices that may require specialized feed or more expensive farming systems.
Managing health emergencies – The concentration of animals in intensive farms can promote the spread of diseases (such as avian flu), causing significant losses. Avian flu, for example, caused €262 million in damages from October 2021 to May 2022. Critics of the intensive model often highlight these risks.
Falling demand and shift in consumption
Loss of consumer trust – Awareness campaigns about animal welfare and environmental impact can lead to a negative perception of the industry. Images of farms with inadequate hygiene conditions or sick animals (as has occurred in some reported cases) erode public trust.
Choosing alternatives – A more conscious consumer can opt for organic, free-range products, or, in extreme cases, reduce meat consumption in favor of vegetarian or vegan diets. While chicken remains the most consumed meat, even a small decline in consumption on a large scale would have a significant economic impact.
Pressure on Large-Scale Retailers (GSRs) – Supermarkets and retail chains, sensitive to public perception, may be pressured to favor suppliers who adopt higher welfare standards, even if this entails a higher price, penalizing farms that don’t comply and somehow generating an “unconscious” negative impact on the environment. ( https://moreaboutchicken.com/poultry-farming-and-the-paradox-of-the-quest-for-sustainability-second-section/ )
Indirect damages and social costs
Healthcare costs – Concerns about antibiotic resistance (linked to the use of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming) and the spread of zoonotic diseases can translate into costs for the public healthcare system.
Environmental costs – Soil and groundwater pollution from factory farm effluents incurs cleanup and management costs. Criticisms surrounding the link between livestock farming and deforestation (for soybean feed production) add another layer of complexity.
Reputational criticisms generate ?
Negative image of the sector
Activist Campaigns – Animal rights and environmental groups wage effective media campaigns, often with shocking videos and images, that severely damage the public image of the poultry industry by associating it with cruel and unsustainable practices.
Perceived lack of transparency – The lack of clear and accessible data on farming conditions and animal health can fuel suspicion and mistrust.
Impact on brands and companies
Direct damage to brands – Specific companies that are targeted by investigations or complaints related to animal welfare suffer direct reputational damage, with immediate consequences for sales and their market share. Cases like Fileni’s demonstrate how reputation can be a valuable asset worth protecting.
Difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff – An industry with a negative image may have a harder time attracting and retaining talent, especially younger generations who are more sensitive to these issues.
Political and regulatory pressure
Stricter legislation – A poor reputation can lead to increased public and political pressure to adopt stricter regulations regarding animal welfare and environmental impact, such as European directives. While some of these are necessary for progress, they may be perceived by the industry as “regulatory overkill.”
In short, criticism of the poultry sector generates a vicious circle: the negative perception leads to a decrease in demand or a request for products with higher standards, which in turn requires investments and increases costs, putting operators less ready to innovate in difficulty and also generating an increase in environmental impact that research in the sector has instead managed to constantly limit over the years ( https://moreaboutchicken.com/poultry-farming-and-the-paradox-of-the-quest-for-sustainability-second-section/ ).
While there is no single figure to quantify the losses, it is clear that the cost of not addressing criticism (both in terms of improving practices and transparent communication) is potentially much higher than the cost of taking proactive action. The future of the poultry sector will largely depend on its ability to credibly and sustainably address the growing concerns of consumers and society.
For an overall assessment of the impact generated by the criticisms Find below the report of my research
The economic and reputational impact of criticism on the poultry sector Italian (and international): an in-depth analysis
Synthesis
The Italian poultry sector, a cornerstone of the national agri-food sector with a value of approximately €7.35 billion and a high level of self-sufficiency (105.5% for meat in 2023), faces significant challenges both economically and in terms of its reputation.
Persistent criticisms focus mainly on animal welfare (intensive farming, rapid growth, stunning methods), environmental impact (emissions, waste management, deforestation for feed) and perceived risks to public health (antibiotic resistance, food scandals such as Fipronil, and potential links to certain diseases).
On the economic front, these criticisms translate into tangible costs. Meat production costs have increased by 21.1%, and the adoption of more stringent welfare standards, such as those proposed by the European Chicken Commitment (ECC), could lead to a 37.5% increase in production costs per kilogram of meat and require an estimated €8.24 billion in investments in new infrastructure.
Despite an overall 4.6% increase in poultry purchases in 2023, household spending on this type of meat decreased by 6.4% due to a reduction in volumes purchased and average prices. This scenario reflects a complex consumer response, influenced both by price sensitivity (79% of consumers consider price the primary criterion in purchasing decisions) and growing ethical concerns. Scandals such as the Fipronil-laced egg scandal and the Fileni “greenwashing” case have led to product recalls, legal sanctions, and significant damage to the company’s reputation.
At a reputational level, consumer trust is eroded by media campaigns and investigations highlighting farm conditions. Surveys reveal high concerns about animal welfare (71% believe chickens are sentient beings, 92% want adequate space and light). This fuels demand for products with higher welfare standards and encourages the rise of plant-based alternatives. Accusations of “greenwashing” further undermine the sector’s credibility.
In response, the industry is investing significantly in innovation, sustainability, and animal welfare (7% of annual turnover in research and development), participating in EU-funded projects like Broilernet , and adhering to stringent European and Italian regulations.
Communication initiatives aim to highlight the high standards and quality of “Made in Italy .” Although the sector is showing resilience, ongoing criticism requires a proactive and transparent approach to sustainability, animal welfare, and communication to mitigate future losses and ensure long-term growth.
1. Introduction – The context of the criticisms of the Italian poultry sector
1.1. Overview of the Poultry Sector in Italy: Size and Importance
The poultry sector represents a key component of the Italian agri-food economy, distinguished by its significant size and significant degree of self-sufficiency. Italy is the fifth-largest poultry producer in Europe, with production expected to increase by 9.9% in 2023 compared to 2022. The sector’s overall value, which includes both meat and eggs, stands at approximately €7.35 billion, of which €5.35 billion comes from meat and €2 billion from eggs.
Reflecting its robustness and strategic importance, the self-sufficiency rate for poultry meat reached 105.5% in 2023, indicating that domestic production is more than sufficient to meet domestic demand. Poultry is the most consumed meat in Italian households, with an average per capita consumption of approximately 21.4 kg, representing 42% of total meat volumes. Poultry meat purchases increased 4.6% in 2023 compared to the previous year. The egg sector is also significant, with Italy ranking as Europe’s fourth-largest producer. Domestic egg production increased 6.8% in 2023, and per capita consumption stands at approximately 215 eggs per year. The egg sector maintained an excellent level of self-sufficiency, standing at 97% in 2023.
The strong capacity for self-sufficiency and recent growth in production and consumption suggest that, despite criticism, the Italian poultry sector possesses intrinsic economic strength and plays a crucial role in national food security. This underlying strength, however, may conceal vulnerability to reputational damage and rising operating costs. This is particularly true in a context where consumer values are evolving, influencing purchasing decisions far beyond traditional price considerations. Dependence on the domestic market, given its high level of self-sufficiency, makes Italian consumers’ perceptions particularly critical, as any domestic challenges cannot easily be compensated for by foreign markets.
1.2. The main areas of criticism: animal welfare, environmental impact and public health
The poultry sector (both Italian and international) faces a complex and interconnected set of criticisms, often amplified by media attention and awareness campaigns. These challenges call into question the industry’s ethical, environmental, and health credentials.
Animal Welfare
Criticisms of animal welfare are among the most widespread. It is noted that the vast majority (99.5%) of the 525 million chickens slaughtered in Italy in 2016 came from factory farms. In these settings, the animals are raised for a growth rate described by activists as “supersonic,” reaching market weight in about 40 days, a significantly shorter period than the 3-6 months required for otherwise necessary growth with animals not selected by the industry. Animal welfare organizations document specific problems, such as ” broiler chickens with burns and wounds,” describing the animals as “forced to live out their short lives on farms as prisoners of their own bodies.”
Opinion polls reveal deep public concern for animal welfare: 71% of Italians consider chickens sentient beings, 84% believe they feel pain, and 86% favor effective stunning methods before slaughter. Furthermore, 91% want clean living environments for chickens, and 92% want sufficient space, natural light, and the opportunity for the animals to express natural behaviors, such as stretching their wings and pecking in search of food. The rapid growth of chickens is considered problematic by 85% of those surveyed.
The stark gap between industry claims regarding high welfare standards (as reported by industry sources) and public perception, supported by documentation from animal rights groups, highlights a significant “perception gap” or “trust deficit.”
This discrepancy is a primary factor in reputational damage, as consumers explicitly express feeling “misled” about chicken farming conditions. This suggests that industry communications, despite investment, are failing to bridge the credibility gap. If consumers feel misled, the reputational problem deepens, potentially leading to tangible economic consequences through a change in purchasing habits.
Environmental Impact
Intensive livestock farming is identified as a significant contributor to environmental degradation. This includes the production of massive quantities of manure and carcasses, which can attract pests and generate unpleasant odors. Improper waste disposal and the use of pesticides can cause significant water pollution in surrounding areas.
The expansion of poultry production relies heavily on the use of concentrated feeds, such as cereals and soybeans, whose cultivation has a particularly severe impact in regions like South America. Intensive feed production also involves the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, which contaminate water resources and pollute the air through the volatilization of harmful substances. The poultry sector alone is believed to be responsible for over one million tons of ammonia emissions.
The global nature of the poultry industry’s supply chain, especially regarding feed sourcing (for example, soy from deforested areas of the Amazon), means that the environmental footprint of Italian chicken extends well beyond national borders. This exposes the industry to international environmental criticism and potential market pressures (such as consumer boycotts or trade restrictions) based on global sustainability concerns, making mitigation strategies more complex. An environmental problem in another part of the world can be directly linked to the final product in Italy, creating a global reputational vulnerability that requires the industry to consider the entire value chain.
Public Health
Intensive farming practices are associated with increased health risks. Numerous avian influenza outbreaks and high-profile incidents such as the Fipronil egg scandal are evidence of this. The 2017 Fipronil scandal led to the recall of millions of eggs from the market and the temporary suspension of operations at hundreds of farms across Europe, causing serious economic disruptions in the supply chain.
An Italian study published in the journal Nutrients linked poultry consumption to an elevated risk of certain cancers (specifically, 11 types of digestive or gastrointestinal cancers) and an increased risk of mortality. Although the study emphasized the need for further interventional research, these findings fuel consumer concerns. Furthermore, the use of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming is being blamed for contributing to the spread of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms, a growing public health concern.
The interconnection between animal health, public health, and environmental impacts (e.g., disease vectors from wastewater, antibiotic resistance) creates a “synergistic risk.” Problems in one area can exacerbate those in others, multiplying economic and reputational vulnerabilities and posing a complex challenge for the industry.
Poor welfare can lead to disease, which in turn may require the use of antibiotics, contributing to resistance and impacting human health. This interconnected nature of the issues requires a holistic approach to effectively mitigate risks.
2. Economic impact of criticism
2.1. Increase in production costs and regulatory compliance (e.g. European Chicken Commitment)
The poultry sector’s response to public criticism and evolving regulatory frameworks, particularly regarding animal welfare and environmental standards, translates directly into increased operating and investment costs.
The Italian poultry sector has been “one of the sectors hardest hit by the economic crisis,” recording a 21.1% increase in meat production costs, according to ISMEA data. Adhering to higher welfare standards, such as those outlined in the European Chicken Commitment (ECC), would result in substantial cost increases. An estimated 37.5% additional production cost per kilogram of meat, a 35.4% increase in water consumption, and a 35.5% increase in feed consumption are expected.
Implementing the ECC would also lead to a 44% reduction in meat production and would require the construction of 9,692 new farms (for a total of 25.5 million m² of additional space) to maintain current production levels, with an estimated investment cost of €8.24 billion.
The significant costs associated with more stringent welfare standards, as highlighted by ECC data, pose a critical economic dilemma for the industry. Meeting consumer and societal demands for improved animal welfare comes at a potentially prohibitive price, which could lead to a reduction in domestic production capacity and a significant increase in consumer prices. This, in turn, could further dampen demand, especially given consumers’ documented price sensitivity, creating an unfavorable feedback loop. If prices were to double, as one commenter suggested, demand would be significantly impacted, jeopardizing the economic sustainability of the model.
Furthermore, the need for thousands of new farms to maintain production levels under higher welfare standards implies significant changes in land use and potential new environmental impacts (e.g., habitat fragmentation, localized pollution). This creates a paradoxical situation in which efforts to improve animal welfare could inadvertently shift or generate new environmental burdens, or face renewed opposition from local communities (“Not In My Backyard ” – NIMBY), thus perpetuating the cycle of criticism rather than holistic resolution.
2.2. Fluctuations in Consumption and Sales: The Influence of Public Perception
Consumer perception, strongly influenced by media narratives, ethical concerns, and health considerations, directly impacts purchasing decisions and the overall dynamics of the poultry products market.
Although overall poultry purchases in Italy increased by 4.6% in 2023, household spending on poultry decreased by 6.4% due to a combination of reduced volumes purchased and a decline in average prices. This suggests a shift toward cheaper poultry options or a general devaluation of the product in consumers’ minds. A 2016 Censis survey indicated that 16.6 million Italians had reduced their meat consumption in the previous year, and spending on meat decreased by 16.1% between 2007 and 2015. Italy ranked third to last in Europe in per capita meat consumption (79 kg of apparent consumption).
More recent data from 2024 show an overall 2% decline in meat consumption in Italy. “Alarming communication” is cited as a contributing factor to this decline, along with growing concerns about health and environmental impact. In contrast to domestic trends, the FAO forecasts a 15% increase in global poultry consumption by 2032, highlighting a potential divergence between global market growth and the specific challenges of the Italian market.
The divergence between growing global poultry consumption trends and the stagnation or decline observed in per capita meat consumption in Italy suggests that domestic criticism and “scaremongering” have a disproportionately strong impact on the Italian market. This creates a unique and potentially more challenging environment for the local industry than its international counterparts. The specificity of the Italian context, where critical narratives appear to be particularly effective in influencing consumer behavior, makes reputation management a key factor in economic performance.
The dual pressures of rising production costs (as highlighted by the ECC) and the potential stagnation or decline in domestic demand are creating a “profitability squeeze” for Italian poultry producers. This forces them to make difficult choices: absorb higher costs (reducing margins), significantly increase prices (risking a further reduction in demand due to consumer price sensitivity), or compromise quality/welfare standards (risking further reputational damage). This scenario could lead to market consolidation or a reduction in investments.
2.3. Economic consequences of scandals and controversies (e.g., Fipronil, Fileni case)
High-profile incidents, food safety scandals, and legal disputes directly undermine consumer trust and result in significant financial penalties, operational disruption, and long-term brand damage.
The 2017 Fipronil scandal led to the widespread recall of millions of eggs from the market and the temporary suspension of operations for hundreds of farms across Europe, causing severe economic disruptions in the supply chain. This event demonstrated the speed and extent of the economic damage that can result from a health crisis.
The Fileni case resulted in a fine from the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) for “misleading and deceptive commercial messages” regarding agricultural production and the origin of raw materials, including organic feed. This has been identified as a case of “greenwashing.” Legal actions in the Fileni case included four criminal convictions (with fines of €4,000 for each establishment) for “dangerous waste” (odors) and 13 documented environmental violations. A separate investigation was also opened by the Prosecutor’s Office for “dangerous waste” following numerous complaints from residents. It also emerged that a specific Fileni farm, despite a ruling from the Council of State requiring its closure, continued to operate with over 400,000 chickens, leading to further legal scrutiny and public protests.
The Fileni case clearly illustrates how economic losses extend beyond the simple loss of direct sales. They include fines and legal fees, operational disruptions due to investigations or closures, and the considerable (and long-term) cost of rebuilding a damaged brand image. The accusation of “greenwashing” is particularly damaging because it directly attacks the industry’s claims regarding sustainability and transparency, eroding the very foundations of consumer trust. The economic consequences are therefore multifactorial, including direct costs (fines, legal fees) and indirect costs (lost sales, brand restoration costs, potential loss of future revenue due to damaged trust).
The recurrence of high-profile scandals (e.g., Fipronil, avian influenza outbreaks, and ongoing problems with major players like Fileni) suggests a systemic vulnerability to crises within the sector. This implies that current risk management, regulatory oversight, and communication strategies may be insufficient to effectively prevent or contain economic and reputational fallout, leading to a cyclical pattern of damage and a cumulative erosion of public trust. If underlying issues, such as intensive livestock densities or lack of transparency, are not addressed at their root, the sector will continue to suffer recurring damage.
2.4. Market dynamics and international competitiveness
The Italian poultry sector’s commitment to high standards, while a source of national pride, often translates into higher production costs, which can impact its competitiveness in the broader global market.
European, and especially Italian, production costs are among the highest in the world due to adherence to stricter production regulations and standards than major international competitors such as the United States and Brazil. Despite these cost disadvantages, the Italian poultry sector maintains a high level of self-sufficiency (105.5% for meat in 2023) and has shown a positive trend in its trade balance, with exports increasing by 29% and imports decreasing by 22% in recent months.
There is clear concern within the sector that the current Italian production model could decline if cost pressures become unsustainable in the face of strong global competition.
The paradox of high national standards leading to high costs, yet simultaneously enabling a high level of self-sufficiency and growing exports, suggests that Italian poultry products may command a premium in certain markets due to perceived quality, or that the industry demonstrates exceptional efficiency in other areas, despite cost pressures.
However, this advantage is likely vulnerable to changes in consumer preferences (e.g., increasing price sensitivity) or aggressive pricing strategies by lower-cost international competitors. Italy’s market position is delicate: if consumers become more price-sensitive or if low-cost imports become more attractive, the competitive advantage based on perceived quality could rapidly erode.
3. Reputational impact and consumer perception
3.1. Erosion of consumer confidence and changing purchasing habits
Public perception, strongly influenced by ethical and health concerns, is a powerful driver of change in consumer behavior, directly impacting the reputation and sales of the poultry industry.
A significant portion (77%) of Italian consumers have changed their purchasing habits due to inflation, prioritizing value over traditional brand loyalty. Price has emerged as the primary criterion in purchasing decisions for 79% of consumers. Private labels are gaining significant ground, with 60% of Italians saying these alternatives meet their needs as well as traditional brands, and 30% saying they do not intend to return to their previous brand choices.
A 2019 survey revealed deep ethical concerns among Italian consumers: 71% believe chickens are sentient beings, 84% believe they feel pain, and 86% favor effective stunning methods before slaughter. Furthermore, 91% want clean living environments for chickens, and 92% want sufficient space and light to allow for natural behavior. The rapid growth of broiler chickens is considered problematic by 85% of respondents. The same survey explicitly noted that Italian consumers feel “deceived” about the actual conditions in which chickens are raised in intensive systems.
The confluence of high consumer price sensitivity and strong ethical concerns about animal welfare creates a “value-ethics paradox” for consumers. Although they express a desire for higher welfare standards, their purchasing decisions are often constrained by price. This dynamic could lead to a preference for cheaper, lower-welfare options if transparency is lacking, or, conversely, a definitive shift toward plant-based alternatives if the ethical cost of conventional meat is perceived as too high to justify. The feeling of being “cheated” is a key factor that can push some consumers toward alternatives, even at the cost of a higher price, while for others, price sensitivity may prevail, but their residual trust may be compromised.
The growing importance of private labels isn’t driven solely by price; it also reflects consumers’ search for perceived value that includes ethical attributes. If private labels (see reminder below*) While they can effectively market products that more closely align with consumers’ ethical expectations (e.g., “natural, cruelty-free, sustainable” claims) without the premiums associated with traditional brands (see reminder below*) , they could further erode the market share of established poultry brands struggling with reputational issues and a perceived lack of transparency. This poses a deeper reputational threat, as competition shifts from price alone to perceived ethical value.
—————
* For the benefit of non-expert readers, I would like to clarify the distinction between “private labels” and “traditional brands” in the context of the poultry sector and consumer trends.
When talking about:
Traditional brands (or “traditional brands”) : These refer to product brands owned by specific manufacturing companies and marketed and sold under their own names. These brands are often well-known, have a long history, and invest heavily in advertising and marketing to build their image and customer loyalty. In the Italian poultry sector, examples of traditional brands include large producers such as AIA, Amadori, and Fileni, which produce and sell chicken and eggs under their own names and logos.
Private labels (or “private labels,” “supermarket-branded products”) : These are products marketed under the name of the retailer (the “distributor”), i.e., the supermarket chain or large-scale retail trade (GDO). These products are manufactured by third-party companies (often the same manufacturers that also produce traditional brands, or manufacturers specializing only in private labels), but are sold under the supermarket’s brand (e.g., Coop, Esselunga, Conad, Carrefour, Lidl, etc.).
The point I made in the research, based on data from https://www.ey.com/it_it/newsroom/2025/06/dati-ey-il-77-dei-consumatori-cambia-le-abitudini-di-acquisto-a-causa-dell-Inghilterra , is that private label brands are gaining ground for several reasons:
Price Sensitivity – In a context of inflation, Italian consumers have become more price-conscious, with price being the primary factor in 79% of purchasing decisions. Private labels are often perceived as a cheaper alternative to traditional brands, offering greater value.
Perceived quality – 60% of Italians believe that private label brands meet their needs as well as traditional brands, and 30% do not intend to return to their previous brands. 1 This indicates that the perception of the quality of private labels has improved significantly.
Alignment with Ethical Values – Many private label brands are marketing products that align with consumer ethical expectations, such as “natural, cruelty-free, sustainable” claims. This often happens without the “surcharge” (i.e., a significant additional cost) that traditional brands might charge for products with similar ethical or sustainability attributes.
In short, private labels are becoming an increasingly attractive choice for consumers because they manage to offer a good balance between competitive pricing and the integration of ethical and sustainability values, which consumers are increasingly seeking, putting pressure on traditional brands that may struggle to compete on both fronts.
—————
3.2. The Role of the Media and Awareness Campaigns
Media coverage, investigative journalism, and targeted campaigns by animal welfare and environmental organizations play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and amplifying criticism of the poultry industry.
“Alarming communication” is explicitly cited as a contributing factor to the observed decline in overall meat consumption in Italy. Organizations such as Animal Equality and LAV actively publish investigations, videos, and campaigns highlighting issues such as animal suffering in intensive farms, the significant environmental impact of poultry production, and cases of perceived corporate misconduct (e.g., the Fileni case). High-profile incidents, such as the Fipronil scandal, have received widespread public attention and media coverage after alerts were issued to the European Rapid Alert System, demonstrating the rapid spread of negative news.
“Scare communication” isn’t merely a passive dissemination of information, but a strategic narrative deployed by critics. This narrative effectively exploits existing public concerns (animal welfare, health, the environment) to influence consumer behavior and policy.
The challenge for the industry, therefore, is not simply to refute the claims, but to proactively shape its own narrative, demonstrate tangible improvements, and engage in transparent dialogue to counter these powerful influences. If the industry fails to do so, it loses the “narrative battle,” which directly impacts its reputation. Two antifake blogs are particularly active and proactive in this regard. https://moreaboutchicken.com/ and https://nutriamocidibuonsenso.it/ founded by the person who is making this research easier for you (Pietro Greppi).
The impact of media and activist campaigns is significantly exacerbated by the rapid dissemination of information in the digital age. Social media and online platforms facilitate the rapid spread of news (and potentially misinformation), making it increasingly difficult for the industry to control its public image and respond effectively or quickly enough to emerging crises or allegations. This leads to rapid and widespread reputational damage. A single news report or investigative video can go viral globally, outpacing the responsiveness of traditional public relations strategies and making the damage more severe and difficult to contain.
3.3. The rise of meat alternatives and so-called “higher-health” products
Growing consumer awareness, combined with ethical and environmental concerns, is driving a noticeable market shift toward plant-based alternatives and animal products produced to higher welfare standards.
There is a documented increase in demand for free-range eggs, indicating a clear consumer preference for products associated with higher animal welfare, even if initially at a slightly higher price. “Fake meat ” or “plant-based chicken” is identified as a new and growing trend in the food industry. Brands like Beyond Meat are actively developing and marketing plant-based alternatives to chicken, driven by the mission of creating products that are “better for people and our planet.” These plant-based alternatives are achieving significant financial and sales success, effectively capitalizing on contemporary consumer trends favoring healthy eating and veganism. However, even companies that embrace and embrace these trends are encountering significant economic challenges and collateral environmental impacts, as documented by other research.
The rise of plant-based alternatives isn’t just a niche market phenomenon; it represents a direct and structural competitive threat to the conventional poultry sector. This trend is fueled by the same ethical and environmental criticisms that impact the industry’s reputation, signaling a long-term shift in consumer preferences that the traditional sector must strategically address. The poultry industry no longer competes simply with other meat producers, but with an entirely new product category that directly addresses its reputational vulnerabilities.
The growing demand for both higher-welfare animal products and plant-based alternatives is creating a “market bifurcation.” The conventional, intensive poultry sector risks being squeezed between a premium, ethical animal product segment and a low-cost, price-driven segment (which could include cheaper imports or private labels). This could lead to a loss of market share in both directions and a reduction in profitability. If consumers shift toward more expensive but ethical options, or plant-based alternatives, the traditional, intensive market finds itself in a precarious middle ground, forced to compete on multiple fronts with numerous disadvantages (see https://moreaboutchicken.com/global-genetic-bottleneck-and-possible-solutions/ ).
4. Industry responses and mitigation strategies
4.1. Investments in innovation, sustainability, and animal welfare
The Italian poultry industry is actively responding to criticism by investing in technological advances, sustainable practices, and improved animal welfare.
Italian poultry farms have “invested for years in innovation to improve technological and structural standards” with the explicit goal of ensuring “maximum animal welfare,” declared an “absolute priority” for Italian farmers.
The “Sustainable Meat” project, for example, is an industry initiative specifically designed to demonstrate that meat production and consumption can be sustainable, benefiting both human health and the environment. The sector allocates a significant portion of its financial resources to research and innovation, investing 7% of its annual turnover. This figure is considerably higher than the 2.5% average for the entire agri-food sector in Italy.
Significant investment in research and development and a stated commitment to animal welfare indicate that the industry recognizes the need for change and is actively working toward it. However, persistent criticism and consumer skepticism suggest a critical gap between these internal efforts and effective communication or tangible, widely perceived improvements. This highlights the need for greater transparency and verifiable impact. Investing alone is not enough; the industry must demonstrate that these investments translate into tangible improvements that consumers can recognize and trust .
4.2. Regulatory adaptation and development: the Italian and European model
The regulatory framework governing poultry production in Europe and Italy is presented as extremely rigorous, aiming to ensure high standards in various aspects of the industry.
It is stated that the Italian and European poultry sectors have achieved “unimaginable levels of attention to food safety, animal welfare, and environmental impact” over the past two decades, surpassing standards in many other parts of the world. European poultry regulations are considered “the most stringent in the world,” including specific provisions such as a maximum stocking density of 33 kg of birds per square meter, extendable to 39 kg/m² under optimal welfare conditions, as assessed by the competent veterinary services.
Official veterinarians are obliged to be present and conduct inspections throughout the entire production cycle, from breeding to slaughter, to ensure the safety and quality of the product for consumers.
The Animal Health Act, applicable since 21 April 2021, explicitly recognizes the interconnection between animal health and welfare, stating that “better animal health promotes better animal welfare, and vice versa.” Regulations such as Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter reflect a matter of public interest and contribute to improving meat quality and, indirectly, improving occupational safety in slaughterhouses.
Although the regulatory framework is described as rigorous and comprehensive, the persistent prevalence of criticism and high-profile scandals suggests that enforcement is inconsistent or that the minimum standards, while considered “rigorous,” are still perceived as insufficient by a significant portion of the public and animal welfare organizations. This indicates a potential gap between legal compliance and society’s expectations for ethical production. The mere existence of regulations is insufficient if they are not fully enforced or if the public’s ethical threshold is higher than the legal minimum.
4.3. Research and collaboration projects (e.g. Broilernet )
The Italian poultry sector is actively engaged in collaborative research initiatives aimed at promoting innovation and disseminating best practices across the sector to improve resilience and sustainability.
Broilernet project , funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 program (running from August 2022 to August 2026), is a European collaborative network involving 13 countries, including Italy (represented by Unaitalia ). Its primary objective is to improve the resilience and sustainability of the broiler chicken sector. Broilernet aims to create a dynamic space for interaction between scientific research and practical application, facilitating the co-design and implementation of best practices in European poultry farms. The project also includes a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed practices. A key outcome of the project will be the creation of an online portal, the ” Broiler Knowledge Hub,” designed to collect and share solutions and best practices, making them accessible to all stakeholders.
Projects like Broilernet represent a proactive and collaborative effort to address systemic challenges related to sustainability and well-being. Their ultimate success, however, depends not only on the development of new knowledge, but also on the ability to effectively translate this research into widespread implementation at the farm level and, above all, to transparently communicate these improvements to the wider public, rather than simply circulating them within industry circles. If the “Knowledge Hub” is used primarily for internal purposes, it will not help address the public trust deficit. The industry must demonstrate that these initiatives lead to tangible and verifiable improvements that consumers can perceive and trust.
4.4. Communication and transparency strategies
The industry is seeking to counter negative narratives and rebuild public trust through direct communication strategies and a focus on existing certifications.
The CIA (Italian Farmers’ Confederation) consistently emphasizes the quality and wholesomeness of Italian poultry, highlighting the rigorous controls and “Made in Italy ” certification of origin as guarantees for consumers. The “Sustainable Meat” project, for example, explicitly states its mission to demonstrate that meat production can be truly sustainable, aiming to counter negative perceptions.
While trade associations actively promote the quality and origin of “Made in Italy ” products, as well as sustainability efforts, accusations of “greenwashing” demonstrate that effective communication must be rigorously truthful, verifiable, and consistently supported by real practices. Superficial or unsubstantiated claims, excessively saturated with technical jargon or previously unreported topics, can have a serious backlash, causing further reputational damage and deepening consumer distrust. This highlights the importance of transparency and verifiable action. Simply making claims, even well-intentioned ones, is insufficient and can be counterproductive if they don’t align with the reality perceived by consumers and activists. The industry must go beyond mere marketing claims to provide demonstrable evidence.
5. Conclusions and future perspectives
5.1. Summary of economic and reputational losses
Criticisms leveled at the Italian poultry sector have generated both quantifiable economic losses and significant, though sometimes more difficult to measure, reputational damage. The cumulative impact is complex, but clearly discernible across various aspects of the industry.
Economic Losses:
- Rising production costs: The industry has experienced a 21.1% increase in meat production costs. Adopting more comprehensive welfare standards, such as ECC, could lead to a substantial 37.5% increase in production costs per kilogram.
- Significant investment needs: Maintaining current production levels with more stringent welfare standards (ECC) would require an estimated €8.24 billion in new infrastructure.
- Reduction in production capacity: The implementation of ECC could lead to a 44% reduction in meat production, impacting supply and market share.
- Direct financial penalties and legal costs: Scandals such as the alleged Fileni “greenwashing” case have resulted in antitrust fines, legal costs, and penalties for environmental violations.
- Market fluctuations and reduced spending: Although overall poultry purchases increased in volume, household spending on poultry decreased by 6.4%, and overall meat consumption in Italy declined by 2%, influenced by critical communication.
- Operational disruptions: The Fipronil scandal caused the recall of millions of eggs and the interruption of operations at numerous farms, causing immediate economic disruption.
- Every single case subjected to media scrutiny, whether true or imagined, impacts not only the company involved but also the entire industry, which at that moment, even if indirectly, is implicated in public debates that lead to the belief that what is highlighted is just the “tip of the iceberg” in the sector.
Reputational losses:
- Erosion of consumer trust: Surveys indicate that consumers feel “cheated” about chicken farming practices, and a significant majority express strong concerns about animal welfare (e.g., 71% believe chickens are sentient beings, 92% desire natural behaviors).
- Negative public perception: Factory farming is often described as a “threat” and as “cruel and unsustainable” by advocacy groups.
- Damage to brand image: Accusations of perceived “greenwashing,” as in the Fileni case, severely damage the credibility of the industry’s claims regarding sustainability and ethical practices.
- Influence of Critical Narratives: The impact of “scaremongering” and persistent activist campaigns has demonstrably influenced consumer behavior and public opinion.
Economic and reputational losses aren’t simply additive, but mutually reinforcing. Reputational damage, stemming from concerns about animal welfare or accusations of “greenwashing,” directly fuels consumer distrust.
This distrust, combined with current price sensitivity, can lead to reduced sales volumes, a shift toward cheaper or alternative products, and product devaluation, thus exacerbating economic pressure and necessitating costly adaptation strategies to regain market position.
For example, a case of “greenwashing” (reputational damage) can lead to fines (economic cost) and a loss of consumer confidence (reputational damage), which in turn negatively impacts sales (economic cost), creating a vicious circle.
5.2. Challenges and opportunities for sustainability and growth of the sector
The Italian poultry sector faces a complex dual challenge: simultaneously satisfying the growing global demand for poultry products and meeting increasingly stringent domestic and consumer expectations regarding ethical production, environmental management, and overall sustainability.
What challenges therefore lie ahead for the sector?
Balancing cost competitiveness with higher standards: Industry must find ways to implement higher welfare and environmental standards without losing its competitive edge over low-cost international producers.
Overcoming the “perception gap”: A significant challenge is bridging the gap between the industry’s self-proclaimed high standards and the public’s often skeptical perception, requiring genuine efforts to rebuild consumer trust.
Adapting to evolving consumer preferences: The industry must adapt to changing consumer needs, including growing interest in plant-based alternatives and a preference for higher-welfare animal products.
Crisis and Negative Narratives Management: The industry needs more robust strategies to prevent recurring scandals and effectively manage negative media campaigns that can quickly erode public trust.
Addressing systemic environmental impacts: A comprehensive approach is needed to mitigate the environmental footprint along the entire supply chain, including the often overlooked impacts of feed production.
Some opportunities to consider:
Italy ” quality : The sector can capitalize on the perceived quality and safety associated with “Made in Italy ” products as a competitive advantage, particularly in premium domestic and international markets.
Investing in holistic innovation: Further investment in research and technology can drive innovations that simultaneously improve efficiency, animal welfare, and environmental performance.
Improving transparency and proactive communication: Adopting radical transparency and engaging in proactive, verifiable communication about manufacturing practices can help rebuild trust and differentiate the industry.
Foster collaboration: Continued participation and leadership in collaborative, audience-facing content projects with cultural mediation intentions (e.g., Broilernet , www.moreaboutchicken.com and www.nutriamocidibuonsenso.it ) can foster collective improvement and the dissemination of best practices across the industry.
Diversify your product offering: Exploring and expanding diverse product lines, including certified higher-health and environmentally sustainable options, can attract new market segments and meet evolving consumer needs.
The long-term viability and sustained growth of the Italian poultry sector critically depend on its ability to transform the current wave of criticism into catalysts for profound innovation and genuine sustainability. This requires moving beyond mere regulatory compliance to establish a new “social contract” with consumers. This new contract should prioritize ethical production and environmental stewardship not as burdensome costs, but as core business values that drive market differentiation, enhance brand equity, and ensure lasting social acceptance.
———-
Understanding the criticisms of the poultry sector
I began my research by focusing on the main criticisms leveled at the poultry industry. This allowed me to establish a solid foundation for understanding the causes of economic and reputational losses. Areas of interest include animal welfare in factory farms, the environmental impact of the poultry industry, and public health concerns related to chicken consumption.
The steps of research
I aimed to further quantify the economic losses, seeking data on regulatory compliance costs, sales losses, and the impact on market value. I also assessed the reputational impact through analysis of public perception and brand damage. I examined specific case studies, the impact on consumer behavior, regulatory changes, and mitigation strategies adopted by the industry. My search focused on reliable sources using Italian keywords.
Main Criticisms and Their Impact
I have examined the main criticisms leveled at the poultry sector in Italy. I have found that the greatest concerns concern animal welfare in intensive farms, with reference to restrictive living conditions and slaughter practices. On the environmental front, criticism focuses on the enormous quantities of manure and carcasses, the attraction of parasites, unpleasant odors, deforestation related to feed production (soy), and ammonia emissions. Regarding public health, the risks of disease amplification (such as avian influenza) and food scandals emerge. I have noticed that the sector itself, through sources such as Carni Sostenibili, seeks to defend its position by highlighting improvements in food safety, welfare, and environmental impact.
Quantification of Economic Losses
I began quantifying the economic losses, discovering that the Italian poultry sector is among the hardest hit by the economic crisis, with a 21.1% increase in meat production costs. I found very specific data related to the adoption of the European Chicken Commitment (ECC), which would lead to a 37.5% increase in production costs per kilogram of meat, a significant increase in water and feed consumption, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and the need for significant investments (€8.24 billion) to build new facilities and maintain current production levels. This highlights a direct and quantifiable economic impact resulting from compliance with welfare standards.
Reputational Impact and Consumer Behavior
The reputational impact is clearly influenced by campaigns by animal rights groups, which use strong language to describe factory farms. I also examined how criticism can influence consumer behavior. Although a recent study suggests that inflation is pushing Italian consumers to prioritize value over brand loyalty and to opt for private label products, sensitivity towards “natural, cruelty-free, and sustainable” products is growing. This suggests that criticism of the poultry sector could accelerate a shift toward alternatives perceived as more ethical or sustainable, even if price remains a dominant factor.
Further steps
I aimed to further investigate economic losses and reputational impact, seeking more specific data on direct sales declines or brand perception indices. It was crucial to find specific case studies of controversies in Italy, such as the more well-known Fileni case, to analyze their concrete consequences. I also sought more targeted data on how criticism of the poultry sector directly influences consumers’ purchasing decisions and whether the adoption of new animal welfare regulations brings tangible benefits to the industry, beyond the costs. Finally, I assessed the effectiveness of mitigation strategies already in place, such as the Broilernet project .
In-depth analysis of industry criticisms and responses
I’ve strengthened my understanding of the main criticisms of the poultry industry, ranging from animal welfare (intensive farming, rapid broiler growth , stunning methods) to environmental impacts (waste management, deforestation for feed, ammonia emissions) and public health concerns (antibiotic resistance, avian influenza). I’ve also noted how the industry, through initiatives like ‘Sustainable Meat,’ seeks to counter these narratives by highlighting efforts to improve food safety and animal welfare.
Quantification of costs and economic impacts
I obtained more precise data on the economic costs. Adopting higher standards, such as those set by the European Chicken Commitment (ECC), would significantly increase production costs (up to 37.5% per kg of meat), increase resource consumption, and require significant investments in new facilities. I also noted that the Italian poultry sector has already experienced a 21.1% increase in production costs and a 6.4% reduction in household spending on poultry, although the latter is also linked to inflation and not just direct criticism. The sector, however, shows a certain resilience, maintaining production self-sufficiency and high chicken consumption.
Reputational impact and case studies
Reputational impact is strongly influenced by animal rights groups’ campaigns. I have identified the Fileni case as a significant example of reputational damage, with accusations of greenwashing and environmental violations leading to fines and investigations. This demonstrates how controversies can have direct consequences on public perception and consumer trust. General consumer trends show a growing focus on “natural, cruelty-free, and sustainable” products, suggesting that reputational considerations related to these aspects influence purchasing decisions, even if price remains a dominant factor.
Steps taken for specific details
To complete my analysis, I sought more specific data on economic losses directly attributable to criticism (e.g., direct sales declines following negative campaigns). I further researched consumer confidence indices specific to the poultry sector and sought further details on the economic and reputational impact of the Fipronil scandal in Italy. Furthermore, I focused on identifying the concrete benefits of adopting new animal welfare regulations and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies implemented by the sector to improve its image and sustainability.
NB: The analyses and assessments derived from research on the Italian poultry sector are largely valid internationally. The criticisms and challenges facing the Italian poultry sector reflect global trends and issues, with similar economic and reputational impacts in many other countries. I’ll explain why by referring you to the links below for further information on the sources from which I’ve summarized these findings:
Common criticisms globally
Animal welfare: Concerns about factory farming, the rapid growth of chickens, and their living conditions (space, natural light, and the ability to express natural behaviors) are widespread worldwide. Global organizations like the Global Animal Partnership (GAP) are pushing for the adoption of slower-growing breeds and higher welfare standards.
Environmental impact: Intensive poultry farming is recognized globally for its significant environmental impact, including waste management (manure, carcasses), greenhouse gas emissions (ammonia, nitrous oxide, methane), and air, soil, and water pollution. Deforestation related to soybean feed cultivation is an international environmental concern.
Public health: The spread of diseases (such as avian influenza) and the problem of antibiotic resistance due to the use of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming are global public health issues.
International economic impact
Rising production costs: High feed costs (accounting for 65-75% of total production costs) are a significant challenge for poultry producers globally. Implementing higher welfare standards, such as the European Chicken Commitment (ECC), entails additional costs and the need for significant infrastructure investments, not only in Italy but throughout Europe.
Market fluctuations and trade restrictions: Disease outbreaks such as avian influenza can cause significant economic losses, mass culling, trade restrictions, and reduced consumer demand internationally. For example, Thailand suspended chicken meat exports following an avian influenza outbreak.
Global competition: European producers, including Italian ones, face higher production costs than international competitors such as the United States and Brazil due to stricter regulations.
Reputational impact and consumer perception at a global level
Erosion of trust: Surveys in several countries (EU, North America, Latin America, Asia, and Australia) indicate that animal welfare concerns have become more important to consumers over the past two decades. The majority of EU citizens (94%) believe protecting the welfare of farm animals is important.
Willingness to pay more: Many consumers internationally are willing to pay more for products from higher-welfare or antibiotic-free farming systems.
Rise of Alternatives: The growing demand for plant-based alternatives and higher-welfare animal products is a global trend, posing a competitive threat to the traditional poultry industry.
Mitigation strategies and international sector responses
Innovation and Sustainability: Globally, the industry is investing in innovation and sustainable practices to address the criticism.
Regulatory compliance and collaboration: Projects like Broilernet , funded by the EU and involving 13 countries, aim to improve the resilience and sustainability of the European poultry sector through sharing best practices and cost-benefit analyses. Organizations like the World Organization for Animal Health are developing strategies to minimize antibiotic resistance.
In conclusion, the market dynamics, consumer concerns, and operational challenges described for the Italian poultry sector are a microcosm of a global phenomenon. The economic and reputational losses resulting from criticism are a reality for the poultry industry worldwide, pushing for greater innovation and transparency to ensure long-term sustainability.
SOURCES, SITES AND LINKS USED IN THE REPORT THEY ARE COLLECTED IN THE “SK-REPORT” SHEET, accessible “ here ”
NB: WE REMAIN AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO INTERVENE WITH GREATER PRECISION SHOULD THE COMPANIES AND ENTITIES MENTIONED DEEMED IT RIGHT TO SEND US CLARIFICATIONS CONCERNING THEM.
