{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,29]],"date-time":"2026-07-29T00:59:38Z","timestamp":1785286778007,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":31,"publisher":"The Royal Society","issue":"7","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,29]],"date-time":"2026-07-29T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1785283200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,29]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>Public concern over animal welfare in intensive farming systems such as egg production is rising. Meeting future demand for eggs presents both welfare and environmental challenges. Cage-use regulations could reshape farm practices and environmental outcomes, while necessitating larger hen populations, potentially increasing overall mortality and the number of animals slaughtered. National-scale assessments of such welfare-driven changes remain limited. We used UK egg production data to evaluate the environmental and welfare implications of transitions between furnished cage, barn, free-range and organic systems. Eight national-scale scenarios were modelled, each with constant egg output but differing system distributions: \u2018business-as-usual\u2019 (cage, barn, free-range non-organic and organic systems), \u2018cage-free: free-range\u2019 with production shifted from cages to free-range system (comprising barn, free-range non-organic and organic systems), \u2018cage-free: barn\u2019 with production shifted from cages to barn system (comprising barn, free-range non-organic and organic systems), fully battery cage, fully furnished cage, fully barn, fully free-range non-organic, and fully free-range organic. Life cycle assessment methodology was used to estimate environmental impacts, including global warming potential, eutrophication potential, acidification potential and land occupation, using data from previously published studies of UK production systems. Cage systems had the lowest mortality rates and numbers of hens slaughtered, as well as the lowest global warming potential, eutrophication potential, acidification potential and land occupation. The business-as-usual scenario had lower global warming potential and acidification potential, while eutrophication potential and land occupation were lower in cage and barn systems. The business-as-usual scenario required fewer hens and had lower mortality than the non-cage scenarios, except for barn and cage systems. These results highlight the need to integrate environmental and welfare outcomes when guiding future transitions toward non-cage egg production.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1098\/rsos.251830","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,29]],"date-time":"2026-07-29T00:17:30Z","timestamp":1785284250000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["The environmental cost of welfare-driven policy changes in UK egg production"],"prefix":"10.1098","volume":"13","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0003-2370-0982","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Oliver","family":"Martinic","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padua 1 , Padua, Italy"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-2153-6117","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Luisa","family":"Magrin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Padua Department of Animal Medicine Productions and Health 2 , Legnaro, Italy"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Valentina","family":"Caldart","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"The Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford 3 , Oxford, UK"},{"name":"Department of Biology and University of Oxford 4 , Oxford, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Rhea","family":"Harrison","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Foodsteps Ltd 6 , Ipswich, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Margaret","family":"Hegwood","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder 7 , Boulder, CO, USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Flaviana","family":"Gottardo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padua 1 , Padua, Italy"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-7389-8785","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Harriet","family":"Bartlett","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"The Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford 3 , Oxford, UK"},{"name":"Department of Biology and University of Oxford 4 , Oxford, UK"},{"name":"Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford 5 , Oxford, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"175","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,29]]},"reference":[{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"20260","DOI":"10.1073\/pnas.1116437108","article-title":"Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture","volume":"108","author":"Tilman","year":"2011","journal-title":"Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"987","DOI":"10.1126\/science.aaq0216","article-title":"Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers","volume":"360","author":"Poore","year":"2018","journal-title":"Science"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C3","article-title":"FAOSTAT","author":"Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C4","article-title":"Processed by our world in data","author":"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"447","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(18)31788-4","article-title":"Food in the anthropocene: the EAT\u2013lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems","volume":"393","author":"Willett","year":"2019","journal-title":"Lancet"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C6","article-title":"Council Directive 1999\/74\/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"995430","DOI":"10.3389\/fanim.2022.995430","article-title":"Consumer attitudes towards egg production systems and hen welfare across the world","volume":"12","author":"Sinclair","year":"2022","journal-title":"Front. Anim. Sci."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C8","article-title":"End the Cage Age","author":"European Citizens' Initiative","year":"2018"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C9","article-title":"Quarterly UK statistics about eggs \u2013 statistics notice (data to Q2 2025)","author":"United Kingdom Government"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"105907","DOI":"10.1016\/j.resconrec.2021.105907","article-title":"Life cycle assessment of contemporary Canadian egg production systems during the transition from conventional cage to alternative housing systems: update and analysis of trends and conditions","volume":"176","author":"Turner","year":"2022","journal-title":"Resour. Conserv. Recycl."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"109","DOI":"10.1016\/j.livsci.2011.03.011","article-title":"Ecological and economic evaluation of Dutch egg production systems","volume":"139","author":"Dekker","year":"2011","journal-title":"Livest. Sci."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"312","DOI":"10.1038\/s43016-024-00921-2","article-title":"Trade-offs in the externalities of pig production are not inevitable","volume":"5","author":"Bartlett","year":"2024","journal-title":"Nat. Food"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"084005","DOI":"10.1088\/1748-9326\/aad401","article-title":"Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population","volume":"25","author":"Hayek","year":"2018","journal-title":"Environ. Res. Lett."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"210478","DOI":"10.1098\/rsos.210478","article-title":"The \u2018sustainability gap\u2019 of US broiler chicken production: trade-offs between welfare, land use and consumption","volume":"9","author":"Chan","year":"2022","journal-title":"R. Soc. Open. Sci."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C15","first-page":"7789","article-title":"Welfare of laying hens on farm","volume":"21","author":"EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare","year":"2023","journal-title":"EFSA J."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"26","DOI":"10.3382\/ps.2011-01635","article-title":"Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: egg production systems","volume":"91","author":"Leinonen","year":"2012","journal-title":"Poult. Sci."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"256","DOI":"10.3382\/ps.2013-03252","article-title":"The effects of welfare-enhancing system changes on the environmental impacts of broiler and egg production","volume":"93","author":"Leinonen","year":"2014","journal-title":"Poult. Sci."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C18","author":"Harmonised Environmental Storage and Tracking of the Impacts of Agriculture (HESTIA)"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C19","article-title":"Emissions from livestock and manure management","volume-title":"2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.","author":"IPCC","year":"2019"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C20","volume-title":"EMEP\/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019. Report no. 13\/2019","author":"EMEP\/EEA","year":"2019"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C21","author":"ECOALIM database v9","year":"2025"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C22","volume-title":"AGRIBALYSE\u00ae version 3.2","author":"Cornelus"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C23","author":"Ember Energy Research CIC"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1218","DOI":"10.1007\/s11367-016-1087-8","article-title":"The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology","volume":"21","author":"Wernet","year":"2016","journal-title":"Int. J. Life Cycle Assess."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C25","article-title":"Climate change 2021 the physical science basis","volume-title":"Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change","author":"Masson-Delmotte","year":"2021"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C26","author":"Guinee","year":"2002","journal-title":"Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C27","article-title":"Egg production","author":"Our World in Data"},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C28","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"201","DOI":"10.1016\/j.tifs.2021.01.086","article-title":"Environmental sustainability assessment of poultry productions through life cycle approaches: a critical review","volume":"110","author":"Costantini","year":"2021","journal-title":"Trends Food Sci. Technol."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C29","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"750733","DOI":"10.3389\/fvets.2021.750733","article-title":"Environmental impacts of pig and poultry production: insights from a systematic review","volume":"27","author":"Andretta","year":"2021","journal-title":"Front. Vet. Sci."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C30","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3052","DOI":"10.1038\/s41598-021-81868-3","article-title":"Laying hen mortality in different indoor housing systems: a meta-analysis of data from commercial farms in 16 countries","volume":"4","author":"Schuck-Paim","year":"2021","journal-title":"Sci. Rep."},{"key":"2026072820172852000_RSOS251830C31","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"20240382","DOI":"10.1098\/rsbl.2024.0382","article-title":"A consensus on the definition of positive animal welfare","volume":"21","author":"Rault","year":"2025","journal-title":"Biol. Lett."}],"container-title":["Royal Society Open Science"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/royalsocietypublishing.org\/rsos\/article-pdf\/doi\/10.1098\/rsos.251830\/6153927\/rsos251830.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/royalsocietypublishing.org\/rsos\/article-pdf\/doi\/10.1098\/rsos.251830\/6153927\/rsos251830.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,29]],"date-time":"2026-07-29T00:17:36Z","timestamp":1785284256000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/royalsocietypublishing.org\/rsos\/article\/13\/7\/rsos251830\/482508\/The-environmental-cost-of-welfare-driven-policy"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,29]]},"references-count":31,"journal-issue":{"issue":"7","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,29]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1098\/rsos.251830","relation":{},"ISSN":["2054-5703"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2054-5703","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,29]]},"article-number":"rsos251830"}}