Picture posting is enabled for all :)
It also means British pig farmers that adhere to higher standards of animal welfare at extra cost, are not receiving the proper recognition for their products
I feel that the petition is ill-conceived and ill-informed. A voluntary code for country of origin was introduced in 2010 (not 2012 as stated in the petition). As a voluntary code the petition gives the impression that compliance is voluntary, but that's not so; suppliers who sign up to the code are obliged to comply with its requirements, and all of the major suppliers have signed up - see who has here.What's particularly unhelpful is the petition's conflation of country of origin labelling with pig welfare standards:QuoteIt also means British pig farmers that adhere to higher standards of animal welfare at extra cost, are not receiving the proper recognition for their productsThis is just nonsense. Knowing the country that the pig was reared in tells you nothing about the welfare standards under which the animals was raised. Minimum welfare standards for pigs are harmonized across the EU (where almost all of the pork is imported from) so the insinuation that foreign standards are lower than in Bighty is just xenophobic. More importantly, if UK producers are rearing pigs to an objectively higher standard of welfare then they will already be labelling their products to reflect that - and the only objective certificated standard that guarantees half-decent welfare standards for pigs is Organic, and that's an international standard.Pitching this petiition in terms of animal welface is disingenuous: Knowing the country of origin doesn't have anything to do with welfare standards, and making the association serves to weaken the value of the Organic standard and the excellent work of the certificating bodies such as the Soil Association.