Is the Responsible Wool Standard cruelty free? Is the ZQ wool certification free from harm?

Image: Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals // Sheep being loaded onto a truck for slaughter.

Written October 2021. Certifications are updated regularly, and we will work to keep this analysis up to date, too, though at some times discrepancies may be found as updates are released. Please contact us if you notice this.

People who want to buy wool, but do not want to pay for cruelty towards sheep may have heard about the Responsible Wool Standard (RWS) or the ZQ wool certification. Both of these certifications claim that the wool sold under their names ensures ‘freedom from pain’, as well as ‘freedom from fear and distress’. In fact, they state that all of the ‘five freedoms’ remain intact.

But is this accurate, or a deception? Let’s explore the standards.

What’s the difference between the Responsible Wool Standard and the ZQ merino certification?

These are two different certifications, the former being created by Textile Exchange, the latter by the New Zealand Merino Company. Both claim to ensure the afforementioned freedoms for animals, as well as environmental sustainability.

However, the two standards are not so different. In fact, if a wool production operation receives ZQ certification, they now also receive RWS certification.

Before we dive in deeper, if you’d like to see the standards for yourself, you can download the Responsible Wool Standard from Textile Exchange, and the ZQ standard from its namesake website, if you fill in your details at the bottom of this page.

The standards are not intended for the public, but for industry. However, it’s important that the public be able to access them and read what the certifications truly mean for sheep and the planet.

Do the standards allow for painful mutilations like mulesing and tail docking?

Mulesing occurs when the skin on the backside of a sheep is cut off. It is argued that this deeply cruel practise exists to protect sheep from flystrike, a disease where flies lay eggs in the folds of skin on a sheep. However, flystrike is only such a problem for merino sheep because they have been selectively bred to have more wrinkles of skin, and more wool, for the sake of industry profit. There is no need to mulese.

Both standards have a complete prohibition on mulesing.

However, both standards allow tail docking, where sheep have their tails cut or burnt off, or it is otherwise severed. Tail docking occurs for similar reasons and also does not need to occur. However, preventing flystrike through other practises like regular crutching — the tight shearing around the bottom and tails of sheep, as occurs at animal sanctuaries where sheep are not mutiliated — is expensive and not financially viable for a business built on profitting from a large number of sheep.

Is pain relief required for tail docking on Responsible Wool and ZQ standard certified farms?

In short, not really.

The language that is used across both certifications, despite them being linked, is inconsistent and misleading.

In the ZQ standard, under Animal Husbandry Procedures (Tail Docking, Castration Disbudding/Dehorning and Sheep Marking) discussed in Section 3.5.4, requirement 3.5.4.8 states that wool growers are expected to engage in the establishment of ‘a pathway for the application of pain relief for tail docking and castration over a period of time’.

This is the only reference to pain relief, and pain relief is not mandatory. It is recommended that tail docking be carried out using a hot cauterising iron or rubber rings.

Wool operations certified with ZQ also receive RWS certification, so pain relief is also not mandatory under this certification.

However, the Responsible Wool Standard states:

’AW3.10.1 For all methods, pain relief shall be applied when suitable pain relief is available.
AW3.10.2 The procedure shall be performed using either thermocautery (preferred method) or the application of a rubber ring.
AW3.10.3 The procedure shall be carried out between the ages of 24 hours and 8 weeks.’

The key words here are ‘when suitable pain relief is available’. Pain relief is always available should a wool operation want to use it, and has for some time. However, the inclusion of this allows wiggle room for wool operations to justify tail docking without pain relief. The thermocautery method which newborn lambs are reccommended to be tail docked with, is essentially equivalent to using an extremely hot hair straightener to cut off an animals’ tail.

Do the certifications address how sheep are slaughtered by the wool industry?

Again, not really.

The wool industry considers sheep to be ‘dual-purpose’, with all sheep eventually being slaughtered and either sold into live export, or sold to slaughterhouses in the countries they are born, killed and cut up to be sold as meat.

Neither the Responsible Wool Standard or the ZQ certification allow wool operations to knowingly sell their sheep into the live export trade, but they do allow for sheep to be sold to slaughterhouses.

They do not make any demands as to what occurs inside the slaughterhouse, other than that slaughterhouses should be complying with national law. These laws demand that sheep be electrically stunned, with electricity being forced into their brain, rendering them temporarily unconscious. Then, sheep have their throats cut open and they are bled out. Multiple studies have shown that stunning in slaughterhouses is regularly ineffective, even when it appears to be, meaning many animals have their throats cut open while partially or fully conscious.

These standards claim to ‘protect’ sheep and ensure ‘ethical’ wool, yet not only are the lives of these sheep not free from pain, fear and distress, their lives are taken from them, too. If we recognise that animals are sentient and deserving of a good life, it ought to follow that they also deserve to not have their lives stolen for the sake of profit.

It should be noted too, that many of the commonly used methods of pain relief are proven to be ineffective in alleviating pain, as shown in scientific literature compiled for CFJ by Dr Clive Phillips.

Okay, so the certifications do not genuinely protect sheep from pain, and they allow for sheep to be slaughtered. But do the certifications protect the environment?

If you’re interested in the environmental impact of the wool industry, including claims that ‘regenerative wool’ is now in production, we have written a report in collaboration with the Center for Biological Diversity which can be accessed here.