Ruminant producers blame almost equally supermarkets and Government for welfare legislation for many reasons but mainly because legislation incurs additional administrative and policing costs. All of these are eventually paid for by the producer, increasing their production costs but not those of their overseas competitors. There is little doubt that the final responsibility for legislation lies with each of us as individual consumers. A significant factor influencing our view of animal welfare is our upbringing, associating ‘nice animals’ with similar feelings to ourselves. However, such instinctive principles are generally forgotten when we are asked to pay a premium for them in the supermarket. Hence the main activators of welfare legislation are the ‘evangelical few’. Supermarkets claim that the demands they impose on their suppliers are simply a reflection of their customers’ demands. However another reason is to allow supermarkets clearly to differentiate their ruminant products to encourage consumers through the door but it has been difficult for them to pass on a premium to their suppliers for meeting tighter specifications for which the consumer will not pay a premium. This dilemma has recently reached breaking point in the pig industry with the ending of the Malton pig contract. To move farm animal welfare forward requires a firm basis of ‘systems’ welfare research which would also act as an effective vehicle for technology transfer to producers. Nevertheless, the main dilemma, our reluctance as consumers to pay for high welfare products, will continue to restrict progress. If, however, high welfare systems could be shown to improve product eating quality for which consumers will pay a premium, developments in animal welfare will be rapidly and willingly accepted by producers.