Here's the problem ... no matter what term you come up with, it just won't work. Either the FDA will turn around and say your term is no good and stop you from using it, or the corporate farmers will instruct the FDA to assign the term to mean what they already do, so the term will be rendered meaningless.We're talking about semantics here. "Non-cruelty" is a term I think of when raising my chickens. For example: having 100 chickens in a 10x10 space and stating they're free range or cruelty free is certainly not true, it's cruel (imo) to manage a flock in that way.
When they are outside of their safety net, I consider it free ranging. Mostly because they are more susceptible to predators. Many of us have to place limitations on our chickens' roaming space for a variety of reasons.
The only way around that is to have a private certifying body that attests to a specified standard. There are things out there such as "Certified Humane" by A Greener World, or "Animal Welfare Certified" by Global Animal Partnership. However, some of these are somewhat bogus, too. And, there are costs imposed upon farmers to achieve/maintain the certifications.
Perhaps there could be an independent open standard. That would probably be the best approach. Not sure how the details would get worked out. Would private organizations then certify that the open standards are met?