Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T05:48:21.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal welfare assurance programs in food production: a framework for assessing the options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D Fraser
D Fraser*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems and W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada
*
* Contact address for correspondence
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various animal welfare assurance programs are being used to encourage or require the adoption of animal welfare standards in food production, and to assure the public that such standards are followed. The programs involve five main formats. Non-mandatory codes/guidelines are relatively easy to institute and appear well-supported by the industry, but provide only minimal assurance to the public unless measures are taken to ensure compliance. Programs based on government regulations and inter-governmental agreements are more challenging to institute; they are likely to generate less industry acceptance, but may provide more public confidence if enforcement is adequate. Product differentiation programs, and retailer policies requiring products to meet certain standards, serve a range of functions; these may generate public confidence but only for products covered. The various programs include several types of requirements. Requirements that are designed to maintain animal health and functioning have a widely accepted scientific basis, are often easy to incorporate into existing production systems, and often provide economic benefits, but do not fully address public concerns over animal welfare in some cultures. Requirements that address pain, distress and other affective states, and those that accommodate certain natural behaviour, have a growing but less traditional scientific rationale and appear likely to generate public confidence; however, they sometimes require significant changes to existing practices. Requirements for more natural surroundings (outdoor, free-range) seem to generate public confidence, but appear most likely to increase costs, least likely to be supported by the existing industry, and may involve trade-offs with productivity and with other aspects of animal welfare. The various formats and requirements provide a range of policy options for addressing animal welfare concerns in different cultural, industry and market contexts.

Keywords

animal welfare standardsassurance programsinternational agreementsregulationswelfare codes
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 93 - 104
Copyright
© 2006 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, AW and Craig, JV 1985 Effect of crowding and cage shape on productivity and profitability of caged layers: a survey. Poultry Science 64: 238–242Google Scholar
Animal Care Certified 2004 UEP's Animal Care Certified Program — Egg Industry Establishes Welfare Guidelines. United Egg Producers: Atlanta, USA. http://www.animalcarecertified.com/abouttheprogram.html (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Animal Protection Ordinance 1988 Swedish Code of Statues, SFS 1998:539. http://eelink.net/~asilwildlife/ANIMALPROTEC-TIONORDINANCE.html (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Arhin, S 2004 Stray and feral animals in urban areas. In: Proceedings from the 2004 International Animal Welfare Law Conference pp 67–72. Animal Legal and Historical Center: East Lansing, USAGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 2001 An historical account of the development of the Animal Needs Index ANI–35L as part of the attempt to promote and regulate farm animal welfare in Austria: an example of the interaction between animal welfare science and society. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science, Suppl 30: 34–41Google Scholar
Bayvel, ACD 2004 The OIE animal welfare strategic initiative — progress, priorities and prognosis. In: Proceedings, Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative pp 13–23. OIE: Paris, France. http://www.oie.int/eng/welfare_2004/proceedings.pdf (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Bell, D, Chase, B, Douglass, A, Hester, P, Mench, J, Newberry, R, Shea-Moore, M, Stanker, L, Swanson, J and Armstrong, J 2004 UEP uses scientific approach in its establishment of welfare guidelines. Feedstuffs 76(11): 1–9Google Scholar
Benson, GJ and Rollin, BE (eds) 2003 The Well-Being of Farm Animals. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Biosecurity New Zealand 1999 Guide to the Animal Welfare Act 1999. MAF Policy Information Paper No 27. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Wellington, New Zealand. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/legislation/animal-welfare-act/guide/index.htm (accessed January 2005)Google Scholar
Brown, KH 2004 A marketplace perspective. In: Proceedings, Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative pp 79-91. OIE: Paris, France. http://www.oie.int/eng/welfare_2004/proceedings.pdf (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Burger King 2004 2004 BKC Animal Handling Policy. Burger King Corporation: Miami, USA. http://www.bk.com/CompanyInfo/public_policies/2004.aspx (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Carpenter, E 1980 Animals and Ethics. A Report of the Working Party Convened by Edward Carpenter. Watkins & Dulverton: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Council of the European Union 2000 Council Regulation (EC) No 5/2001 of 19 December 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs. Official Journal of the European Communities L316, 01.12.2001: 1–4Google Scholar
Council of the European Union 2001 Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Communities L2, 5.1.2001: 1–3Google Scholar
Cox, B and Bilkei, G 2004 Lifetime reproductive performance of sows kept outdoors in Croatia. The Veterinary Record 154: 569–570CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Defra 2004 Farm Animal Welfare: On-Farm. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra): London, UK. http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/on-farm.htm (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1998 Behavior and behavioral needs. Poultry Science 77: 1766–1772CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAOSTAT 2004 Food Balance Sheet, Last Updated 27 August, 2004. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy. http://faostat.external.fao.org/faostat/form?collection=FBS&Domain=FBS&servlet=1&hasbulk=0&version=ext&language=EN (accessed January 2005)Google Scholar
FAWC (undated) The Five Freedoms. Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC): London, UK. http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1975 The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Animal Production 21: 59–68Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2004 Applying science to animal welfare standards. In: Proceedings, Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative pp 121-127. OIE: Paris, France. http://www.oie.int/eng/welfare_2004/proceedings.pdf (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Fraser, D and Leonard, ML 1993 Farm animal welfare. In: Martin, J, Hudson, RJ and Young, BA (eds) Animal Production in Canada pp 253–270. University of Alberta Faculty of Extension: Edmonton, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Weary, DM 2004 Quality of life for farm animals: linking science, ethics and animal welfare. In: Benson, GJ and Rollin, BE (eds) The Well-Being of Farm Animals pp 39–60. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2004 Surveys of Stunning and Handling in Slaughter Plants. http://www.grandin.com/survey/survey.html (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Gregory, NG and Grandin, T 1998 Animal Welfare and Meat Science. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 1998 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
HFAC 2003 Certified Humane Raised and Handled. Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC): Herndon, USA. http://www.certifiedhumane.com/index.html (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
HMSO 1987a The Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987. Statutory Instrument 1987 No 2020. HMSO: London, UK. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1987/Uksi_19872020_en_1.htm (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
HMSO 1987b The Welfare of Calves Regulations 1987. Statutory Instrument 1987 No 2021. HMSO: London, UK. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1987/Uksi_19872021_en_1.htm (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
HMSO 1994 The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994. Statutory Instrument 1994 No 2126. HMSO: London, UK. http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19942126_en_4.htm (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Hughes, BO and Appleby, MC 1989 Increase in bone strength of spent laying hens housed in modified cages with perches. The Veterinary Record 124: 483–484CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IFOAM 2002 IFOAM Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM): Bonn, Germany. http://www.ifoam.org/standard/norms/ibs.pdf (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. The Veterinary Record 153: 227–231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks & Spencer 2004 Issue Three: Animal Welfare — Food. http://www2.marksandspencer.com/thecompany/investorrelations/csr_report_0304/j/j1.shtml (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
McDonald's Corporation 2004 Animal Welfare. http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/socialrespons/market/animalwelfare.html (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
McDonald's Corporation 2005 Our Food. http://www.mcdon-alds.co.uk/resources/img/sections/eatsmart/Nutrition.pdf (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
McEachern, M and Tregear, A 2000 Farm animal welfare in the UK: a comparison of assurance schemes. Farm Management 10: 685–708Google Scholar
Miles, DM, Branton, SL and Lott, BD 2004 Atmospheric ammonia is detrimental to the performance of modern commercial broilers. Poultry Science 83: 1650–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NAERIC 2004 NAERIC About Us. North American Equine Ranching Information Council (NAERIC): Louisville, USA. http://www.naeric.org/aboutus_overview.asp (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
OIE 2005 Terrestrial Animal Health Code (2005). World Organization for Animal Health (OIE): Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
Panjwani, R 2004 Compassion and the Indian judiciary. In: Proceedings from the 2004 International Animal Welfare Law Conference pp 147–156. Animal Legal and Historical Center: East Lansing, USAGoogle Scholar
Preece, R 1999 Animals and Nature: Cultural Myths, Cultural Realities. UBC Press: Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 1993 Animal welfare, science, and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Suppl 2: 44–50Google Scholar
RSPCA 2004 Freedom Food — Introduction. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA): Horsham, UK. http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/FreedomFood/FreedomFoodHomepage&articleid=1014390136788 (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Scientific Veterinary Committee 1997 The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. European Union: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, P 2004 European Union Law on the Welfare of Farm Animals. Compassion in World Farming Trust: Petersfield, UK. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/EU_Law_2004.pdf (accessed November 2004)Google Scholar
Swinbank, A 2000 Ethics, trade and the WTO. Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, University of Manchester, 14–17 April 2000. http://www.apd.rdg.ac.uk/AgEcon/staff/staffpapers/AESEthics00.pdf (accessed December 2004)Google Scholar
Swiss Society for the Protection of Animals 1994 Laying Hens: 12 Years of Experience with New Husbandry Systems in Switzerland. Swiss Society for the Protection of Animals: Basel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Taylor, GB 1972 One man's philosophy of welfare. The Veterinary Record 91: 426–428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
te Velde, H, Aarts, N and van Woerkum, C 2002 Dealing with ambivalence: farmers' and consumers' perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UEP 2002 United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for US Egg Laying Flocks. United Egg Producers (UEP): Atlanta, USAGoogle Scholar
Vaarst, M, Roderick, S, Lund, V, Lockertz, W and Hovi, M 2004 Organic principles and values: the framework for organic animal husbandry. In: Vaarst, M, Roderick, S, Lund, V and Lockertz, W (eds) Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture pp 1–12. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washburn, SP, White, SL, Green, JT and Benson, GA 2002 Reproduction, mastitis, and body condition of seasonally calved Holstein and Jersey cows in confinement or pasture systems. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 105–111Google ScholarPubMed
Weary, DM and Fraser, D 2004 Pain management in farm animals. In: Benson, GJ and Rollin, BE (eds) The Well-Being of Farm Animals pp 325–338. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, DJ and Sullivan, M 2004 Foxes in the hen house: animals, agribusiness, and the law. In: Sunstein, CR and Nussbaum, MC (eds) Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions pp 205–233. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar