Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-vpfzz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T09:50:43.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M Miele ,
I Veissier ,
A Evans  and
R Botreau
M Miele*
Affiliation:
School of City and Regional Planning, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3WA, UK
I Veissier
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
A Evans
Affiliation:
School of City and Regional Planning, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3WA, UK
R Botreau
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: MieleM@cardiff.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Farm animal welfare has become an important issue for the European public, especially in the last two decades when a number of crises (eg Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Avian Influenza) have affected farm animal populations. Public concern about this issue led the European Union to fund the Welfare Quality® project. This project aimed to develop a protocol for assessing animal welfare on farms and at slaughter plants, to identify the main animal welfare problems, and to address possible welfare improvement strategies. In fulfilling these aims, the Welfare Quality® project incorporated inputs from both science and society. This was crucial, as the public perception of what constitutes ‘animal welfare’ sometimes differs from animal science-based definitions. Furthermore, these differences are often interwoven with broader variations in ethical- and value-based understandings about human/non-human animal relationships. This paper presents the steps that we adopted to establish a dialogue between science and society during the construction of the Welfare Quality® assessment protocols. This dialogue involved numerous interactions between animal scientists, social scientists and members of the public. These interactions took several forms, including: meetings, conferences, workshops, websites, newsletters, interviews, focus groups, and citizen and farmers juries. Here, we address four key moments within this dialogue: the development of the initial list of twelve welfare criteria; the consumer focus groups; the development of the Welfare Quality® scoring system; and the citizen juries. In particular, we focus on the results of the focus groups and citizen juries. The focus groups were conducted in France, Italy, Sweden, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Hungary and the citizen juries were carried out in Italy, the United Kingdom, and Norway. Drawing on this research, we highlight the similarities and differences between societal understandings of farm animal welfare and the views of scientific experts. Furthermore, and crucially, we outline how the animal scientists took account of societal opinion when developing their farm animal welfare assessment tools.

Keywords

animal welfarecitizen juriesfocus groupsscience-society dialoguewelfare assessmentwelfare criteria
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 103 - 117
Copyright
© 2011 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

Bennett, RM 1996 People's willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 5: 3–11Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445–455Google Scholar
Bock, B and Van Huik, M 2007 Pig farmers and animal welfare, a study of beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of pig producers across Europe. In: Miele, M (ed) Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers to Farm Animal Welfare Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Bock, B and van Leeuwen, F 2005 Review of socio-political and market developments of animal welfare schemes. In: Miele, M (ed) Farm Animal Welfare Concerns, Consumers, Retailers and Producers. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Capdeville, J, Perny, P and Veissier, I 2008 Multicriteria evaluation of animal welfare at farm level; an application to MCDA methodologies. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 33: 287–316Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009 Overall assessment of cow welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Animal Welfare 18: 363–370Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM and Spruijt, BM 1999 Overall animal welfare reviewed. Part 3: Welfare assessment based on needs and supported by expert opinion. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, H and Morris, C 2003 Farm animal welfare: a new repertoire of nature/society relations or modernism re-embedded? Sociologia Ruralis 43: 216–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, L 2011 How animal welfare standards create and justify realities. Animal Welfare 20: 21–27Google Scholar
Callon, M, Lascoumes, P and Barthe, Y 2009 Acting in an Uncertain World, an Essay on Technical Democracy. The MIT Press: Cambridge, London, UKGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2005 Attitudes of Consumers Towards the Welfare of Farmed Animals. Special Eurobarometer 229/Wave 63.2 - TNS Opinion and Social. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium. http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2007 Attitudes of EU Citizens Towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1 - TNS Opinion and Social. EC: Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/sp_barometer_fa_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Evans, A and Miele, M 2007 Consumers’ Views about Farm Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality® Reports Series. Cardiff University Press: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L 2009 An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality(R) Project Assessment Systems. Welfare Quality(R) Reports. Cardiff University Press: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Kjaernes, U 2004 Europeans’ trust in food highest for fruits and vegetables, lowest for ‘junk food’. Press releases, What's new on the research pages? http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/454&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enGoogle Scholar
Kjaernes, U and Lavik, R 2008 Opinions on Animal Welfare and Food Consumption in Seven European Countries. Welfare Quality® Report Series. Cardiff University Press: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Kjaernes, U, Bock, B, Higgin, M and Roex, J 2009 Farm Animal Welfare Within the Supply Chain: Regulation, Agriculture, and Geography. Welfare Quality® Report Series no 8. Cardiff University Press: Cardiff: UKGoogle Scholar
Kjarnes, U, Miele, M and Roex, J 2007 Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers to Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality® Reports Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Miele, M and Parisi, V 2000 Atteggiamento dei Consumatori e Politiche di Qualità della Carne in Italia e in Europa Negli Anni Novanta. Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy. [Title translation: Consumers’ attitudes and meat quality policies in Europe in the 1990s]Google Scholar
Miele, M, Evans, A and Higgin, M 2009 Comparative citizen jury report. The results of a dialogue between citizens and experts regarding farm animal welfare in the UK, Norway and Italy. www.welfarequality.netGoogle Scholar
Miele, M and Evans, A 2010 When foods become animals, ruminations on ethics and responsibility in care-full spaces of consumption. Ethics, Place and Environment 13(2): 171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstone, E and Lang, T 2003 The Atlas of Food. Earthscan: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Roe, E and Marsden, T 2006 A comparative assessment of the market for welfare-friendly foodstuffs across 6 European Countries. In: Miele, M (ed) Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers to Farm Animal Welfare. Cardiff University Press: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Tronto, JC 1993 Moral Boundaries. A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Routledge: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I and Evans, A 2007 Principles and criteria of good farm animal welfare. Welfare Quality Fact Sheet Welfare. Quality®: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and Sandøe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare 20: 89–101Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009a Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009b Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs (Sows and Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009c Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle (Fattening Cattle, Dairy Cows, Veal Calves). Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 2009 The human perception of animal body language: a window into an animal's world? In: Miele M, Veissier I, Buller H, Spoolder H and Bock B (eds) Knowing animals p 79, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar