Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-67wr7 Total loading time: 0.31 Render date: 2022-12-10T06:04:28.892Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2008

P.L.M. VAN HORNE*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR), P.O. Box 29703, 2502 The Hague, The Netherlands
T.J. ACHTERBOSCH
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR), P.O. Box 29703, 2502 The Hague, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: peter.vanhorne@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

Animal welfare receives more legislative attention in the European Union (EU) than in many other regions of the world. Animal welfare standards for poultry are generally taken to be higher in the EU than in producing countries exporting to the EU, particularly developing countries. The recent action plan for animal welfare introduced by the European Commission aims to further expand the body of regulatory standards. In broiler production worldwide, birds are mainly kept on litter. Recently the EU agreed on a new Directive to set standards for maximum bird density. However, this is not considered likely to have a great impact on global trade. At present, the difference in animal conditions, including bird density, in Brazil and Thailand is limited compared to the EU. In egg production the majority of commercial layers are kept in laying cages. There is wide variation in space allowance per bird from 300 to 400 cm2 in Brazil, Ukraine and India towards the current minimum of 550 cm2 per hen in the EU. After 2012, hens in the EU will be kept in enriched cages with a minimum space allowance of 750 cm2 per hen. It is expected that this will have an impact on world trade in egg products and especially egg powder. Trade in table eggs will continue to be limited to the local region. The EU is considering the use of labelling to provide consumers with more information concerning the standard of production. Another option could be to use financial mechanisms such as taxes or tariffs to prevent imports from other countries with lower standards. The likelihood of a measure being challenged would depend on how difficult it was for exporters outside the EU to meet the requirements.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2008

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

BELL, D. (2000) Economic implications of reducing cage density in the US. Cooperative Extension of the University of California. An economic update, number 234. December 2000.Google Scholar
BERG, C. and ALGERS, B. (2004) Using welfare outcomes to control intensification: the Swedish model. In: Weeks, C.A. and Butterworth, A. (Eds): Measuring and auditing broiler welfare. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp 223-229.Google Scholar
BERG, C. and YNGVESSON, J. (2006) The transition from battery cages to loose housing systems and furnished cages for Swedish laying hens. Swedish Animal Welfare Agency. Skara. Sweden. Proceedings of the European Poultry Conference of the World Poultry Science Association. Verona. September 2006.Google Scholar
BOWLES, D., PASKIN, R., GUTIERREZ, M. and KASTERINE, A. (2005) Animal welfare and developing countries: opportunities for trade in high-welfare products from developing countries. Review of science and technology Off. int. Epiz., 24 (2): 783-790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DYCK, J.H. and NELSON, K.E. (2003) Structure of the Global Market for meat. Agricultural Economic Report. No 785. Economic Research Service. US Department of Agriculture. Washington DC.Google Scholar
EATON, D.J.F., BOURGEOIS, J. and ACHTERBOSCH, T.J. (2005) Product differentiation under the WTO. An analysis of labelling and tariff of tax measures concerning farm animal welfare. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). Report 6.05.11 The Hague. The Netherlands.Google Scholar
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (2006a) Commission working document on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010: Strategic basis for the proposed actions. European Commission, DG Consumer Protection and Health. Brussels.Google Scholar
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (2006b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. COM (2006) 13 final. European Commission, DG Consumer Protection and Health. Brussels.Google Scholar
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (2007) Commissioner Kyprianou welcomes Council agreement on animal welfare rules for broilers. Press Release IP/07/630, May 8. European Commission, DG Consumer Protection and Health. Brussels.Google Scholar
FAO, (2007) Gross national income per country. www.fao.org.Google Scholar
FIKS-VAN NIEKERK, T. and DE JONG, I. (2007) Mutilations in poultry in European production systems. Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen-UR. In: Lohmann information. Vol 42 (1), April 2007. Cuxhaven, Germany.Google Scholar
HESS, J.B., BILGILI, S.F. and LIEN, R.J. (2007) On-farm poultry welfare programs in the US – Influence on Product Quality. Proceedings of the XVIII European Symposium on the quality of poultry meat. Prague, September, 2007.Google Scholar
HORNE, P.L.M. VAN and BONDT, N. (2005) Impact of EU Council Directive 99/74/EC ‘ of laying hens on the competitiveness of the EU egg industry. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). Report 30354. The Hague, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
HORNE, P.L.M. VAN and BONDT, N. (2006) Production cost in EU and non-EU countries and the impact on international trade. Proceeding of the European poultry Conference. Verona, 2006.Google Scholar
HORNE, P. VAN (2006) Comparing housing systems for layers: an economic evaluation. Poultry International 45: Number 3.Google Scholar
HORNE, P. VAN, TACKEN, G.M.L., ELLEN, H.H., FIKS–VAN NIEKERK, T.G.C.M., IMMINK, V.M. and BONDT, N. (2007) Prohibition of enriched cages for laying hens in the Netherlands. An examination of the consequences. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). Report 2.07.10. The Hague, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
HULZENBOSCH, J. (2006) Wide range of housing options for layers. International Poultry Training Centre (PTC+), Barneveld. World Poultry 22 (6).Google Scholar
IEC, (2007) Comparison of international country data. International egg market. Annual review 2007. International Egg Commission. London September 2007.Google Scholar
INGENBLEEK, P., BINNEKAMP, M. and GODDIJN, S. (2007) Setting standards for CSR: A comparative Cast Study on Criteria Formulating Organizations. Journal of Business Research 60: 539-548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JONES, R.B. (1996) Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World's Poultry Science Journal 52: 131-173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAZZUCO, H. (2007) A Brazilian perspective of layer welfare. Article by Rogierio G.T. da Cunha. World Poultry 23: (6).Google Scholar
MCINERNEY, J. (2004) Animal welfare, Economics and Policy. Report on a study undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of DEFRA. LondonGoogle Scholar
OIE, (2004) World Organization for Animal Health. Report of the Third meeting of the OIE working group on animal welfare. Paris. December 2004. www.oie.int.Google Scholar
PVE, (2007) Main trade flows in poultry meat in 2004. www.bedrijfsnet.pve.agro.nl.Google Scholar
SCAHAW, (2000) European Commission - Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare 2000. The welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers). European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Adopted 21 March 2000.Google Scholar
TACKEN, G.M.L., COTTELEER, G. and VAN HORNE, P.L.M. (2003) The future of the Dutch egg processing industry. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). Report 2.03.03. The Hague, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
WINDHORST, H-W. (2006) Changes in poultry and trade worldwide. World's Poultry Science Journal 62: 585-602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *