Narratives in the Farm Animal Welfare Policy Process

Simple SummaryThe protection and enhancement of farm animal welfare has become an increasingly important component of livestock systems and animal-based food supply chains in many of the more economically developed countries around the world. With the growth of debates around environmental sustainability and food security at the international and global scale, this paper explores the ways in which farm animal welfare, as a public concern, as a science, and as a policy and regulatory area can articulate with these other debates in a comprehensive and holistic manner.As farm animal welfare becomes an increasingly important component of contemporary global livestock production, animal welfare science and animal welfare policy-making need to find new ways of entering global debates over food security and sustainability. In this paper, we explore the means by which both animal welfare science and policy should articulate with these emerging global debates. Having first established the important gains in animal welfare policy and the maturity of animal welfare science, we identify and explore the potential impact of these current debates and argue that they have the potential for profound change in our understanding of, and our response to, the welfare of animals. We conclude the paper with a number of possible recommendations for how a scientifically informed, sustainable animal welfare policy might flourish.

JAVMA, Vol 246, No. 5, March 1, 2015 T beginning of the modern era of concern for animal welfare is often linked to the 1965 release of the Brambell report in the United Kingdom, which suggested that to ensure good welfare, an animal should have “sufficient freedom of movement to be able without difficulty to turn around, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs.” Subsequently, the idea of the five freedoms (freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, and disease; freedom to express normal behavior; and freedom from fear and distress) emerged as a cornerstone of farm animal welfare policy in Great Britain. The five freedoms primarily focus on minimizing suffering and providing essential needs. A more comprehensive view of animal welfare that considers the perspective of the animal, rather than just the animal’s value to humans, has since been developed. This more contemporary interpretation takes into consideration not only the physical health (ie, whether the animals are free from pain, hunger, thirst, injury, and disease) of the animals under our supervision but also their mental health (ie, whether the animals suffer from the negative effects of stress and fear and whether they have opportunities for positive experiences such as play, touch, choice, or freedom) and ability to satisfy behavioral needs (ie, specific behavior patterns that when prevented, result in frustration or a negative psychological state). Veterinarians are in a unique position to influence animal welfare standards by virtue of our scientific training and the trust animal caretakers place in us. Concern for animal welfare prompted a revision of the veterinarian’s oath in 2010 to add the words and welfare: “I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare....” This acknowledged a change in the purview of the profession beyond that of physical health alone. Too often, however, the animal welfare policies adopted by the AVMA emphasize physical health to a greater extent than animals’ mental states or ability to express natural behaviors, particularly when it comes to farm animal welfare. I contend that these views on farm animal welfare lag behind those of society as a whole and that by continuing to espouse these positions, the AVMA risks abandoning its role as an advocate for the welfare of farm animals. An examination of just two issues—battery cage confinement of laying hens and confinement of breeding sows in gestation crates—illustrates my concerns. The role of the veterinary profession in promoting animal welfare

This article calls into question how different the parallel ontologies of meat are in terms of the realities they enact. It argues that while biofabricated animal material is expected to transform the production and consumption of meat, the material’s ontologies reinforce existing interrelationships between the dominant meat culture and the law. Additionally, the expectations surrounding biofabricated animal material vests the material with transformative power, even though it does not challenge the structural factors, namely law and culture, which underlie the exploitation and commodification of animals. I begin by delineating the co-constituting relationship between law, the realities of meat production and consumption, and meat culture. I then unpack the interface between different ontologies of meat and consider why the contest has taken place in legal terrains. From here, I consider the key expectations that have assigned transformative power to biofabricated animal material. I suggest that these expectations work to reinforce existing meat culture, and the configurations of power that benefit from it, as supported via legal instruments.

The paper presents the method and findings of a Delphi expert survey to assess the impact of UK government farm animal welfare policy, farm assurance schemes and major food retailer specifications on the welfare of animals on farms. Two case-study livestock production systems are considered, dairy and cage egg production. The method identifies how well the various standards perform in terms of their effects on a number of key farm animal welfare variables, and provides estimates of the impact of the three types of standard on the welfare of animals on farms, taking account of producer compliance. The study highlights that there remains considerable scope for government policy, together with farm assurance schemes, to improve the welfare of farm animals by introducing standards that address key factors affecting animal welfare and by increasing compliance of livestock producers. There is a need for more comprehensive, regular and random surveys of on-farm welfare to monitor compliance with welfare standards (legislation and welfare codes) and the welfare of farm animals over time, and a need to collect farm data on the costs of compliance with standards.

This guide accompanies the following article : The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: A Review of the Sociological Literature, Compass 6/2 (2012): pp. 166–181, 10.1111/j.1751‐9020.2011.00440.x Author’s introduction The animal rights movement has been described as one of the most neglected and misunderstood social movements of our era. However, social movement scholars are beginning to realise the political and moral significance of the world wide animal protection movement at a time when nature itself has been included in the specialist field of environmental sociology. Just as people are beginning to see that nature matters and is not separate from society, nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) too are increasingly perceived as worthy of our respect and consideration. The long‐running animal protection movement which began in England in the 18th century is today better known as the animal rights movement. It is the men and women of this movement who, atypically for a social movement, are campaigning for a species that is not their own. The movement’s theories and practices are important for what they do for animals and also because of what the animal rights controversy reveals about human beings. Author recommends Garner, Robert. 1998. Political Animals: Animal Protection Policies in Britain and the United States. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. The book describes the progress made by the animal protection movement in the two countries where animal rights protests have been most prominent. The author presents a comprehensive examination of animal welfare policies in Britain and the US thus providing an informative comparative study of the movement’s relationship with the state in these two countries. Garner’s focus on policy networks corresponds to the sociologist’s concept of social movement organizations. More than fifty such organizations balanced evenly between animal protectionists and animal‐user industries are discussed in the book. Political Animals provides an excellent introduction to the politics of animal rights, although missing in the accounts are the voices of the animal activists and their opponents. In the final analysis, it is the meaning activists attribute to their cause that drives the movement, a fact which Garner tacitly acknowledges. Imhoff, Daniel (ed) 2010. The CAFO Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories. Published by the Foundation for Deep Ecology with Watershed Media, Berkeley, LA: University of California Press. The Reader’s subject – concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) – covers most of the topics relevant to factory farmed animals and is divided into seven parts: (1) The pathological mindset of the CAFO; (2) Myths of the CAFO; (3) Inside the CAFO; (4) The loss of diversity; (5) Hidden costs of CAFO; (6) Technological takeover; (7) Putting the CAFO out to pasture. The acronym CAFO suggests a bland, mundane practice and is therefore a name which the editor believes should be replaced by the more accurate label “animal concentration camps”. The chapter titles indicate what is in store for the reader but the content is perhaps less confronting than the book’s companion photo‐format volume of the same name. The reader is a very comprehensive survey of how living creatures are subjected to inhumane practices for their body parts by “corporate food purveyors” and is essential reading for anyone who cares about the future survival of all of the earth’s species. Kean, Hilda. 1998. Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800. London: Reaktion Books Ltd. In this attractive book, the historian Hilda Kean provides one of the most comprehensive and interesting surveys of the early animal protection movement in England, the birthplace of animal rights. Kean tells a compelling story of how and why people’s attitudes and practices involving animals changed over the past two centuries. She attributes these changes largely to the seemingly simple idea of “sight”, or how people were influenced by seeing for themselves how animals such as horses and dogs were ill treated in public spaces such as in streets and markets. Animals “out of sight” in vivisection laboratories and in abattoirs also came to the attention of the early animal protectionists, most of whom were women. The sight and spectacle of animal abuse turned hearts and stomachs once a light was shone on these everyday cruelties by the pioneers of animal rights in England. Kean’s book is nicely illustrated in keeping with the theme of seeing animals in their various relationships with humans. Munro, Lyle. 2005. Confronting Cruelty: Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the Animal Rights Movement. Leiden & Boston: Brill. For most people animal cruelty is understood as unspeakable acts perpetrated by warped individuals mostly against dogs, cats, birds and sometimes horses. The animal rights movement seeks to broaden the issue of animal cruelty to include the vast numbers of animals that suffer and die in “the animal industrial complex” of intensive farming, recreational hunting and animal research and experimentation. The book draws on social movement theory to explain how and why an increasing number of people in the UK, US and Australia have taken up the cause of animals in campaigning against the exploitative practices of the animal‐user industries. Essentially, the thesis is that animal abuse is constructed by the animal rights movement as a social problem (speciesism) on a par with sexism and racism. This is the first book in the Human and Animal Studies Series which currently lists about a dozen monographs published by Brill under the editorship of Kenneth Shapiro of the Society & Animals Institute in the US. Noske, Barbara. 1989. Humans and Other Animals: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology. London: Pluto Press. As an anthropologist, Noske brings a different perspective to our relationship with nature, especially in the long process of animal domestication. Her chapter on “the animal industrial complex” shows how both human and nonhuman animals suffer within this structure of domination; for example, slaughterhouse work takes a heavy toll on the meat workers while the animals experience atrocious pain and misery on the assembly line of mass execution. Noske’s book is valuable for its broad treatment of animal‐human relations in which she describes cultural, historical, structural and sociological aspects of these relations particularly in America and Australia. Wilkie, Rhoda and Inglis David (eds.) 2007. The Social Scientific Study of Nonhuman Animals: A Five‐volume Collection – Animals and Society: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences. (Vols 1–5), London: Routledge. This is a collection of 90 previously published articles and book chapters in approximately 2,000 pages on the social‐scientific study of animals. The papers range from the earliest in 1928 on “the culture of canines” to the latest in 2006 on “religion and animals.” Three quarters of the papers were published in the last two decades and are derived from anthropology, sociology, psychology, geography, philosophy and feminist studies. Because Animals and Society is based mostly on work derived from more than 12 different specialist journals, it has a claim to comprehensiveness; however, the editors mention topics that are not covered in the collection:

In response to the growing number of citizens who express concerns about farm animal welfare in intensive, modern livestock farming, a number of programs that sell meat and other food products of animal origin from more animal friendly production systems (so called animal welfare programs) have emerged on the market in recent years. To successfully establish an animal welfare program in the market, the acceptance of several stakeholders along the supply chains of food products of animal origin is needed. For this reason, based on three quantitative empirical studies, this study investigates the perceived importance and practicability of 13 often discussed animal welfare measures from farmers’, veterinarians’ and consumers’ point of view. The results show that the evaluations of the animal welfare measures surveyed differ widely between the stakeholder groups. However, the results also give evidence that it is not impossible to develop an animal welfare program which meets the common concerns of consumers regarding animal welfare and at the same time is accepted by the experts directly involved in livestock production. For some animal welfare measures, there is still research demand to improve the practicability in conventional livestock farming. This is particularly urgent for the provision of outdoor access and the renouncement of curative interventions such as tail docking or teeth clipping as consumers rate these animal welfare measures as important for the wellbeing of animals while, at the same time, conventional farmers rate their practicability rather low. From the results, first implications for the conception of animal welfare programs can be derived. Thus, our study can help to establish a broader market segment for products from more animal friendly production system. In this way the more and more critical discourse between the broader public and the agricultural sector can be mitigated.

In the field of agricultural policy, farm animal welfare is gaining importance. At the European Union level, animal welfare policies have been developing since the 1970s. However, national regulations vary considerably between member states. The study provides a systematic comparison of farm animal welfare regulations in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK and explores the factors that influence differences by applying theories from comparative policy analysis. Firstly, in four of the five countries the level of societal concern influences animal welfare policies. Secondly, a connection between the level of societal concern and the emphasis of political parties on farm animal welfare is identified. The findings contribute to the exploration of a hitherto under‐researched area in public policy, the field of farm animal welfare.

Simple SummaryFarm animal welfare policies are in transition: whereas agricultural policy is traditionally characterised by strong state steering, market actors are getting involved in this field. This study aims to improve understanding of these dynamics in the field of farm animal welfare. By conducting a comparative case study of public and private farm animal welfare policies in Germany and France, the findings illustrate how retailers are assuming a leading role in the field. By introducing animal welfare labels and purchasing guidelines, retailers react to rising societal concerns for the welfare of farmed animals. Governmental actors, conversely, are exercising restraint and engage in voluntary rather than regulatory policies. Contrary to the traditionally strong role of the state in agricultural policy, the contribution indicates a shift towards market-based governance in the field of farm animal welfare.The intensification of livestock production and the focus on economic gains of agricultural policy have resulted in animal welfare related challenges. In many countries the societal concern for the welfare of farmed animals is increasing. Whereas policymakers on the European Union’s level and in EU member states have passed specific farm animal protection laws, the existing policies do not always guarantee the welfare of farmed animals. At the same time, the engagement of market actors in the field is increasing. This article explores the development of public and private policies in two countries with very different levels of regulation. By conducting a comparative analysis of public and private policies in Germany and France, the findings illustrate that, although they have different starting points, retailers in both countries are getting increasingly involved in farm animal welfare. In addition, there is evidence that governmental policies are shifting from regulatory to voluntary approaches in cooperation with the private sector. Given that in both countries these dynamics are a very recent development, it remains to be seen whether governmental actors will (re-)assume the lead in the field, whether they will engage in cooperation with private actors, or whether they will leave the task of agricultural restructuring to the market.

This article reviews the literature on the economics of farm animal welfare. It starts with the challenge of defining and measuring animal welfare. Subsequently, the demand for farm animal welfare is evaluated from both the citizens’ perspective and the consumers’ perspective. The much-cited preference gap in between these perspectives constitutes a dilemma for the governance of animal welfare. Literature on the supply of farm animal welfare discusses the implications of enhancing farm animal welfare for production cost. The linkages between farm structure, farm technology, and animal welfare are discussed, and the frequently voiced hypothesis that smaller and more traditional farms automatically imply higher farm animal welfare levels is rejected. We examine the central challenge to the governance of farm animal welfare: its effects on competitiveness and trade. We also discuss objectives, governance instruments, the interplay of different policy instruments, and how to combine them for an effective and efficient strategy for farm animal welfare.

For over 50 years the UK has shown leadership in public-driven animal welfare policy and, more recently, consumer-focused initiatives. Now that we are leaving the European Union, what should be...

As a sensitive area in international trade, animal welfare measures have encountered resistance in negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Consequently, alternative avenues have been pursued to reach international trade policy convergence. To further understand the contemporary trade politics of animal welfare, an empirical investigation was conducted on the interplay between European and Brazilian actors in the context of livestock production. By drawing upon diplomatic studies and the global governance literature, this study identifies and analyses initiatives that parallel the WTO approach and through which the development and implementation of mutually acceptable farm animal welfare measures have been pursued. Research findings indicate that a constellation of international non-diplomatic actors are currently engaged in influencing the future development of farm animal welfare measures. Among the initiatives that enable the alignment of European and Brazilian animal welfare policies and practices, there are soft instruments such as knowledge sharing and private standards. The rise of new actors and the use of soft instruments have been, to a certain extent, able to mitigate the tardiness of a WTO consensus regarding the use of animal welfare measures. However, there are concerns that the use of private standards has become a shortcut to circumvent the rigours of the multilateral trading system. This concern deserves a closer look because instead of paving the way, private standards may hamper trade relations which in turn hamper progress in animal welfare matters.

Concerns about farm animal welfare vary among individuals and societies. As people increasingly consider the values underlying current farm animal production methods, farm animal welfare policy debates have escalated. Recent food animal protection policies enacted in the European Union have fueled highly contentious discussions about the need for similar legislative activity in the United States. Policymakers and scientists in the United States are apprehensive about the scientific assessment, validation, and monitoring of animal welfare, as well as the unforeseen consequences of moving too hastily toward legislating farm animal welfare. The potential impact of such legislation on producers, food prices, animals, and concerned citizens must also be considered. Balancing the interests of all stakeholders has therefore presented a considerable challenge that has stymied US policymaking. In this review, we examine the roles of ethics and science in policy decisions, discuss how scientific knowledge relative to animal behavior has been incorporated into animal welfare policy, and identify opportunities for additional refinement of animal welfare science that may facilitate ethical and policy decisions about animal care.

Simple SummaryThe aim of this study was to design and evaluate a new digital game ‘Farm Animal Welfare’ to teach children about farm animal welfare. The game focuses on chickens and cows, and children played the game on touchscreen netbooks. To evaluate the game, we measured children’s knowledge, attitudes, compassion, and beliefs about whether farm animals have emotions and feelings, both before and after the game, using a child-friendly questionnaire. We found that the new game led to increases in children’s knowledge about animal welfare, knowledge about welfare in different farming systems (such as caged hens vs. free range), and children were more likely to believe that farm animals can feel emotions. The game did not seem to impact children’s attitudes about cruelty or compassion towards farm animals. The new game shows promise, and to improve children’s understanding of animal welfare, we recommend further research on digital animal welfare education interventions for children.Many children growing up in urban areas of Western countries have limited contact with and knowledge of farm animals and food production systems. Education can play an important role in children’s understanding of farm animal welfare issues, however, most education provided focuses on pets. There is a need to develop new farm animal welfare interventions for young children. This study examines the process of designing, developing, and evaluating the effectiveness of a new theoretically-driven digital game to teach children, aged 6–13 years, about farm animal welfare. ‘Farm Animal Welfare’ aimed to promote children’s knowledge about animal welfare, promote beliefs about animal sentience, and promote positive attitudes and compassion. A quasi-experimental design was carried out, using self-report questionnaires that children (n = 133, test = 69, control = 64) completed in the classroom. Test and control groups were from different schools and the control group did not engage in the intervention. Findings indicate a positive impact on beliefs about animal minds, knowledge about animal welfare needs, and knowledge about welfare in different farming systems, but there was no change in compassion or attitudes about cruelty. This study presents the first evaluation of a digital animal welfare education intervention for children, demonstrating the benefits of incorporating ‘serious games’ into farm animal welfare education. The findings will inform future practice around farm animal welfare education interventions for primary school children.

Tierwohl in der Nutztierhaltung ist in Deutschland ein viel diskutiertes Thema. Umfragen zeigen, dass sich die Gesellschaft eine Verbesserung der Nutztierhaltung wünscht und dabei vor allem die Politik und Wirtschaft in der Verantwortung sieht. Der Politik stehen verschiedene Instrumente zur Verfügung, um lenkend einzugreifen. Neben der Schaffung geeigneter rechtlicher Rahmenbedingungen kommen hierfür Fördermaßnahmen in Frage. Zu nennen sind hier insbesondere die Investitionsförderung und die Gewährung von Förderprämien für tiergerechtere Haltungs- und Managementverfahren. Letztere werden bislang noch wenig genutzt. Um die Informationslage über dieses Politik-Instrument zu verbessern, werden in diesem Beitrag die von den Bundesländern angebotenen Tierwohl-Förderprämien dargestellt und das Potenzial dieser Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung des Tierschutzes anhand von deren Reichweite eingeordnet. In Deutschland gibt es derzeit fünf Bundesländer, die im Rahmen der Förderung über den Europäischen Landwirtschaftsfonds für die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums (ELER) die Verbesserung des Tierwohls über eine Tierwohl-Förderprämie finanziell unterstützen. Von den in der Förderperiode 2014 - 2020 zur Verfügung stehenden ELER-Mitteln sind in Deutschland knapp ein Prozent für die Maßnahme "Tierschutz" vorgesehen. Außerhalb des ELER werden in Deutschland zwei weitere Maßnahmen umgesetzt. Hamburg finanziert eine Tierwohl-Förderprämie zusammen mit dem Bund (über die Gemeinschaftsaufgabe Agrarstruktur und Küstenschutz (GAK)) und Bayern setzt eine Tierwohl-Förderprämie als reine Landesmaßnahme um. Tierwohl-Förderprämien für Rinder sind die verbreitetste Fördermaßnahme, wobei vor allem die Sommerweidehaltung von Milchkühen gefördert wird. Schweine und Hühner werden deutlich seltener in der Förderung berücksichtigt, das gleiche gilt für Mastrinder. Bis auf zwei in Niedersachsen angebotene ergebnisorientierte Maßnahmen für Mastschweine und Aufzuchtferkel, bei denen die Förderung ausgezahlt wird, wenn ein bestimmter Anteil intakter Schwänze erreicht wird, sind alle Maßnahmen handlungsorientiert. Die Auswertung der Reichweite innerhalb der Bundesländer zeigt, dass mit einem Großteil der angebotenen Prämien bislang keine substanziellen Anteile der Betriebe und Tiere erreicht werden. Auf Bundesebene ist der Anteil erreichter Tiere bei den Rindern mit ca. fünf Prozent mit Abstand am höchsten. Von den Hühnern und Schweinen werden unter ein Prozent der Tiere erreicht. Aufgrund der geringen Reichweite der Maßnahmen kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass mit der Förderung bislang keine grundlegenden Veränderungen der Tierhaltung bewirkt wurden. Sie können aber einen Ansatz für die Erprobung tiergerechterer Verfahren bzw. die Honorierung einer tiergerechten Haltung darstellen, weil mit ihnen (zumindest teilweise) eine Kompensation der höheren Kosten tiergerechter Verfahren erfolgen kann. Forschungsergebnisse zeigen, dass eine effektivere Gestaltung von Tierwohl-Förderprämien durch die Kombination ergebnis- und handlungsorientierter Ansätze möglich wäre. Wenn der Bund die Länder mit der GAK in der Umsetzung einer tiergerechten Haltung anhand von Förderprämien unterstützen möchte, wäre es sinnvoll, die GAK-Vorgaben so auszugestalten, dass nicht nur handlungs- sondern auch ergebnisorientiert gefördert werden kann. Zudem sollte das Förderspektrum so ausgeweitet werden, dass alle relevanten Nutztierarten abgedeckt werden.

In this article, we draw from qualitative interviews with political parties' representatives and a content analysis of party programs to identify how political parties frame animal welfare policies in Norway. In analyzing the framing of animal welfare and its significance for understanding agricultural post‐exceptionalism, we found that though they frame animal welfare issues in conflicting ways, most see Norwegian animal welfare as reasonably good but perceive potential for improvement. They also generally understand societal claims as lacking or having an unclear factual basis, which has legitimized their nonaction as political parties. Even so, because of active new actors such as animal welfare organizations and retailers, the parties do not believe that public pressure will wane. Although introducing new farm animal welfare policies can represent a move towards post‐exceptionalism in Europe's agri‐food sector, the discourse on animal welfare policies amongst political parties implies that such is not the case in Norway.