The Veterinary Journal 198 (2013) 3–4
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Veterinary Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tvjl
Guest Editorial
International standards for farm animal welfare: Science and values The welfare of any sentient farmed animal (or any animal used in the service of human beings) is defined by its individual perception of its own physical and emotional state. This is a truism and applies wherever the animal happens to live and whatever may be the cultural, economic and educational states of its owners and handlers. Therefore, from the animal’s point of view, welfare standards should be the same all over the world. However, this is a big ask. In 2008, the International Committee of the World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Épizooties, OIE) passed a resolution calling for action to affirm their standards for animal welfare as the global reference standard for OIE Members. Subsequently, the OIE adopted ten ‘General Principles for the Welfare of Animals in Livestock Production Systems’ to guide the development of welfare standards for farm animals (OIE, 2012). These principles take into account the impact on animal welfare of genetics, the physical environment, feed and water, control of disease, pain and parasitism, social behaviour and stockmanship. The Ten Principles are used to set standards for the practices of feeding, breeding, housing and management. Strictly speaking, they are husbandry standards based on input measures of what we are doing. In recent years, there has been a move to base standards on direct measures of welfare outcomes, namely how the animals are feeling, e.g. the pan-European Welfare Quality assessment proposals (Welfare Quality, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c) and the Bristol programmes (Main, 2009). This latter approach is more appealing in theory, but more difficult to assess in practice. The review paper by Professor David Fraser of the University of British Columbia, Canada, and his colleagues, published in this issue of The Veterinary Journal, examines the science that underpins each of the OIE’s Ten Principles (Fraser et al., 2013). This is important because each principle needs to be interpreted in terms of the special needs of individuals of different species exposed to different systems of feeding, housing and management. For example, Principle 3 states ‘The physical environment should allow comfortable resting, safe and comfortable movement, including normal postural changes, and the opportunity to perform types of natural behaviour that animals are motivated to perform’ (Fraser et al., 2013). The interpretation of this principle will clearly differ between dairy cows and laying hens, and requires further explanation. Moreover, the best solutions to problems of (for example) comfort, security and social interactions cannot be assumed, but can only be assured by asking the animals themselves in a scientific way. Many of the answers can be found through relatively straightforward studies of animal behaviour. However, important questions relating to animal preferences and aversions require the more subtle approach of motivation analysis (Mason et al., 1998). The paper by Fraser et al. (2013) is inevitably selective in its choice of evidence, since it seeks to address the totality of animal 1090-0233/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.08.034
welfare (at least as recognised by OIE). A comprehensive review of relevant publications would have generated a reference list extending to five figures. The review is therefore not aimed principally at scientists or legislators seeking to examine any of the individual principles in any depth. Instead, it is aimed at politicians dealing with general points of principle. It succeeds in this aim, since in every case the evidence, although slight, is sound, balanced and sufficient to justify the assertion that all of the principles are grounded in good science. This is important because government agencies and others responsible for setting standards of farm animal welfare are always quick to emphasise that their decisions are based strictly on the scientific evidence, not least to cover themselves against pressure from animal welfare lobbyists, whose motives may be beyond reproach, but whose advocacy may be uninformed or wilfully unbalanced. There is, of course, a danger that scientists will also (wittingly or unwittingly) select evidence that favours their own preconceptions. It is salutary to remember that the scientific hypothesis is just another form of preconception. It becomes scientific only when it proceeds to the application of the scientific method, i.e. not to gather evidence in favour of the hypothesis, but to challenge it to the point of destruction. Recent reports and opinions from the Animal Health and Welfare Division of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (e.g. dairy cows; EFSA, 2012) have striven to take note of all the published evidence. This can be an extremely laborious and inefficient process, not least because so many papers have little or nothing to say. However, it is an essential chore because it is politically important to be seen to be free from bias. Although governments and legislative bodies may claim to base their judgments on science alone, in fact they do not and indeed they cannot. For example, in Europe the scientific evidence with regard to the welfare of sows in gestation stalls was examined and the EU came to the absolute conclusion that stalls were unacceptable. The Federal Governments of Australia and the USA examined exactly the same evidence and came to the opposite conclusion. These differences in interpretation of the same science have been described and discussed in detail by Fraser (2008). In both cases, their conclusions were based on value rather than scientific judgments. It could be argued that this difference of opinion was because the Europeans gave greater importance (a higher value) to social behaviour relative to physical aspects of welfare, such as body condition and absence of injury. A less charitable interpretation would be that, relative to the Europeans, politicians in Australia and the USA were under more pressure from the agricultural industry and less pressure from consumers. As it turns out, they were probably wrong. In the USA, consumer pressure is driving a progressive ban on sow stalls on a State-by-State basis. Whether welfare standards for farm animals are based on measures of husbandry inputs, welfare outcomes or (preferably) both,
4
Guest Editorial / The Veterinary Journal 198 (2013) 3–4
the fact remains that the standards are set by us, not the animals, and these standards will vary between and within nations according to how we, not they, feel. The pressure for higher standards in many developed and developing nations is coming from the people. This is all for the good. However the people who exert the pressure tend to be those who care a great deal about animals, but often have little, if any, experience in caring for them. The role of the animal welfare scientist is not just to seek the truth, but also to guide public opinion towards solutions that the animals themselves would favour. Although the possibilities for acquiring new scientific knowledge and understanding of the behaviour and welfare of animals are endless, I believe that we have reached the stage where we can proceed from research to action: action to assess the general welfare of animals on farms and to identify specific problems, and action to address these problems. Action programmes can operate at all levels. At the international level, it would be extremely valuable to gather information on the extent to which different nations recognise and seek to implement the Ten Principles of OIE. This fact-finding exercise would provide a foundation from which non-government organisations, such as the World Society for Animal Protection (WSPA) could work with government agencies to seek improvements in farm animal welfare that are in sympathy with the realities of local culture and economics. National and international standards, however diligently enforced, can do no more than set minimal requirements for acceptability, and these will, inevitably, vary from country to country and State to State. Elsewhere, I have explored in some detail how improved standards for the welfare of the farmed animals can be achieved through the power of public opinion and the operation of the free market (Webster, 2001, 2012). Supermarkets in the developed world are increasingly competing for custom on the basis that their food of animal origin is ‘high-welfare’ or of local provenance, where welfare can, in theory, be assured. Progress through the operation of the market will inevitably be quicker than through national and international legislation. It can also help to promote welfare standards that are better than merely
acceptable, at least for some of the animals. This is less than ideal, but it can put pressure on others to change. I repeat what I have written above, because it is so important. The role of the animal welfare scientist is not just to seek the truth but also to guide public opinion towards solutions that the animals themselves would favour. John Webster Old Sock Cottage, Mudford Sock, Yeovil, Somerset BA22 8EA, UK E-mail address: [email protected]
References European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2012. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Scientific opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of dairy cows. EFSA Journal 10, 2554, 81 pp. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2554.pdf (accessed 13 August 2013). Fraser, D., 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. UFAW Animal Welfare Series, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW)/Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 241–247. Fraser, D., Duncan, I.J.H., Edwards, S.A., Grandin, T., Gregory, N.G., Guyonnet, V., Hemsworth, P.H., Huertas, S.M., Huzzey, J.M., Mellor, D.J., et al, 2013. General Principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application. The Veterinary Journal 198, 19–27. Main, D., 2009. Application of welfare assessment to commercial livestock production. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, 97–104. Mason, G.J., McFarland, D., Garner, J., 1998. A demanding task: Using economic tests to examine animal priorities. Animal Behaviour 55, 1070–1075. World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Épizooties, OIE), 2012. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 21st Ed. OIE, Paris, France. http:// www.oie.int/international-standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/ (accessed 13 August 2013). Webster, A.J.F., 2001. Animal welfare: The Five Freedoms and the free market. The Veterinary Journal 161, 229–237. Webster, A.J.F., 2012. Animal Husbandry Regained: The Place of Farm Animals in Sustainable Agriculture. Routledge, London, UK, 264 pp. Welfare Quality, 2009a. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 180 pp. Welfare Quality, 2009b. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 180 pp. Welfare Quality, 2009c. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 119 pp.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Veterinary Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tvjl
Guest Editorial
International standards for farm animal welfare: Science and values The welfare of any sentient farmed animal (or any animal used in the service of human beings) is defined by its individual perception of its own physical and emotional state. This is a truism and applies wherever the animal happens to live and whatever may be the cultural, economic and educational states of its owners and handlers. Therefore, from the animal’s point of view, welfare standards should be the same all over the world. However, this is a big ask. In 2008, the International Committee of the World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Épizooties, OIE) passed a resolution calling for action to affirm their standards for animal welfare as the global reference standard for OIE Members. Subsequently, the OIE adopted ten ‘General Principles for the Welfare of Animals in Livestock Production Systems’ to guide the development of welfare standards for farm animals (OIE, 2012). These principles take into account the impact on animal welfare of genetics, the physical environment, feed and water, control of disease, pain and parasitism, social behaviour and stockmanship. The Ten Principles are used to set standards for the practices of feeding, breeding, housing and management. Strictly speaking, they are husbandry standards based on input measures of what we are doing. In recent years, there has been a move to base standards on direct measures of welfare outcomes, namely how the animals are feeling, e.g. the pan-European Welfare Quality assessment proposals (Welfare Quality, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c) and the Bristol programmes (Main, 2009). This latter approach is more appealing in theory, but more difficult to assess in practice. The review paper by Professor David Fraser of the University of British Columbia, Canada, and his colleagues, published in this issue of The Veterinary Journal, examines the science that underpins each of the OIE’s Ten Principles (Fraser et al., 2013). This is important because each principle needs to be interpreted in terms of the special needs of individuals of different species exposed to different systems of feeding, housing and management. For example, Principle 3 states ‘The physical environment should allow comfortable resting, safe and comfortable movement, including normal postural changes, and the opportunity to perform types of natural behaviour that animals are motivated to perform’ (Fraser et al., 2013). The interpretation of this principle will clearly differ between dairy cows and laying hens, and requires further explanation. Moreover, the best solutions to problems of (for example) comfort, security and social interactions cannot be assumed, but can only be assured by asking the animals themselves in a scientific way. Many of the answers can be found through relatively straightforward studies of animal behaviour. However, important questions relating to animal preferences and aversions require the more subtle approach of motivation analysis (Mason et al., 1998). The paper by Fraser et al. (2013) is inevitably selective in its choice of evidence, since it seeks to address the totality of animal 1090-0233/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.08.034
welfare (at least as recognised by OIE). A comprehensive review of relevant publications would have generated a reference list extending to five figures. The review is therefore not aimed principally at scientists or legislators seeking to examine any of the individual principles in any depth. Instead, it is aimed at politicians dealing with general points of principle. It succeeds in this aim, since in every case the evidence, although slight, is sound, balanced and sufficient to justify the assertion that all of the principles are grounded in good science. This is important because government agencies and others responsible for setting standards of farm animal welfare are always quick to emphasise that their decisions are based strictly on the scientific evidence, not least to cover themselves against pressure from animal welfare lobbyists, whose motives may be beyond reproach, but whose advocacy may be uninformed or wilfully unbalanced. There is, of course, a danger that scientists will also (wittingly or unwittingly) select evidence that favours their own preconceptions. It is salutary to remember that the scientific hypothesis is just another form of preconception. It becomes scientific only when it proceeds to the application of the scientific method, i.e. not to gather evidence in favour of the hypothesis, but to challenge it to the point of destruction. Recent reports and opinions from the Animal Health and Welfare Division of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (e.g. dairy cows; EFSA, 2012) have striven to take note of all the published evidence. This can be an extremely laborious and inefficient process, not least because so many papers have little or nothing to say. However, it is an essential chore because it is politically important to be seen to be free from bias. Although governments and legislative bodies may claim to base their judgments on science alone, in fact they do not and indeed they cannot. For example, in Europe the scientific evidence with regard to the welfare of sows in gestation stalls was examined and the EU came to the absolute conclusion that stalls were unacceptable. The Federal Governments of Australia and the USA examined exactly the same evidence and came to the opposite conclusion. These differences in interpretation of the same science have been described and discussed in detail by Fraser (2008). In both cases, their conclusions were based on value rather than scientific judgments. It could be argued that this difference of opinion was because the Europeans gave greater importance (a higher value) to social behaviour relative to physical aspects of welfare, such as body condition and absence of injury. A less charitable interpretation would be that, relative to the Europeans, politicians in Australia and the USA were under more pressure from the agricultural industry and less pressure from consumers. As it turns out, they were probably wrong. In the USA, consumer pressure is driving a progressive ban on sow stalls on a State-by-State basis. Whether welfare standards for farm animals are based on measures of husbandry inputs, welfare outcomes or (preferably) both,
4
Guest Editorial / The Veterinary Journal 198 (2013) 3–4
the fact remains that the standards are set by us, not the animals, and these standards will vary between and within nations according to how we, not they, feel. The pressure for higher standards in many developed and developing nations is coming from the people. This is all for the good. However the people who exert the pressure tend to be those who care a great deal about animals, but often have little, if any, experience in caring for them. The role of the animal welfare scientist is not just to seek the truth, but also to guide public opinion towards solutions that the animals themselves would favour. Although the possibilities for acquiring new scientific knowledge and understanding of the behaviour and welfare of animals are endless, I believe that we have reached the stage where we can proceed from research to action: action to assess the general welfare of animals on farms and to identify specific problems, and action to address these problems. Action programmes can operate at all levels. At the international level, it would be extremely valuable to gather information on the extent to which different nations recognise and seek to implement the Ten Principles of OIE. This fact-finding exercise would provide a foundation from which non-government organisations, such as the World Society for Animal Protection (WSPA) could work with government agencies to seek improvements in farm animal welfare that are in sympathy with the realities of local culture and economics. National and international standards, however diligently enforced, can do no more than set minimal requirements for acceptability, and these will, inevitably, vary from country to country and State to State. Elsewhere, I have explored in some detail how improved standards for the welfare of the farmed animals can be achieved through the power of public opinion and the operation of the free market (Webster, 2001, 2012). Supermarkets in the developed world are increasingly competing for custom on the basis that their food of animal origin is ‘high-welfare’ or of local provenance, where welfare can, in theory, be assured. Progress through the operation of the market will inevitably be quicker than through national and international legislation. It can also help to promote welfare standards that are better than merely
acceptable, at least for some of the animals. This is less than ideal, but it can put pressure on others to change. I repeat what I have written above, because it is so important. The role of the animal welfare scientist is not just to seek the truth but also to guide public opinion towards solutions that the animals themselves would favour. John Webster Old Sock Cottage, Mudford Sock, Yeovil, Somerset BA22 8EA, UK E-mail address: [email protected]
References European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2012. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Scientific opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of dairy cows. EFSA Journal 10, 2554, 81 pp. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2554.pdf (accessed 13 August 2013). Fraser, D., 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. UFAW Animal Welfare Series, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW)/Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 241–247. Fraser, D., Duncan, I.J.H., Edwards, S.A., Grandin, T., Gregory, N.G., Guyonnet, V., Hemsworth, P.H., Huertas, S.M., Huzzey, J.M., Mellor, D.J., et al, 2013. General Principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application. The Veterinary Journal 198, 19–27. Main, D., 2009. Application of welfare assessment to commercial livestock production. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, 97–104. Mason, G.J., McFarland, D., Garner, J., 1998. A demanding task: Using economic tests to examine animal priorities. Animal Behaviour 55, 1070–1075. World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Épizooties, OIE), 2012. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 21st Ed. OIE, Paris, France. http:// www.oie.int/international-standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/ (accessed 13 August 2013). Webster, A.J.F., 2001. Animal welfare: The Five Freedoms and the free market. The Veterinary Journal 161, 229–237. Webster, A.J.F., 2012. Animal Husbandry Regained: The Place of Farm Animals in Sustainable Agriculture. Routledge, London, UK, 264 pp. Welfare Quality, 2009a. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 180 pp. Welfare Quality, 2009b. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 180 pp. Welfare Quality, 2009c. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 119 pp.
