CAST - Scientific, Ethical, and Economic Aspects of Farm Animal Welfare
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Scientific, Ethical, and
Economic Aspects of
Farm Animal Welfare
CAST
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
4420 West Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50014-3447, USA
Phone: (515) 292-2125
Email: cast@cast-science.org
Web: www.cast-science.org
Mission and Policies Membership
CAST is a nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organization composed of Board Members
scientific societies and many individual, student, company, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association
nonprofit, and associate society members. CAST’s Board is American Association of Avian Pathologists
composed of representatives of the scientific societies, com- American Association of Bovine Practitioners
mercial companies, and nonprofit or trade organizations, and American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy,
a Board of Directors. CAST was established in 1972 as a & Resources
American Dairy Science Association
result of a 1970 meeting sponsored by the National Academy
American Farm Bureau Federation
of Sciences, National Research Council.
American Meat Science Association
The primary work of CAST is the publication of task American Meteorological Society, Committee on Agricultural
force reports, commentary papers, special publications, and and Forest Meteorology
issue papers written by scientists from many disciplines. The American Seed Trade Association
CAST Board is responsible for the policies and procedures American Society for Nutrition Nutritional Sciences Council
followed in developing, processing, and disseminating the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
documents produced. These publications and their distribu- American Society of Agronomy
tion are fundamental activities that accomplish our mission American Society of Animal Science
to assemble, interpret, and communicate credible, balanced, American Society of Plant Biologists
science-based information to policymakers, the media, the American Veterinary Medical Association
private sector, and the public. The wide distribution of CAST Aquatic Plant Management Society
publications to nonscientists enhances the education and un- BASF Corporation
derstanding of the general public. Corteva Agriscience Agricultural Division of DowDuPont
Crop Science Society of America
CAST addresses issues of animal sciences, food sciences
CropLife America
and agricultural technology, plant and soil sciences, and
Entomological Society of America
plant protection sciences with inputs from economists, social Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy
scientists, toxicologists or plant pathologists and entomolo- Land O’Lakes
gists, weed scientists, nematologists, and legal experts. Monsanto
National Corn Growers Association/Iowa Corn Promotion
Mission Statement: Board
CAST, through its network of experts, assembles, inter- National Milk Producers Federation
prets, and communicates credible, balanced, science-based National Pork Board
information to policymakers, the media, the private sector, North Carolina Biotechnology Center
and the public. North Central Weed Science Society
Northeastern Weed Science Society
Vision Statement: Poultry Science Association
A world where decision making related to agriculture and Society for In Vitro Biology
Soil Science Society of America
natural resources is based on credible information developed
Syngenta Crop Protection
through reason, science, and consensus building.
The Fertilizer Institute
Tyson Foods
United Soybean Board
Weed Science Society of America
Western Society of Weed Science
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations Individual Members
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s).
Sustaining Members
Associate Societies
Copies of Scientific, Ethical, and Economic Aspects of Companies and Cooperatives
Farm Animal Welfare are available from CAST, 4420 West Educational programs
Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50014-3447, phone 515-292-2125, Ex Officio Members
or the CAST website: www.cast-science.org. The printed Grantors/Event Sponsors
report is $50.00 plus shipping. For more information, see Nonprofit Organizations
inside back cover. SubscribersScientific, Ethical, and Economic Aspects
of Farm Animal Welfare
© 2018 by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
Layout and cover design by Shelley Hart, Hart Arts, Iowa
Cover photo source: Eric Isselee/Shutterstock Images LLC, New York
ISBN 978-1-887383-37-9
ISSN 0194-4088
18 17 16 15 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Information available from CAST
Task Force Report
No. 143 April 2018
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
Ames, Iowa, USATask Force
Candace Croney, Cochair, Department of Comparative Pathobiology/Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana
Joy Mench, Cochair, Department of Animal Science, University of California–Davis
William Muir, Cochair, Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Raymond Anthony, Department of Philosophy, University of Alaska Anchorage
Gail Golab, Animal Welfare Division, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, Illinois
Charles Hofacre, Department of Population Health, University of Georgia, Athens
Michael Hulet, Department of Animal Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Anna K. Johnson, Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames
Jayson L. Lusk, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Nicole Olynk Widmar, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Allan P. Schinckel, Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Jan Shearer, Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames
Janice Swanson, Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing
Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton, Center for Food Animal Wellbeing, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Gary Varner, Department of Philosophy and Humanities, Texas A&M University, College Station
Task Force Contributor
Susanne Hermesch, Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, Australia
Task Force Reviewers
Mary M. Beck, Department of Poultry Science, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State
Michael Engler, Cactus Feeders, Amarillo, Texas
Arlene Garcia-Marquez, Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Paul Siegel, Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Jason Watters, San Francisco Zoological Society and Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis
CAST Liaison
Robert Evans, Elanco Animal Health, Harrisonburg, Virginia
iiContents
Interpretive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Roles of Science and Ethics in Evaluating, Understanding, and Improving Animal Welfare. . . . . . . . . . . 6
Introduction, 6
Role of Science, 6
Role of Ethics, 7
3 Economics and Markets for Animal Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Introduction, 9
Citizen vs. Consumer Impacts on Markets for Animal Welfare, 9
Reducing the Economic Externalities Associated with Animal Welfare, 10
Meat Taxes, 10
Process Regulations, 10
Meat Labels and Certification, 11
A Market for Animal Welfare, 11
4 Regulation of Animal Welfare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Introduction, 12
Approaches to Regulating Farm Animal Welfare: Voluntary and Involuntary, 12
Voluntary, 12
Involuntary, 13
Advantages and Disadvantages of Voluntary/Involuntary Regulation of Animal Welfare, 13
5 Assessment of Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Previous Challenges and Advancements in Welfare Assessment, 15
Emerging Methods and Metrics for Assessing Animal Welfare, 17
Functional Genomics, 17
Epidemiology, 17
.Automated and Noninvasive Animal Welfare Assessment Tools, 17
6 Advances in Animal Welfare and Outstanding Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Introduction, 19
Housing Systems, 19
Painful Management Practices, 20
Advancements and Outstanding Challenges in Genetics, 21
Selection for Robustness, 21
Selection for Behavioral Change, 22
Selection for Social Effects, 22
Animal Handling, Transport, and Euthanasia/Slaughter, 23
Handling and Transport, 23
7 Emerging Topics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Role of Animal Welfare in Sustainability, 24
Antimicrobial Resistance, 24
Global Developments and Challenges, 25
iiiUrban Agriculture, 26
Assessing Animals’ Mental States, 26
Cognition, 26
Positive Welfare, 27
8 Future Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Area 1: Increase Capacity for Scientific Research on Animal Welfare in the United States, 28
Area 2: Increase Focus on Transdisciplinary Aspects of Animal Welfare Research, 29
Area 3: Develop Coordinated Mechanisms for Policy Setting, 30
Area 4: Communicating Animal Welfare, 30
Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix B: Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
ivForeword
Recognizing the need for an update to CAST’s 1997 land- report. The task force authors are responsible for the report’s
mark report on the well-being of agricultural animals, the scientific content.
CAST Board of Directors authorized preparation of a new On behalf of CAST, we thank the cochairs and task force
report on the scientific, ethical, and economic aspects of members who gave of their time and expertise to prepare this
farm animal welfare. report as a contribution by the scientific community to public
Three eminent scientists agreed to share the role of co- understanding of the issue. We also thank the employers of
chair: Dr. Candace Croney, Department of Animal Sciences, the scientists, who made the time of these individuals avail-
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana; Dr. Joy Mench, able at no cost to CAST. The members of CAST deserve
Department of Animal Science, University of California– special recognition because the unrestricted contributions
Davis; and Dr. William Muir, Department of Animal Sci- they have made in support of CAST also have financed the
ences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. A highly preparation and publication of this report.
qualified group of scientists served as task force members. This report is being distributed widely; recipients include
The group included individuals with expertise in agricultural Members of Congress, the White House, the U.S. Depart-
economics, animal behavior, animal genetics, animal sci- ment of Agriculture, the Congressional Research Service,
ence, animal welfare science, animal well-being, philosophy, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental
population health, poultry science, and veterinary medicine. Protection Agency, and the U.S. Agency for International
The task force prepared an initial draft of the report and Development. Additional recipients include media person-
reviewed and revised all subsequent drafts. A member of the nel and institutional members of CAST. The report may be
CAST Board of Representatives served as the project liai- reproduced in its entirety without permission. If copied in
son. The CAST Board of Directors reviewed the final draft, any manner, credit to the authors and to CAST would be
and the authors reviewed the proofs. The CAST staff pro- appreciated.
vided editorial and structural suggestions and published the
Nancy Reichert
CAST President
Kent Schescke
Executive Vice President
Melissa Sly
Director of Council Operations
vvi
1
Interpretive Summary
Since the publication of the 1997 CAST task force report untary standards, particularly regulation at the state level.
on the well-being of agricultural animals, myriad discov- This has created a patchwork of animal welfare standards
eries and improvements have been made in the respective that can limit market opportunities for particular producers.
areas of science involved in research on animal welfare. In As discussed in sections 3 and 4, these factors make it im-
1997, six high-priority research areas needed for scientific perative to better understand how animal welfare consider-
advancement were identified. These were: “(1) bioethics and ations affect the purchasing patterns of consumers and their
conflict resolution, (2) responses of individual animals to the behavior as voters. In addition, they highlight the need to
production environment, (3) stress, (4) social behavior and develop uniform and transparent processes for establishing
space requirements, (5) cognition, and (6) alternative pro- animal welfare standards.
duction practices and systems” (CAST 1997). In the interim From a scientific perspective, animal welfare has advanced
between the 1997 publication and the current report, the far beyond initial focuses on characterizing and measuring
priorities, state of the science, challenges, and approaches stress responses in an effort to identify and lessen the nega-
to addressing agricultural animal welfare have evolved con- tive effects of stressors on agricultural animals. For example,
siderably. First, the title change from animal well-being (the ongoing scientific investigations have yielded much more
term more commonly used in the United States) to animal nuanced evaluations of distress and its scientific correlates
welfare is in keeping with growing global consensus on sci- as outlined in section 5. Additionally, scientific thinking has
entific terminology and definitions. Setting the stage here evolved to include the notion that good welfare outcomes for
is the now widely accepted World Organisation for Animal agricultural animals not only depend on minimizing negative
Health (OIE) definition of animal welfare, which clarifies states, such as distress, but also ensuring that animals ex-
that welfare is a property of the individual animal, and refers perience positive states as well. Consequently, new, diverse
to the animal’s state as scientifically assessed by examining metrics of welfare continue to be explored. Progress has
its health, comfort, nutritional status, safety, behavior, and been made in preference testing to explore animals’ relative
experience of mental states such as pain, fear, and distress preferences and their strengths for various aspects of their
(OIE 2008). environments and to ascertain the importance to animals of
Increased collaboration has occurred between scientists being allowed to demonstrate key behaviors in production
and philosophers to address agricultural bioethics in an ef- environments (Fraser and Nicol 2011). Development of met-
fort to facilitate conflict resolution. A Multistate Research rics of pain in agricultural animals and methods to identify
Coordinating Committee and Information Exchange Group and alleviate it (Coetzee et al. 2012) have been some of the
(NCCC 209) on Agricultural Bioethics, consisting of philos- most significant areas of animal welfare advancement since
ophers and scientists with expertise in various agricultural 1997. In addition, technological advancements such as com-
domains was developed and operated between the late 1990s puter imaging and sensor technologies have made it possible
and 2014 (Reynnells 2004). In addition to coordinating an- to noninvasively measure welfare (Mench 2018). This would
nual symposia at the annual conference of the American permit refined assessment of animal comfort, including use
Society for Animal Science, the multidisciplinary team pro- of space and movement that is potentially indicative of inju-
duced a U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Institute ry or chronic welfare-reducing conditions such as lameness.
of Food and Agriculture-funded grant proposal to create a Additionally, the study of cognition in agricultural animals
standardized curriculum on agricultural animal bioethics. has led to the discovery of novel methods by which to assess
Further, there has been a notable increase in the number of cognitive bias (Harding, Paul, and Mendl 2004) as an indi-
agricultural and animal scientist-led publications exploring rect measurement of animals’ emotional states.
the bioethical implications of contemporary animal agricul- As demand for food of animal origins increases, the im-
ture (Croney et al. 2012). petus to address agricultural animal welfare correspondingly
Since the last CAST task force report on agricultural grows. A major emerging challenge is how to meet such
animal well-being, there has also been a steadily increas- animal protein demands while simultaneously protecting
ing emphasis on regulation of animal welfare in the United animal welfare and developing broadly sustainable produc-
States. This is occurring via the establishment of voluntary tion systems. To that end, new research priorities for agricul-
standards like industry or retailer standards, and also invol- tural animal welfare (expanded upon in section 7) include2 Scientific, Ethical, and Economic Aspects of Farm Animal Welfare engineering of animal housing and production practices that disciplinary studies are needed that build on existing epide- better accommodate species-typical behaviors, along with miological, cognitive, and functional genomics approaches improved understanding of the implications of globalization, to understanding and addressing contemporary agricultural antimicrobial resistance, and urban farming. Further multi- animal welfare challenges.
3
Executive Summary
It is well established that animal welfare is multifaceted and profitability go hand in hand, there are various examples
and involves considering not only the biology and psychol- demonstrating that profit-maximizing outcomes for producers
ogy of the animals, but also people’s ethical concerns. Scien- are not necessarily the same as animal welfare-maximizing
tific information is essential for determining which housing outcomes.
and husbandry factors pose risks to animal welfare and how The preferences and values of consumers of animal prod-
those risks can be managed; however, only applied ethics ucts are not uniform; therefore, there is no single animal
can help to elucidate what levels of risk the various stake- welfare “standard” that will satisfy everyone. In addition,
holders of animal agriculture find acceptable. consumer purchases are influenced by other factors—not
There are many conflicting values and norms in our just animal welfare.
society related to the use of animals, leading to increas- Evidence also indicates that there is a disconnect between
ing disagreement about what constitutes a “good life” for shopping and voting outcomes, with consumers willing to
the animals in our care. Broadly speaking, applied ethicists vote to change animal production practices of which they
have discussed two different approaches to this topic—one disapprove even though they are not always willing to vol-
focuses on the consequences of using animals in particular untarily pay for those changes in the marketplace.
ways, and the other on the morality of that use, regardless of Because animal welfare is an important social issue, it has
the consequences. These two positions are reflected in the costs not only to consumers of animal products, but to all in-
“animal welfare” and “animal rights” views, respectively. dividuals who are concerned about the treatment of animals
Another ethical perspective is that animals are owed a good regardless of whether or not they participate in the market
standard of care because of the benefits we derive from them. for animal products. This is an important consideration when
Nevertheless, understanding both the science and the ethics developing policies to deal with animal welfare issues, and
of animal welfare is critical to understanding and reconciling a number of frameworks to address this consideration have
differing perspectives about animal care and use. been proposed, including via meat taxes, regulation, label-
As public concern about animal welfare increases, sci- ing, and corporate social responsibility programs.
entists continue to develop and refine methodologies to ad- Significant advances have been made in theoretical and
dress questions about animals’ quality of life. The scientific applied aspects of animal welfare science. Much of the prog-
study of animal welfare is of necessity multidisciplinary, and ress that has occurred has resulted from strategic targeting
it involves consideration of animals’ behavior, health, and and funding of animal welfare research by the European
physiology. In essence, thoroughly evaluating animal wel- Union. In comparison, the United States lags behind Europe
fare involves a complete assessment of animals’ mental and and Canada relative to attaining the critical mass of research-
physical health. ers and dedicated funding needed to advance U.S. animal
Although research is still needed on basic aspects of wel- agriculture and to better incorporate animal welfare into
fare assessment, there are also emerging metrics and meth- sustainable production and management systems. Establish-
ods that will further improve our ability to detect and rem- ment of key research priorities is imperative, along with new
edy welfare problems. These include genetic approaches to approaches to systematically tackle emerging topics such as
understanding animals’ ability to adapt to different housing animal cognition and the genetics and genomics of animal
and management systems; functional genomic approaches to welfare and to grow U.S. capacity in agricultural animal wel-
help understand how the animal reacts to its environment; fare science.
epidemiological measures to determine the incidences of Because the study of animal welfare is by its nature mul-
welfare problems on commercial farms and the “real world” tidisciplinary, information about animal behavior, health,
factors affecting those incidences; and automated, noninva- and physiology must be integrated with animal breeding,
sive tools that can allow animals’ behavior, health, and phys- housing, and management. In addition, related social science
iology to be assessed rapidly and in large-scale commercial research addressing the political, ethical, and economic as-
settings. pects of animal and food production is needed to ensure the
Much work remains to be done relative to thoroughly ex- sustainability of approaches.
ploring the economics of animal welfare, although this field Scientific inquiry is a central ingredient in promoting
is growing. Whereas some have argued that animal welfare good policies and governance initiatives, but not all decisions4 Scientific, Ethical, and Economic Aspects of Farm Animal Welfare about animal welfare or animal agricultural policies are about with ongoing research initiatives. Consumers and other science. Coordinated multidisciplinary approaches based on members of the lay public, scientists, animal industry sector good governance are needed to ensure that all stakeholders’ members, and policymakers require ready access to current interests are broadly reflected in policy formation. In addi- agricultural animal welfare information to inform decision- tion, innovative approaches are needed to improve transpar- making. In addition to translating scientific knowledge, com- ency, communication, and public participation in developing munications should incorporate economic, social, and ethi- research priorities, translating science to the public domain, cal implications of new discoveries or applications of animal and crafting policies and practices pertaining to animal wel- welfare science. Cooperative extension can play a valuable fare, agriculture, and food production. role in better relaying knowledge about animal welfare. Pri- In order to advance public understanding and broad ap- oritization of need in this area and significant investment in plication of animal welfare science, effective, coordinated funding dedicated to building capacity, however, are essen- communication efforts tailored to meet the needs of specific tial to achieve this goal. audiences are essential and should be designed in concert
5
1 Introduction
Large-scale, intensive systems of agricultural animal pro- heightened public awareness and scrutiny of intensive ani-
duction predominate animal agriculture in the United States. mal production. The primary focus of most of the legislative
These systems continue to generate concerns and public proposals has been to indict established intensive produc-
debates about the treatment of farm animals. Animal wel- tion practices—such as the use of battery cages for laying
fare increasingly is linked to conceptions of sustainability hens, gestation crates for sows, and individual stalls for veal
(Broom 2010; Verdurme and Viaene 2003) and social re- calves, the latter issue having been a source of social conten-
sponsibility of food production systems, and it is now used tion for almost two decades.
by many consumers as an indicator of food safety and quality These developments have created significant pressure for
(Harper and Makatouni 2002). The emergence of these pat- the livestock and poultry industries to move toward alter-
terns can be traced back to several factors that are well de- native practices that emphasize group housing and greater
tailed (Rollin 2004). These include seminal publications de- consideration of animals’ behavioral needs. In addition,
tailing the treatment of agricultural animals (Harrison 2013); practices such as nontherapeutic uses of antibiotics, the use
broad dissemination of various philosophical concepts of of growth promotants, the quality of handling and transport
animal rights and welfare; the shift away from direct pub- experienced by farm animals, and animal pain have also be-
lic involvement in animal agriculture; and the development come hot-button issues for U.S. animal production.
of technological advances that have resulted in contentious Collectively, these factors have culminated in the emer-
discussions of animal care and husbandry practices, such as gence of a movement toward “ethical consumerism” (Croney
continuous, close confinement housing of farm animals. and Anthony 2014; Singer and Mason 2006), wherein op-
What was proposed by Rollin in 2004 as a “new social position to large-scale conventional animal agriculture is
ethic for animals” appears to be manifesting today in the expressed by some consumer segments specifically seeking
emergence of multiple global and national policies position- out foods with specialty labels such as “organic,” “locally
ing animal welfare as an important priority. Various Euro- produced,” “natural,” “humane,” and “cage free.” An unfor-
pean nations individually and collectively via the European tunate consequence, however, is increased tension between
Union have now passed legislation governing agricultural those using well-established, conventional farming practices
animal welfare (European Commission n.d.) that clearly and those promoting alternatives based on more recent stud-
specifies which animal care and husbandry practices may be ies that require practices whose impacts are not yet fully
used. Consistent with scientific advances in animal welfare understood.
science, in 2009 the Lisbon Treaty reiterated expectations for Accordingly, there is an urgent need to evaluate the im-
the protection and welfare of farm animals by formally ac- plications of alternative housing and production practices on
knowledging animals as “sentient beings.” Evolving global the welfare of agricultural animals. In addition, it is impera-
concern for animal welfare as a key priority is also reflected tive to understand which systems and practices may optimize
in the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Guide- economic efficiencies in conjunction with ensuring posi-
lines (OIE 2014) and in various codes of practice developed tive animal welfare outcomes and public support of animal
in countries such as Canada and Australia. agriculture.
In contrast, the United States has historically had minimal The purpose of this report is therefore (1) to provide an
agricultural animal welfare legislation beyond the 28 Hour overview of current issues in animal welfare and insight
Law and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, which, re- into the origins of current concerns; (2) to outline the ma-
spectively, mandate humane conditions for transportation of jor scientific advances that have occurred in animal welfare
livestock entering the food chain and rendering them insen- science since the publication of the 1997 CAST Task Force
sible prior to killing. Report on the welfare of agricultural animals (CAST 1997);
The early 2000s, however, ushered in a new era of pro- and (3) to identify outstanding challenges and priority areas
posed legislative efforts primarily via state ballot referenda for future research, coordination, and outreach relative to ag-
to fill in perceived gaps in agricultural animal protection. ricultural animal welfare.
Related efforts to create support for such legislation has6
2 Roles of Science and Ethics in
Evaluating, Understanding, and Improving Animal Welfare
Introduction It is notable that this definition was approved by all of the
178 OIE member countries and territories. The OIE is the
Animal welfare is multifaceted and involves consid- World Trade Organisation reference organization for stan-
eration not only of animals’ biological and psychological dard setting for animal health. It seems likely that this defi-
capacity to adjust to their living conditions, but also of hu- nition (or a similar one—given that the OIE is currently in
man factors such as customs, norms, and values. A common the process of making some revisions to this definition) will
response to the socio-ethical concerns being raised about be widely adopted as the basis for guidelines and legislation
contemporary animal agriculture, including concerns about globally, as well as for global trade agreements for agricul-
animal welfare, is that “policies must be based on science.” tural animal products. The OIE definition contains many of
Such statements imply that science is rational, objective, and the elements of previously proposed definitions. It makes
value free, whereas ethical considerations are “emotional” two key points that can help direct scientific and public pol-
and perhaps meritless (Croney and Anthony 2010). Deci- icy efforts: (1) animal welfare is a property of the individual
sions about animal welfare or any of the other contentious animal and has several dimensions; and (2) animal welfare is
issues facing animal agriculture, however, cannot be made affected by, but not the same as, the attitudes and behaviors
on the basis of science alone (Fraser 2000; Lackey 2007; of humans toward animals.
Tannenbaum 1991; Thompson 1993). The strength of sci-
entific assessment is that it provides the information that is Role of Science
essential for determining the “risks” associated with particu- As the OIE definition implies, science plays a critical role
lar practices (e.g., the health risks to humans and animals of in obtaining information about animal welfare as it relates to
using, or not using, antibiotics for animal production). The animals’ health, physical and physiological functioning, be-
limitation of science is that it cannot decide what level of havior, and subjective states, as well as in determining how to
risk is acceptable to the various stakeholders that are im- apply that understanding to improvements in housing, man-
pacted (Swanson 2003), because that decision is based on agement, handling, and euthanasia. There have been several
values. Thus, questions about how we should treat animals attempts to operationalize definitions of animal welfare into
fall outside the purview of pure science and into the realm of more concrete principles in order to provide a more specific
applied ethics (Croney and Anthony 2010). scientific framework for such animal welfare assessment and
Because animal welfare is such a complex concept, it improvement. The earliest example is the now well-known
has proven difficult in the past to arrive at a consensus defi- “Five Freedoms” (FAWC n.d.), which is used as the basis
nition that provides a framework for scientific and ethical for several animal welfare food certification programs in Eu-
analysis. Many definitions have been proposed, but they rope and the United States. These were recently elaborated
are often either based mainly on terms that are also poorly to form the Twelve Criteria of the European Union Welfare
defined (like stress) or are too narrow (like health) to en- Quality Assurance program (WQA) (Keeling et al. 2013).
compass all aspects of welfare. The OIE has adopted the fol- The OIE has also developed a set of General Principles (Fra-
lowing definition: “Animal welfare is how an animal copes ser et al. 2013) that provide even more specificity.
with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good All of these frameworks do have an ethical basis in that
state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is they assume there is consensus that animals have certain ba-
healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express sic needs. They also go beyond general ethical statements,
innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant however, and provide guidance about how those needs
states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare should be met. For example, the Five Freedoms state that
requires disease prevention and appropriate veterinary treat- animals should be free “to express normal behavior by pro-
ment, shelter, management and nutrition, humane handling viding sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the
and humane euthanasia or humane slaughter. Animal welfare animal’s own kind.” The WQA (Keeling et al. 2013) elabo-
refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal rates on this by stating that animals should be able to ex-
receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, ani- press “normal, non-harmful social behaviours” and “species-
mal husbandry, and humane treatment” (OIE 2015). specific natural behaviours such as foraging,” whereas theRoles of Science and Ethics in Evaluating, Understanding, and Improving Animal Welfare 7
OIE General Principles (Fraser et al. 2013) also highlight the think that the morality of an action or a practice depends on
importance of providing an environment that allows animals its consequences. Different versions of consequentialism can
to use natural (including behavioral) methods of thermo- consider a variety of consequences, but the best-known ver-
regulation, display natural behaviors that they are motivated sion, utilitarianism, takes into account the happiness of all
to perform, and make normal postural changes—an envi- affected human beings and any animals that are capable of
ronment that also facilitates positive social behaviors while being happy. Nonconsequentialists think that the morality of
minimizing negative ones. Solid scientific information is re- an action or a practice depends on something other than its
quired to address these principles and concerns in a way that consequences. One prominent nonconsequentialist view is
actually benefits the animals. respect for individuals. In contrast to utilitarians (and conse-
Animal welfare science is now a well-developed field of quentialists generally), such views emphasize that there are
inquiry, and there is abundant multidisciplinary literature on certain limits on what can be done to an individual. These
various aspects of behavior, health, physiology, nutrition, limits are commonly described in terms of rights.
neurobiology, and genetics relevant to animal welfare (see, The basic division between consequentialist and non-
for example, Appleby et al. 2011; Grandin 2015). Much of consequentialist thinking in ethics is reflected in the con-
this research has been conducted in Europe, although there temporary debate over animal welfare versus animal rights.
has also been considerable recent research effort in North Self-described animal welfarists tend to use consequentialist
America and Australasia. Fraser and colleagues (2013) pro- arguments (e.g., that the benefits of animal research to both
vide many examples of how this body of science forms the humans and animals outweigh the harms to animals used
underpinnings for the OIE General Principles. This scientific in research), whereas self-described animal rightists tend
research has led to advances not only in our understanding to give rights-based arguments (e.g., that there are limits to
of the basic biology of animal welfare, but also in ways to what can be done to a sentient individual without that indi-
improve animal welfare via changes in housing, husbandry, vidual’s consent, even if the consequences would be very
transport, and slaughter. Social sciences also have an impor- good on balance).
tant role to play—e.g., in determining how the attitudes of An alternative to the consequentialist and respect for in-
animal caretakers and managers affect their behaviors to- dividuals approaches that some animal ethicists have taken
ward animals and how those behaviors in turn impact the is contractarianism, which some use to argue that animals
welfare of the animals (Hemsworth and Coleman 2011). are owed good husbandry in a tacit “bargain” in return for
the good they do humanity. Such an approach may corre-
Role of Ethics spond to relational views in ethics such as the ethics of care
The ability to apply scientific findings about farm animal approach (Midgley 1983). Under this view, human respon-
welfare may be constrained when there are conflicting val- sibilities toward animals are a function of the relationships
ues and norms related to animal use and treatment among the or community formed with them. The greater the sense of
various stakeholders. “Animal ethics” is the subdiscipline of community with certain animals (e.g., companion versus
philosophy that seeks to determine what norms should gov- agricultural animals), the greater should be the sense of re-
ern our treatment of animals in various contexts. Prominent sponsibility. This view encourages the development of moral
questions include the following: virtues in humans—e.g., empathy and general dispositions
§§Do animals have moral standing in their own right? If so, related to nurturing and caring. In contrast, biocentric views
what is the basis (or bases) of this and what ethical duties contend that species have value in themselves and, therefore,
should follow? should be protected (both from extinction and from some
§§Is it permissible to change the natures of animals through kinds of tampering with their genetic integrity). According
modern biotechnologies, and when is it defensible to take to Rolston (1989), moral concern about animals need not be
the life of an animal? based around the suffering, rights, or welfare of particular
§§Do we have obligations to individual animals or to popu- individuals; it is often expressed about the extinction of spe-
lations of animals and species? cies. Animals’ value lies in the fact that they are members of
§§How should we balance our duties to animals relative a valued species, irrespective of their individual capacities.
to other duties we have (e.g., to future generations of Given these differing perspectives about how to think
humans and the health of the planet)? about the morality of actions involving animal use, it is not
Broadly speaking, philosophers have advocated two dif- surprising that ethical questions involving “What is a good
ferent approaches to making decisions about what is right or animal life?” and “What is an acceptable baseline standard
wrong when considering animal ethics. Consequentialists1 for the quality of life of animals?” (Sandøe, Christiansen,
and Appleby 2003) have gained currency in contemporary
1
Italicized terms (except genus/species names and published material titles) social consciousness. These questions reflect the increasing
are defined in the Glossary.8 Scientific, Ethical, and Economic Aspects of Farm Animal Welfare tension between the responsible use of animals for human ferent views. Understanding the philosophical literature on purposes and the recognition that animals are sentient beings animal ethics can help professionals who deal with animals with capacities for pain and suffering (Anon. 1997; Euro- make critical assessments regarding the different points of pean Commission n.d.), and that there is thus a need to “pay view that their colleagues, members of the public, or industry full attention to the welfare requirements of animals” (Euro- actors may hold and offer measured, reasoned responses to pean Commission n.d.). those views. As Fraser and Preece (2004) note, commenting But how should humans treat animals according to their on the important synergy between science and ethics, “prog- capacities and needs, and with respect? Since such philo- ress in animal [welfare] ethics requires both philosophically sophical questions are central to the debate regarding animal informed science to provide an empirically grounded under- welfare policy, it is important to understand the nature of standing of animals, and scientifically informed philosophy the related philosophical disagreements, based on different to explore the ethical implications that follow.” values, in order to be taken seriously by people who hold dif-
9
3 Economics and Markets for Animal Welfare
Introduction 2010). Apparently, people are willing to vote for policies
that ban practices that they are not willing to pay for in
the marketplace. Such outcomes have been interpreted by
The economics of animal welfare remains a relatively na-
some as an “unfunded mandate” on producers, which forces
scent area of academic research; however, the field is grow-
them to adopt practices for which they are unlikely to be
ing (Lusk and Norwood 2011). Economic work is varied, and
compensated despite increases in demand and which also
has focused, for example, on the costs of producing animals
have the potential to affect some low-income consumers
and animal food products in alternative systems (Chang,
disproportionately.
Lusk, and Norwood 2010; Seibert and Norwood 2011; Sum-
The precise reason for the divergence in shopping and
ner et al. 2008), costs and benefits of policies (Allender and
voting outcomes is not well understood, but a number of
Richards 2010; Sumner et al. 2010), and consumer demand
hypotheses have been advanced. Some examples are the
and willingness to pay (WTP) for improved animal welfare
following: (1) Consumers adopt a “citizen” mindset in the
(Lagerkvist and Hess 2011).
voting booth, paying more attention to public good aspects
There is a view in which profitability and animal welfare
when voting than when in the “consumer” mindset in the
go hand in hand. The underlying logic is that farm animals
grocery store. (2) A consumer’s purchase only affects—at
receiving better care will be more productive, and as a result
most—one animal, but a consumer’s vote potentially affects
will be more profitable. Curtis (2007), for example, argued
many more animals. (3) Not all shoppers vote, and as a re-
that animal performance is the best indicator of farm ani-
sult, the characteristics of voters may diverge from the char-
mal welfare. Although animal welfare and productivity can
acteristics of nonvoters (if the population of voters is, for
be correlated, it is typically the case that the stocking den-
example, better educated or higher income than is the popu-
sity that maximizes welfare will not equate with the stock-
lation of shoppers, the desires of voters can diverge from
ing density that maximizes profit (see Lusk and Norwood
those of shoppers). (4) Consumers (incorrectly) believe the
[2011]). The result stems from the more general economic
products they buy in the grocery store are already in compli-
principle that the level of input usage that maximizes pro-
ance with proposed animal welfare laws up for vote. (5) Be-
duction or yield is not the same as the level of input usage
cause the likelihood of an individual’s vote being decisive is
that maximizes profits.
virtually nil, the cost of “expressive” voting is small.
Tastes, preferences, and values are heterogeneous. Thus,
Citizen vs. Consumer Impacts on there is no single answer as to what welfare standards will
Markets for Animal Welfare meet the demands of all interested parties at any point in
time. Consumer food purchasing decisions are influenced by
Additional research on the economics of animal welfare a multitude of factors, including—but not limited to—age,
is needed to understand the extent to which rising prices re- household size, income, education, and information. For ex-
sulting from the higher costs of new animal production sys- ample, McKendree, Croney, and Widmar (2014) found that
tems will curb consumer purchases of livestock products. individuals reporting higher levels of concern about animal
Of particular interest is the effect of food price increases on welfare were more frequently female, younger, and Demo-
various segments of society. crats than those with lower levels of animal welfare concern.
One of the conundrums that arises in analyzing market In addition, consumers from the midwestern region of the
outcomes for animal products is the so-called citizen vs. United States were significantly less concerned about animal
consumer conflict. The conflict is well illustrated in the case welfare and more likely to have a source of information on
of Proposition 2 in California (Prevention of Farm Animal animal welfare than those from other regions of the coun-
Cruelty Act) (California Health and Safety Code 2008). The try. Improved understanding of consumer heterogeneity may
proposition, which essentially outlawed “battery” cages for help recognize distributional effects of policies as well as
chickens in the state, passed with 63% of the vote. Fewer niche marketing opportunities.
than 10% of eggs purchased in the state, however, come Consumers also have different affinities for different live-
from cage-free systems (Allender and Richards 2010; Lusk stock species. Investigating pork chops and milk, Olynk,10 Scientific, Ethical, and Economic Aspects of Farm Animal Welfare
Tonsor, and Wolf (2010) found differences in WTP across by Arthur Pigou (1920) and further developed by authors
livestock species (dairy cows versus pigs) for welfare im- such as Baumol (1972). The idea is that a tax can be levied
provements. Additionally, WTP estimates vary across prod- against the good traded in the market to force producers and
ucts even when they are from the same species (McKendree, consumers to pay the full social cost of production. An ef-
Croney, and Widmar 2014; Olynk and Ortega 2013). Thus, ficiently designed Pigovian tax would increase the price of a
consumer preferences for animal-rearing practices are not good by exactly the amount needed to offset the social costs
homogenous across consumers, and even for the same con- of the negative externality.
sumer they may vary across animal species and products, Several groups have proposed meat taxes. Although the
which presents a challenge for producers who must market proposals are often vague as to the exact size of the tax or
an entire carcass rather than just a few value-added cuts. the methods of implementation, the general idea is that a tax
on meat would lessen intake of meat and therefore would re-
Reducing the Economic sult in less animal suffering. Whereas it is possible that meat
taxes could partially alleviate negative externality associated
Externalities Associated with with modern livestock farming practices, there are several
Animal Welfare shortcomings of the policy concept.
The effects of a meat tax are mitigated because consumer
Conventional economic theory asserts that competitive demand for meat is relatively insensitive to price changes.
markets efficiently allocate resources to their most valued Most estimates suggest that a 1% increase in the price of
uses, and that the prices and quantities produced by a com- meat would cause a 0.6 to 0.9% reduction in the quantity of
petitive market generate the highest level of aggregate hu- meat purchased (Gallet 2010). Thus, a meat tax would prob-
man well-being in the utilitarian sense. These ideas have led ably be effective at raising revenue for the government, but it
economists to set competitive market outcomes as the bench- would be less effective at curbing meat consumption. More
mark from which to judge the suitability of policy proposals. importantly, the primary effect of a meat tax would be on the
One well-known situation in which the human welfare- quantity of animals living, not on the quality of animal lives
maximizing property of competitive markets breaks down (Cowen 2006).
occurs when the production or consumption of a good gen- A related issue is that animal welfare can instead be con-
erates an externality, which is a cost or benefit conveyed sidered a positive externality in need of subsidy rather than
on a third party not involved in the original transaction. a tax. As argued by Norwood and Lusk (2011), most farm
When externalities exist, the market price of a product will animals arguably live an overall good life, which means that
not reflect the full social costs (or benefits) of production, a positive—rather than negative—externality potentially ex-
and consumers will consume too much (or too little) of the ists for many animal products. Either way, effective Pigovian
good. Some argue that animal welfare (or animal suffering) taxes require knowledge by the regulator about the size of
is an externality in the sense that farms can be thought of as the externality as well as the underlying demand conditions.
producing an output, animal welfare, which is not generally The over-arching point is that meat taxes are a blunt instru-
factored into the price of meat. If current levels of animal ment in improving animal welfare in the sense that the ef-
welfare are perceived to be low, then the production of meat fects on animal welfare are at best indirect.
creates a negative externality. The negative externality is a
“cost” imposed on third parties—e.g., those individuals who Process Regulations
are concerned about the current state of animal production. A popular tactic pursued by animal advocacy organiza-
More directly, it is sometimes argued that markets for meat, tions is to use state ballot initiatives and state-level legis-
dairy, or eggs create externalities because the well-being of lation to enact regulations that seek to prohibit livestock
animals is not directly considered when setting the prices for producers from using practices such as veal crates or gesta-
these food products. tion crates. These policies target specific farm practices and
The externality argument provides a convenient means to seek to lessen the externality problem at its source. Process
analyze the effects of different types of policies while work- regulations are popular, in part, because of their simplicity
ing within well-established economic theories. Consider and seemingly intuitive appeal in decreasing the externality.
the following four policies that have been proposed to de- Unfortunately, process regulations can have counterintuitive
crease the animal welfare externality associated with meat effects. In particular, process regulations often do not com-
consumption. pletely specify the alternative systems that could be adopted.
Meat Taxes Bans on production processes cannot guarantee improve-
A traditional solution to deal with negative externalities is ments in farm animal welfare without other regulations. It
the use of the so-called “Pigovian tax,” originally suggested is possible that open barn systems used for chickens kept forEconomics and Markets for Animal Welfare 11
egg production actually achieve lower levels of hen welfare A Market for Animal Welfare
than some enhanced or enriched cage systems. Moreover, As discussed in more detail in section 4, one area in
with the absence of trade restrictions, banning a practice in which animal welfare has had significant market impacts is
one state or location simply serves to change where food in corporate social responsibility (CSR). Animal welfare is
products come from but not how animals are raised (Sumner perceived to be a significant component of food quality as-
et al. 2008). surance in today’s marketplace; thus the market for animal
welfare attributes is a particular area of concern for econo-
Meat Labels and Certification mists, livestock producers, and livestock industries alike.
Because taxes and process regulations provide indirect Lusk (2011, 2016) suggested the possibility of a decoupled
and potentially counterproductive means of improving ani- market for animal welfare as one means of allowing compa-
mal welfare, many organizations have sought to develop nies to meet CSR goals in a way that is guided by econom-
meat labels and brands that make animal welfare claims (see ics and market forces. Succinctly put, a market for animal
section 4). Although the market for such products is grow- welfare would consist of giving farmers property rights over
ing, meat labels are unlikely to fully resolve the externality an output called animal well-being units (AWBUs) and pro-
problem associated with animal welfare. One of the main viding an institutional structure or market for AWBUs to be
reasons is that labels only affect one type of consumer who is bought and sold independent of the market for meat.
concerned about animal welfare. Many consumers are either Animal well-being units can be assigned to producers
satisfied with current standards or do not value higher levels based on the living conditions on their farm (as deemed by a
of animal welfare and are therefore not willing to pay for certifying body) and the number of animals housed. Creating
certified meat products. Vegetarians and vegans do not eat a market for AWBUs would convey the opportunity, but not
meat. Thus, even though many vegetarians and vegans may the obligation, to participate. Farmers and livestock produc-
care a great deal about farm animal welfare, the existence ers would voluntarily choose whether or not to participate
of certified meat labels does nothing to allow them to act (and be audited periodically), but presumably, many would
on their preferences (although they might persuade others to do so because they would gain access to a new market and
their cause through advertising, social media, etc.). Label- garner an opportunity to profit. Likewise, only those citi-
ing thus leaves the “compassionate carnivore” to bear the zens and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who have
responsibility of resolving the externality problem. the means and the interest to do so would buy AWBUs. In
Economists are generally skeptical of the notion that peo- this sense, a market for AWBUs would also separate rheto-
ple are sufficiently altruistic to wholly internalize the cost of ric from reality. It is easy to say improvements in animal
the externality. In particular, one can conceptualize animal welfare should be enacted, but this is different from being
welfare as a public good (the consumption of which is non- willing to pay their costs. A market for AWBUs imposes the
trivial and nonexcludable), and consumers face incentives to costs on the people who want them and could potentially
“free-ride” off contributions of others in which they enjoy allow companies to engage in CSR objectives in a clear and
the higher level of animal welfare provided through oth- transparent manner (i.e., by buying AWBUs). This does not
ers’ purchases without having to pay for it themselves (see mean that some of the same incentives for free riding that
the discussion and examples in Norwood and Lusk [2011]). exist with regard to meat labels wouldn’t also exist with an
Thus, although existence of label schemes or other certifica- AWBU market, only that the AWBU market would expand
tions has the potential to decrease the effects of the animal the pool of potential buyers to those people who currently
welfare externality and provide purchasing opportunities to buy little to no meat.
those concerned about such issues, they are unlikely to pro-
duce outcomes that are desired by all.You can also read
