Joy A. Mench Haven’t I just read a chapter on the moral status of animals? If so, why is there also a chapter on animal welfare – aren’t animal ethics and animal welfare the same thing? The answer is yes – and no. Yes, because people’s perceptions of animal welfare are deeply tied to their ethical views about the moral status of animals, and hence their views about appropriate animal treatment (Fraser 2008). There is no “consensus” view about animal welfare – instead, there are many, often conflicting opinions about how animals should be housed and managed and indeed whether humans should even use animals for their own purposes. But the answer is also no – because animal welfare is something inherent to an individual animal. The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) defines animal welfare as “the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies” (OIE 2021). Welfare is influenced by a multitude of factors, not just the way an animal is treated by humans. An animal’s welfare exists on a continuum from poor to good and is dynamic, changing as conditions change. It is influenced both by the animal’s genetic predispositions and life experiences. This makes evaluating an animal’s welfare challenging, because it requires understanding the long-term effects of all the practices to which an animal is exposed and determining how these should be weighed against one another to provide an assessment of the animal’s quality of life. Regardless of these complexities, thinking about animal welfare as the experience of an individual animal creates opportunities to carry out scientific research to better understand that experience, and to use that understanding to create conditions for improving welfare. In this chapter, I focus on scientific research on animal welfare and its application via policy and technology transfer, as well as the role of veterinarians in that process. The emphasis will be on farm animal welfare, although laboratory animal welfare will be addressed briefly. The origin of animal welfare as a field of scientific study is traced to an expert committee report published in 1965, the Brambell Report (Brambell 1967). The UK government appointed this committee in response to public outcry following the publication of Ruth Harrison’s book Animal Machines (1964). Harrison described a “new type of farming, of production line methods applied to the rearing of animals, of animals living out their lives in darkness and immobility … of a generation of men who see in the animal they rear only its conversion factor into food” – a type of farming she called factory farming. After reviewing the current state of farm animal production in the UK (and Europe), the Brambell Committee echoed Harrison’s concerns about certain practices, including rearing animals under conditions of extreme confinement. The committee made two particularly influential statements: that animals have “innate behavioural urges” which have been “little, if at all, bred out in the process of domestication” and that animals have feelings (Thorpe 1969). Although accepting that some restriction of animals’ behavior was necessary on farms, the committee recommended that all animals be provided at least with sufficient freedom of movement to turn around, lie down, groom normally, get up, and stretch their limbs – the “Five Freedoms.” The committee noted that many of their concerns were speculative and would need to be proven to be problems (or not) based on empirical evidence. They stressed the need for scientific studies of animal behavior and physiology, especially focused on understanding animals’ feelings. In so doing, they launched the field of animal welfare science (Appleby et al. 2018). Their report also highlighted what are now considered to be the three key components of animal welfare: natural living (behavior), basic health and functioning, and affective states (feelings) (Fraser 2008). The trajectory of scientific research on animal welfare has been strongly influenced by the Five Freedoms – not just the Five Freedoms of the Brambell Committee but the expansion of those freedoms into a set of guiding principles in the 1990s by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), a UK government advisory body set up in response to the Brambell Report. These “new” Five Freedoms (FAWC 2012) are: Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the different types of farm animal production systems and how particular freedoms might be infringed in those systems, welfare concerns include: There is now a large body of animal welfare research (Fraser et al. 2013; Appleby et al. 2018). In keeping with the complex nature of animal welfare, a variety of scientific approaches have been taken. These were initially drawn from the disciplines of animal behavior (ethology) and physiology, the areas highlighted by the Brambell Committee. However, the field of animal welfare science soon expanded to include expertise from a variety of other disciplines, including veterinary medicine, comparative psychology, nutrition, neuroscience, agricultural engineering, and genetics. An ongoing challenge has been how to assess animals’ feelings, which are not directly measurable and therefore have to be inferred. Measures used include physiological responses known to be linked to affective states in humans, such as eye temperature and heart rate variability; behavioral responses like escape, avoidance, facial expressions, or vocalizations to stimuli presumed to be painful or aversive; physiological and behavioral responses to pharmacological manipulation using drugs known to affect emotional states in humans; and mood assessment using cognitive bias testing (Ede et al. 2019). The most widely used method for assessing animals’ subjective states is motivational testing (Fraser and Nicol 2018). The simplest form is preference testing, where animals are presented with various options and observed to see which they prefer (or prefer to avoid). These tests tell us what animals “want.” More complex tests utilize operant conditioning techniques, requiring animals to work (e.g. by pecking a key or moving a heavy door) to obtain their preferred option or avoid their nonpreferred option. Operant conditioning tests provide information both about what animals prefer and how strong their preferences and aversions are based on how hard they are willing to work – in other words, what animals “need.” Motivational tests have been used to assess a wide variety of aspects of farm animal housing and management, including air quality, light levels, bedding, social conditions, and provision of nests, perches, shade, and rooting materials. They have also been used to determine how important it is to animals to perform certain behaviors. The results of motivational research have been influential – for example, the decision to ban the use of barren conventional (battery) cages for hens in the European Union was based primarily on operant research showing that hens are highly motivated to perch and to lay their eggs in a nest (Appleby 2003). As the pace of animal welfare science has increased, so too has public concern about the treatment of farm animals, particularly in economically developed countries. Although individuals not directly involved in food animal production may have minimal knowledge about how farm animals are raised and housed, they want reassurance that those animals are well cared for and are humanely killed (Cornish et al. 2016). Recent attention has thus focused on the practical implementation of welfare improvements, particularly via policy instruments and scientific research application. There are two different approaches to “regulating” farm animal welfare – involuntary and voluntary. The involuntary approach involves requiring compliance with laws, regulations, ordinances, or other legal vehicles. The voluntary approach involves identifying and incorporating “best practices” for animal welfare into standards or guidelines that farmers are encouraged, but not legally required, to follow. Involuntary and voluntary regulation strategies are used to different degrees in different countries, and each approach has advantages and disadvantages. This section will focus on animal welfare policy in the United States and the European Union (EU): information about Canada, Asia, the Far East, Oceania, the Middle East, and Latin America can be found in Fraser et al. (2018), Gallo and Tadich (2018), and Thornber and Mellor (2018). Involuntary regulation has been the primary mechanism used to assure animal welfare within the EU (Knierem and Pajor 2018; Broom 2019). Although the EU places some limits on the types of legislation that can be adopted, particularly related to ensuring freedom of trade within the EU, it has enacted substantial legislation addressing the welfare of farm animals. EU animal welfare legislation can take the form of directives or regulations. Directives set out objectives that must be made into laws in the individual Member States, but it is up to each state to determine whether to simply adopt the objectives or add even more stringent provisions. Regulations are EU-wide laws that must be followed by all citizens and businesses. Most animal welfare legislation has taken the form of directives, which is why there is variation among the Member States in permissible farming practices. Member States can also pass their own farm animal welfare laws, as long as only their residents are subject to those laws. The major EU farm animal welfare directives1 are (Simonin and Gavinelli 2019): EU regulations have been implemented for aspects of animal welfare that involve multiple Member States, like animal transport (Regulation 1/2005), as well as for humane slaughter and on-farm killing (Regulation 1099/2009). The United States regulates the transport and slaughter of farm animals via the Twenty-Eight Hour Law and the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA), respectively. The Twenty-Eight Hour Law was first passed in 1873 but was amended and reissued in its current form in 1994 (49 USC s 80502 2012). It stipulates that animals cannot be confined in a “vehicle or vessel for more than 28 consecutive hours without unloading the animals for feeding, water and rest” [of at least five hours] during transport. Although the law was originally intended to apply to transport by rail, most farm animals are now transported by truck. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) clarified in 2005 that the law applied to truck transport (Animal Welfare Institute n.d.). It appears, however, that it is rarely enforced given how infrequently shipments are monitored and due to a lack of clarity about enforcement authority. Although the Twenty-Eight Hour Law does not apply to poultry, long-distance truck transport of poultry is uncommon because the hatcheries, rearing houses, and processing plants in integrated broiler and turkey complexes are usually located nearby. The HSA was first passed in 1958 and then amended in 1978 (7 USC ss 1901–1907, as amended). It requires that (except for religious slaughter): “cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine and other livestock … be rendered insensible to pain … before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut.” Approved methods for rapidly and effectively inducing insensibility are listed. As part of its enforcement of the HSA, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) inspects loading, unloading, and holding areas to ensure humane handling. Poultry are not included in the HSA, although the USDA states that poultry receive protection via the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA; PL 85-172, as amended). This Act mandates inspection of poultry at the slaughterhouse for meat quality and safety. Carcasses with bruising or injury due to handling or transport can be condemned, as can “red birds,” which are birds that were inadequately cut and thus still alive when they entered the scalder for defeathering. There have been repeated attempts by animal welfare organizations to either include poultry under the HSA or expand the PPIA to explicitly address welfare concerns, including stunning, but these have been unsuccessful. Regardless, stunning (either electrical or gas) is routine at large poultry processing plants for both animal welfare and food quality reasons. In contrast to the EU, there is no federal regulation in the United States governing the welfare of animals on commercial farms, although some states have laws that specifically limit aspects of housing or management. Farm animals may also be covered under state anti-cruelty laws, although in many states they are exempted if they are subjected to practices considered to be standard for commercial agriculture (see National Agricultural Law Center 2021 for state-by-state summaries of anti-cruelty laws). Instead, voluntary regulation has been the primary pathway used in the United States and most other countries outside of the EU. Voluntary regulation of farm animal welfare originates from several sources (Mench 2008). In the United States, many farmers follow animal welfare standards developed by their respective trade organizations (e.g. United Egg Producers, National Chicken Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers). The other sources of voluntary regulation are market-driven programs. These can either be animal welfare labeling programs for consumers or programs that are part of the “conditions of doing business” between animal producers and their customers (food retailers and distributors). Many large food retailers and distributors now include animal welfare as part of their corporate social responsibility programs (Amos et al. 2020). Approaches, issues addressed, and supplier requirements vary between companies. A company might stipulate that the farmer participate in an independent animal welfare labeling program or adhere to company or trade organization animal welfare standards. These retailer/distributor programs are only quasi-voluntary since farmers risk losing a major market for their products if they do not comply with a company’s requirements. Retailers and distributors therefore have enormous power to shape the animal welfare landscape (More et al. 2017), not only by requiring adherence to standards but also by deciding not to purchase products from animals kept in certain kinds of housing systems. For example, a large (and growing) number of US retailers, distributors, and food service companies have announced plans to discontinue using eggs from hens housed in cages (Graber and Keller 2020). As a result, 30% of hens in the United States as of March 2021 were housed in cage-free systems, compared with only 4% in 2010; it is estimated that nearly 70% of US flocks will need to be cage-free by 2025 to meet existing food chain commitments (United Egg Producers n.d.). Whether this is achievable given the time frame and capital required for egg producers to build new housing systems is debatable- nor is it clear whether consumers are willing to spend more for cage-free eggs, which cost more to produce (Lusk 2019). A key element of voluntary and involuntary regulation is enforcement. Involuntary regulation is enforced by government bodies. In the EU, animal welfare legislation is enforced by relevant authorities in the Member States, which must submit annual reports of inspections to the European Commission (Simonin and Gavinelli 2019). Veterinary experts from the European Commission also conduct audits in the Member States to confirm adherence. In the United States, the USDA-FSIS is responsible for enforcing the HSA, while several agencies have responsibility for enforcement of the Twenty-Eight Hour Law (Animal Welfare Institute n.d.). Voluntary program oversight is more variable. A typical process for ensuring that standards are followed is auditing. Individual farmers can carry out first-party (internal) audits and/or be subject to second-party (semi-independent, e.g. a customer directly auditing a farmer), or third-party (independent) auditing (e.g. a customer using an independent firm to audit a farmer). Large farmers may be audited multiple times annually as part of their contracts with retailers and distributors and may have to meet an array of animal welfare and food quality/safety standards. Involuntary and voluntary regulation have strengths and weaknesses. These are encapsulated in another phrase used to describe these different types of regulation – public and private standards (Toschi Maciel and Bock 2013; More et al. 2017; Lundmark et al. 2018). Involuntary regulation is public – the texts of laws are publicized, they may be finalized only after public comment, they are enforced by independent governmental authorities, and there is public accountability in terms of the penalties imposed for breaking the laws. Voluntary standards are private and may lack transparency – the input into the development of the standards, the content of the standards, or the method of ensuring that the standards are met may not be made obvious to the public. In essence, consumers are being asked to trust the retailer or the trade group rather than the standards. This lack of transparency can lead to a lack of confidence if people perceive that there is a conflict of interest. There are, of course, exceptions to these generalizations. Laws can be inadequately enforced or associated with such negligible penalties that they are essentially ineffective. Alternatively, voluntary programs may have mechanisms in place to build consumer trust by making their standards publicly available, by using third-party auditors, by product labeling, and/or by releasing summaries of audit results. While this would suggest that animal welfare is best assured via public standards, there are downsides to this approach. The process of creating involuntary regulation is often protracted, and consequently, laws tend to be inflexible once they are finally passed and an enforcement mechanism established. Therefore, involuntary standards take a long time to implement and generate only short-term or limited benefits for the animals, given the pace of scientific discovery and technological innovation related to animal welfare. Voluntary standards are more flexible and can be changed as new information is obtained, can be implemented more quickly, and (in the case of multinational retailers) can lead to global change assured by market mechanisms. For these reasons it is becoming increasingly common to combine voluntary and involuntary regulation of farm animal welfare (Knierem and Pajor 2018). In the EU, market standards that exceed EU legal requirements are assuming increasing importance. Current trends show governance of farm animal welfare moving away from new legislation to the marketplace (Toschi Maciel and Bock 2013; Lundmark et al. 2018). The last EU farm animal welfare directive was in 2009, and the protracted nature of the regulatory process means that existing legislation mainly covers higher profile issues like close confinement housing. Many species widely farmed within the EU including trout, salmon, rabbits, ducks, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle (except for veal calves), and sheep, are not covered by EU directives (Broom 2019). There are therefore many regulatory gaps that can be (and are being) filled by market-driven governance. Conversely, involuntary regulation is assuming increasing importance in some countries that already have well-developed voluntary programs. In the United States, there has been a recent spate of state regulations restricting use of various types of confinement housing for farm animals (Vogeler 2020). Californians passed a sweeping ballot initiative in 2018, with provisions to begin in 2020 and 2022 (CDFA 2018). This law effectively bans the most highly confined housing systems for egg-laying hens, swine, and calves, and applies not only to animals raised within the state but also to animal products produced elsewhere and sold in California. This will have a ripple effect because California is a major market for animal products produced in other states where these housing systems are still permitted. Animal welfare organizations in the United States have been effective not only in exerting pressure on retailers via shareholders’ resolutions and direct consumer campaigns, but in utilizing state ballot initiatives to pass farm animal welfare regulations (Vogeler 2020). However, state-by-state regulation removes one of the benefits of federal regulation, as it can cause market disruption and lead to a patchwork of standards. This is problematic if the net effect is that production just moves to states with fewer (or no) animal welfare regulations. Initially, much animal welfare research was focused on addressing basic questions related to the motivation of animals to perform certain behaviors, physiological responses to stress, and pain perception. As the science has evolved there has been increasing focus on how to apply research to modify housing, management, transport, and slaughter. The last two areas have considerable uptake of research findings and associated auditing programs (Grandin 2021a). Each of these constitutes a relatively short-term stressor for the animal, which makes implementing changes more straightforward than changing practices on farms. Farm environments are complex, and the animals are kept in those environments for weeks or years, often through different developmental stages during which their needs change. Modifying housing and management can be costly, so farmers only reap tangible benefits if there is a strong driver, like regulation or market pressure. Thus, increasing attention has been directed toward facilitating research application, as well as developing practical on-farm welfare assessment and improvement tools that can allow animal welfare to be assessed continuously and in real time. In addition, social science research is attempting to understand how human factors affect the adoption of research findings.
2
Animal Welfare
Science, Policy, and the Role of Veterinarians
Introduction
History of Animal Welfare
Farm Animal Welfare Concerns
Scope of Animal Welfare Research
Improving Animal Welfare
Animal Welfare Policy
Involuntary Regulation
Voluntary Regulation
Enforcement
Strengths and Weaknesses
Research Application
Making Research Relevant – Epidemiology
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
