Farm Animal Protection Policymaking and the Law: the Impetus for Change

Steven White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969x18788658

2018-01-01

Alternative Law Journal

Abstract:This article explores problems underpinning standard-setting for the protection of farm animals in Australia which have provoked calls for change and considers the approach recently advocated by the Productivity Commission.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Standards and Standard-Setting for Companion and Farm Animal Protection in Queensland, Australia

Steven White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/1387

2016-01-01

Abstract:This study examines standards and standard-setting for the protection of companion and farm animals. The well-being of companion and farm animals is dependent on the scope of standards applicable to their protection and the ways in which those standards are applied in practice. Despite the seriousness of harms inflicted on companion and, especially, farm animals every year, little scholarly attention has been paid to development of the standards governing their protection. A case study approach, focussed on Queensland, is used to explore who exercises authority in the arena of animal protection regulation, how standard-setting processes work and how these relate to compliance monitoring and enforcement. This study explores these issues through a series of questions: 1. How are the purposes of the regulation of the protection of companion and farm animals framed? 2. What types of regulatory standards apply to the protection of companion and farm animals in Queensland? 3. What are the processes for development of these standards, and how have these evolved over time? 4. What consequences do the prevailing types of standards have for compliance monitoring and enforcement? 5. How are these standards applied in practice through compliance monitoring and enforcement processes? 6. What are the key differences in the regulatory standards for the protection of companion and farm animals and how might these differences be rationalised? Insights from regulatory studies are used to interpret and explain regulatory objectives, standard-setting processes and, to the extent allowed by the data obtained in this study, compliance monitoring and enforcement. This study therefore provides a new field of practice – animal protection – for the application of established principles of regulatory analysis. This study makes a significant contribution to the discipline of animal law, still a comparatively new area of legal concern, by extending the predominantly doctrinal underpinnings of this field.
Regulation of Animal Welfare in Australia and the Emergent Commonwealth: Entrenching the Traditional Approach of the States and Territories or Laying the Ground for Reform?

Steven White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22145/flr.35.3.1

2007-01-01

Federal Law Review

Abstract:Human treatment of other animals has been the subject of intense scholarly and more general public deliberation for many years, especially in the wake of the 1975 publication of Australian philosopher Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation. In the United States, this debate has permeated the discipline of law to the extent that there are now more than 90 animal law courses conducted in universities around the country, a significant and growing scholarly literature, multiple edition textbooks and dedicated law journals. Despite the Australian provenance of a major contributor to the contemporary philosophical debate, the Australian legal academy has shown relatively little interest in this important area. The aim of this article is to contribute to the fledging Australian legal scholarship in animal law by critically analysing the respective roles of the Commonwealth, States and Territories in the regulation of animal welfare, focussing principally on the welfare of companion and farmed animals.
Standards and Standard-Setting in Companion Animal Protection

Steven White

2016-01-01

Abstract:Legal scholarship addressing the protection of animals, including companion animals, is a vibrant and growing field in Australia and beyond. However, limited scholarly attention has so far been directed to the regulatory studies literature and the insights it may provide about standards, standard-setting, compliance monitoring and enforcement for animal protection. I explore how the legal forms of the prevailing governing norm of humaneness function as regulatory standards in a companion animal context. Given the intrinsic moral worth of companion animals, values such as social justice and paternalism, derived from political versions of public interest theory, are most relevant to understanding why the State is justified in restricting the rights that may be exercised by companion animal owners over their 'property'. The key legislative standards are a prohibition of cruelty and an obligation to meet the basic welfare needs of an animal. These provisions operate as principle-based standards, describing duties to be performed, but not specifying how they are to be achieved. I argue that the standards, as criminal provisions, perform an important censoring role. However, their content requires some elucidation, the most productive avenue being guidelines developed through an inclusive, pluralistic, delegated standard-setting process.
Animal Protection Law in Australia: Bound by History

Steven White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26818-7_6

2016-01-01

Abstract:This chapter examines changing attitudes to the treatment of animals in nineteenth century Britain, tracing the effects of change through to the first British animal protection legislation in 1822, and beyond to the law of the Australian colonies. By the early part of the twentieth century a number of key facets of animal protection regulation were established: the adoption of the generic 'no unnecessary suffering' standard in assessing the extent of cruelty to animals allowed; the use of exemptions from the generic prohibition against cruelty; the imposition of duties to provide for the needs of an animal; and the establishment of one of the key institutional actors in the animal protection field, the RSPCA. As well, the Australian colonies faithfully reproduced an understanding of domesticated animals as personal property. Analysis of the development of animal protection law in Queensland provides a "representative sample" of the adoption of animal protection law in the States and Territories more broadly. In Queensland, as in other similar jurisdictions, the question remains whether the present day animal protection regulatory framework amounts, in essence, to a nineteenth century answer to twenty-first century concerns.
Into The Void: International Law And The Protection Of Animal Welfare

Joanna L. Grossman,Lawrence M. Friedman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12076

2013-01-01

Global Policy

Abstract:Animal welfare is not currently regulated by a single, comprehensive international law instrument. This article considers prevailing frameworks in international law that address animal welfare in some way, but by themselves do not meet the hallmarks of an effective global protection regime, including comprehensiveness and enforceability. Emerging frameworks that might fill the gap in global animal welfare protection include a universal declaration on animal welfare, the entrenchment of World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) animal health standards and an international convention for the protection of animal welfare. While the prospects of any of these models succeeding in the short term are uncertain at best, the challenge now is to think carefully about what legal form an international framework for animal protection might take. Policy Implications Currently there is a significant gap in the international protection of animal welfare. Prevailing international frameworks with implications for animal welfare lack comprehensiveness and enforceability. New frameworks for global animal protection are being developed, but may still fall short of providing a comprehensive and enforceable global protection regime. While the short-term prospects for the adoption of a new international framework are not good, now is the time for citizens and their political representatives, policy makers, lawyers and scientists to think carefully about the form international protection should take, so as to be ready when a suitable political opportunity for advancement arises.
Policing Farm Animal Welfare in Federated Nations: The Problem of Dual Federalism in Canada and the USA

Terry L Whiting

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3041086

2013-12-02

Abstract:In recent European animal welfare statutes, human actions injurious to animals are new "offences" articulated as an injury to societal norms in addition to property damage. A crime is foremost a violation of a community moral standard. Violating a societal norm puts society out of balance and justice is served when that balance is returned. Criminal law normally requires the presence of mens rea, or evil intent, a particular state of mind; however, dereliction of duties towards animals (or children) is usually described as being of varying levels of negligence but, rarely can be so egregious that it constitutes criminal societal injury. In instrumental justice, the "public goods" delivered by criminal law are commonly classified as retribution, incapacitation and general deterrence. Prevention is a small, if present, outcome of criminal justice. Quazi-criminal law intends to establish certain expected (moral) standards of human behavior where by statute, the obligations of one party to another are clearly articulated as strict liability. Although largely moral in nature, this class of laws focuses on achieving compliance, thereby resulting in prevention. For example, protecting the environment from degradation is a benefit to society; punishing non-compliance, as is the application of criminal law, will not prevent the injury. This paper will provide evidence that the integrated meat complex of Canada and the USA is not in a good position to make changes to implement a credible farm animal protection system.
The animal scientist in a changing society

S Spencer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0739-7240(99)00027-2

Abstract:Despite the lack of any credible scientific evidence to oppose the use of animal performance-enhancing agents, acceptance of performance enhancers seems no closer than it was a decade ago--at least among the European Community and its major trading partners. Consumers are suspicious of new technologies, and politicians are wary of legalizing growth promoters when the relative price of animal products has never been cheaper. Among the factors that have recently re-fuelled consumer concerns over farming methods are: bovine spongiform encephalopathy, cloning of farm animals, and genetic manipulation of crops. Meanwhile, politicians try to balance the interests of the environmentalist, farming, and welfare lobbies with the politico-economic realities of an expanding European Community and the demands of the GATT agreement. In the United States, where corporate influence over political actions is more overtly established than in Europe, some new technologies have been introduced. This has further antagonized many consumers. As scientists with a direct interest in animal performance enhancers, we need to re-assess our positions--if for no other reason than to protect our research (and personal) incomes. We could probably better protect our own interests--and those of the farming community--if we raised our eyes from the microscope to look at the wider view. There are two challenges for animal production scientists: to identify truly acceptable ways of enhancing animal performance and to be highly active in bringing scientific consensus to the attention of both the public and the political establishments.
British Colonialism, Australian Nationalism and the Law: Hierarchies of Wild Animal Protection

Steven White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26180/5db80295d83ff

2013-01-01

Abstract:A combination of animal welfare law and nature conservation law establishes a hierarchy of protection for wild animals, with rare, threatened or endangered native animals receiving the highest levels of protection, plentiful native animals lying in the middle - sometimes wellprotected, sometimes not - and introduced wild animals at the bottom. In reading beyond the accounts of contemporary law, especially in sociology and environmental history, a plausible argument can be made for the proposition that this prevailing general schema of protection reflects an early 20th century assertion of a distinctive Australian identity, combined with the emergence of a conservation ethic and the decline of attempts to acclimatise British wild animals in Australia. Prior to federation the legal protection of wild animals was quite different, with native animals receiving little protection until the late 19th century. Introduced wild animals were initially protected to allow their flourishing, but by the late 19th century were increasingly being characterised as 'pests' and their protection wound back. This article explores how and why attitudes to native wild animals and introduced wild animals in Australia have changed over time, and how this continues to be reflected in Australian law.
Exploring Different Philosophical Approaches to Animal Protection in Law

Steven William White

2009-01-01

Abstract:The prevailing legal position for almost all animals is no more than that they deserve protection against gratuitous cruelty, consistent with an orthodox, narrow understanding of the moral significance of animals. But this position invites questions about where the line should be drawn. Why and to what extent do animals deserve protection from suffering? Why and to what extent do they deserve the opportunity to live a fulfilling life in accordance with their capabilities? On what basis should some animals be singled out for greater legal protection than others? This chapter considers some of the major contemporary contributions that have been made in answering these questions, and the ways in which these inform arguments for re-evaluating the legal status of animals. It is argued that while there are a variety of ways in which these questions may be addressed, a unifying theme is that a change in the prevailing orthodoxy on the moral significance of animals, as reflected in law, is warranted.
Farm Animal Welfare-From the Farmers' Perspective

Clive J C Phillips

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14050671

2024-02-21

Abstract:Improvements in the welfare of animals in the intensive production industries are increasingly being demanded by the public. Scientific methods of welfare improvement have been developed and are beginning to be used on farms, including those provided by precision livestock farming. The number of welfare challenges that animals are facing in the livestock production industries is growing rapidly, and farmers are a key component in attempts to improve welfare because their livelihood is at stake. The challenges include climate change, which not only exposes animals to heat stress but also potentially reduces forage and water availability for livestock production systems. Heat-stressed animals have reduced welfare, and it is important to farmers that they convert feed to products for human consumption less efficiently, their immune system is compromised, and both the quality of the products and the animals' reproduction are adversely affected. Livestock farmers are also facing escalating feed and fertiliser costs, both of which may jeopardise feed availability for the animals. The availability of skilled labour to work in livestock industries is increasingly limited, with rural migration to cities and the succession of older farmers uncertain. In future, high-energy and protein feeds are unlikely to be available in large quantities when required for the expanding human population. It is expected that livestock farming will increasingly be confined to marginal land offering low-quality pasture, which will favour ruminant livestock, at the expense of pigs and poultry unable to readily digest coarse fibre in plants. Farmers also face disease challenges to their animals' welfare, as the development of antibiotic resistance in microbes has heralded an era when we can no longer rely on antibiotics to control disease or improve the feed conversion efficiency of livestock. Farmers can use medicinal plants, pro-, pre- and synbiotics and good husbandry to help maintain a high standard of health in their animals. Loss of biodiversity in livestock breeds reduces the availability of less productive genotypes that survive better on nutrient-poor diets than animals selected for high productivity. Farmers have a range of options to help address these challenges, including changing to less intensive diets, diversification from livestock farming to other enterprises, such as cereal and pseudocereal crops, silvopastoral systems and using less highly selected breeds. These options may not always produce good animal welfare, but they will help to give farm animals a better life.
Companion Animals, Natural Disasters and the Law: an Australian Perspective

Steven White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2030380

2012-01-01

Animals

Abstract:This article examines the regulation of companion animal welfare during disasters, with some context provided by two recent major disaster events in Australia. Important general lessons for improved disaster management were identified in subsequent inquiries. However, the interests of companion animals continue to be inadequately addressed. This is because key assumptions underpinning disaster planning for companion animals—the primacy of human interests over animal interests and that individuals will properly address companion animal needs during times of disaster—are open to question. In particular these assumptions fail to recognise the inherent value of companion animals, underestimate the strong bond shared by some owners and their animals and, at the same time, overestimate the capacity of some owners to adequately meet the needs of their animals.
Kangaroos Vs. Cattle and Sheep: Animal Welfare, Animal Protection, and the Law

Steven White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-013-9445-8

2013-01-01

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

Abstract:In 2008 the Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report made a bold recommendation: >>For most of Australia’s human history—around 60 000 years—kangaroo was the main source of meat. It could again become important. … [Modelling shows] the potential for kangaroos to replace sheep and cattle for meat production in Australia’s rangelands, where kangaroos are already harvested. … [B]y 2020 beef cattle and sheep numbers in the rangelands could be reduced by 7 million and 36 million respectively, and … this would create the opportunity for an increase in kangaroo numbers from 34 million today to 240 million by 2020 … [leading to a] net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Garnaut 2008, 547–548).<< Perhaps inspired by the Garnaut Report, the Committee on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, in the case study presented by Irvine (2012), is proposing to substitute rangeland domesticated animal farming with kangaroo harvesting to improve the ecology and soil quality of semi-arid regions in Australia. As laudable as this goal may be, the committee’s policy prescription rests on key assumptions about animal welfare that are open to question.
A Global Justice Approach to Animal Law and Ethics

Gail Tulloch,Steven William White

2012-01-01

Abstract:This article is concerned with the emergence of a paradigm of global justice, from its earliest expression by Jeremy Bentham in 1789 through to today, to Peter Singer’s well known preference utilitarianism and Martha Nussbaum’s less well known capabilities approach, with its emphasis on global justice. By providing a theoretically-determined, practically applicable set of capabilities for realising justice for animals, Nussbaum has made an important contribution to animal ethics, and one which is used in this article to assess the extent to which animal law satisfies the requirements of justice. The increasing momentum towards global justice parallels a complementary momentum towards the emergence of an increasingly “legalised” regulation of animal welfare. Although there is no general, federal animal welfare statute in Australia, the States and Territories have adopted codes of practice for the regulation of many aspects of animal welfare, and there is now a well-established national strategy which endorses consistency in the content and adoption of these codes. At an international level, no coherent animal protection regime has yet been established. However, a number of developments highlight an increasing legalisation of animal welfare protection. These include the regional initiatives of the European Union, the increased interest in animal welfare on the part of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (including the endorsement of voluntary welfare codes) and the emergence of a campaign for a universal declaration on animal welfare.The central thesis of this article, though, is that these domestic and international regulatory developments fall well-short of realising the requirements for justice which flow from Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. In order to contextualise the work of Nussbaum, Part I surveys some familiar ground by briefly tracing the development of the field of animal ethics, taking it up to the present day. Part II explores the capabilities approach of Nussbaum in some detail, elucidating how she extends the approach to include justice for animals. Having established the requirements for justice for animals suggested by the capabilities approach, Part III then assesses the extent to which domestic Australian law, and international law, satisfies these requirements.
Animal welfare: a complex domestic and international public-policy issue--who are the key players?

A C David Bayvel,Nicki Cross

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.37.1.3

Abstract:Animal-welfare issues are usually portrayed in the media in a black-and-white fashion, with simple, single-perspective solutions proposed for what are often, in fact, complex policy issues. In this article, we argue that animal welfare is a multifaceted international and domestic public-policy issue that must take account of not only scientific, ethical, and economic issues but also religious, cultural, and international trade policy considerations. Management of animal welfare at a government policy level also requires an approach based on incremental change. Such change must be both science based and ethically principled, and the rate of change must recognize both the expectations of society and the constraints on the animal user. Ideally, such change should involve full ownership and buy-in from the affected animal user group. The range of stakeholders involved in the animal-welfare debate includes industry and producer groups, science bodies, and animal-welfare non-governmental organizations and professional groups, including the veterinary and legal professions. The veterinary profession, in particular, is expected to play an animal-welfare leadership role, and we discuss expectation versus reality at both a national and an international level. This latter discussion includes specific reference to the role of the World Organisation for Animal Health (the OIE) as an intergovernmental organization representing 175 countries and details some of the major achievements since the OIE assumed its international animal-welfare standard-setting role in 2002. We also address the role of the veterinary profession at national, regional, and international levels.
Changing Attitudes about the Weak: Social and Legal Conditions for Animal Protection in China

Alisha F. Carpenter,Wei Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2016.1196891

2016-07-02

Critical Asian Studies

Abstract:The foundation of current legal protection for animals in China is based on the principle of “rational utilization.” This utilitarian attitude supports the exploitation of animals through the legal means of resource management. However, through a process of public education and the construction of recent legislation, attitudes toward animals are rapidly changing in China. After the introduction of the concept of animal welfare in China in 1989, preliminary socioeconomic events such as early laboratory animal science, animal cruelty reports, pet ownership, engagement in international trade, and the severe acute respiratory syndrom (SARS) epidemic helped spur a trend away from a purely utilitarian attitude toward more positive associations with animals among members of the Chinese public. This phenomenon will be analyzed through the actions of non-governmental organizations, the media, academia, and international business to influence education and the development of legislation to promote animal protection practices. In addition, recent events will be used to illustrate political realities in China that impede the full promotion of animal welfare protection.

area studies
Costs and Benefits of Improving Farm Animal Welfare

Jill N. Fernandes,Paul H. Hemsworth,Grahame J. Coleman,Alan J. Tilbrook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020104

2021-01-27

Agriculture

Abstract:It costs money to improve the welfare of farm animals. For people with animals under their care, there are many factors to consider regarding changes in practice to improve welfare, and the optimal course of action is not always obvious. Decision support systems for animal welfare, such as economic cost–benefit analyses, are lacking. This review attempts to provide clarity around the costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare, thereby enabling the people with animals under their care to make informed decisions. Many of the costs are obvious. For example, training of stockpeople, reconfiguration of pens, and administration of pain relief can improve welfare, and all incur costs. Other costs are less obvious. For instance, there may be substantial risks to market protection, consumer acceptance, and social licence to farm associated with not ensuring good animal welfare. The benefits of improving farm animal welfare are also difficult to evaluate from a purely economic perspective. Although it is widely recognised that animals with poor welfare are unlikely to produce at optimal levels, there may be benefits of improving animal welfare that extend beyond production gains. These include benefits to the animal, positive effects on the workforce, competitive advantage for businesses, mitigation of risk, and positive social consequences. We summarise these considerations into a decision tool that can assist people with farm animals under their care, and we highlight the need for further empirical evidence to improve decision-making in animal welfare.
Are regulations addressing farm animal welfare issues during live transportation fit for purpose? A multi-country jurisdictional check

Eugénie Duval,Benjamin Lecorps,Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231072

IF: 3.5

2024-01-24

Royal Society Open Science

Abstract:Growing animal welfare concerns have pushed some jurisdictions to strengthen regulations addressing live farm animal transportation, but whether they provide satisfactory levels of protection for animals remains to be shown. Using the recent peer-reviewed literature, we identified four major risk factors associated with live animal transportation (fitness for transport, journey duration, climatic conditions and space allowances) and explored how regulations were structured to prevent animal welfare issues in five English-speaking Western jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the EU and the USA). All legally binding federal regulations were systematically reviewed and compared. Whether these rules were fit for purpose was assessed using the relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature. Our findings indicate the majority of regulations in most jurisdictions are often insufficient or too vague to be deemed fit for purpose. All five jurisdictions fall short in guaranteeing adequate protection to livestock during transport. Using recent changes as well as future policy proposals under discussion, we identify future directions that could form the basis for regulatory changes that may significantly improve the welfare of farm animals during transportation.

multidisciplinary sciences
Review: Livestock transport of animals in a consumer society geared towards efficiency: efficiency, animal welfare or both?

B. Felde

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.100919

IF: 3.73

2023-08-01

animal

Abstract:The industrialisation and mechanisation of many work steps in the production of economic goods, which have ever been advancing in recent decades, do not stop at animal farming. In ever-increasing numbers, in ever shorter periods of time and with less and less human labour, animals are being “produced” in order to then being exported to other countries as animals for slaughter, as animals for breeding or as “surplus” animals – or to be processed into animal products. This is owed to an increasingly efficient way of work at different levels of production, which, however, leaves behind and disregards – sometimes at the highest level – the interests of the animals and of animal welfare, which are high-ranking values in the European Union (EU). These values are neglected, although there are special legal provisions, according to which animals submitted to animal farming must be protected and whose interests in integrity and welfare must be considered. In Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the EU recognises animals as sentient beings. According to this provision, the EU takes full account of the requirements of animal welfare. The Member States also commit themselves to the same through the TFEU. From the so-called “cross-section clause” of Article 13 TFEU, among other things, the possibility is derived, to justify trade restrictions with the realisation of animal welfare. This must be considered in the context of Art. 36 TFEU, which also explicitly permits (expressly allows for) such trade restrictions. However, in practice, the effects of the most efficient procedures with regard to the transportation of animals in large parts are not in line with the animal protection law of the European Union. The overriding principle of “effet-utile” (“useful effect”), which overrides Union law and the Union law's precedence over the law of the Member States, is also not considered in the interpretation and application of the Union's animal welfare law. The production of economic goods – from the point of view of the economic participants themselves – should run as efficiently as possible. However, important requirements of the Union's animal welfare law and the important principle of “effet-utile” are often forgotten or even deliberately ignored. The “effet-utile” principle also prescribes efficiency – the efficient and effective interpretation of the Union law, which seeks to protect high-priority values of the European Union, i.e. the life and well-being of animals. In the course of the current revision of the Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005, which regulates the transport of animals within and out of the European Union, the EU could take the principle of effectiveness into account and accordingly make some changes to important and partly unclear and circumventable regulations, and thus lead to effective and efficient animal welfare regulations after 15 years of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005.

agriculture, dairy & animal science,veterinary sciences
An evaluation of four private animal health and welfare standards and associated quality assurance programmes for dairy cow production

S.J. More,J. Marchewka,A. Hanlon,A. Balzani,L. Boyle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102169

IF: 6.08

2021-12-01

Food Policy

Abstract:Private standards in animal health and welfare (AHW) and associated quality assurance (QA) programmes are an important instrument for food policy with the potential to substantially improve AHW. However, there are concerns that they do not necessarily do so. In this study, we evaluated four private AHW standards and associated QA programmes for dairy cow production, from Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, using an existing (but adapted) conceptual framework. The framework considers criteria relating to programme goals including relevance to AHW, programme beneficiaries, effectiveness, efficiency and transparency. The current study focused on information that was publicly available online. We found limited objective information to support programme claims, although there were considerable differences between programmes. Across all programmes, problems were identified with respect to transparency, and attempts to scrutinise claims would not be a straightforward process for most consumers. Among the programmes, there were notable examples of best-practice in AHW, relating to science-based evidence, separation of risk assessment and risk management, animal-based measures, farm benchmarking, ongoing programme-level metrics and measurement, and ongoing programme review. There is a need for careful scrutiny of private standards and QA programmes, to provide consumers with assurance with respect to programme effectiveness and transparency. Further, it is important that programme efficiencies are maximised. There is a strong case for regulatory oversight of private standards in AHW and associated QA programmes. This could be within existing or defined policy instruments, both to facilitate the positive impact of these programmes and to build confidence among consumers of the validity of programme claims.

food science & technology,nutrition & dietetics,agricultural economics & policy,economics
Review: Welfare in farm animals from an animal-centred point of view

K Huber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101311

IF: 3.73

animal

Abstract:This review aimed to enlighten aspects of welfare from the farm animal-centred point of view rarely addressed such as those anatomical and physiological alterations induced in farm animals to obtain high performance. Hence, the major working hypothesis was that high-producing farm animals developed an imbalance between body structural and functional capacities and the genetic procedures applied to obtain industrial production of animal protein. This is called "disproportionality", a feature which cannot be compensated by feeding and management approaches. Consequences of disproportionality are the insidious development of disturbances of the metabolism, low-grade systemic inflammation and as a final stage, production diseases, developing throughout the productive life span of a farm animal and affecting animal welfare. Based on scientific evidence from literature, the review discusses disproportional conditions in broilers, laying hens, sows, piglets, dairy cows, bulls and calves as the most important farm animals for production of milk, meat, foetuses and eggs. As a conclusion, farm animal welfare must consider analysing issues from an animal-centered point of view because it seems evident that, due to genetics and management pressures, most of farm animals are already beyond their physiological limitations. Animal welfare from an animal-centered point must be addressed as an ethical step to establish limits to the strength placed on the animal's anatomical and physiological functionality. It may allow more sustainable and efficient farm animal production and the availability of healthy animal-derived protein for human nutrition worldwide.

Farm Animal Protection Policymaking and the Law: the Impetus for Change

Standards and Standard-Setting for Companion and Farm Animal Protection in Queensland, Australia

Regulation of Animal Welfare in Australia and the Emergent Commonwealth: Entrenching the Traditional Approach of the States and Territories or Laying the Ground for Reform?

Standards and Standard-Setting in Companion Animal Protection

Animal Protection Law in Australia: Bound by History

Into The Void: International Law And The Protection Of Animal Welfare

Policing Farm Animal Welfare in Federated Nations: The Problem of Dual Federalism in Canada and the USA

The animal scientist in a changing society

British Colonialism, Australian Nationalism and the Law: Hierarchies of Wild Animal Protection

Exploring Different Philosophical Approaches to Animal Protection in Law

Farm Animal Welfare-From the Farmers' Perspective

Companion Animals, Natural Disasters and the Law: an Australian Perspective

Kangaroos Vs. Cattle and Sheep: Animal Welfare, Animal Protection, and the Law

A Global Justice Approach to Animal Law and Ethics

Animal welfare: a complex domestic and international public-policy issue--who are the key players?

Changing Attitudes about the Weak: Social and Legal Conditions for Animal Protection in China

Costs and Benefits of Improving Farm Animal Welfare

Are regulations addressing farm animal welfare issues during live transportation fit for purpose? A multi-country jurisdictional check

Review: Livestock transport of animals in a consumer society geared towards efficiency: efficiency, animal welfare or both?

An evaluation of four private animal health and welfare standards and associated quality assurance programmes for dairy cow production

Review: Welfare in farm animals from an animal-centred point of view