The 30,000 foot view on livestock welfare

Date posted: Apr 12/04 (Meristem Land & Science, www.meristem.com)

Internationally renowned animal welfare expert Dr. David Fraser of the University of British Columbia pinpoints three key challenges with major implications for Canada's livestock industry.

The concept of practising good livestock welfare is simple enough - treat livestock with dignity and care for them responsibly. The vast majority of producers understand this and take pride in the care of their livestock. But assuring this practice to consumers and powerful corporate customers on a global scale is another matter entirely. This is an area where expectations have risen dramatically, presenting major challenges to the livestock and food industries worldwide.

Dr. David Fraser, an internationally renowned animal welfare expert and professor of animal welfare at the University of British Columbia (UBC), has a unique view of what these industries are up against and what hurdles they need to cross to meet new expectations of animal care practices.

Specifically, Fraser has "the 30,000 foot view," gained from broad international experience on the front line of animal welfare developments. His UBC program is one of the leading research, education and public outreach programs on animal welfare issues. He serves as an adviser on animal welfare issues to the Animal Welfare Foundation of Canada, the World Organization for Animal Health, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Council of Chain Restaurants in the United States and Burger King corporation. Last year he received the prestigious Animal Welfare Award of the British Society of Animal Sciences, for his 'outstanding contribution to the science, philosophy and the practice of animal welfare.'

At the recent Alberta Farm Animal Care (AFAC) annual general meeting in Edmonton, Fraser shared his views on three key challenges for livestock welfare quality assurance for the next 10 years.

Key challenges for the next 10 years

1. Achieving quality assurance without relying on regulations. One major challenge is achieving quality assurance on animal welfare issues in an environment where regulation is not going to solve the problem for us. In the case of slaughter, the existing regulatory process should assure the public that things are happening properly, but this will require careful monitoring. For example, in the United States, USDA inspections should, in theory, ensure humane slaughter at all major plants. However, in practice, there was enough slippage that McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's all felt the need to send in their own auditors, in order to be sure. This is a very inefficient and duplicative process, where essentially four different agencies - one government and three corporations - are doing the same tasks over and over.
   In the case of production, we are not likely to see a regulatory process in North America. The challenge is: how to provide appropriate quality assurance to the public that animal welfare concerns are being met, when we don't have regulations that solve the problem for us. The audit process put forward by the Food Marketing Institute and the National Council of Chain Restaurants in the U.S. is one option; several commodity groups in Canada are exploring others.
   
2. Finding the right balance in welfare standards. The second challenge is balancing different elements. Animal welfare standards tend to do three things: protect basic animal health and function of the animals, prevent pain and suffering and other negative states of animals, and permit some degree of naturalness in the animals' environment. I believe the public thinks of all three of these elements when it thinks of animal welfare standards. However, each of these elements can lead us in some different directions. Finding the right balance to meet expectations is going to be a real challenge.
3. Providing clear communication to the public. The third challenge is to create clear communication about animal welfare standards. We're beginning to see, in a sense, three families of standards emerging. There are basic standards, such as those found in Canadian codes of practice and those of the U.S. chain restaurants. There are European standards, which also incorporate some elements of natural behaviour. And there are free range and organic standards, which place a major emphasis on naturalness.

All three approaches have merit. Yet, the public will soon be confronted with three quite different sets of standards, all claiming to protect animal welfare but making different requirements. It's going to take some very clear communication in order to prevent the public from becoming confused and disillusioned by the conflicting messages.