0
Historically, the welfare of farm animals was the preserve of farmers, who were motivated to look after their animals well by both a personal bond with the animals in their care and professional pride in their job. There was also an awareness that good welfare for their animals was rewarded by good production. The scene started to change as the post-war drive for plentiful cheap food led to an increase in the scale of farms and adoption of more efficient methods of production which, by the 1960s, began to raise concerns amongst the general public. These were highlighted by the publication in 1964 of Ruth Harrison’s book ‘Animal Machines’, which made farm animal welfare an important political issue. The UK government response was to set up a parliamentary committee and, following their report, to institute laws specifically to protect the welfare of farm animals. A few other countries, notably in Scandinavia, had even earlier legislation, and public concerns were growing across Europe. A consequent desire to harmonise legislation and avoid trade imbalances resulted in the first supra-national initiative - the “European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes” published in 1976 by the Council of Europe. Whilst this was not legally binding, the European Economic Community, subsequently the European Union, began from the 1990s to issue progressively more Directives regarding minimum requirements for farm animal welfare which all member states were required to implement in their national legislation.
Public opinion
This ongoing process has been supported by strengthening public opinion. In the 2015 Eurobarometer survey of attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare, 82% of respondents stated that the welfare of farmed animals should be better protected than was currently the case, with an increase in the strength of this view since the previous 2006 survey. The pressure for increasing legislation has been maintained by strong lobbying from animal welfare NGOs. The current campaign spearheaded by the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare to ‘End the Cage Age’, was enacted through a European Citizens Initiative launched in 2018 which achieved 1.4 million signatures from citizens across the EU. This was recently adopted as a resolution by the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament and went through full Parliamentary debate june 2021. The MEPs asked the EU Commission to come up with legislative proposals to ban caged farming in the EU, possibly already by 2027, following an appropriate transition period and after a solid scientific impact assessment has been carried out. The resolution to this end was adopted with 558 votes in favour, 37 against and 85 abstentions. In response to such public and political pressure, the European Commission is currently carrying out a ‘Fitness check’ of the EU farm animal welfare legislation to assess the need for, and potential impact of, new legislation. The same trend is occurring in North America, with the promotion of US State initiatives seeking to increase animal welfare legislation. The most high profile current example is Proposition 12 supported by the Humane Society of the United States and approved by voters in California in 2018, which built on the success of the earlier Proposition 2. Similar initiatives in other states have so far had mixed success in getting onto ballots, but have resulted in increasing dialogue between NGOs, politicians and industry on how to make progress in this area.
Market-focussed approaches
However, for many people in society legislation is both too slow to implement change and too conservative in its aspirations. With the growing centralisation of food supply chains and increasing market power of a relatively small number of major food retail outlets, a market-focussed approach has shown notable success. One tactic focusses on the Corporate Social Responsibility policies of major businesses across the food supply chain, including food producers and manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and the food service sector. By highlighting their animal welfare policies and performance through such tools as the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare, NGOs seek to achieve change in animal welfare standards by pressure cascading down the supply chain. A second approach to harness the power of the market forces has been the introduction of product labels with a specific animal welfare focus. This approach has been adopted by both NGOs and by industry itself. Since the launch in 1994 of one of the earliest large scale NGO initiatives, the UK ‘Freedom Food’ scheme now rebranded as ‘RSPCA Assured’, a number of other national schemes have developed in association with European and American NGOs. Examples include the Dutch ‘Beter Leven’ and German ‘Für Mehr Tierschutz’ schemes, and the American ‘Certified Humane’ and ‘American Humane Certified’ schemes. The industry has responded by increasing adoption of animal welfare standards within its own wider Farm Assurance Schemes, such as the UK ‘Red Tractor’ scheme, by collaborating in the development of industry-led animal welfare schemes such as the German ‘Tierwohl’, the American ‘Global Animal Partnership’ schemes or the Spanish “IAWS” and “Welfair™” , or through adoption of Codes of Practice built in to product certification, such as developed by the National Farm Animal Care Council in Canada. A number of the label schemes now offer identification of different tiers of welfare, with lower tiers reflecting good industry practice in current intensive systems, whilst higher tiers denote more extensive production systems with features such as outdoor access. This approach has also recently been adopted as a government policy tool; in 2017 the Danish government launched the 'Bedre Dyrevelfærd' label with 3 welfare levels denoted by the number of green hearts on the label, making it possible for consumers to make a personalised choice regarding the balance of welfare and cost. Because of the potential confusion associated with so many different labels, the European Commission has announced as part of its current Farm to Fork Strategy that it will consider options for future EU-wide animal welfare labelling, an approach already adopted in relation to organic food certification. The success of such labelling schemes relies on the ability of consumers to understand and trust the labels, and their willingness to pay more for high welfare product. In the 2015 Eurobarometer survey:
- 35% of respondents said that they were prepared to pay up to 5% more for products sourced from animal welfare-friendly production systems
- only 8% were ready to pay more than 10%,
- and 35% were unwilling to pay any extra price at all.
It must also be acknowledged that such survey responses do not always reflect respondents actual purchasing behaviour, meaning that most higher welfare labels remain a niche market opportunity.
Looking to the future, the picture is therefore one whereby we can expect further legislation which sets the minimum acceptable standards for farm animal welfare, in conjunction with industry-managed farm assurance schemes which provide third party oversight of good commercial practice across a wide sector of the farm population, and varied product labels which provide consumers with the opportunity to support higher welfare initiatives through their purchasing choices. Such a multi-faceted approach to welfare improvement matches the wishes of EU citizens; in the 2015 Eurobarometer survey, 43% said that the welfare of farmed animals should be handled jointly between businesses and public authorities, while 40% believed it to be a matter for all citizens which should be regulated by the public authorities and only 12% believed that it should be left to market forces.
