Ethics & Politics: US Farm Animal Welfare Regulation

1. ETHICS & POLITICS: US FARM ANIMAL WELFARE REGULATIONCandace C. Croney The Ohio State UniversityCroney.1@osu.edu

2. Introduction • As people increasingly consider the values underlying current farm animal production methods, farm animal welfare policy debates have escalated • There is increased interest in regulating US farm animal care & welfare • Clash of values, priorities & ideologies

3. Animal welfare: science & values • Animal welfare relates to “quality of life” • What is good quality of life for a dairy cow? • “Good welfare = good husbandry” • Meeting minimum care standards • *Welfare: how well an animal is coping • Biological function • Mental function (behavior, feelings) • Definition chosen reflects values

4. Why the recent push to regulate welfare?

5. Influence of European Farm Animal Protection efforts • Food animal protection policies enacted in the EU have fueled highly contentious discussions about the need for similar legislative activity in the U.S • 1964: Ruth Harrison writes Animal Machines  the term “factory farming” • Raises concerns about farm animal treatment  Brambell committee formation & report in 1965 •  the Five Freedoms for animals

6. The Five Freedoms • Freedom from hunger & thirst • By ready access to fresh water & a diet to maintain full health & vigor • Freedom from discomfort • By providing an appropriate environment including shelter & a comfortable resting area • Freedom from pain, injury or disease • By prevention or rapid diagnosis & treatment • Freedom to express normal behaviour • By providing sufficient space, proper facilities & company of the animal’s own kind • Freedom from fear & distress • By ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering

7. Effects of the Five Freedoms • The five freedoms are the basis for modern animal welfare legislation • Historically, focus had been on meeting the first three freedoms, which address animals’ physical needs • Recent shift to focus on 4th freedom (to express normal behavior)

8. Why the shift to focus on normal behavior? • Perfect storm • Changing relationships with animals • New information on animal behavior • Relative lack of legislative protection for farm animals in US • Animal abuse scandals & changes in social acceptability of standard practices • Consumer perceptions

9. Pendulum shift in people’s relationships with animals

10. Why the focus on normal behavior? • More science on animal behavior • As animals’ needs & behavioral complexity became better understood, perceived obligations changed • Cognitive dissonance created by differential treatment of farm animals • Amplified by animal activists (Jamison, 2009) •  Impetus to act to reduce guilt & dissonance

11. Studies on animal behavior & mentality • Spatial and operant learning in pigs (Klopfer, 1961, 1966; Baldwin & Meese, 1977; Cerbulis, 1994; Laughlin et al., 1999; Mendl et al., 1997) • Visual & olfactory learning; concept formation pigs, chickens (Croney et al.,1999; 2005) • Face recognition in sheep(Kendrick, 2001) • Animal motivation to perform specific behaviors or work for access to stimuli (e.g., social access, substrates) • Contra-freeloading in animals

12. Additional information on animal mentality: “subjective emotional states” (feelings)

13. Feelings?!? • Laughter and joy • Present in rats, dogs, chimpanzees (Matsusaka, 2004; Panksepp and Burgdoff, 2003) • “Laughing rats” vocalizations reflect positive emotional states (as cited in Panksepp, 2005) • An overlooked component of welfare: Minimizing negative affective states & maximizing positive affective states

14. Earlier recognition of such research in the EU  member nations regulating husbandry practices • Consideration of “sentience” mandated by law •  phase out of conventional battery cages for laying hens and gestation crates for sows; requiring group housing for veal calves after 8 wks of age (Wilkins, 1997)

15. Impetus for US Animal Welfare Legislation •  U.S. animal industries under pressure by special interestgroups, retailers, the public to develop welfare standards/guidelines (Mench, 2003;Croney and Millman, 2007; Swanson, 2008) • Prior to early 2000’s, minimal protection of farm animals in US via legislation • Growing feeling that insufficient protection was offered

16. US Federal Farm Welfare Laws • Humane Slaughter Act • Originally passed 1958 • Applies only to livestock • Excludes poultry, rabbits and fish • Allows ritual slaughter practices (Halal and kosher) • 28 hour transport rule (Slide courtesy of Dr. Jim Reynolds, 2010)

17. Additional impetus for regulation: animal abuse scandals • Pilgrim’s Pride—KFC supplier, 2004 • Westland/Hallmark, 2008 • “Death on a Factory Farm”, 2009 • Sow hanging • Maceration of male chicks, 2009 • Rollin (2005): if society believes industry is not self-regulating, society will take steps to do so

18. Scientific validity vs. social acceptability Scientifically validated (based on production standards) Socially acceptable?

19. Consumer perceptions about farm animals • Trends show high level of public support in the US for greater protection oflivestock and poultry • 2003 Gallup poll: 62% support passing strict laws governing treatment of farm animals • 2004 survey of Ohioans:75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “farm animals should be protected from feeling physical pain”

20. Consumer perceptions about farm animals • Believe animals have better lives on “small” farms than “large” farms • 64%: farmers and food companies put their own profits ahead of treating farm animals humanely • About 40% believed ethical and moral considerations should be primarily used to determine how to treat farm animals. • 45% believed scientific measures of animal well-being should be primarily used to determine how to treat farm animals. Results of a nationwide telephone survey by Jayson L. Lusk, F. Bailey Norwood & Robert W. Prickett, Aug 17, 2007 at Oklahoma State University, Department of Agric. Economics

21. “Perfect storm” culminates in US animal welfare legislation

22. US Animal welfare legislation • 2002: FL bans gestation crates for sows • 2006: AZ bans crates for veal calves & gestating sows • 2007: OR bans gestation crates for sows (via state legislature) • 2007: AVA votes to group house calves by 2017 • 2008: CO bans gestation crates & veal calf crates (compromise bill) • 2008: CA Prop 2; “animals must be able to turn around and fully stretch their limbs/wings” • 2009: ME bans gestation crates and veal calf crates • 2009: MI Prop 2-like wording (compromise bill) • 2009: OH Issue 2; Livestock Care Standards Board • 2010: CA bans tail docking

23. The question is no longer should we regulate animal welfare, but how to do it Legislation or self regulation?

24. Scientific & ethical responsibility demand that farm animal welfare reform must consider: • Impacts on animals • Safety and affordability of foods • Environmental impacts • Sustainability of new approaches • Practicality • Impacts on producers and animal caretakers

25. Self-regulation • Must meaningfully address welfare concerns • May avoid unforeseen problems of legislation • Permits testing and timely revision of practices • But…may not have “teeth” • Compliance dependent on individual integrity • Requires independent verification (3rd party auditing) • Few examples of successful industry self-regulation • High skepticism worsened by banking industry failures

26. Self-regulation in the US • Primarily retailer driven • PETA lawsuit against McDonald’s (UK) for abusive farm practices • → welfare guidelines established for suppliers • → BK and Wendy’s also set welfare guidelines

27. Industry Attempts to self-regulate • NCCR/FMI Animal Welfare Guidelines • United Egg Producers Certified • PQA Plus Program • National Dairy Animal Well-being Initiative • FARM program • Third Party Welfare Audits • Retailer programs Modified after Slide courtesy Dr. Jim Reynolds, 2010

28. Welfare legislation considerations • Must be science based & ensure welfare benefits • Must be socially responsible & ethically grounded • Considers impacts on all stakeholders, especially economically disadvantaged • Must be practical/viable to implement • Must be written carefully • Too vague & too prescriptive equally problematic • Must be enforceable

29. Scientific & ethical basis for current and proposed state legislation of welfare

30. CA Proposition 2 • Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.

31. Prop 2: ethical and scientific basis • Ethical basis: value upheld is freedom of movement • Scientific basis • Ambiguous wording  unclear which housing practices are acceptable • Specifies behaviors animals must be able to perform • But no specs on space allocation • Suggested 2.8 ft2 of space may be needed per hen • How to implement in engineering standards?

32. Economic implications • UC Davis study (2008): non-cage system costs may be 20% higher than conventional cages • Law would not affect how eggs are produced, only where they are produced • Need for new laws to protect CA egg producers • Don Bell (UC Riverside): ↑ costs of one cent per egg • Others conclude no ↑ in costs; 76% ↑ costs • Tweeten (2009) many studies focus only on costs to farms; overlook environmental/animal welfare costs

33. MI animal welfare legislation • Compromise bill • Scientific basis for mandating that animals cannot touch sides of enclosures or each other is unclear • Clarifies min space allowance for poultry: (1 sq ft) per hen • In cases where wing stretch exceeds this, design standard still unclear From Swanson, 2009

34. Proposed OH ballot measure 2010 • Prohibit the tethering or confining a calf, pig or egg-laying hen “in a manner that prevents such animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending his or her limbs, or turning around freely.” With respect to egg-laying hens “fully extending his or her limbs” means “fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or another egg-laying hen, and (2) having access to at least 1.5 square feet of usable floor space per hen; but does not mean that all egg-laying hens in an enclosure must be able to simultaneously spread their wings without touching the side of an enclosure or another egg-laying hen.”

35. “Freedom of movement cannot be ignored as a welfare criteria, but it should not be the sole basis used to recommend a housing system. Failure to consider other welfare criteria could result in poor welfare for the animals.” Gonyou, 2009

36. Current housing debates: how to reconcile conflicting values & priorities? • Tradeoffs of different systems • Freedom of movement vs. potential behavioral & health risks • Reduced management/worker safety risks vs. improved behavioral well-being • Animal care/comfort vs. costs of change? • Autonomy vs. regulation/oversight? • Privacy vs. transparency? • Which priorities reflect those of society?

37. Conclusions: What does the future hold for US animal welfare? • Continued struggle with “quality of life” for farm animals • More legislation is likely • The industry-led legislative effort in OH will set a precedent for other states • State by state legislation likely to become problematic • Inter-state commerce issues; inconsistent standards similar to EU problems

38. Conclusions • If off-shoring production is not realistic, some form of federal mandate is likely • Could be influenced by special interest groups as well as by animal industry insiders • High quality welfare programs (industry led initiatives) could be used to set standards • Documented welfare benefits and sustainability of new policies & practices must be ensured

39. Questions?