FARM ANIMAL WELFARE AND
CODES OF PRACTICE
CONSULTATION WORKSHOP

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

SEPTEMBER 23 – 24, 2002
GATINEAU, QUÉBEC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topic 1: Consumer and Public Concerns

Presentation
Nathalie Michaud, Option consommateurs, Montreal

Ms. Michaud's presentation, "Consumers and the Issue of Animal Welfare", set the context for the first workshop topic. She outlined her organization's purpose and its position and experience in relation to the agri-food industry. Option consommateurs is a not-for-profit Quebec-based organization that "defends the rights and interests of consumers" in many areas. Its work in the agri-food sector has included research on the labeling of genetically engineered foods, certification of organic products, functional foods and traceability of genetically engineered foods.

She noted that food safety and quality is a key issue with consumers. People are willing to pay more for safe and high-quality foods that have been produced in ways that respect the environment and animals. But consumers are not well informed about animal welfare issues – most information is from media reports of "horror stories." As a result, there is a huge gap between scientific knowledge, agricultural practices and the information that consumers receive.

Option consommateurs believes that the animal production sector has a role to play in building consumer awareness by relaying information that demonstrates that producers are very conscious of farm animal welfare and environmental sustainability. It is also important that more scientific research on animal welfare be undertaken, particularly to identify linkages between the effects of production practices on animal welfare and product safety. Canada must first define farm animal welfare and then establish a good code of practices, and consumers should be made aware of the code.

In closing, Ms. Michaud outlined three questions that the organization is posing:

• How will consumers be informed about the codes of practice and their impact on animal welfare?
• Will the implementation of codes of practice affect food prices? Will the consumers be the only ones to pay for the implementation of codes of practice, or will the different stakeholders share the costs?
• What incentives will be established to ensure compliance with the codes of practice?

Workshop Discussion 1 — Consumer and Public Concerns

Participants were given a number of questions designed to spark discussion and help bring forward some of the key issues associated with consumers and farm animal welfare.

• Are public attitudes and concerns static or changing – and why?
• What does the public expect or want with respect to animal welfare?
• How and how well are the public's concerns being monitored by producers, retailers, NGOs, government and social scientists?
• How does information on these concerns get passed through the production/supply chain?
• Are producers adequately informed about public concerns and attitudes?
• Do producers receive adequate and timely signals from retailers?
• What are the implications of not responding to public concerns?
  • Domestically?
  • Internationally?
• How quickly must action be demonstrated or initiated?
• If retailers (chain restaurants, grocery stores) want auditable welfare standards, how will producers demonstrate compliance to the public?
• As the public becomes increasingly urban and increasingly attached to their companion animals (pets), is there likely to be an increase in demand for proof of good animal welfare?

In the plenary reporting and discussion session, the following key issue areas and themes emerged:

Defining the "publics" and the issues

Participants felt that there is a need to identify and define the "publics" – which may include Canadian consumers, international trading partners, retailers, producers, and processors. There are also demographic, cultural and ethical considerations, including religious beliefs associated with animal welfare. But, everyone is a "consumer." Approaches (re education, standards) need to respect and balance diversity and differences.

Similarly, there is a need to identify the issues that are of concern to the various publics. Participants wondered if issues such as confinement, debeaking, tail docking and other production practices are really of concern to a broad spectrum of people, or only to a small minority. How can this be determined?

Participants questioned the criteria that are used to define animal welfare – science-based, religious-based, ethics-based? Whose definition is to be used?

Awareness and education

Participants noted that there is a "low level of visibility and awareness of the existing codes," and that this has created a gap between consumers and the animal food production sector. The media is more interested in sensationalizing animal welfare issues, so use of media to reach consumers about production practices is difficult. However, industry led information may be seen to be "propaganda." It is important that consumers have easy access to reliable, credible sources of information at varying levels of detail, so that consumers can make their own decisions on the depth of knowledge desired. There is also a need to clarify information and misinformation concerning safe food, labeling, organic products, etc.

Participants wondered whether the public is really seeking raised awareness. Some participants felt that the majority of consumers are not interested in gaining knowledge about specific agricultural practices, but they do want to know that their food is raised in a humane manner with recognizable standards of humane practice. The "CSA stamp of approval" on bicycle helmets provides a parallel comparison. The key point is assurance: consumers want to be assured that humane practices are being followed, without full knowledge/awareness of the specific details of the processes involved. They want assurance that there is responsibility and accountability for following humane practices. This assurance must come from a credible source – participants suggested that all stakeholders "crystallized" around a set of standards and speak from one credible voice.

Participants noted that the four provincial industry-led Farm Animal Councils do an excellent job of providing information and feedback to producers on consumer issues and concerns.

Conflicting interests

One of the key "conflicts" is the consumer's desire for cheap, nutritious food and their expectations regarding production practices. Similarly, there are conflicting interests surrounding standards for companion animals vs. farm animals. Participants noted that consumers do not seem to differentiate between "animal rights" and "animal welfare." "Animal welfare" usually refers to the animal's quality of life which can, to a degree, be studied by scientific means; "animal rights" often refers to philosophical beliefs about the moral standing of animals and about the moral appropriateness of using or treating animals in various ways. Associated with this theme is the general lack of understanding about rural/farm life and agricultural practices – Canadians are less "connected to the farm."

Price/cost issues

Participants noted that the public has an expectation that all food is safe and produced humanely – labels of "safe, safer, safest" or "humane, humane-er, humane-est" would not be acceptable. However, some consumers are willing to pay more for products that use certain specific and identified practices (niche markets). Similarly, consumers will avoid products that are associated with negative issues.

Participants see a need for a cost/benefit analysis: Who pays to do things differently? Does it cost more to follow practices that are perceived as being more humane than current practices? Would any increased costs be spread across stakeholders, or are consumers expected to pick up the costs? So far, there are no clear consumer signals as to what is acceptable in terms of cost/quality benefits. Compliance issues would also need to be factored in to a cost/benefit analysis.

Current regulatory environment

Canada has regulations covering the transportation of animals and the slaughter of animals at most slaughter facilities, plus Criminal Code provisions and certain provincial statutes that apply in a limited way to animals in a production environment. More comprehensive and/or additional farm animal welfare standards or regulations should be put in place.

Drivers

Participants identified a number of elements that are driving these issues, including:

• Rapid changes in agriculture practices.
• The complexity of all aspects of the supply chain (producers, processors, retailers).
• The consumers' right to know and increased access to information.
• International trade/export market.
• Special interest groups: producers, government, media, animal welfare groups.
• Other consumer issues: food safety, food quality, biosecurity.

Suggestions for Action

Participants suggested the following:

• Communication: develop a strategy for communication, dialogue and exchange of information between consumers and other stakeholders. The strategy must recognize the multiplicity of stakeholders and the diversity of consumers.
• Develop regulatory standards, balanced with voluntary practices.
• Recognize that there is urgency involved, however there is also a need for short, medium and long term planning.
• Develop definitions that respect and facilitate choice. Address distinctions between animal welfare and food safety.
• Be always mindful of international standards/marketplace.

< Previous Next >