FARM ANIMAL WELFARE AND
CODES OF PRACTICE
CONSULTATION WORKSHOP

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

SEPTEMBER 23 – 24, 2002
GATINEAU, QUÉBEC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topic 2: Farm Animal Welfare in a Production Environment

Presentation
Dr. Derek Anderson
Chair, Canada Committee on Animals, Canadian Agrifood Research Council

Dr. Anderson reviewed a "route to a system that satisfies those truly interested in animal production that accounts for farm animal welfare." It is a four step or element process.

The first element of such a system is the development of science-based parameters that define the welfare of particular species. This requires scientific investigation. Dr. Anderson noted that at this time, there seems to be more discussion on the topic of animal welfare than actual commitment (funding) to research and development.

The second element is the incorporation of that science into the production system for each species. It must be economically viable – the cost of changes cannot be prohibitive. Dr. Anderson noted that it is very difficult for producers to make costly changes when consumers still expect cheap product. The science must be moved from the theoretical to the applied and tested in production systems. Dr. Anderson noted that the downsizing of extension services in most provinces has had an impact on the delivery of technology to producers. Scientists must ensure that their information is communicated so that it can be applied.

Third, there must be documentation that shows that the science is correct and applicable to the production system. There are costs involved in changing and adapting to new systems and these costs need to be determined.

Lastly, it is important that there be verification of the use of animal welfare systems. Dr. Anderson noted that a verification system could provide an advantage in the international marketplace.

In closing, he put forward a number of questions for participants to consider:

• Who funds and who does farm animal welfare R&D;: producers, NGOs, federal government, provinces?
• Is the current R&D; effort sufficient?
• Is there sufficient on-farm testing of alternative production practices?
• How (and how adequately) does extension pass this information to producers?
• Are there economic and other factors (price incentives, access to technology) that help or prevent producers from responding to animal welfare concerns?
• Are R&D; and extension needed to develop and support specialty products?

Workshop Discussion 2 — Farm Animal Welfare in a Production Environment

Do Canadian producers have the technology and technical information they need to respond to consumer and public demands? In their table groups, participants discussed issues surrounding farm animal welfare in a production environment. The following provides an overview of the plenary discussion.

What is the sector currently doing?

To the best of their ability, producers are responding to consumer demands. However, they can only respond to what they know about. The producer sector is struggling to better understand what is wanted and what is needed by the consumer public. For producer organizations and producers themselves, this is a key challenge.

The production sector is trying to pick up some of the slack on the research and development side that has been dropped elsewhere to address issues related to good production environments and practices. These are not limited to those related directly to consumer wants. An example is research surrounding the use of antibiotics.

The sector is also working on food safety issues and addressing the proper mix of production efficiency, marketability, and animal health and welfare – while trying to remain competitive. That is a huge task.

The sector has been actively using genetic selection to adapt animals to the production environment over time. In addition, the sector is also beginning to address on-farm safety, and some aspects of farm animal welfare are part of on-farm safety programs.

The general public is unlikely to see the inner workings of a farm for health and safety and security reasons, so how can we assure them that what takes place behind closed doors meets with their social/ethical standards?

First, consumer research needs to be done to identify the public social/ethical standards – what is the public really thinking? Research is also needed to identify current understanding and knowledge – what do consumers believe is already in place in terms of farm animal welfare – and to identify actions to increase awareness as required.

Once the standards are known, information can be conveyed to consumers through education programs, trade shows, websites, information on product packaging, advertisements, and through industry and producer self-monitoring programs using codes of practice.

Verification programs would assure consumers. Questions to be considered include: Would existing programs be sufficient, or do new ones need to be developed? How would standards be reviewed and updated? Is the current 5-year program under CARC adequate? Who is responsible for audits and verification? Would audits and verification meet the public standards? Who will fund the cost involved – will commodity groups end up paying the entire costs?

Is there a mid-way between laying down hard measures on the one hand, and the exercise of subjective judgment based on good animal management on the other?

Participants discussed the possibility of developing codes through the International Standards (ISO) system, which is recognized by the World Trade Organization, and the possibility of working with the United States to create a North American standard.

Participants recognized the use of voluntary codes. However there is a real need, particularly at the retail level, to be able to offer assurance to consumers in the form of an auditable system. National standards, as opposed to voluntary codes, would provide the opportunity for certification.

The existing codes could "comparatively easily" be the base for national standards. It is important that national standards are equivalent to international standards to remain competitive in foreign markets – although the U.S. was seen to be a more important marketplace than the European Union in terms of trade.

Participants emphasized the need for universal standards – the licensing for game farms has demonstrated that it is possible to successfully introduce universal standards when supported by grandfathering clauses.

Whether voluntary codes or regulations are used, there must be a certification process associated with the standards. But there needs to be some flexibility: wording that includes "should" will allow for the standards to evolve with new science, at which time the "should" can become a "shall." Participants felt that more research and science is needed. It is important that new knowledge be incorporated as it becomes available.

How can we help the public to see the big picture of animal welfare and not concentrate on individual pictures that may capture their attention?

It is important to provide information about farm animal welfare, and it must be both factual and credible. All stakeholders have a role to play in relaying information.

Participants saw a need for two approaches to information dissemination: a "push" approach that sends information out to consumers and a "pull" approach that allows consumers to access information themselves. Circumstances will dictate which approach is more appropriate. However, the key public are those people who are genuinely interested in the issues, rather than the public at large. Hence, it is more important to make information available to those who want it than to "push" information on the public at large.

Participants felt that it would be useful to have more factual and credible information available on animal welfare for schools, veterinary colleges and the media. Opportunities for one-on-one contact for more information should be available as well. Participants noted that it may be necessary to provide alternative sources of information. For example, if the agricultural industry is promoting their vision of animal welfare, it may be seen as biased. Hence, other sources of information, such as government, veterinary and academic organizations, should be used where possible.

The "big picture" needs to include the entire process, from production through to processing and transport and distribution. It needs to incorporate both sides of the story: the viewpoints of the animal welfare groups and the viewpoints of the producer groups. There is a need for recognition and acknowledgment that both these groups may base their viewpoints from different perspectives; some participants felt that the producer groups are coming from a science-based perspective, while the animal welfare groups may base their viewpoints on "gut reactions, personal morality or religious beliefs." When promoting their viewpoints, groups must be honest about their perspective and bias. Groups also need to talk more to each other.

Participants observed that there is a need to provide consumers and the public access to all the information in an honest and frank manner, and let them choose how they will react. "If we are up-front, realistic and transparent – we will successfully get the story out."

How can the sector demonstrate what it is doing to a skeptical public that may be misinformed?

Participants noted that there is first a need for credible science-based information, and second that this information must be relayed to the extension activities like producer groups, consumers, journals, etc. Education in the school system is important, but there are challenges such as curriculum limitations, ability to reach teachers, etc.

Participants observed that any audit program related to certification must be administered through an independent third party. However, it is premature to demonstrate compliance when we are only in the process of creating standards.

There were questions raised regarding the "skeptical public." Are skeptical consumers a majority or a minority? How should resources be allocated to convince these publics? Participants felt that efforts must be directed at all consumers, not just the skeptics. A balanced approach is needed.

Dealing with media coverage is a key challenge – advertising is expensive, and the media tends to not be interested unless the story is "sensational." The "urban/rural divide" is another consideration, along with the "double standards" that exist amongst the public's perceptions regarding farm animals, wildlife and companion animals.

How can we overcome misinformation and bad science?

Participants noted that there is the potential for bad science and there is certainly misinformation available. In the past, extension specialists have played a role in interpreting information. However, there has been a decrease in these specialists and a resulting decreased emphasis on technology transfer. There needs to be a reputable and credible source of information that not only producers but the general public can use to access information. The information source should be publicly funded and accountable, similar to Health Canada's source of information on GMOs. Such a system would ensure that all those with an interest would feel that the information was something they could count on and use.

Bad science may be the result of poor experiment design. In addition, results of research projects that were designed for a certain purpose are sometimes "stretched" to answer other questions or hypotheses. This is possibly a result of limited and over-extended resources. Adequate funding is needed.

Unless funded by industry associations, scientific results tend to be published only in scientific journals. Scientists need to become better communicators. In addition, science associations need to speak out against "bad science" and instigate peer review of publications.

Misinformation can be avoided by bringing together all stakeholders to achieve consensus. The codes of practice development process has brought various stakeholders together, however government, industry and the grocery/food service industry need to also be involved in developing agreement on criteria and practices.

Participants noted that while it is important to identify what it is that consumers want, it is also necessary to recognize that this may not be what the animal needs. Retail driven standards may not been taking all animal needs into considerations. Similarly, it is important to recognize that although animal welfare is science-based, science is not the primary criterion used by the public.

What are the priority areas for response?

Participants noted that the animal is the priority, not the consumer. Animal welfare is for the "public good" and needs to be addressed.

Greater research efforts on a broader range of species and industries and on alternative production methods are needed. There should be more targeted research on those areas that are identified by consumers as "controversial" before those practices are introduced or eliminated. It would be useful to introduce ways to bring producers into the research process. A key problem is that the information that is available is not reaching producers – this reflects on the lack of extension services. In addition, downsizing has led to a loss of corporate knowledge.

Can the response help in marketing – domestically and internationally?

There is a need to utilize all available mechanisms for coordination and collaboration nationally across all animal agriculture sectors. There is a potential to look at science-based national standards, that are credible, practical, easy to define and describe and that are subject to some verification method. Internationally, response is a necessity, including auditable standards. Domestically, based on consumers' expectations, it will help as well.

Are there economic or other factors, e.g., price incentives, access to technology, etc., that help or prevent producers from responding to concerns over animal welfare?

Participants noted that negative or marginal production margins contribute to producers not responding to new or improved practices. It is dangerous to pay people to have better practices – we may pay for "perception not reality." It has to be an industry-wide response.

A multiplicity of verification systems needs to be avoided. There are new and significant pressures coming onto producers, including on-farm safety, environmental, biosecurity and animal welfare issues. An overarching mechanism that could deal with these four areas would be best. It would also be prudent to first put a budget together and figure out what's possible, rather than creating a program and putting the costs onto producers.

There needs to be an increase in national and regional-based research. And while efforts need to be made to get information to producers, they must also seek out information. Producers should use the codes to help promote what they are doing.

The "Brand Canada" concept that has been used elsewhere in the agriculture sector to promote the quality of Canadian products should be applied to farm animal welfare practices. There may be opportunities to use this to convey to consumers both domestically and internationally our commitment to animal welfare standards.

Participants also noted that it is important to keep in mind that there is a great dependence on the international marketplace and that we need to remain competitive.

< Previous Next >