FARM ANIMAL WELFARE AND
CODES OF PRACTICE
CONSULTATION WORKSHOP

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

SEPTEMBER 23 – 24, 2002
GATINEAU, QUÉBEC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DAY 2

Retail Perspective
Jeanne Cruikshank
Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors

The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors (CCGD) represents the big grocery retailers in Canada, including Sobeys, Loblaws, Safeway and others. The CCGD commissioned a report, Animal Welfare Verification in Canada: A Discussion Paper, which will be available soon.

The CCGD believes that codes of practice can and should be the backbone of the best management practices for farm animal welfare verification programs that are auditable in Canada. These verification programs need to be a living and well-attended document. The organization also believes that the Canadian on-farm food safety program is the most appropriate delivery vehicle for implementation.

The Canadian animal agriculture production industry is well positioned to deal with the likely animal welfare requirements of food retailers. These requirements will become more of an issue with Canadian retailers once the process is completed in the United States. Similarity in animal welfare standards between the two countries should mean the economic impact of implementing food retailer requirements should not be significant in producer and slaughter facilities. Retailers are not asking for more layers, but rather for recognition of things that are already practiced. There is a recognition, however, that costs are involved.

In closing, Ms. Cruikshank noted that it is important that all stakeholders work together to "leverage these strengths." The challenges are market realities. A timetable, for example, along with mechanisms for implementation, are necessary next steps.

Topic 3: Canada's Animal Welfare Standards

Presentation
Bob VanTongerloo
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies represents over 100 animal welfare organizations in Canada. Mr. VanTongerloo noted that the current codes provide standards for animal husbandry, with self-policing and significant negative deviations leading sometimes to criminal charges. Humane Society officers are able to use the codes of practice for possible prosecution. However, not all parties to the code are happy with all aspects of the codes. Another key problem is the inconsistency across sectors and industries in terms of the general level of awareness and understanding of the codes.

The current legislation that covers farm animal welfare includes the Criminal Code of Canada, the Health of Animals Act (federal), the Meat Inspection Act (federal and provincial) and other provincial/territorial legislation. Mr. VanTongerloo posed a number of questions: In developing and updating the codes, what is the primary motivation of industry – to improve animal welfare standards, to keep costs down, to avoid external control? Have government, animal welfare, animal rights and other stakeholders done their best to ensure that the codes are the best they can be? If we don't have the codes, then what? Should the industry regulate itself, letting the market dictate actions? How about keeping the status quo? Why not give the role to corporate players, such as McDonald's and Burger King, and let them set the standards for suppliers? These are questions that this workshop and ongoing discussions will hope to address.

Workshop Discussion 3 — Canada's Animal Welfare Standards

Do we have an adequate system of standards, regulations and enforcement to assure the public that their concerns are being addressed?

There was a divergence of views expressed on this topic and mixed feelings were evident in a number of areas, including:

• Whether the current system is adequate and effective.
• Whether the food service/retail sector has a role to play in the development of standards and what that role should be (observer, player, driver?).
• Whether codes/standards should be voluntary or regulatory (especially in terms of response to change – regulations cannot be changed overnight).
• Who benefits from a consensus-based development process – animals or producers?
• Jurisdictional considerations (should codes/standards be national, provincial/ territorial, or international?).

Some participants felt that the current standards and regulations are adequate – however, they are only adequate if enforcement is carried out consistently and properly. In particular, federal regulations on slaughter and transportation were recognized as adequate, however participants noted that they are not well supported in terms of inspection and enforcement. Participants see this as a direct result of a reduction in inspectors. Some participants emphasized that some of the current standards and codes allow practices that cause animals pain and suffering. Hence, a participant stated that, "we should be cautious about saying that these standards are acceptable."

On the provincial/territorial front, participants noted that provincial regulations are not uniform. Provincial bodies use codes of practice combined with farm animal councils and producer peer assistance programs (where they exist) in trying to achieve consistency and acceptable welfare practices. Some participants felt that national regulations would produce consistency across all provinces, but noted that "it is important that existing regulations be properly adhered to before considering new or additional regulations." Some participants suggested exploring the possibility of taking the current codes and "reformatting" them into national standards. This would add credibility, both domestically and internationally.

Many participants observed that it is important that national standards are developed with the international marketplace in mind – codes must be accepted internationally. The market is capable of dictating standards – GMO potatoes is an example of how the marketplace can affect practices. As one group put it, "The importance of international trade will dictate the importance of national standards."

Some participants felt that codes should be national, although not necessarily developed, implemented, enforced or administered by the federal government. Another body could take that role (e.g., an independent organization).

Some participants noted that it is important that standards are auditable. However, there was a concern expressed that there needs to be a legitimate reason for auditing, as the process will impact on producers' incomes. As one group asked, "we need to know who is asking for audits, what purpose they will serve, and will audits really increase animal welfare?" In response, participants indicated that retailers will be seeking an auditable system as a source of reassurance for their customers. One group emphasized that, "we must have a Canadian national auditable standard that meets or exceeds what our exporting partners are asking for, and that will give confidence to Canadian consumers."

Participants noted that producers are generally well aware of codes, although some sectors/commodities are better informed than others. As one group noted, "the codes serve as a species-specific educational tool for producers." There is a real need for better communication and awareness about the codes and their application. Participants suggested that codes have a dual role: to provide standards of practice and to provide information (i.e., regulatory and informative).

A participant noted producers are well aware that animal welfare directly impacts on farm income – better cared for animals are more profitable. However, the on-farm regulatory environment is becoming burdensome, extreme and invasive, so much so that it is affecting farm incomes and threatening the existence of the family farm in Canada.

Participants related the farm animal welfare situation to the on-farm food safety efforts, which have increased knowledge and understanding across production sectors and with processors and consumers. The codes could focus on a few key indicators, with or without verification, and these will translate into standard practices (as they have for on-farm food safety), rather than regulations.

Participants noted that enforcement is not consistent across the country. There was concern about who pays for enforcement. There must be the political will for any enforcement.

There was agreement around the notion that things are not moving fast enough toward change, and that there is a need for adequate funding to support development and implementation of standards. A number of participants noted that the multi-stakeholder approach to develop codes is valuable. As one group noted, "Leadership should come from both government and industry – neither can do it alone, neither should do it alone."

< Previous Next >