FARM ANIMAL WELFARE AND
CODES OF PRACTICE
CONSULTATION WORKSHOP

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

SEPTEMBER 23 – 24, 2002
GATINEAU, QUÉBEC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC 4 – Next Steps: What, Who, When and With What Resources?

Presentation
Sally Rutherford, Director General, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Integrated Policy Systems

Ms. Rutherford commended participants, with so many different perspectives, for working together on the various issues related to farm animal welfare in Canada. She noted that it is important that "we figure out how to accommodate all the interests in a way that will continue to allow Canada – not Canadian farmers, or Canadian processors or Canadian retailers – but Canada to have a really strong and vibrant food production system that is acceptable to consumers both here and abroad."

There are huge responsibilities on stakeholders to figure out how to achieve both the goals of their organizations and their personal goals as consumers. Practical, cost effective, enforceable solutions must be found. Solutions must be found that bring together the various sides of the issues, including those for whom food production is their livelihood and those who have legitimate concerns about how food is produced.

The federal government's Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) has to take in concerns and jurisdictional realities of the provincial governments. Consumers are another key component of the framework, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada places significant emphasis on reporting to Canadians.

Ms. Rutherford observed that change doesn't happen overnight. "It takes time to develop the codes, time to change infrastructure, time to develop enforcement and oversight systems." She encouraged participants to view this as not delays, but progressions. As with many other issues, farm animal welfare is not static – systems must be able to respond to changing circumstances and expectations.

In closing she noted that this workshop and consultation is a beginning exercise. From here, we can figure out our next steps. You can count on participating further in discussions on these issues.

Q&A; Session / Open Forum

Q. Will there be adequate funding to support codes of practice?
A. Before we can say if there will be funds available, we need to know what the system will be.

Q. What is the link between the Agricultural Policy Framework and animal welfare?
A. The APF covers a range of issues and looks at how AAFC is moving forward into the future. Animal welfare is a piece of the framework, and its importance is recognized by the department.

Q. If legislation is the way to move forward, will this be a joint federal/provincial responsibility, a federal responsibility or a provincial responsibility?
A. Animal welfare is a provincial responsibility. Certainly the federal government has responsibility in certain areas, particularly as animals move across borders, but we are not looking at rewriting the constitution. The process is about finding new ways of doing business and managing in a similar manner across the country.

Q. Under what pillar of the APF would animal welfare fall under?
A. It would likely fall under "quality". This reflects our international approach to quality, where quality is the umbrella and safety and other specifications fall under it.

Presentation
Susan Church
Alberta Farm Animal Care Association

Ms. Church told participants that "it is up to each of us to take responsibility for the development of a meaningful plan."

She noted three recent examples of how farm animal welfare is a key issue. First, a recent meeting in the United States, called "Standards for Food Animal Production: Status, Well-being and Social Responsibility," focused on the industry perspective in terms of the current situation and what has to be done. The focus was not on whether farm animal welfare is an issue – clearly, it was recognized that it is an issue, and one for which the food animal production industry is responsible.

Second, the American Meat Institute Animal Handling and Stunning Conference of February 2002 was attended by more than 300 people. Three years ago, only 70 people attended that conference. The conference was organized by industry, for industry, and included breakout sessions focussing on animal welfare guidelines.

And third, last spring PETA challenged Canada Safeway to sign on to FMI (Food Marketing Institute) guidelines. In response, Canada Safeway asked industry to provide solid information on what is taking place with regard to animal welfare.

She told participants that it is time to decide the future of farm animal welfare for Canada. She stated that participants need to "set up a time frame and ensure we, as an industry, move forward."

In closing, she acknowledged the dedicated work of the Steering Committee in organizing this workshop, and encouraged participants to "charge on."

Workshop Discussion 4 — Next Steps

In their table groups, participants discussed the following questions in terms of next steps:

• Is farm animal welfare a public good issue or a market issue, or both?
• Is animal welfare a public or market responsibility? Or both?
• Does there need to be monitoring of public concerns and future marketing/trade implications?
• Does there need to be more national harmonization of standards to assure domestic and international customers?
• Who should take the lead?
  • Retailers and their associations?
  • Producer organizations (national, provincial)?
  • Animal welfare or consumer NGOs?
  • Federal government?
  • Provincial/territorial governments?
  • A national council of stakeholders?
• Who will fund this?
• What time frame do we have?

The following provides a summary of the plenary discussion.

There was general consensus that farm animal welfare is both a public good and a market issue. As one group noted, the issue is "public good, but it has market implications and it is influenced by markets." Clearly, the public is concerned and the marketplace is involved. Similarly, participants felt that both the public and the market are responsible for farm animal welfare. Some participants noted that as a public good issue, it should be the responsibility of the government.

Some participants suggested that a necessary first step would be to conduct an accurate review of the current situation in order to create a benchmark and a common standard of understanding. Such a review would:

• identify what is done now;
• seek comparisons of current Canadian codes against requirements of international customers and competitors;
• identify and prioritize the expectations and needs of domestic consumers;
• identify deficiencies (if any), along with corrective measures.

Similarly, it is important to define "welfare." Some participants suggested that "ability to express normal behaviour patterns" should be part of the definition.

Generally, participants agreed that national standards that are internationally acceptable are appropriate. As one group put it, "national standards are important because to our trading partners, Canada is a country not a collection of provinces." However, it was recognized that there are provincial/ regional differences, and some participants noted that any local issues should not be impeded or prevented by national standards.

Participants identified characteristics and components of codes of practice/standards for farm animal welfare, including:

• Must be auditable.
• Existing codes of practice are a good starting point.
• Equivalence with U.S. is critical.
• Practical and include a phase-in approach that helps people adapt.
• Flexible to support continuous improvement as knowledge evolves.

Some participants noted that codes should have a dual purpose. One purpose would be to provide technical information and standards. This part needs to include "shoulds" and "shalls," which was seen to lead to a more auditable process. The second purpose would be to inform, educate and build awareness both for producers and consumers. Participants noted that a model is already in place under the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and felt that this could be easily adapted to farm animal welfare. There may be other models that are also suitable and adaptable in order to avoid reinventing the wheel, so all options should be explored.

Other comments included:

• It is important to monitor, review and apply knowledge and understanding about species-specific animal welfare practices as it becomes available.
• A cautious approach should be taken to adapting or imposing U.S. standards on Canadian commodities, which can be lower than current Canadian codes.
• In regard to harmonization of standards: there is already a good degree of continuity and consistency of production standards. It is important to differentiate between commercial-scale production and small hobby flocks and herds.
• Consider an approach that would recognize ISO standards as appropriate.

Who is responsible

Participants offered a number of suggestions regarding who should provide leadership for moving forward on the farm animal welfare issue, although there was no agreement on which group could best lead. Among the suggestions were:

• The federal government.
• Government to provide support but not leadership.
• Industry organizations should take a leadership role, especially national commodity groups and production/sector organizations.
• Producer organizations take the lead, with balanced input from a national council of stakeholders.
• The Canadian Agrifood Research Council (CARC).
• The Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA).
• The Canadian Animal Health Coalition (CAHC).
• The Steering Committee from this workshop process.

Most participants did agree with the notion that a multistakeholder advisory body be established. This committee or council could review existing codes in Canada and in other countries and make recommendations. However, there was a divergence of opinion regarding the composition of the committee or council. Some participants felt that all stakeholders should be involved, including producers, processors, consumers, food service, retail, veterinarians, and academia, and that membership should be open to anyone or any organization who is interested in the issues surrounding farm animal welfare. As one participant noted, "everyone in this room should participate on the committee." On the other side, some participants felt that the stakeholder group should be comprised only of individuals or organizations that have "a tangible level of vested interest – not groups or individuals with emotional interests only."

Other comments regarding leadership and responsibility included:

• Build on what we already have – don't reinvent the wheel.
• Animal welfare to be included as part of another program, such as on-farm safety, quality assurance, etc.

Timeframe

Participants agreed that immediate action is needed. As one group put it, "the situation is critical – we must act now." The multistakeholder body should be established as soon as possible – "over the next three months." The committee or council must be adequately funded and provided with technical and staff support.

While it is important that immediate steps be taken to respond to current pressures, participants noted that it is important to not overlook key long term issues at the same time, such as requirements for research on animal welfare and identification of best practices and consumer concerns.

In this connection, one group suggested the following short-term and long-term approaches:

• Short term plans (immediate to two year timeframe):
• Continue funding the current code structure and "keep the ball rolling" while other alternatives are investigated.
• Communicate and build awareness about existing standards, to both producers and the public.
• Develop national stakeholder committee, based on CARC or CAHC. Set mandate for committee.
• Explore long-term approaches.

Longer term (more than two years) options for consideration:

• Develop code-based "standards" that would include regular reviews and updating.
• Certification system that could be incorporated into an existing framework instead of setting up a new process.
• Explore declaration at point of sale (farm gate) by producer that certain animal welfare standards have been observed, instead of certification process.
• Determine how the program selected will be funded.

Funding

Some participants suggested that the federal government should provide funding and in-kind input to the national stakeholder council/committee. These funds/inputs would not be the sole responsibility of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, but rather shared by other departments that also have interests, influence and impact on animal food production, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In addition, matched funding should be provided by producer organizations and other members of the national stakeholder group. One group stated that "if there is a good strategy, funding will follow." Participants reiterated the need for adequate funding to support research.

Next Steps Overview

Dr. Frédérique Moulin
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Animal Products Directorate

Dr. Moulin introduced the members of the Steering Committee as well as representatives of the AAFC/CFIA Joint Animal Welfare Committee who were present at the workshop. In addition to Dr. Moulin, the members of the AAFC/CFIA Animal Welfare Coordinating Committee in attendance were Ms. Heather Cloutier, Communications Branch, AAFC; Ms. Camilla Corrigan, Communications Bureau, CFIA; Dr. Gord Doonan, Animal Health and Production Division, CFIA; Mr. Garry Hewston, Policy Branch, AAFC; Ms. Lena Hill, Foods of Animal Origin Division, CFIA; Dr. S.K. Ho, Research Branch, AAFC; and Dr. David Trus, Marketing and Information Services Branch, AAFC.

Dr. Moulin told participants that a report of the proceedings of the workshop would be prepared by Intersol Consulting. Each participant will receive a copy of the report, after it has been reviewed by the Steering Committee. Recommendations from the report will be submitted to the senior management of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and available to participants and others.

< Previous Next >