- Email: [email protected]
Animal Care Guidelines and Future Directions
Animal Care Guidelines and Future Directions A. B. Webster1 Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia, Athens 30602 domestic animal care by campaigning against animal production practices or by offering their preferred guidelines for producers to adopt in the hope that the endorsement of the welfare group would add value to the product. Originally, animal care guidelines were only recommended, with little or no requirement for compliance. In recent years, the need for retail companies to assure certain welfare standards has led to animal welfare auditing of production facilities. Animal care guidelines primarily have sought to establish standards for handling and husbandry in existing production systems. Future guidelines may put increasing emphasis on adoption of alternative management practices or housing systems. International animal care guidelines are being developed on 2 levels (i.e., among national governments to create a common standard for trade in animal products and within international retail companies to create company-wide animal care standards). These initiatives should tend to unify farm animal care standards worldwide but perhaps at a level some nations might consider lower than preferable.
Key words: poultry welfare, animal welfare, animal care guideline 2007 Poultry Science 86:1253–1259
ANTHROPOMORPHISM, MORALITY, AND DUTY Animal care guidelines for agricultural animals are a product of developed societies around the world derived culturally from Europe, comprising what is commonly known as western culture. My discussion of animal care guidelines and where we are going in regard to them will reflect this cultural context, because there has been, to my knowledge, little initiative for such guidelines in other societies. For many centuries, western culture largely excluded animals from the realm of morality. The prevailing thought was that humans had no direct moral obligations toward animals. This attitude began to change in the 19th century with the general acceptance that cruelty to animals is improper, and the change has accelerated, par-
©2007 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received January 31, 2007. Accepted February 1, 2007. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected]
ticularly in the latter half of the 20th century, so that now it is broadly believed that we ought to ensure the wellbeing of all animals in our care as much as feasibly possible. Paralleling this change has been an increasingly anthropomorphic view of animals. Anthropomorphism is the projection of human attributes onto animals, particularly psychological attributes. Interpretation of the psychological experience of another individual, even another human, involves inference, because it is not possible to measure how the individual feels. One can only make educated guesses based on the behavior of the individual. Because anthropomorphism involves imputing to animals characteristics that cannot be directly measured, a process that can be uncertain even among humans, the practice was considered by many ethologists to be unscientific, particularly those in the branch of ethology known as behaviorism. However, growing knowledge of biology and acceptance of Darwinian theory of the evolution of species have led to altered attitudes regarding anthropomorphism, even in ethology. Philosophers have argued that the biological and evolutionary continuity between humans and nonhuman animals is of great significance for interpretation of the experience of animals (Singer,
1253
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
ABSTRACT Two notions broadly accepted in developed western societies have made animal care guidelines inevitable. These are that domestic animals are sentient and that humans are responsible to ensure the proper care of domestic animals. Despite these common views, people have differing moral understandings of the human-animal relationship, and there are sharp divisions over how these views should be applied to domestic animal care. Animal care guidelines have been developed by different nations at several organizational levels to represent a compromise that is acceptable to most people. These organizational levels include individual poultry companies, national poultry associations, individual customers of the poultry industry, national associations of customer companies, national governments, and international organizations. Animal care guideline development has typically included input from producers and scientists and, depending on the sponsoring organization, animal advocates and government representatives as well. Animal advocacy groups have also sought to influence
1254
WEBSTER
DIVERGENT VALUES Despite a general acceptance that direct duties are owed to agricultural animals, there is disagreement regarding the nature of these obligations. In the latter part of the 20th century, philosophers not satisfied with traditional views sought to derive moral principles that should govern the human-animal relationship. Their writings have had considerable influence in the animal welfare movement. Some of the thoughts that led them to extend moral consideration to animals have been mentioned already.
Singer (1975) built an argument from preference utilitarianism that animals should be given equal consideration to humans based on their ability to enjoy pleasures and experience suffering. This does not mean that an animal should necessarily be given equal treatment, because in many cases, its psychological capacity would be inferior to that of a human being, but if its interests, such as they were, were not given equal consideration, the humans involved in the judgment would be guilty of speciesism. Singer (1975) advocated vegetarianism based on his philosophical conclusions. Regan (1983) concluded that the approach of Singer (1975) was not adequate to protect animals and developed a theory of animal rights, derived, as with Singer (1975), from the implications of biological and evolutionary continuity between humans and animals. He argued that any animal or person advanced enough to have the minimum psychological capacity to be self-aware [he called these subjects of a life (SOL)] has inherent value equal to all other such entities, regardless of psychological capacity. All SOL ought to have equal rights. Moreover, SOL have a valid claim to respectful treatment, and moral agents (people) have prima facie duty to assist SOL when others treat them in ways that violate their rights. Regan (1983) also advocated vegetarianism. The philosophical views of Singer (1975) and Regan (1983) are egalitarian in that they are based on the conviction that all individuals possessing moral value should be given equal consideration according to the respective moral principle being applied. A philosophy such as that put forward by Midgley (1983) argues for the extension of moral consideration beyond the species boundary but not necessarily on an egalitarian basis. In other words, just as it is reasonable for a person to feel more obligated to help family members or friends than strangers, it is also reasonable for a human to perceive greater obligation to another human than to an animal of another species. Nonetheless, obligations to individuals who are closer on the relational scale do not necessarily outweigh obligations to individuals who are farther. In fact, it is argued, it is compelling for humans to extend moral consideration to animals, because animals have characteristics that are recognized as morally relevant in humans. The above points of view are based on secular philosophy and have been embraced by many. However, millions of people derive their moral understanding from a religious perspective. Christianity is the predominant religion in North America and has had great historical influence on the development of western society. Because its focus is on the relationship between God and humans and on how humans ought to treat each other, it is perhaps understandable that, given the problematic nature of both these relationships, Christian leaders have given relatively little attention throughout history to the human-animal relationship, except to affirm based on scriptures such as Genesis 1:26, 28, and Genesis 9:3 that humans, not other animals, were created in the image of God, that people are to fill the earth and subdue it, and that animals are available for human use. The belief that
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
1975; Midgley, 1983; Regan, 1983). These authors assert that physical, physiological, and psychological similarities between humans and many nonhuman animals make it logical to conclude that these nonhumans can experience pain, suffering, and enjoyment and that it is unlikely that Homo sapiens would be the only species whose members have the attribute of consciousness. Such arguments have been so effective, in my opinion, that our society as a whole has come to embrace the notion that animals should be viewed anthropomorphically and that by doing so in a considered way it is possible to know what animals think and feel, within limits. Two conclusions have followed that now provide the driving force for animal care guidelines. These are that domestic animals are sentient and can suffer and that because of this animal welfare is a moral issue, in which we have direct duties to domestic animals. A direct duty is an obligation owed by a moral agent to another moral entity (person or animal) strictly based on the characteristics that cause the entity to be recognized as having moral value. Such an obligation is independent of whatever other importance the entity might have to the acting moral agent or any other moral entity. This was a significant step in the moral development of our civilization. Spokesmen for animal agricultural groups have often expressed that farmers have an interest in the well-being of their animals, because their living depends on it. However, this kind of interest can only lead to an indirect duty toward animals, because it is based on the value of the products derived from them and does not recognize value inherent to the animals themselves. In defense of farmers, I know that many feel a responsibility toward their animals that goes beyond a mere interest in production performance. In a manner nicely described by Midgley (1983), many farmers, and others who keep animals, include them in their own community, consciously or not, and recognize sentient traits in the animals that call them to a direct obligation to ensure their proper care. The level of obligation perceived varies with the different empathetic tendencies of people and with the degree to which different animal species stimulate empathy. Animal care guidelines can be seen as formal efforts to recognize these direct duties and ensure a minimum standard of care that reflects scientific understanding of the attributes of a given species independently of interpersonal differences in empathy and interspecies differences in traits inducing empathy.
POULTRY WELFARE SYMPOSIUM
society. There are divergent points of view, even within the secular or religious perspectives held by different societal groups. Some people who advocate animal rights believe that animal agriculture should not exist. Others believe that modern intensive animal production practices are wrong. On the other hand, most people believe that it is good in principle to produce meat for food. Some are offended by the claim that animals have rights.
GUIDELINES: GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED In this social milieu, there have been attempts at reason and compromise by various nations to come up with voluntary guidelines for the care and use of commercially farmed agricultural animals. Among English-speaking nations, Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand have such guidelines. The United States has not taken this approach. These initiatives were, and are, governmentsponsored, but the guidelines themselves typically have been developed in consultation with scientists, farm industry organizations, and animal welfare groups, in addition to representatives of government regulatory agencies. Current versions of these can be found on the government websites of the respective nations. These guidelines are intended to be living documents and so are periodically reviewed and revised as necessary to bring them up to date. For example, the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Domestic Fowls, published in England in 1972, was updated in 1987 and was followed in 2002 by new documents focusing separately on laying hens and on meat chickens and breeding chickens (DEFRA, 2002a,b). Likewise, the Canadian Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Poultry from Hatchery to Processing Plant was originally published in 1983, updated in 1989, and in 2003 separated into publications on chickens, turkeys, and breeders and egg-type chickens, respectively (CARC, 2003a,b). These recommended codes typically include a statement declaring the welfare standard for the care of the agricultural species in question. Many include a list of 5 freedoms that an animal should normally be able to experience. This list was originally developed by what has become known as the Brambell Committee, commissioned in England in the early 1960s to evaluate the welfare of agricultural animals in modern commercial production systems (Brambell, 1965). As generally stated now, these freedoms are as follows: 1) freedom from hunger and thirst; 2) freedom from discomfort; 3) freedom from pain, injury, or disease; 4) freedom to express normal behavior; and 5) freedom from fear and distress. The codes then go on to cover a broad range of husbandry and handling topics, such as personal responsibility of animal attendants, feeding, management, stocking density, buildings and equipment, housing environment, bird handling, special procedures, euthanasia, emergency precautions, transport, receiving, and slaughter. One criticism of these codes might be that they are merely recommended and so may not ensure that poultry, or other farm animals, are properly cared for. Nonethe-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
humans are ascendant in the world and may use animals for their purposes precludes the possibility of moral equivalence between humans and animals. This has led some thinkers in the past to conclude that the world exists for the sake of humans and that there is no basis for extension of moral consideration beyond humans. However, such a conclusion overlooks other biblical passages that make it clear that the physical universe exists, not for mankind, but to glorify God directly (e.g., Psalm 148) and that, while affirming human ascendancy, the interest of God includes animals as well as people (e.g., Matthew 10:29, 31). Also, quality of human character involves concern for the welfare of domestic animals (e.g., Proverbs 12:10). The 20th century saw the human-animal relationship revisited by Christian thinkers taking a more comprehensive view of scripture, who were also informed by a better biological understanding of animals. For example, the prominent Christian philosopher, C. S. Lewis, recognizing the capacity of animals for pain, made the statement, “Man was appointed by God to have dominion over the beasts, and everything a man does to an animal is either a lawful exercise, or a sacrilegious abuse, of an authority by divine right,” (Lewis, 1940). Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, “... one cannot use with impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or inanimate–animals, plants, the natural elements–simply as one wishes, according to one’s own economic needs. On the contrary, one must take into account the nature of each being...The dominion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to “use and misuse,” or to dispose of things as one pleases...when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws, but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity,” (John Paul II, 1987). These quotes support a prevalent Christian view that humans exist as stewards in the world, not as rulers of it. At this time, I don’t believe there is a stated position regarding the human-animal relationship that is broadly endorsed by the various Christian denominations, beyond the aforementioned principles of ascendancy and authority to use animals. Nonetheless, I have the impression that the Christian community in the developed world accepts by and large that the role of stewardship accentuates rather than diminishes the need to extend moral consideration beyond human beings. In regard to domestic animals, this can be taken to mean that one should care about animal welfare, because it is evident that animals can suffer, and to cause them unnecessary suffering would be to abuse creatures that ultimately belong to God. This leaves considerable latitude for judgement as to what would be acceptable treatment of animals. However, as a whole, I see little resistance from the Christian community to animal care guidelines that acknowledge the legitimacy of using animals for food and other purposes. The future direction of animal care guidelines and the effects these will have on animal production practices will be determined by the ongoing contest of ideas in our
1255
1256
WEBSTER
in animal welfare. It has embarked on the formulation of animal care guidelines that will have international application among the member countries of the organization (currently over 165). The OIE was originally established to protect against the spread of animal diseases through international trade. However, the existing interconnection of its member nations made it possible to try to facilitate international trade negotiations by putting animal welfare standards on common ground through animal care guidelines. So far, the OIE has drafted guidelines, based on scientific advice, for the slaughter of animals, the transport of animals by sea, the transport of animals by land, and the killing of animals for disease-control purposes. These are currently under review within the OIE member countries.
ACTIONS BY ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS Some animal welfare organizations have tried to be proactive in encouraging what they perceive to be appropriate standards of care and management for agricultural animals. For instance, in the United States, the American Humane Association offers a “free farmed” certification program, and, similarly, Humane Farm Animal Care offers a “certified humane” program. Periodic inspections verify that a company in the program remains in compliance with prescribed welfare standards. With compliance, a poultry company is authorized to market its product under a certification label to consumers who are willing to pay a premium for products they believe are better. The guidelines of these programs were developed, within parameters defined as being important by the sponsoring organization, with input from scientific experts. Descriptions of the programs and the names of poultry companies that have been certified can be found on the respective websites of the organizations. Although the initiatives described so far do not all concur on what an appropriate set of guidelines should be, they do underscore the view that animal agriculture is a legitimate activity, provided it is done right. Some groups, particularly those driven by a belief in animal rights, advocate that animal agriculture should be eradicated entirely or downsized greatly from its present state and have launched their own uncompromising campaigns for change. Unlike the animal care guideline initiatives above, these involve media campaigns intended to turn public opinion against modern animal agriculture. One tactic has been to showcase egregious examples of improper care of farm animals and claim that these are the norm, putting not just the company responsible for the animals on the defensive but the entire industry as well. In recent years, some groups have found that they can effectively campaign against prominent retail companies that sell animal products directly to the public. These retailers buy large amounts of meat from their suppliers, and, for that reason, are in a position to influence the animal care practices of many meat-producing companies. The animal rights organization People for the Ethical
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
less, they are not entirely without weight. The English codes of recommendation can be used to establish guilt during prosecution of a legal offense involving a domestic flock. The Canadian recommended codes of practice for poultry have been adopted by national and provincial farm animal councils as the standard for ethical care and handling of poultry flocks. Many European countries have worked on establishing standards for the care and handling of farm animals for a long time. Their activities are too diverse to elaborate here. However, Europe provides unique examples of supernational or regional efforts to ensure farm animal welfare. These have taken place within 2 organizations. The Council of Europe (COE), consisting currently of 46 member states, was formed shortly after the second world war to act as an interparliamentary body to negotiate treaties on a variety of issues. Since 1968, the COE has formulated several conventions pertinent to animal agriculture (i.e., for the protection of animals during international transport, for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, and for the protection of animals for slaughter). Under these conventions are recommendations concerning different species. For instance, under the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes, the Recommendation Concerning Domestic Fowl (Gallus gallus) was adopted in 1995. This document outlines recommended standards, based on stated biological characteristics of the domestic fowl, for stockmanship and inspection, enclosures, buildings and equipment, management, changes of genotype or phenotype, and killing and lists additional provisions specifically for laying hens, meat-type poultry, and killing of unwanted chicks and embryos. The European Union (EU), currently comprising 25 member states that are also members of the COE, began legislating on animal protection in the 1970s. Animal welfare was recognized for the first time in the 1997 EU Treaty of Amsterdam, based on the acknowledgment that animals are sentient beings. This development has made the physical and psychological needs of agricultural animals a priority in their own right. The EU legislation is considered binding on the member states, which are expected to promulgate national legislation covering, but not limited to, the minimum standards specified by the EU. In some cases, the EU regulation is intended to be implemented uniformly across all member states to improve enforcement capability. Current EU farm animal welfare legislation deals with transport, slaughter, battery hens, veal, calves, and pigs. Within the EU, animal welfare issues are under the purview of the European Food Safety Authority. A summary of European activities regarding farm animal welfare can be found in Caporale et al. (2005). Details of the animal welfare-related activities of the COE and EU can be found on the websites of the respective organizations. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), already the international reference organization for animal health and zoonoses, intends to become a world leader
POULTRY WELFARE SYMPOSIUM
Treatment of Animals targeted several major fast-food chains in succession with eye-catching campaigns using logos resembling those of the respective companies but modified in ways to suggest the target company was cruel and blood thirsty. Demonstrations highlighting the campaign theme have been staged at franchise restaurants to discourage customers from entering the stores and have put pressure on the relationship between the parent company and the franchisee.
GUIDELINES: INDUSTRY
means that much of the poultry industry will be covered by the animal welfare program of one chain or another, but there are still some gaps. One notable gap involves the catching, transport, and processing of spent fowl, both commercial layers and heavy breeders. In the United States, these birds are often sold to separate fowl processing companies, which take responsibility for the catching, transportation, and processing of the birds. To my knowledge, this part of the poultry industry has not yet had to institute animal welfare programs at the behest of its customers, although I am aware that at least 1 US fowl processor is assembling an animal welfare program on its own. Other, generally small, poultry companies that sell into special markets also may not have had to respond to the animal welfare concerns of customers. In some cases, these also have gone ahead with their own animal welfare initiatives. I expect as more retail and institutional organizations adopt animal welfare programs, all poultry companies large and small eventually will find it necessary to have comprehensive animal welfare programs. Spurred by the challenges of the animal welfare movement, the United Egg Producers (UEP), the leading commercial egg industry association in the United States, set out to establish guidelines for husbandry of commercial flocks of laying hens. Following input from a scientific advisory committee, the UEP guidelines were introduced (UEP, 2003). An animal care certified program is offered to member companies that includes audits by independent auditors to verify compliance with the UEP guidelines. Egg companies in good standing have the right to market their products under the UEP animal care certified logo. The UEP has also sponsored research to provide needed information to support the transition of the egg industry to improved animal care practices (e.g., on nonfeed withdrawal molting). The National Chicken Council and the National Turkey Federation, national associations of the US chicken and turkey industries, respectively, have also put together husbandry guidelines and audit programs (NTF, 2004; NCC, 2005). In these cases, the audit programs are for the individual use of member companies, using external auditors if desired, and not part of a certification program administered by the parent association. Although the approach each guideline or audit program takes reflects the structure and welfare issues of the industry sector in question, they all cover the spectrum of activities engaged, from hatching (if applicable) through production to transport and slaughter, and provide for employee education. Current versions of the guidelines are available on the websites of the associations. In the introductions to their animal care guidelines, each association acknowledges that the care and handling of birds should be humane. I believe the acceptance of the poultry industry that production performance ought not to be the sole determinant of husbandry standards shows that the industry is maturing in its understanding of animal welfare and that industry leaders are determined to keep in step with the evolving expectations of society. Many people in the poultry industry and in the
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
Although activist campaigns against industries that use animals take place in many nations, the campaigns against fast-food retailers have centered in the United States, because, although international, these companies have their headquarters and the largest proportion of their operations in the United States. Their responses to the media attacks of the activists have led to a new initiative for development of animal care guidelines by the poultry industry itself. The fast-food retailers realized very quickly that they were in a public relations battle for the hearts and minds of consumers, one that involves convincing people of the moral acceptability of their products. In 2000, McDonald’s Corporation announced that it had established an animal welfare program with specific requirements that it intended its suppliers to meet. Shortly thereafter, Burger King, Wendy’s International, and Kentucky Fried Chicken introduced similar animal welfare programs. Although the large food retailers could manage their own programs, many smaller companies lack the resources, so 2 major US food retail industry associations, the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR), joined together to create a joint animal welfare program that would be available for member companies. Not having knowledge of animal production practices themselves, the general strategy followed by individual food retailers and the industry associations has been to form advisory groups that include scientific experts and representatives of suppliers. These advisory groups have had the task of putting together animal welfare programs that were knowledge-based and feasible. The animal welfare programs all require that poultry production facilities (e.g., hatcheries, farms, processing plants) be audited on a regular basis by independent auditors to provide animal welfare assurance in accordance with the program. These programs are reviewed periodically so that new issues can be addressed and updates made as needed. One of the strengths of this approach, in my opinion, is that participation of a poultry company is voluntary, based on its agreement to supply product to the retailer, yet it has a strong incentive to comply with program requirements. The animal welfare program of a given retail company will only engage those poultry producers, and only those production complexes within a company, that supply product to the retailer. The size of the food retail chains
1257
1258
WEBSTER
WHAT CAN ANIMAL WELFARE GUIDELINES AND AUDITS ACCOMPLISH? Animal welfare guidelines and audits can accomplish 3 things. First, they verify that a proper environment and adequate resources to cover bird needs are being provided, such as feed, water, space, ventilation, backup generator, alarms, etc. They also verify that flock husbandry processes are under control by inspection of records, such as temperature, air quality, mortality, culling, etc. Finally, they provide a direct assessment of bird wellbeing by inspection of such things as walking ability, foot condition, eye condition, bodily injury, bird health, etc. In my experience, animal welfare audit programs have lead to real improvements in poultry care and handling in the last 5 yr. Most US poultry companies that participate in animal welfare audits now have detailed corporate animal welfare programs. These include documented training of employees and regular internal audits. Some companies have created new high-level positions for oversight of their animal welfare programs. The audit program also helps supervisors and others look at their processes from a fresh perspective and take note of things that formerly may not have been recognized as requiring action. Many hatcheries have improved transitions between conveyors to reduce impact on hard surfaces and eliminate pinch points. Improved technology to euthanize cull chicks has been installed when needed, and better procedures to monitor the incidence of chick injuries have been put in place. On the farm, growers are being trained to
ensure proper euthanasia technique for culled birds. There is better record keeping of culling and more emphasis on environmental control, on backup in case of power outage, and on alarm notification in case of system failures. Many companies are making the effort to evaluate walking problems of birds and note incidence of foot pad dermatitis on farms. Catchers are being trained to handle birds well, and incentives have been established to minimize birds dead on arrival at the processing plant. In hot weather, cooling strategies, such as the use of fan trailers, are being implemented to avoid overheating of birds on transport trailers during loading. Many poultry companies are working hard to minimize times from catch to unloading at the processing plant to minimize stress on birds. More effort is being devoted to the maintenance of transport cages to prevent harm to birds. At processing plants, there has been increased attention to the design and operation of holding areas to protect birds from heat or cold, depending on the season. Dumping systems are being kept in better repair. Many plants have installed new, better-designed electrical stunners. More attention is being given to monitoring and reduction of injuries such as wing dislocation and leg bruising.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS The sourcing of animal welfare guidelines in various initiatives complicates predictions of future directions for their development. Some operate within industries with their incentives based at least in part on capitalist interest. These may operate within national boundaries if sponsored by national industry associations, but their effects may spill over between nations by the decision of international companies, such as fast-food retailers or grocery chains, to standardize their animal welfare programs as much as possible all over the world. Recommended guidelines sponsored by national governments may have aspects that are unique to the nation itself, particularly in regard to legislated welfare-related requirements (e.g., cage vs. noncage housing of poultry); however, the characteristics of a given type of animal do not change, so the different nationally sponsored recommended guidelines share elements in common. International efforts for animal care guidelines to facilitate trade may have the effect of making welfare standards more similar between nations but perhaps at a lower common denominator than preferred by some nations. I think it is safe to say that animal care guidelines and animal welfare audit programs will be a way of life for the poultry industry from now on. Those companies or complexes within companies that have not yet come under the jurisdiction of one of these programs will eventually be drawn in as more fast-food chains, supermarket chains, and institutional purchasers of poultry products make animal welfare assurance a priority in their purchasing criteria. Poultry companies will continue to build animal welfare expertise by creating positions and hiring capable people to manage company animal welfare programs. There will be continued efforts to standardize ani-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
retail industry that depend on poultry products were initially disturbed by the pressures of the animal welfare movement and felt that the need to respond was a costly imposition on time and resources. However, the industry has become stronger as a result of the challenge, in my opinion. Poultry producers and food retailers have had to work with each other to develop common animal care standards. The needs of both had to be considered to turn animal welfare principle into feasible action. As this process has unfolded, retailers, with advice from their scientific advisors, have been able to endorse guidelines set by poultry industry associations. In turn, the industry associations have adjusted their guidelines to accommodate issues important to the food retailers. At the time of this writing, the FMI-NCCR Animal Welfare Program Web site indicates that the FMI and the NCCR have jointly endorsed the UEP guidelines (except for 1 point) and the National Chicken Council guidelines and that the National Turkey Federation guidelines are under review. In this manner, poultry suppliers and retailers are coalescing a unified animal welfare position that is thoughtful, informed, and reflective of the general views of society. At the same time, both suppliers and retailers have retained the autonomy of their own animal welfare programs, setting the stage for ongoing negotiation and revision of guidelines as knowledge grows or societal views change.
1259
POULTRY WELFARE SYMPOSIUM
tempts at legislation, and motions at meetings of company stockholders, will continue to create pressure for changes in husbandry practices, depending on their truthfulness and on how well prepared the industry is to respond. Finally, increasing globalization of trade in animal products will bring divergent views of the human-animal relationship into confrontation, as represented by different national positions. I expect that most nations will seek a common ground that facilitates trade (e.g., through the efforts of the OIE). However, because different moral views of the human-animal relationship may be involved and because some changes may threaten the existence of the industry of a nation, it is unclear how international agreements will affect animal care guidelines within nations, as a general rule.
REFERENCES Brambell, F. W. R. 1965. Report of the technical committee to inquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Her Majesty’s Stationary Off. Command 2836, London, UK. Caporale, V., B. Alessandrini, P. Dalla Villa, and S. Del Papa. 2005. Global perspectives on animal welfare: Europe. Rev. Sci. Tech. 24:567–577. CARC. 2003a. Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: Chickens, Turkeys and Breeders from Hatchery to Processing Plant. Can. Agri-Food Res. Counc., Ottawa. CARC. 2003b. Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pullets, Layers and Spent Fowl. Can. Agri-Food Res. Counc., Ottawa. DEFRA. 2002a. Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens. Dep. Environ. Food. Rural Aff., London, UK. DEFRA. 2002b. Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens. Dep. Environ. Food. Rural Aff., London, UK. John Paul II. 1987. Part IV. Sec. 34 in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. Hunter Publ., Edison, NJ. Lewis, C. S. 1940. Page 126 in The Problem of Pain. William Collins & Sons Co. Ltd., Glasgow, UK. Midgley, M. 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. NCC. 2005. National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist. Natl. Chicken Counc., Washington, DC. NTF. 2004. National Turkey Federation Animal Care Best Management Practices for the Production of Turkeys. Natl. Turk. Fed., Washington, DC. Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Univ. California Press, Los Angeles. Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Avon Books, New York, NY. UEP. 2003. United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for US Egg Laying Flocks. United Egg Producers, Washington, DC.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
mal care requirements within the poultry industry sectors (e.g., broilers, turkeys, commercial layers) so that poultry companies do not have to manage different sets of requirements from different retail customers. Many retailers may also find it advantageous to adopt standards common to their industry to avoid accusations that they lag behind in their animal welfare awareness. On the other hand, some poultry companies and retailers wishing to access niche markets will choose to maintain animal care programs that satisfy demands unique to the market. The animal care guidelines in existence should be seen as steps in a process to ensure a standard of care for agricultural animals that meets the broad expectations of society. Although they reflect what is feasible to achieve at present, few people consider them to be perfect. There will always be pressure to revise them. Most organizations or companies with animal care guidelines have them regularly reviewed and updated. Subjects addressed by their animal welfare advisory committees focus on progress in improvements already set in motion, on new issues that need consideration, and on possibilities made available by new technology. At the time of this writing, some of the prominent topics include standards for walking ability of broilers, incidence of foot pad dermatitis in floor-housed birds, ammonia levels in poultry houses, reduction of dead on arrival rates, optimization of catching methods, reduction of handling-related injuries, and methods of stunning before slaughter. These topics will change over time. I see 2 major factors influencing the future direction of animal care guidelines. Consumer preference will be the primary factor, because consumers create the demand, or lack of it, for poultry products based on their buying decisions. To the extent that animal welfare is a concern for the consumer, the animal production and marketing industries will try to ensure that their animal welfare programs satisfy this concern. The second major factor is new scientific knowledge and technology. New understandings of the bird in regard to its sentience and capacity to suffer could force reconsideration of husbandry practice. New technology can open up options to improve poultry welfare in ways that were not formerly feasible. Several other factors are also important in enhancing or inhibiting healthy development of animal care guidelines. The extent to which the poultry industry keeps involved in guideline development at whatever level it occurs (e.g., industry sector, national government, or international agreement) will determine how well its expertise and perspective are represented. The campaigns of activists, with such things as embarrassing videos, lawsuits, at-
Key words: poultry welfare, animal welfare, animal care guideline 2007 Poultry Science 86:1253–1259
ANTHROPOMORPHISM, MORALITY, AND DUTY Animal care guidelines for agricultural animals are a product of developed societies around the world derived culturally from Europe, comprising what is commonly known as western culture. My discussion of animal care guidelines and where we are going in regard to them will reflect this cultural context, because there has been, to my knowledge, little initiative for such guidelines in other societies. For many centuries, western culture largely excluded animals from the realm of morality. The prevailing thought was that humans had no direct moral obligations toward animals. This attitude began to change in the 19th century with the general acceptance that cruelty to animals is improper, and the change has accelerated, par-
©2007 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received January 31, 2007. Accepted February 1, 2007. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected]
ticularly in the latter half of the 20th century, so that now it is broadly believed that we ought to ensure the wellbeing of all animals in our care as much as feasibly possible. Paralleling this change has been an increasingly anthropomorphic view of animals. Anthropomorphism is the projection of human attributes onto animals, particularly psychological attributes. Interpretation of the psychological experience of another individual, even another human, involves inference, because it is not possible to measure how the individual feels. One can only make educated guesses based on the behavior of the individual. Because anthropomorphism involves imputing to animals characteristics that cannot be directly measured, a process that can be uncertain even among humans, the practice was considered by many ethologists to be unscientific, particularly those in the branch of ethology known as behaviorism. However, growing knowledge of biology and acceptance of Darwinian theory of the evolution of species have led to altered attitudes regarding anthropomorphism, even in ethology. Philosophers have argued that the biological and evolutionary continuity between humans and nonhuman animals is of great significance for interpretation of the experience of animals (Singer,
1253
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
ABSTRACT Two notions broadly accepted in developed western societies have made animal care guidelines inevitable. These are that domestic animals are sentient and that humans are responsible to ensure the proper care of domestic animals. Despite these common views, people have differing moral understandings of the human-animal relationship, and there are sharp divisions over how these views should be applied to domestic animal care. Animal care guidelines have been developed by different nations at several organizational levels to represent a compromise that is acceptable to most people. These organizational levels include individual poultry companies, national poultry associations, individual customers of the poultry industry, national associations of customer companies, national governments, and international organizations. Animal care guideline development has typically included input from producers and scientists and, depending on the sponsoring organization, animal advocates and government representatives as well. Animal advocacy groups have also sought to influence
1254
WEBSTER
DIVERGENT VALUES Despite a general acceptance that direct duties are owed to agricultural animals, there is disagreement regarding the nature of these obligations. In the latter part of the 20th century, philosophers not satisfied with traditional views sought to derive moral principles that should govern the human-animal relationship. Their writings have had considerable influence in the animal welfare movement. Some of the thoughts that led them to extend moral consideration to animals have been mentioned already.
Singer (1975) built an argument from preference utilitarianism that animals should be given equal consideration to humans based on their ability to enjoy pleasures and experience suffering. This does not mean that an animal should necessarily be given equal treatment, because in many cases, its psychological capacity would be inferior to that of a human being, but if its interests, such as they were, were not given equal consideration, the humans involved in the judgment would be guilty of speciesism. Singer (1975) advocated vegetarianism based on his philosophical conclusions. Regan (1983) concluded that the approach of Singer (1975) was not adequate to protect animals and developed a theory of animal rights, derived, as with Singer (1975), from the implications of biological and evolutionary continuity between humans and animals. He argued that any animal or person advanced enough to have the minimum psychological capacity to be self-aware [he called these subjects of a life (SOL)] has inherent value equal to all other such entities, regardless of psychological capacity. All SOL ought to have equal rights. Moreover, SOL have a valid claim to respectful treatment, and moral agents (people) have prima facie duty to assist SOL when others treat them in ways that violate their rights. Regan (1983) also advocated vegetarianism. The philosophical views of Singer (1975) and Regan (1983) are egalitarian in that they are based on the conviction that all individuals possessing moral value should be given equal consideration according to the respective moral principle being applied. A philosophy such as that put forward by Midgley (1983) argues for the extension of moral consideration beyond the species boundary but not necessarily on an egalitarian basis. In other words, just as it is reasonable for a person to feel more obligated to help family members or friends than strangers, it is also reasonable for a human to perceive greater obligation to another human than to an animal of another species. Nonetheless, obligations to individuals who are closer on the relational scale do not necessarily outweigh obligations to individuals who are farther. In fact, it is argued, it is compelling for humans to extend moral consideration to animals, because animals have characteristics that are recognized as morally relevant in humans. The above points of view are based on secular philosophy and have been embraced by many. However, millions of people derive their moral understanding from a religious perspective. Christianity is the predominant religion in North America and has had great historical influence on the development of western society. Because its focus is on the relationship between God and humans and on how humans ought to treat each other, it is perhaps understandable that, given the problematic nature of both these relationships, Christian leaders have given relatively little attention throughout history to the human-animal relationship, except to affirm based on scriptures such as Genesis 1:26, 28, and Genesis 9:3 that humans, not other animals, were created in the image of God, that people are to fill the earth and subdue it, and that animals are available for human use. The belief that
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
1975; Midgley, 1983; Regan, 1983). These authors assert that physical, physiological, and psychological similarities between humans and many nonhuman animals make it logical to conclude that these nonhumans can experience pain, suffering, and enjoyment and that it is unlikely that Homo sapiens would be the only species whose members have the attribute of consciousness. Such arguments have been so effective, in my opinion, that our society as a whole has come to embrace the notion that animals should be viewed anthropomorphically and that by doing so in a considered way it is possible to know what animals think and feel, within limits. Two conclusions have followed that now provide the driving force for animal care guidelines. These are that domestic animals are sentient and can suffer and that because of this animal welfare is a moral issue, in which we have direct duties to domestic animals. A direct duty is an obligation owed by a moral agent to another moral entity (person or animal) strictly based on the characteristics that cause the entity to be recognized as having moral value. Such an obligation is independent of whatever other importance the entity might have to the acting moral agent or any other moral entity. This was a significant step in the moral development of our civilization. Spokesmen for animal agricultural groups have often expressed that farmers have an interest in the well-being of their animals, because their living depends on it. However, this kind of interest can only lead to an indirect duty toward animals, because it is based on the value of the products derived from them and does not recognize value inherent to the animals themselves. In defense of farmers, I know that many feel a responsibility toward their animals that goes beyond a mere interest in production performance. In a manner nicely described by Midgley (1983), many farmers, and others who keep animals, include them in their own community, consciously or not, and recognize sentient traits in the animals that call them to a direct obligation to ensure their proper care. The level of obligation perceived varies with the different empathetic tendencies of people and with the degree to which different animal species stimulate empathy. Animal care guidelines can be seen as formal efforts to recognize these direct duties and ensure a minimum standard of care that reflects scientific understanding of the attributes of a given species independently of interpersonal differences in empathy and interspecies differences in traits inducing empathy.
POULTRY WELFARE SYMPOSIUM
society. There are divergent points of view, even within the secular or religious perspectives held by different societal groups. Some people who advocate animal rights believe that animal agriculture should not exist. Others believe that modern intensive animal production practices are wrong. On the other hand, most people believe that it is good in principle to produce meat for food. Some are offended by the claim that animals have rights.
GUIDELINES: GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED In this social milieu, there have been attempts at reason and compromise by various nations to come up with voluntary guidelines for the care and use of commercially farmed agricultural animals. Among English-speaking nations, Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand have such guidelines. The United States has not taken this approach. These initiatives were, and are, governmentsponsored, but the guidelines themselves typically have been developed in consultation with scientists, farm industry organizations, and animal welfare groups, in addition to representatives of government regulatory agencies. Current versions of these can be found on the government websites of the respective nations. These guidelines are intended to be living documents and so are periodically reviewed and revised as necessary to bring them up to date. For example, the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Domestic Fowls, published in England in 1972, was updated in 1987 and was followed in 2002 by new documents focusing separately on laying hens and on meat chickens and breeding chickens (DEFRA, 2002a,b). Likewise, the Canadian Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Poultry from Hatchery to Processing Plant was originally published in 1983, updated in 1989, and in 2003 separated into publications on chickens, turkeys, and breeders and egg-type chickens, respectively (CARC, 2003a,b). These recommended codes typically include a statement declaring the welfare standard for the care of the agricultural species in question. Many include a list of 5 freedoms that an animal should normally be able to experience. This list was originally developed by what has become known as the Brambell Committee, commissioned in England in the early 1960s to evaluate the welfare of agricultural animals in modern commercial production systems (Brambell, 1965). As generally stated now, these freedoms are as follows: 1) freedom from hunger and thirst; 2) freedom from discomfort; 3) freedom from pain, injury, or disease; 4) freedom to express normal behavior; and 5) freedom from fear and distress. The codes then go on to cover a broad range of husbandry and handling topics, such as personal responsibility of animal attendants, feeding, management, stocking density, buildings and equipment, housing environment, bird handling, special procedures, euthanasia, emergency precautions, transport, receiving, and slaughter. One criticism of these codes might be that they are merely recommended and so may not ensure that poultry, or other farm animals, are properly cared for. Nonethe-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
humans are ascendant in the world and may use animals for their purposes precludes the possibility of moral equivalence between humans and animals. This has led some thinkers in the past to conclude that the world exists for the sake of humans and that there is no basis for extension of moral consideration beyond humans. However, such a conclusion overlooks other biblical passages that make it clear that the physical universe exists, not for mankind, but to glorify God directly (e.g., Psalm 148) and that, while affirming human ascendancy, the interest of God includes animals as well as people (e.g., Matthew 10:29, 31). Also, quality of human character involves concern for the welfare of domestic animals (e.g., Proverbs 12:10). The 20th century saw the human-animal relationship revisited by Christian thinkers taking a more comprehensive view of scripture, who were also informed by a better biological understanding of animals. For example, the prominent Christian philosopher, C. S. Lewis, recognizing the capacity of animals for pain, made the statement, “Man was appointed by God to have dominion over the beasts, and everything a man does to an animal is either a lawful exercise, or a sacrilegious abuse, of an authority by divine right,” (Lewis, 1940). Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, “... one cannot use with impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or inanimate–animals, plants, the natural elements–simply as one wishes, according to one’s own economic needs. On the contrary, one must take into account the nature of each being...The dominion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to “use and misuse,” or to dispose of things as one pleases...when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws, but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity,” (John Paul II, 1987). These quotes support a prevalent Christian view that humans exist as stewards in the world, not as rulers of it. At this time, I don’t believe there is a stated position regarding the human-animal relationship that is broadly endorsed by the various Christian denominations, beyond the aforementioned principles of ascendancy and authority to use animals. Nonetheless, I have the impression that the Christian community in the developed world accepts by and large that the role of stewardship accentuates rather than diminishes the need to extend moral consideration beyond human beings. In regard to domestic animals, this can be taken to mean that one should care about animal welfare, because it is evident that animals can suffer, and to cause them unnecessary suffering would be to abuse creatures that ultimately belong to God. This leaves considerable latitude for judgement as to what would be acceptable treatment of animals. However, as a whole, I see little resistance from the Christian community to animal care guidelines that acknowledge the legitimacy of using animals for food and other purposes. The future direction of animal care guidelines and the effects these will have on animal production practices will be determined by the ongoing contest of ideas in our
1255
1256
WEBSTER
in animal welfare. It has embarked on the formulation of animal care guidelines that will have international application among the member countries of the organization (currently over 165). The OIE was originally established to protect against the spread of animal diseases through international trade. However, the existing interconnection of its member nations made it possible to try to facilitate international trade negotiations by putting animal welfare standards on common ground through animal care guidelines. So far, the OIE has drafted guidelines, based on scientific advice, for the slaughter of animals, the transport of animals by sea, the transport of animals by land, and the killing of animals for disease-control purposes. These are currently under review within the OIE member countries.
ACTIONS BY ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS Some animal welfare organizations have tried to be proactive in encouraging what they perceive to be appropriate standards of care and management for agricultural animals. For instance, in the United States, the American Humane Association offers a “free farmed” certification program, and, similarly, Humane Farm Animal Care offers a “certified humane” program. Periodic inspections verify that a company in the program remains in compliance with prescribed welfare standards. With compliance, a poultry company is authorized to market its product under a certification label to consumers who are willing to pay a premium for products they believe are better. The guidelines of these programs were developed, within parameters defined as being important by the sponsoring organization, with input from scientific experts. Descriptions of the programs and the names of poultry companies that have been certified can be found on the respective websites of the organizations. Although the initiatives described so far do not all concur on what an appropriate set of guidelines should be, they do underscore the view that animal agriculture is a legitimate activity, provided it is done right. Some groups, particularly those driven by a belief in animal rights, advocate that animal agriculture should be eradicated entirely or downsized greatly from its present state and have launched their own uncompromising campaigns for change. Unlike the animal care guideline initiatives above, these involve media campaigns intended to turn public opinion against modern animal agriculture. One tactic has been to showcase egregious examples of improper care of farm animals and claim that these are the norm, putting not just the company responsible for the animals on the defensive but the entire industry as well. In recent years, some groups have found that they can effectively campaign against prominent retail companies that sell animal products directly to the public. These retailers buy large amounts of meat from their suppliers, and, for that reason, are in a position to influence the animal care practices of many meat-producing companies. The animal rights organization People for the Ethical
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
less, they are not entirely without weight. The English codes of recommendation can be used to establish guilt during prosecution of a legal offense involving a domestic flock. The Canadian recommended codes of practice for poultry have been adopted by national and provincial farm animal councils as the standard for ethical care and handling of poultry flocks. Many European countries have worked on establishing standards for the care and handling of farm animals for a long time. Their activities are too diverse to elaborate here. However, Europe provides unique examples of supernational or regional efforts to ensure farm animal welfare. These have taken place within 2 organizations. The Council of Europe (COE), consisting currently of 46 member states, was formed shortly after the second world war to act as an interparliamentary body to negotiate treaties on a variety of issues. Since 1968, the COE has formulated several conventions pertinent to animal agriculture (i.e., for the protection of animals during international transport, for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, and for the protection of animals for slaughter). Under these conventions are recommendations concerning different species. For instance, under the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes, the Recommendation Concerning Domestic Fowl (Gallus gallus) was adopted in 1995. This document outlines recommended standards, based on stated biological characteristics of the domestic fowl, for stockmanship and inspection, enclosures, buildings and equipment, management, changes of genotype or phenotype, and killing and lists additional provisions specifically for laying hens, meat-type poultry, and killing of unwanted chicks and embryos. The European Union (EU), currently comprising 25 member states that are also members of the COE, began legislating on animal protection in the 1970s. Animal welfare was recognized for the first time in the 1997 EU Treaty of Amsterdam, based on the acknowledgment that animals are sentient beings. This development has made the physical and psychological needs of agricultural animals a priority in their own right. The EU legislation is considered binding on the member states, which are expected to promulgate national legislation covering, but not limited to, the minimum standards specified by the EU. In some cases, the EU regulation is intended to be implemented uniformly across all member states to improve enforcement capability. Current EU farm animal welfare legislation deals with transport, slaughter, battery hens, veal, calves, and pigs. Within the EU, animal welfare issues are under the purview of the European Food Safety Authority. A summary of European activities regarding farm animal welfare can be found in Caporale et al. (2005). Details of the animal welfare-related activities of the COE and EU can be found on the websites of the respective organizations. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), already the international reference organization for animal health and zoonoses, intends to become a world leader
POULTRY WELFARE SYMPOSIUM
Treatment of Animals targeted several major fast-food chains in succession with eye-catching campaigns using logos resembling those of the respective companies but modified in ways to suggest the target company was cruel and blood thirsty. Demonstrations highlighting the campaign theme have been staged at franchise restaurants to discourage customers from entering the stores and have put pressure on the relationship between the parent company and the franchisee.
GUIDELINES: INDUSTRY
means that much of the poultry industry will be covered by the animal welfare program of one chain or another, but there are still some gaps. One notable gap involves the catching, transport, and processing of spent fowl, both commercial layers and heavy breeders. In the United States, these birds are often sold to separate fowl processing companies, which take responsibility for the catching, transportation, and processing of the birds. To my knowledge, this part of the poultry industry has not yet had to institute animal welfare programs at the behest of its customers, although I am aware that at least 1 US fowl processor is assembling an animal welfare program on its own. Other, generally small, poultry companies that sell into special markets also may not have had to respond to the animal welfare concerns of customers. In some cases, these also have gone ahead with their own animal welfare initiatives. I expect as more retail and institutional organizations adopt animal welfare programs, all poultry companies large and small eventually will find it necessary to have comprehensive animal welfare programs. Spurred by the challenges of the animal welfare movement, the United Egg Producers (UEP), the leading commercial egg industry association in the United States, set out to establish guidelines for husbandry of commercial flocks of laying hens. Following input from a scientific advisory committee, the UEP guidelines were introduced (UEP, 2003). An animal care certified program is offered to member companies that includes audits by independent auditors to verify compliance with the UEP guidelines. Egg companies in good standing have the right to market their products under the UEP animal care certified logo. The UEP has also sponsored research to provide needed information to support the transition of the egg industry to improved animal care practices (e.g., on nonfeed withdrawal molting). The National Chicken Council and the National Turkey Federation, national associations of the US chicken and turkey industries, respectively, have also put together husbandry guidelines and audit programs (NTF, 2004; NCC, 2005). In these cases, the audit programs are for the individual use of member companies, using external auditors if desired, and not part of a certification program administered by the parent association. Although the approach each guideline or audit program takes reflects the structure and welfare issues of the industry sector in question, they all cover the spectrum of activities engaged, from hatching (if applicable) through production to transport and slaughter, and provide for employee education. Current versions of the guidelines are available on the websites of the associations. In the introductions to their animal care guidelines, each association acknowledges that the care and handling of birds should be humane. I believe the acceptance of the poultry industry that production performance ought not to be the sole determinant of husbandry standards shows that the industry is maturing in its understanding of animal welfare and that industry leaders are determined to keep in step with the evolving expectations of society. Many people in the poultry industry and in the
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
Although activist campaigns against industries that use animals take place in many nations, the campaigns against fast-food retailers have centered in the United States, because, although international, these companies have their headquarters and the largest proportion of their operations in the United States. Their responses to the media attacks of the activists have led to a new initiative for development of animal care guidelines by the poultry industry itself. The fast-food retailers realized very quickly that they were in a public relations battle for the hearts and minds of consumers, one that involves convincing people of the moral acceptability of their products. In 2000, McDonald’s Corporation announced that it had established an animal welfare program with specific requirements that it intended its suppliers to meet. Shortly thereafter, Burger King, Wendy’s International, and Kentucky Fried Chicken introduced similar animal welfare programs. Although the large food retailers could manage their own programs, many smaller companies lack the resources, so 2 major US food retail industry associations, the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR), joined together to create a joint animal welfare program that would be available for member companies. Not having knowledge of animal production practices themselves, the general strategy followed by individual food retailers and the industry associations has been to form advisory groups that include scientific experts and representatives of suppliers. These advisory groups have had the task of putting together animal welfare programs that were knowledge-based and feasible. The animal welfare programs all require that poultry production facilities (e.g., hatcheries, farms, processing plants) be audited on a regular basis by independent auditors to provide animal welfare assurance in accordance with the program. These programs are reviewed periodically so that new issues can be addressed and updates made as needed. One of the strengths of this approach, in my opinion, is that participation of a poultry company is voluntary, based on its agreement to supply product to the retailer, yet it has a strong incentive to comply with program requirements. The animal welfare program of a given retail company will only engage those poultry producers, and only those production complexes within a company, that supply product to the retailer. The size of the food retail chains
1257
1258
WEBSTER
WHAT CAN ANIMAL WELFARE GUIDELINES AND AUDITS ACCOMPLISH? Animal welfare guidelines and audits can accomplish 3 things. First, they verify that a proper environment and adequate resources to cover bird needs are being provided, such as feed, water, space, ventilation, backup generator, alarms, etc. They also verify that flock husbandry processes are under control by inspection of records, such as temperature, air quality, mortality, culling, etc. Finally, they provide a direct assessment of bird wellbeing by inspection of such things as walking ability, foot condition, eye condition, bodily injury, bird health, etc. In my experience, animal welfare audit programs have lead to real improvements in poultry care and handling in the last 5 yr. Most US poultry companies that participate in animal welfare audits now have detailed corporate animal welfare programs. These include documented training of employees and regular internal audits. Some companies have created new high-level positions for oversight of their animal welfare programs. The audit program also helps supervisors and others look at their processes from a fresh perspective and take note of things that formerly may not have been recognized as requiring action. Many hatcheries have improved transitions between conveyors to reduce impact on hard surfaces and eliminate pinch points. Improved technology to euthanize cull chicks has been installed when needed, and better procedures to monitor the incidence of chick injuries have been put in place. On the farm, growers are being trained to
ensure proper euthanasia technique for culled birds. There is better record keeping of culling and more emphasis on environmental control, on backup in case of power outage, and on alarm notification in case of system failures. Many companies are making the effort to evaluate walking problems of birds and note incidence of foot pad dermatitis on farms. Catchers are being trained to handle birds well, and incentives have been established to minimize birds dead on arrival at the processing plant. In hot weather, cooling strategies, such as the use of fan trailers, are being implemented to avoid overheating of birds on transport trailers during loading. Many poultry companies are working hard to minimize times from catch to unloading at the processing plant to minimize stress on birds. More effort is being devoted to the maintenance of transport cages to prevent harm to birds. At processing plants, there has been increased attention to the design and operation of holding areas to protect birds from heat or cold, depending on the season. Dumping systems are being kept in better repair. Many plants have installed new, better-designed electrical stunners. More attention is being given to monitoring and reduction of injuries such as wing dislocation and leg bruising.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS The sourcing of animal welfare guidelines in various initiatives complicates predictions of future directions for their development. Some operate within industries with their incentives based at least in part on capitalist interest. These may operate within national boundaries if sponsored by national industry associations, but their effects may spill over between nations by the decision of international companies, such as fast-food retailers or grocery chains, to standardize their animal welfare programs as much as possible all over the world. Recommended guidelines sponsored by national governments may have aspects that are unique to the nation itself, particularly in regard to legislated welfare-related requirements (e.g., cage vs. noncage housing of poultry); however, the characteristics of a given type of animal do not change, so the different nationally sponsored recommended guidelines share elements in common. International efforts for animal care guidelines to facilitate trade may have the effect of making welfare standards more similar between nations but perhaps at a lower common denominator than preferred by some nations. I think it is safe to say that animal care guidelines and animal welfare audit programs will be a way of life for the poultry industry from now on. Those companies or complexes within companies that have not yet come under the jurisdiction of one of these programs will eventually be drawn in as more fast-food chains, supermarket chains, and institutional purchasers of poultry products make animal welfare assurance a priority in their purchasing criteria. Poultry companies will continue to build animal welfare expertise by creating positions and hiring capable people to manage company animal welfare programs. There will be continued efforts to standardize ani-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
retail industry that depend on poultry products were initially disturbed by the pressures of the animal welfare movement and felt that the need to respond was a costly imposition on time and resources. However, the industry has become stronger as a result of the challenge, in my opinion. Poultry producers and food retailers have had to work with each other to develop common animal care standards. The needs of both had to be considered to turn animal welfare principle into feasible action. As this process has unfolded, retailers, with advice from their scientific advisors, have been able to endorse guidelines set by poultry industry associations. In turn, the industry associations have adjusted their guidelines to accommodate issues important to the food retailers. At the time of this writing, the FMI-NCCR Animal Welfare Program Web site indicates that the FMI and the NCCR have jointly endorsed the UEP guidelines (except for 1 point) and the National Chicken Council guidelines and that the National Turkey Federation guidelines are under review. In this manner, poultry suppliers and retailers are coalescing a unified animal welfare position that is thoughtful, informed, and reflective of the general views of society. At the same time, both suppliers and retailers have retained the autonomy of their own animal welfare programs, setting the stage for ongoing negotiation and revision of guidelines as knowledge grows or societal views change.
1259
POULTRY WELFARE SYMPOSIUM
tempts at legislation, and motions at meetings of company stockholders, will continue to create pressure for changes in husbandry practices, depending on their truthfulness and on how well prepared the industry is to respond. Finally, increasing globalization of trade in animal products will bring divergent views of the human-animal relationship into confrontation, as represented by different national positions. I expect that most nations will seek a common ground that facilitates trade (e.g., through the efforts of the OIE). However, because different moral views of the human-animal relationship may be involved and because some changes may threaten the existence of the industry of a nation, it is unclear how international agreements will affect animal care guidelines within nations, as a general rule.
REFERENCES Brambell, F. W. R. 1965. Report of the technical committee to inquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Her Majesty’s Stationary Off. Command 2836, London, UK. Caporale, V., B. Alessandrini, P. Dalla Villa, and S. Del Papa. 2005. Global perspectives on animal welfare: Europe. Rev. Sci. Tech. 24:567–577. CARC. 2003a. Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: Chickens, Turkeys and Breeders from Hatchery to Processing Plant. Can. Agri-Food Res. Counc., Ottawa. CARC. 2003b. Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pullets, Layers and Spent Fowl. Can. Agri-Food Res. Counc., Ottawa. DEFRA. 2002a. Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens. Dep. Environ. Food. Rural Aff., London, UK. DEFRA. 2002b. Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens. Dep. Environ. Food. Rural Aff., London, UK. John Paul II. 1987. Part IV. Sec. 34 in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. Hunter Publ., Edison, NJ. Lewis, C. S. 1940. Page 126 in The Problem of Pain. William Collins & Sons Co. Ltd., Glasgow, UK. Midgley, M. 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. NCC. 2005. National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist. Natl. Chicken Counc., Washington, DC. NTF. 2004. National Turkey Federation Animal Care Best Management Practices for the Production of Turkeys. Natl. Turk. Fed., Washington, DC. Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Univ. California Press, Los Angeles. Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Avon Books, New York, NY. UEP. 2003. United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for US Egg Laying Flocks. United Egg Producers, Washington, DC.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 10, 2014
mal care requirements within the poultry industry sectors (e.g., broilers, turkeys, commercial layers) so that poultry companies do not have to manage different sets of requirements from different retail customers. Many retailers may also find it advantageous to adopt standards common to their industry to avoid accusations that they lag behind in their animal welfare awareness. On the other hand, some poultry companies and retailers wishing to access niche markets will choose to maintain animal care programs that satisfy demands unique to the market. The animal care guidelines in existence should be seen as steps in a process to ensure a standard of care for agricultural animals that meets the broad expectations of society. Although they reflect what is feasible to achieve at present, few people consider them to be perfect. There will always be pressure to revise them. Most organizations or companies with animal care guidelines have them regularly reviewed and updated. Subjects addressed by their animal welfare advisory committees focus on progress in improvements already set in motion, on new issues that need consideration, and on possibilities made available by new technology. At the time of this writing, some of the prominent topics include standards for walking ability of broilers, incidence of foot pad dermatitis in floor-housed birds, ammonia levels in poultry houses, reduction of dead on arrival rates, optimization of catching methods, reduction of handling-related injuries, and methods of stunning before slaughter. These topics will change over time. I see 2 major factors influencing the future direction of animal care guidelines. Consumer preference will be the primary factor, because consumers create the demand, or lack of it, for poultry products based on their buying decisions. To the extent that animal welfare is a concern for the consumer, the animal production and marketing industries will try to ensure that their animal welfare programs satisfy this concern. The second major factor is new scientific knowledge and technology. New understandings of the bird in regard to its sentience and capacity to suffer could force reconsideration of husbandry practice. New technology can open up options to improve poultry welfare in ways that were not formerly feasible. Several other factors are also important in enhancing or inhibiting healthy development of animal care guidelines. The extent to which the poultry industry keeps involved in guideline development at whatever level it occurs (e.g., industry sector, national government, or international agreement) will determine how well its expertise and perspective are represented. The campaigns of activists, with such things as embarrassing videos, lawsuits, at-