Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T02:02:45.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is welfare all that matters? A discussion of what should be included in policy-making regarding animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

JW Yeates ,
H Röcklinsberg  and
M Gjerris
JW Yeates*
Affiliation:
RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, Animal Ethics, Box 7068, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
H Röcklinsberg
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, Animal Ethics, Box 7068, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
M Gjerris
Affiliation:
Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25 DK, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: James.Yeates@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Policy-making concerned with animals often includes human interests, such as economy, trade, environmental protection, disease control, species conservation etc. When it comes to the interests of the animals, such policy-making often makes use of the results of animal welfare science to provide assessments of ethically relevant concerns for animals. This has provided a scientific rigour that has helped to overcome controversies and allowed debates to move forward according to generally agreed methodologies. However, this focus can lead to policies leaving out other important issues relevant to animals. This can be considered as a problem of what is included in welfare science, or of what is included in policy. This suggests two possible solutions: expanding animal welfare science to address all ethical concerns about animals’ interests or widening the perspective considered in policymaking to encompass other important ethical concerns about animals than welfare. The latter appears the better option. This requires both a ‘philosophy of animal welfare science’, a ‘philosophy of decision-making about animals’, and greater transparency about what is included or excluded from both animal welfare science and the politics of animal policy.

Keywords

animal ethicsanimal welfareanimal welfare sciencedeathintegritypolicy-making
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 423 - 432
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abram, D 1996 The Spell of the Sensuous. Vintage Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Available at: http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/uk/htmGoogle Scholar
Animal Welfare Act 2006 Available at: http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/uk/htmGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 1998 Modification of laying hen cages to improve behaviour. Poultry Science 77: 1828–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcombe, JP 2006 Laboratory environments and rodents’ behavioural needs: a review. Laboratory Animals 40: 217–235CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, JL 2007 Effects of confinement and research needs to underpin welfare standards. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2: 213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 2001 An historical account of the development of the animal needs index ANI-35L as part of the attempt to promote and regulate farm animal welfare in Austria: an example of the interaction between animal welfare science and society. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 51(1S): 34–41Google Scholar
Baumans, V 2005 Science-based assessment of animal welfare: laboratory animals. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 24(2): 503–514Google ScholarPubMed
BBC 2006 Available at: http://newsbbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/5185234.stm. (Last accessed 28 August 2010)Google Scholar
Blandford, D and Fulponi, L 1999 Emerging public concerns in agriculture: domestic policies and international trade commitments. European Review of Agricultural Economics 26(3): 409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Keeling, LJ, Gavinelli, A and Serratosa, J 2008 Animal welfare's impact on the food chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology 19(1): S79–S87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrovi, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007 Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior 92: 375–397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, PR 1991 UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Cephalopods in the Laboratory. UFAW: Wheathampstead, Herts, UKGoogle Scholar
Brambell, FWR 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Conditions. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM and Johnson, KG 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 1976 European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes. Official Journal L323, 17/11/1978Google Scholar
Curtis, S 2007 Commentary: performance indicates animal state of being: a Cinderella axiom? Professional Animal Scientist 23(6): 573–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danish Ministry of Justice 2005 Lov om cloning og genmodificering af dyr. The Danish Ministry of Justice: Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=2116. (Last accessed 8 July 2009). [Title translation: Law on cloning and genetic modification of animals]Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2006 A user's guide to animal welfare science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 77–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DEFRA 2006 www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/060712b. (Last accessed 1 August 2006)Google Scholar
EC (European Commission) 1999 Council Directive1999/74/EC. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
EC (European Commission) 2007 Commission Recommendation 2007/526/EC. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
EC (European Commission) 2009 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2004 Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a Request from the Commission Related to Welfare Aspects of the Main Systems of Stunning and Killing the Main Commercial Species of Animals. EFSA-Q-2003-93. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/45.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Agency) 2008 Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee: Food Safety, Animal Health and Welfare and Environmental Impact of Animals derived from Cloning by Somatic Cell Nucleus Transfer (SCNT)and their Offspring and Products Obtained from those Animals (Question No EFSA-Q-2007-092). European Food Safety Agency. Available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/sc_o p_ej767_animal_cloning_en,0.pdf?ssbinary=true (Last accessed 8 July 2009)Google Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Agency) 2009a Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from European Commission on General approach to fish welfare and to the concept of sentience in fish. The EFSA Journal 954: 1–26Google Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Agency) 2009b Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on the risk assessment of the impact of housing, nutrition and feeding, management and genetic selection on behaviour, fear and pain problems in dairy cows. The EFSA Journal 1139: 1–68Google Scholar
Eisemann, CH, Jorgensen, WK, Merritt, DJ, Rice, MJ, Cribb, BW, Webb, PD and Zalucki, MP 1984 Do insects feel pain? A biological view. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 40: 1420–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) 2005 Report on the Welfare Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fiorito, G 1986 Is there ‘pain’ in invertebrates? Behavioural Processes 12: 383–388CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folker, AP and Sandøe, P 2006 Scientific Advice and the Ideal of Certainty. In: Kaiser, M and Lien, M (eds) Ethics and the Politics of Food pp 114–118. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Forsberg, EM 2007 A deliberative ethical matrix method — justification of moral advice on genetic engineering in food production. Dissertation, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1997 Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific concept of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Frewer, L 1999 Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision-making: implications for emerging technologies. Ambio 28(6): 569–574Google Scholar
Gamborg, C and Gjerris, M 2009 The price of responsibility. In: Gjerris, M, Gamborg, C, Olesen, JE and Wolf, J (eds) The World is on Fire. Perspectives from Ethics and Philosophy of Science on Climate Change pp 83–106. The University of Copenhagen: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Gerritzen, MA and Lambooj, B 2004 Killing of chicken flocks during the 2003 avian influenza epidemic in The Netherlands. In: De Tavernier, J and Aarts, S (eds) Science, Ethics and Society. Fifth Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2-4 September 2004, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Gjerris, M and Gamborg, C 2010 Is there more to life than welfare? How the concept of animal integrity can contribute to discussions of animal ethics. In: Casabona, CMR, San Epifanio, LE and Cirión, AE (eds) Global Food Security: Ethical and Legal Challenges. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Gjerris, M and Sandøe, P 2006 Farm animal cloning: the role of the concept of animal integrity in debating and regulating the technology. In: Kaiser, M and Lien, ME (eds) Ethics and the Politics of Food, Sixth Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics pp 320–324. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Gjerris, M, Olsson, IAS and Sandøe, P 2006 Animal biotechnology and animal welfare. In: Ethical Eye: Animal Welfare pp 89–110. Council of Europe: Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
Gjerris, M, Olsson, IAS, Lassen, J and Sandøe, P 2009 Ethical perspectives on animal biotechnology. In: Atkinson, P, Glasner, P and Lock, M (eds) The Handbook of Genetics & Society. Mapping the New Genomic Era pp 420–431. Routledge: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, ME and Delicado, A 2009 The politics of risk in contemporary Portugal: tensions in the consolidation of science-policy relations. Science and Public Policy 36: 229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauskeller, M 2007 Biotechnology and the Integrity of Life. Taking Public Fears Seriously. Ashgate Publishing Limited: Surrey, UKGoogle Scholar
Hedlund, M 2007 Demokratiska genvägar. Expertinflytande i den svenska lagstiftningsprocessen om medicinsk genteknik. Lund Political Studies 150. Lund University Press: Sweden. [Title translation: Democratic shortcuts: experts influence in the legislative process of medical gene technology in Sweden]Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PF and Coleman, GJ 1998 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hitt, J 2002 The Year in Ideas; Featherless Chicken. The New York Times December 16. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/the-year-in-ideas-featherless-chicken-the.html. (Last accessed 4 June 2009)Google Scholar
Hodges, J 2003 Livestock, ethics, and quality of life. Journal of Animal Science 81: 2887–2894CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horgan, R and Gavinelli, A 2006 The expanding role of animal welfare within EU legislation and beyond. Livestock Science 103: 303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horkheimer, M 1947/2004 Eclipse of Reason. Continuum: London, UK; New York, USGoogle Scholar
Huntingford, FA, Adams, C, Braithwaite, VA, Kadri, S, Pottinger, TG, Sandøe, P and Turnbull, JF 2006 Current issues in fish welfare. Review paper. Journal of Fish Biology 68: 332–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkden, RD, Edwards, JSS and Broom, DM 2003 A theoretical comparison of the consumer surplus and the elasticities of demand as measures of motivational strength. Animal Behaviour 65: 157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, J, Gjerris, M and Sandøe, P 2006a After Dolly — ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on animals. Theriogenology 65: 992–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006b Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, V and Röcklinsberg, H 2001 Outlining a conception of animal welfare for organic farming systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14(4): 391–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, V, Coleman, G, Gunnarsson, S, Appleby, MC and Karkinen, K 2006 Animal welfare science, working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97: 37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løgstrup, KE 1995 Vidde og prægnans. Sprogfilosofiske betragtninger. Metafysik I, Second Edition. Gyldendal: Copenhagen, Denmark. [Title translation: Width and exactness: considerations from the philosophy of language]Google Scholar
Marris, C 2001 Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public? EMBO Reports 2(7): 545–548CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, GF and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319Google Scholar
McGlone, J 2001 Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems. Livestock Production Science 72: 75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J 1998 Thirty years after Brambell: whither animal science? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 1(2): 91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M, Burman, OHP, Parker, RMA and Paul, ES 2009 Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 161–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mepham, B 1996 Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies. In: Mepham, B (ed) Food Ethics pp 101–119. Routledge: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Millman, ST, Duncan, IJH, Stauffacher, M and Stookey, JM 2004 The impact of applied ethologists and the International Society for Applied Ethology in improving animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstone, E 2006 Can food safety policy-making be both scientifically and democratically legitimised? If so, how? In: Kaiser, M and Lien, M (eds) Ethics and the Politics of Food pp 36–47. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB, Burghardt, GM and Smith, JA 1990 Critical anthropomorphism, animal suffering and the ecological context. Hastings Centre Report 20: S13–S19Google ScholarPubMed
Moynagh, J 2000 EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. AgBioForum 3: 107–114. Available at http://agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a06-moynagh.htm. (Last accessed 26 May 2009)Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences 2002 Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns. National Academy of Sciences: Washington DC, USGoogle Scholar
Nordenfelt, L 2006 Animal and Human Health and Welfare: A Comparative Philosophical Analysis. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Padel, S, Röcklinsberg, H and Schmid, O 2009 The implementation of organic principles and values in the European Regulation for organic food. Food Policy 34: 245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, ES, Harding, EJ and Mendl, M 2005 Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews 29: 469–491CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regan, T 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkley and California, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
Röcklinsberg, H 2001 Das seufzende Schwein. Zur Theorie und Praxis in deutschen Modellen zur Tierethik. Harald Fischer Verlag: Erlangen, Germany. [Title translation: The sighing pig: on theory and praxis in German models of animal ethics]Google Scholar
Röcklinsberg, H 2006 Consent and consensus in policies related to food, five core values. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 285–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röcklinsberg, H 2009 The complex use of religion in decisions on organ transplantation. Journal of Religion and Health 48: 62–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandøe, P and Simonsen, HB 1992 Assessing animal welfare: where does science end and philosophy begin? Animal Welfare 1: 257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Forkman, B and Christiansen, SB 2004 Scientific uncertainty, how should it be handled in relation to scientific advice regarding animal welfare issues? Animal Welfare 13: 121–126Google Scholar
Sandøe, P, Crisp, R and Holtug, N 1997 Ethics. In: Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare pp 3–17. CABI: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Sapontzis, SF 1987 Morals, Reasons and Animals. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Seth, AK, Baars, BJ and Edelman, DB 2005 Criteria for consciousness in humans and other mammals. Consciousness and Cognition 14(1): 119–139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherwin, C 2001 Can invertebrates suffer? Or how robust is argument-by-analogy? Animal Welfare 10: S103–S118Google Scholar
Swabe, J, Rutgers, B and Noordhuizen-Stassen, E 2004 Why killing healthy livestock is morally problematic. In: De Tavernier, J and Aarts, S (eds) Science, Ethics and Society. Fifth Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2-4 September 2004, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, J 1991 Ethics and animal welfare: the inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198: 1360–1376Google ScholarPubMed
The Ethical Council and The Animal Ethics Council 2001 Cloning: Statements from The Ethical Council and The Animal Ethics Council). The Ethical Council and The Animal Ethics Council: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
US Food and Drug Administration 2007 Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment. US Food and Drug Administration: Washington, USGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B and Roe, E 2008 European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J 1994 Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Weeks, CA and Nicol, CJ 2006 Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 62: 296–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, BAB 2001 Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free-choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Würbel, H 2009 The state of ethological approaches to the assessment of animal suffering and welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 105–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, J 2009 Death is a welfare issue. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23(3): 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, JW and Main, DCJ 2008 Assessment of positive welfare: a review. The Veterinary Journal 175: 293–300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeates, JW and Main, DCJ 2009 Assessment of companion animal QOL in research and practice. Journal of Small Animal Practice 50(6): 274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, E 2002 Featherless chicken creates a flap. New Scientist 21 May. Available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2307-featherless-chicken-creates-a-flap.html. (Accessed 4 June 2009)Google Scholar
Young, RJ 1999 The behavioural requirements of farm animals for psychological well-being and survival. In: Dollins, FL (ed) Attitudes to Animals pp 77–100. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar