METHODS OF INVESTIGATION OF STANDARDS REGARDING ANIMAL WELFARE THROUGHOUT LEGAL STUDIES, SOCIOLOGY AND SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS
1
Silva, R.T.B.R.;1 Nääs, I.A1. School of Agriculture Engineering, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Cândido Rondon Ave, 501, Brazil.
[email protected] 1
Abstract Animal welfare related issues have been intensely discussed in recent years as a consequence of changes in public attitudes and regulatory reform that is taking place in many countries. A combination of public opinion pressure and trade policy has driven requirements for regulation and the World Trade Organization (WTO) delegated the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to develop guidelines that could be used as international standards. The acquisition of knowledge in the areas of nutrition, genetics, health management, and it allows achieving positive rates of production. On the other hand, most animal production is exported, varying according to the international demands. Many of these claims are based on rules, sociological issues and sustainable principles applied today, which are not standardized, and are still causing concerns, requiring more discuss. This paper aims to contribute to the legal system, by conducting a study in a view of the consumer thinks about animal welfare and the impact it causes in a trade market and could result in better norms, legislations, sociological issues and sustainable in animal welfare problems. It also gave an application of a questionnaire for consumers, researchers and producers. The questionnaires were distributed online for about 50 people. In order to evaluate the scene what the consumer prefer to buy and eat to contribute to an appropriate set of standards of various countries with regard to animal welfare. Key-words: norms and legislations, social issues, rural sustainability, rural workers, consumer, AHP. Introduction Concern about animal welfare is not a new theme. Some of the ancient religious rules for slaughtering animals were originally intended to reduce pain in the animal. Many cults, including Native American religions, Hinduism, and Australian aboriginal tradition, have held particular animals to be sacred, and have devised particular rules about whether and how such animals were to be used for food or service (Broom 2003). However, during the last twenty years consumer groups, mostly in industrialized nations, have started to exert public pressure on governments and producers in relation to this topic (Broom 2001, 2002). Animal welfare is a term used in society in relation to ethical concern regarding the treatment of animals and lately it has received global attention for that reasons and because of producers’ belief that it could be considered as a trade restriction. The issue of animal welfare is in evidence because of the increase in intensive livestock housing, which is linked directly or indirectly to questions of effectiveness of
agricultural buildings and environment, the definition of conditions of temperature, relative humidity, air velocity, solar radiation, the presence of aggressive gases and noise pollution, among others (Silva, 2009). There is growing interest in the interaction between the sciences to seek the animal welfare. In part of this is driven by the perception that the understanding of sociology and regulation may also propose strategies to solve problems of animal welfare during the production cycle (GLOBALGAP, 2009, Broom 2006, Broom, 2007; DEFRA, 2007). However, we believe that there is also much to take by applying quantitative and cost related to animal welfare. For example, the application of the economic model on the farm, can lead to help identifying lower cost to help animal welfare. Every product is consumed by humans is impacted by the environment, as well as meat and meat products. Significant increase of world population in recent decades has intensified discussions on the feasibility of the current model of development. The industry has been highlighted in this context with a significant expansion of production; therefore, sustainable solutions are welcome. The implementation of a program about animal welfare standards should provide complete and easy to understand, like the footsteps of a quality program. The training is essential to the achievement of program goals (NCC, 2008). The animal welfare can be measured through observations of the five freedoms: the animals must be raised free from hunger and thirst; free of discomfort, pain-free and must be free to express their natural behavior, and be free of fear and suffering (FAWC, 1992, Embrapa, 2007, FAO, 1998, OECD-FAO, 2009). The concept of wellness is centered on how the animal "feels". All these freedoms are affected by the production environment (Naas, 2005). The perception of welfare represents all the care, the programmed actions and attitudes carried out in the sense that better housing conditions are offered to the animals (Clay, 1994). It is safe to say that for any society there will be a specific point on the scale that is defined by a mix of social values, traditional practice of animal husbandry, animal science and cultural attitudes. Animal welfare is below the "bad economy", which causes disappointment to society and can be transformed into a cost. Thus, the term "good" is used as a noun in the economy implies not only a commodity, but in any situation which has positive or value. Similarly, a "bad" is born from the negative value and is considered an excessive cost (McInerney, 2004). There is a continuing need to adopt measures of welfare in accordance wit h scientifically validated assessments that address the biological and the psychological aspects of animals (Smith, 2007, CCPEC, 2006, Mary 2006). However, the science needed to address this need is complex because not only accepts the "standard" to validate measures of welfare. There are physical measures that need to be validated in terms of experience of animals and psychological measures (subjective), and all states still considered in an early stage of development and subject to scientific debate (McInerney, 2004, Naas et al, 2010). Brazil is amongst the world’s five largest poultry producers (Figure 1), and the neighbouring countries have significant production proportional to their capacity for producing or importing grain (Figure 2). In this review, the welfare issues related to poultry production in South American countries is discussed, and the norms and regulations that have been proposed by associations and government in order to face trade demands are pointed out. Animal production systems in developing countries have being submitted to great pressure to meet the increasing demand for protein required by the growing population,
at the expense of water pollution, land degradation and ultimately deforestation (Bellaver & Bellaver, 1999). Laws, norms and regulations dealing with farm animal welfare can have an important economic impact on production costs and on international trade. Animal welfare laws regulating the treatment of farm animals used for agricultural production have been in existence in most South American countries for some time, and are part of the legal code of a number of nations, even though some laws simply prohibit cruelty to animals, including farm animals. Many industrialized countries have generated government regulated reform, mainly due to consumers’ demands, sometimes reinforced by private certification agencies. As a direct consequence the demands for better animal welfare have increased along with other issues regarding international trade such as avoidance of child labour and the adoption of environmentally friendly production (EUREPGAP, 2005; van Horne & Achterbosch, 2008). Traditionally, animal agriculture was widely viewed as a form of independent enterprise involving close relationships between people, animals and nature. With the increase in animal agriculture, animal production has come to be perceived, rightly or wrongly, more as an industrial, technological and corporate-owned activity. This change in public perception has resulted in greater ethical questioning of food production and a greater willingness to see standards imposed on the industry. The different views on welfare arise partly because people differ in the value they attach to it. The intensive producer sees a high level of production and feed-conversion efficiency as so important that it warrants some restriction of movement. The free-range producer sees access to the outdoors as so important that it warrants some exposure to harsh weather. It would be comforting to think that science could arbitrate among these different value-based views of what should be provided for animals,. In reality, a tradition of scientific research has grown up around each of the different views (Mitchell, 2001). A relevant and objective area of science concerns how to assess the welfare of individual animals (Broom and Fraser 2007). Brazil is the largest poultry producer in the region, followed by Argentina, Chile and Bolivia, and yet the review of the norms and regulations regarding animal welfare has been taken seriously for only a few years. As a certain portion of the production is destined for export, producers have been adopting international trade rules such as the ones dictated by GlobalGap. The norms that are often followed in most countries are those published in the manuals of good practice, where there are clear limitations with respect to animal welfare. Like the other countries in the region, Brazilian legislation is outdated and it does not specifically address animal welfare issues (Brasil, 1998; Dias, 2000). In the last two years there have been efforts by national organizations to develop new rules, norms and regulations with details of how to improve farm animal welfare and some agri-businesses are making company policy changes from within about how their animals are housed. The preoccupation of the producers with private norms1 which do not necessarily agree with the OIE standards, provoking a negative impact in the production and commerce of animal products – this is mostly related to the cost of implementing welfare norms and regulations; Many legislations, norms, sociological issues and sustainable do not specifically address animal welfare issues and producers involved in the international meat export market
1
It does not specify, but it is referred to GlobalGap or other private company norms, and fast food restaurants norms.
rely on standards and information found in codes of good practices published by extension and research institutions (Silva, 2007). The comparison that was did in other research (Silva, 2009); shows that the comparison between studied norms related to production management presented high scores when compared to other standards analyzed, due to the clear and broad presentation of specific items mentioned in the text. The Manual GlobalGap, for example, showed in this research that needs some changes and the consumer behavior is changing too nowadays. Brazilian manuals (Embrapa, 2007) not used appropriate text about animal welfare and this is a problem considering that actually we have the consumer concern about animal welfare, sociological issues and sustainable problems around the world. This research study what the consumer thinks about animal welfare, how come over the behavior of population about this issue (food, animal, price, welfare) and what the sustainable and environment are becoming to adequate this reality. It was found an important difference in the way of each region or country develops their own norms in broiler production, but we need to realize what the consumers need insid their culture, behavior, sociological and legal issues around the world. Maybe the norms have been adequate, the culture, the temperature that each country has, the specific food that consumers most like, etc. It is not just write the norms, but tries to see what the consumer likes. This characteristic is greatly desired in order to help international trade. Concluding, this research focuses on studying particular species with respect to legislation and its sociological question to the consumer, as well as with regard to the sustainability of this process to measure animal welfare. A questionnaire with questions about animal welfare will be made to consumers, producers and researchers, also including people involved in welfare to take a return of 50 questionnaires, to obtain information on the issue of welfare animal. This special survey was carried out among nearly one thousand e-mail users using an on-line questionnaire containing questions related to animal welfare. The e-mail database used was that related social network to research group students and their families and friends. It was sent and asked to replicate it within their group lists. The email user was not identified and the questions also asked about age and income groups, level of education, the type of job the person had, consumption of broiler meat, and if they were willing to pay more for the broiler meat when it was produced with better welfare. It was also asked if the person knew about animal welfare, legislation related to this theme, and about other themes connected to environmental issues such as impact on the planet including recycling. The answers regarding specific items of welfare issues could be answered as “yes”, “no” or “don’t know”. Data were studied using cluster analysis. This project aims to consolidate and develop indicators of animal welfare, including pain, and this matter concerns among consumers, the influence and the strategy adopted by government, industry and other stakeholders to standardize the laws according to sociological issues and sustainable in order to achieve an appropriate measure of welfare. The goal is to reaffirm the importance of an approach based on science to the real implementation of measures about animal welfare. Material and methods This research will be undertaken in accordance with the following steps:
1- Studies will be performed at the State University of Campinas in Campinas-São Paulo along with the research group of Animal Welfare at Unicamp which will be supervised by Professora Irenilza de Alencar Nääs and Daniella Jorge de Moura. 2- A questionnaire with questions about animal welfare was made to consumers, producers and researchers, also including people involved in welfare to take a return of 50 questionnaires, to obtain information on the issue of welfare animal (Table 1) for consumers, researchers and producers. The questionnaires were distributed online for about 50 people. In order to evaluate the scene of the variety of consumers in the face of legal, sociological and sustainable, we can contribute to an appropriate set of standards of various countries with regard to animal welfare. The questionnaire discussed the questions: a) About consumer: Which of the following categories are you (general consumer; public sector and government; Age group: 16 to 25 years;26 to 35 years; 36 to 45 years and more than 45 years Monthly salary range: less than $1000; between $1000 and $3000; between $ 3000 and $ 5000 and more than $5000; b) About housing production an chicken that consumer eat Do you give preference of well- known brands – yes and no and don’t know; c) About preferences and customs Do you recycle trash – yes, no and don’t know Do you give preference of well- known brands – yes, no and don’t know Do you give preference to organic food, natural, ethnic – yes, no and don t know Do you eat more chicken than beef – yes, no and don t know 3-The assessment of responses will be conducted using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (Saaty, 1991), in addition to conventional statistical (MINITAB, 2005).
Conclusions The answers came from 8% of the total e-mails sent. Of the total of respondents, 75% were students or professionals, 19% were involved in animal husbandry and 6% were government employees at administrative level (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Number of people interwied
Figure 2. Salary of people interwied
Figure 3. age of people interviewed The salary of people interviewed was in average of between $1000 and $3000, that means the consumer lives with good conditions in education, job and healthy, that means too that these people worried about or heard about animal welfare. The age shows that people interviewed match an average man, varying between 26 to 35 and more than 45 years old Figure 2 and 3). The Figure 4, shows this result when the questions was about recycling. This average showed that this questionnaire covered enlightened people, because most of the interviewers recycle trash.
Figure 4 and 5 – recycle trash and worry about brands Among the respondents, 78% buy broiler meat from known sources, 58% are changing their habits and consuming organic, ethical or similar products, 79% started that the broilers should have some “legal” protection during production, and 96% stated that the bird should not suffer during rearing (Figure 6).
Figure 6 – organic food About 70% of the answers stated that broiler meat was not the most consumed meat either at home or outside, as in most Latin American countries the most consumed meat was beef (Figure 7).
Figure 7 – preference of chicken
Final remarks It is fully recognized in most South American countries that all individuals involved in the business of keeping animals for food have a huge responsibility for making sure that their animals are housed, raised, transported and processed with care, but none refers to humane treatment and the substantial developments in animal welfare science are scarcely acknowledged. However, the OIE study group for the Americas is promoting debate of this subject and the use of scientific information about animal welfare and other aspects of sustainability. Nowadays the animal welfare is emerging because of the concern about consumers purchasing food at supermarket. This study contributed to improve of standards of animal welfare issues related to sociological, and sustainability issues applied by the consumers. This research analyses enlightened people, suggesting the best solutions in creating a legal and social perspective about animal welfare under the gaze of the consumer, and promoting a more profitable business. It is believed that through better understanding of the needs for the practical application of concepts of animal welfare within the farm, it is possible to develop a more sustainable activity and suggest a legal standard for the treatment of the herd/flock. A previous conclusion could be provide that people whom has better education, people older and more enlightened, with good salary concern and claim to animal welfare and are willing to pay more, eat organic food and get best brands. Acknowledgements The authors thank to CNPq and FAPESP for supporting this research. References: EMBRAPA. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Suínos e Aves. Boas práticas de produção de frangos de corte. (Good practices in broiler production) (2007) Concórdia. SC: EMBRAPA, Circular Técnica n. 51. GLOBALGAP. (2009). The global partnership for good agricultural practice. Available in http://www.globalgap.org/Languages/English/. Accessed on: 26 August. 2011. MINITAB, versão 15.1.0.0. MINITAB Inc. 2005. ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS- RSPCA (2008). Good chicken guide: welfare standards for chickens. SAATY, T. L. (1991) Método de análise hierárquica. (Method of hierarchy analysis – English) Rio de Janeiro: McGraw-Hill do Brasil/Makron Books. SILVA, R. B. T. R. (2007). Animal production: Brazilian welfare legislation scenario. Doctoral Thesis. Agricultural Engineering College. UNICAMP. 180 p. (in Portuguese). SILVA, R. B. T. R. da; NAAS, I. A. and MOURA, D. J. (2009). Broiler and swine production: animal welfare legislation scenario. Scientia Agricola v. 66: n. 6 p.713-720. SILVA, R. B. T. R. da; NAAS, I. de A.; BROOM, D. M.; O' DRISCOL, K. (2011). Poultry welfare scenario in South America: norms and regulations. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola/Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, v. 13, n.2, p. 83-89.
ABEF. (2008). Available at: www.abef.org.br. Accessed on: 9 Jan 2009. ALBRIGHT, J. L. and ARAVE, C.W. (2007). The behaviour of cattle. Wallingford: CAB International. 1997. 306p. ALIMENTOS ARGENTINOS. (2009). Available at: http://www.alimentosargentinos.gov.ar/03/revistas/r_38/cadenas/Carnes_Produccion_avicola.htm. Accessed on: 20 Jan 2009. AMARAL, A.L., LIMA, G.J.M.M., SILVEIRA, P.R.S., KLEIN, C.S., PAIVA, D.P., MARTINS, F., KICH, J.D., ZANELLA, J.R.C., FÁVERO, J., LUDKE, J.V., BORDIN, L.C., MIELE, M., HIGARASHI, M.M., MÓRES, N., DALLA COSTA, O.A., OLIVEIRA, P.A.V., BERTOL, T.M., SILVAL, V.S. (2007).
Good
Practices
for
Producing
Swine.
Concórdia.
2006.
Available
in
www.cnpsa.embrapa.br. Accessed on: 10 Jan 2009. (in Portuguese). APA. (2009). Available at: http://www.apa.cl/index/catalogo. Accessed on: 20 Jan 2009. ARADAS, M.E.C. and NÄÄS, I.A. (2005). Thermal environment in broiler houses using two bird densities under tropical conditions. Agricultural Engineering International 7:1-10. ASPROCER. (2009). Available at: http://www.asprocer.cl/index/download.asp%3Ftipo%3D4%26carpeta%3Darchivos_estadi stico%26id_archivo%3D34+ produccion+pollo+Colombia. Accessed on: 20 Jan 2009. BELLAVER, C. and BELLAVER, I.H. (1999). Livestock production and quality of societies’ life in transition economies. Livestock Production Science 59:125-135. BOIVIN X., LE NEINDRE P. and CHUPIN, J.M. (1992). Establishment of cattle – human relationships. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 325 -335.
BRASIL. (2001). Law n.9605, 12th of February of 1998. (2001). Gomes, L.F. Constituição Federal Constitution: crime code. 3d. ed. São Paulo: Ed. Ver. Tribunais, 2001. p. 1248. (in Portuguese) BROOM, D.M. (2001). The use of the concept Animal Welfare in European conventions, regulations and directives. Food Chain 2001, 148-151, Uppsala: SLU Services. BROOM, D.M. (2002). Does present legislation help animal welfare? Landbauforschung Völkenrode, 227, 63-69. BROOM, D.M. (2003). The evolution of morality and religion (p.259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BROOM, D.M. (2006). Introduction – Concepts of animal protection and welfare including obligations and rights. In: Animal Welfare. Ethical Eye Series, 13-28. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. BROOM, D.M. (in press). Animal welfare: an aspect of care, sustainability and food quality required by the public. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. BROOM, D.M. and FRASER, A.F. (2007). Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 4th edn, (p. 438). Wallingford: CABI. CONY, A.V. and ZOCCHE, A. T. (2004). Broiler’ management. In: MENDES, A. A. NÄÄS, I. de A.; MACARI, M. Broiler production. Campinas: FACTA, 356 p. Cap. 8, p. 118-136. (in Portuguese). DAWKINS, M. S. (2003). What makes free-range broiler chickens range? In situ measurement of habitat preference. Animal Behaviour 65: 01-10.
DAWKINS, M. S., COOK, P.A., WHITTINGHAM, M.J., MANSELL, K.A. and HARPER, A.E. (2003). What makes free-range broiler chickens range? In situ measurement of habitat preference. Animal Behaviour 66:1-10. DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS – DEFRA (2007). Available in www.defra.gov.uk/search/. Accessed 22 Aug. 2007. DIAS, E.C. (2000). The legal protection of animals. Belo Horizonte: Mandamentos. (in Portuguese). DUNCAN, I. J. H. and PETHERICK, J. C. (1991). The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 69: 5022–5071. EL COMERCIO. (2009). Available at: http://www.elcomercio.com.pe/ediciononline/html/200808-25/produccion-pollo-crecio-69-entre-enero-y-julio-y-agosto-creceria-58.html. Accessed on: 20 Jan 2009. EUREPGAP. (2005). The global partnership for safe and sustainable agriculture. Available in http://www.eurepgap.org/Languages/English/index_html. Accessed on: 16 Nov. 2005. FENAV. (2009). Available at: http://encolombia.com/veterinaria. Accessed on: 6 Feb 2009. FENAVI. (2009). Available at: http://www.fenavi.com/ Accessed on: 25 Jan 2009. FRASER, D. (2004). Applying science to animal welfare standards. Proc. of the Global Conf. on Animal Welfare: an OIE initiative. p. 121-127. FRASER, D. (2008). Towards a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Applied Animal Behavior Science 113:330-339. GLOBALGAP. (2009). The Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practice. Available in http://www.globalgap.org/Languages/English/. Accessed on: 16 february. 2009.
MC INERNEY, J. (2004). Animal welfare, economics and policy: Report on a study undertaken for the farm & animal health economics. London: DEFRA 68p. MITCHELL, L. (2001). Impact of consumer demand for animal welfare on global trade. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/WRS011/. Accessed on: 6 Jan 2009. PAWELEK, R. and CRONEY, D. (2003). Understanding and addressing issues related to the wellbeing of livestock. Disponível em www.eesc.oregonstate.edu. Acessado em20/07/07. PUMA, M.C., XIN, H., GATES, R.S. and BURNHAM, D.J. (2001). An instrumentation system for studying feeding and drinking behaviour of individual poultry. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 17:365-374. SILVA, I.J.O. (2001). Poultry production ambient in tropical conditions. Jaboticabal, SBEA, v.2, p. 150-214. (in Portuguese). SILVA, J. G., GENOFRE, F. and LAVORETI, W. (2001). Special criminal laws annotated. Campinas: Millenium. 362p, p.35-82. (in Portuguese). SILVA, R. B. T. R. (2007). Animal production: Brazilian welfare legislation scenario. Doctoral Thesis. Agricultural Engineering College. UNICAMP. 180 p. (in Portuguese). SILVA, R. B. T. R.; NAAS, I. A. and MOURA, D. J. (2009). Broiler and swine production: animal welfare legislation scenario. Scientia Agricola 66: 713-720. SNOWDON, C.T. (1999). The meaning of research in animal behavior. Estudo de Psicologia 4: 365-373. (in Portuguese). VAN HORNE, P.L.M. and ACHTERBOSCH, T.J. (2008). Poultry welfare and EU standards. World’s Poultry Science Journal 64: 40-51.
WATHES, C.M., JONES, J.B., KRISTENSEN, H. H., JONES, E. K. M. and WEBSTER, A. J. F. (2000). Aversion of pigs and domestic fowl to atmospheric ammonia. Transactions of the ASAE 45: 1605-1610.
