Animal welfare - in the mire?
The increasing, and increasingly intensive production of livestock in developing countries, termed the 'Livestock Revolution', will surely raise
the profile of animal welfare, in much the same way that concerns over genetic technology has provoked concern on food safety and environmental
grounds. And again, one element of what has the potential to be an ugly controversy involving different cultural attitudes to animal rights, could be
the conflict between the ethical concerns of the affluent and well-fed and the more basic needs of the poor and hungry. That is not to brand animal
welfare standards as 'good' in the developed world and 'bad' in the developing countries.
It's simply that, no doubt as a result of greater affluence, public opinion in the north now has less sympathy for the
intensive, 'production at any (ethical) cost' methods adopted, particularly in pig and poultry production, following the Second World War, and
developing world producers may fear this could harm the future profitability of their modernizing livestock industry.
Livestock are kept in greatly varying conditions according to location and breed, and attitudes towards welfare vary; in Brazil, the largest exporter of poultry to the EU, chickens are produced in very large-scale units, and kept in cages. The government imposes no welfare standards on the producers, and animal welfare issues have a low priority for urban consumers. It is, however, possible to buy free range eggs, which are marketed as being better for consumer health, rather than animal comfort. In Thailand, another major supplier to Europe, chickens are kept in open sheds, and there are government standards on space per bird, and water and light availability. Such standards are devised on productivity grounds; for example, stocking densities need to be kept low, since closely packed birds would quickly succumb to chronic respiratory disease in the hot climate.
Welfare issues in intensive pig production have been widely publicised in the developed world, and brought policy changes in the EU. Restricting the movement of pregnant sows, by use of farrowing crates or tethers, has come under strongest attack for causing both physical and mental harm. From 2013 group housing of pregnant sows will be mandatory in the EU. In hot countries in particular, intensive units can be extremely uncomfortable, with high levels of heat, dust and noise. If slurry is allowed to collect, nitrate fumes build up, which act as an irritant, suppressing appetite and growth. And while outdoor rearing permits a greater degree of movement and interaction, it is more difficult to check on individuals' health and feeding. Pigs can also suffer from sunburn and heat stress, and develop unnatural behaviours, like stone chewing, if their environment does not allow them to forage naturally. It seems inevitable that intensive pig rearing whether indoors or outdoors will always have considerable welfare implications. It seems equally inevitable that such implications will only have a significant impact in countries where the consumers can afford to be fussy about how their pork is produced.
How to improve welfare?
For those wishing to improve animal welfare standards, either in the developed or developing world, one approach is through trade rules. On the
one hand, if producers in developed countries are to improve their standards, they may need compensation, so that they are not undercut by producers
in other countries operating to lower standards. Such compensation would need to be agreed by the World Trade Organisation, since it could be viewed
as protectionism.
In terms of improving conditions in developing countries, animal
welfare groups would like the developed world importers of meat and other animal products to force their suppliers to adopt high standards of
production, or else risk losing their market.
Up to now, WTO rules have prevented this from happening; countries cannot refuse to import animal products on the grounds that the animals are kept or killed in what the importing country regards as unacceptable conditions. Supporters of animal welfare see this as a major obstacle to improving standards globally, and denounce the WTO for giving free trade precedence over ethical concerns. They have, however, been encouraged by the Doha Agreement on Trade, which has given permission for negotiators in the latest round of world trade talks, to discuss 'non trade concerns' in agriculture, including animal welfare, rural development and the environment. Such discussions may include systems of mandatory labelling and compensation schemes for farmers with higher welfare standards.
Recent disease outbreaks, and the concerns they can raise for both animal and human health, could increase the pressure for improved traceability of animal products, which could in turn encourage better standards of production. Pressure is already being applied by the large buyers, who purchase on behalf of supermarket chains. These buyers have the resources to make careful checks on production methods, as well as the incentive to do so; in the wake of food safety scares, consumers are demanding more information about where their food comes from, and how it is produced, and a growing number are willing to pay more for a more monitored product.
However, while 'outsiders' may be able to put some pressure on those who supply to the export market, this still leaves the enormous slice of production which feeds domestic markets. In this context, livestock conditions may be improved most effectively if the interests of animals can be linked to those of people. On a simple level this could be in terms of production; if it can be demonstrated that greater investment in levels of housing, feed and health actually pay off in economic terms, animals should benefit. Animal welfare groups are also keen to point out that their interests over-lap with those of sustainable development. In terms of poverty alleviation, more extensive production, with less emphasis on capital, would benefit small-scale producers and reduce a country's reliance on imported equipment. They also allow better use and recycling of natural resources, thereby avoiding dangerous build-ups of animal wastes in densely populated areas, and reducing the environmental impact of production.
