Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:11:07.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Animal Welfare at the Farm and Group Level: A United States Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J A Mench
J A Mench*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA
*
Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The United States has traditionally lagged behind Europe in the adoption of voluntary or legislated standards for the care and treatment of animals on farms. US federal legislation of farm animal practices is minimal, confined to aspects of livestock transport and slaughter. Although some of the livestock and poultry producer (commodity) groups wrote guidelines, codes of practice, or statements regarding the humane treatment of animals in the 1980s, these were usually very general statements of current industry practice, developed with little consultation with independent experts and involving no mechanism for encouraging or ensuring compliance by producers. However, this has changed dramatically in the last few years, with an increasing trend among US retailers to require their suppliers to adopt minimum animal welfare standards. The major chain restaurants and supermarkets are working through their trade organisations, the National Council of Chain Restaurants and the Food Marketing Institute respectively, and with the commodity groups, to develop a uniform set of standards and a national auditing program. Standards and auditing programs have already been approved for dairy cattle, laying hens and meat chickens, and for slaughter, including ritual slaughter (kosher and halal). The process of setting auditable standards is complicated by the lack of legislative underpinning, the scope of the auditing that will be required because of US farm sizes and the large distances between farms, and the varying levels of expertise of potential auditors. For these reasons, ‘engineering-based’ auditing criteria that are relatively easy to measure and to standardise are more common. There are both strengths and potential weaknesses of retail-driven rather than legislatively driven animal welfare standards. Regardless, the recent changes in the US possibly pave the way for increasing dialogue between Europe and the US on farm animal welfare issues.

Keywords

animal welfareauditinglegislationretailersstandards
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 493 - 503
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Aho, P W 2002a Introduction to the US chicken meat industry. In: Bell, D D and Weaver, W D (eds) Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production, Edn 5 pp 801–818. Kluwer: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aho, P W 2002b The world's commercial meat and chicken industries. In: Bell, D D and Weaver, W D (eds) Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production, Edn 5 pp 3–17. Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AMI (American Meat Institute) 2003 Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines for Meat Packers. American Meat Institute. http://www.meat.ami.orgGoogle Scholar
AWAP (Animal Welfare Audit Program) 2003 http://awaudit.orgGoogle Scholar
Bell, D D 2002 Introduction to the table-egg industry. In: Bell, D D and Weaver, W D (eds) Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production, Edn 5 pp 945–963. Kluwer: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compassion in World Farming Trust 2002 Supermarkets & Farm Animal Welfare — ‘Raising the Standard’. Compassion in World Farming Trust: Petersfield, UKGoogle Scholar
DQA (Dairy Quality Assurance Program) 2000 Caring for Dairy Animals — Technical Reference Guide & On-the-Dairy Self-Evaluation Guide. Dairy Quality Assurance Program. http://dqacenter.org/dairy%20care.htmGoogle Scholar
Eurogroup/RSPCA 2002 Hardboiled reality: animal welfare-friendly production in a global market. Eurogroup/Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
FMI (Food Marketing Institute)-NCCR (National Council of Chain Restaurants) 2002 Interim Report, February 15, 2002. http://www.fmi.org/animal_welfareGoogle Scholar
FMI (Food Marketing Institute)-NCCR (National Council of Chain Restaurants) 2003a June 2003 Report. http://www.fmi.org/animal_welfareGoogle Scholar
FMI (Food Marketing Institute)-NCCR (National Council of Chain Restaurants) 2003b Recommended Ritual Slaughter Guidelines for Livestock (Cattle, Sheep, and Goats) and Poultry (January 2003 Report). http://www.fmi. org/animal_welfareGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Mench, J and Millman, S 2001 Farm animals and their welfare in 2000. In: Salem, D J and Rowan, A N (eds) The State of the Animals 2001 pp 87–98. Humane Society Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Gallup Organization 2003 Poll Analysis 5/21/2003: Public Lukewarm on Animal Rights. The Gallup Organization. http://www.gallup.comGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1998 Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices in slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 212: 36–39Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 1999 1999 Audits of Stunning and Handling in Federally Inspected Beef and Pork Plants. http://www.grandin.com/survey/99.audits.beef.pork.htmlGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2000 2000 McDonald's Audits of Stunning and Handling in Federally Inspected Beef and Pork Plants. http://www.grandin.com/survey/2000McDonalds.rpt.htmlGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2002 Survey of Stunning and Handling in Federally Inspected Beef, Veal, Pork, and Sheep Slaughter Plants. http://www.grandin.com/survey/usdarpt.htmlGoogle Scholar
HFAC (Humane Farm Animal Care) 2003 Standards for Chickens, Laying Hens, Turkeys, Sheep, Dairy Cattle, and Beef Cattle. http://www.certifiedhumane.orgGoogle Scholar
Kjaer, J B and Mench, J A 2003 Behaviour problems associated with selection for increased production. In: Muir, W M and Aggrey, S E (eds) Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology pp 67–82. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) 1999 Layers ‘99. Part 1: Reference of 1999 Table Egg Layer Management in the US. USDA: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) 2000 Swine 2000. Part 1: Reference of Swine Health and Management in the United States. USDA: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Schweikhardt, D and Browne, W P 2001 Politics by other means: the emergence of a new politics of food in the United States. Review of Agricultural Economics 23: 302–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1998 Ethics Into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement. Rowan and Littlefield: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Te Velde, H, Aarts, N and Van Woerkum, C 2002 Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UEP (United Egg Producers) 2002 Animal Husbandry Guidelines for US Egg Laying Flocks. United Egg Producers: Atlanta, Georgia, USAGoogle Scholar
UEP (United Egg Producers) 2003 Animal Husbandry Guidelines: Overview of Best Management Practices for United States Egg-Laying Flocks. United Egg Producers: Atlanta, Georgia, USA. http://www.unitedegg.com/html/welfareGoogle Scholar
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 1999 Farm Animal Well-Being Issues Report. USDA Interagency Working Group on Farm Animal Well-Being, USDA: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 2003 National Organic Program. 7CRF Part 205. USDA: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, D J 1996 Beyond the Law. Archimedian Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar