Animal Welfare
Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals. Animal welfare science uses measures such as longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behavior, physiology, and reproduction, although there is debate over which indicators provide the best information.
The term animal welfare can also mean human concern for animal welfare or a position in a debate on animal ethics and animal rights.
Systematic concern for animal welfare can be based on awareness that non-human animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being, especially when they are used by humans.
These concerns can include how animals are killed for food, how they are used for scientific research, how they are kept (as pets, in zoos, farms, circuses, etc.), and how human activities affect the survival of wild species.
Animal welfare was a concern of some ancient civilizations but began to take a larger place in Western public policy. Today it is a significant focus of interest in science, ethics, and animal welfare organizations.
The term animal welfare can also mean human concern for animal welfare or a position in a debate on animal ethics and animal rights.
Systematic concern for animal welfare can be based on awareness that non-human animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being, especially when they are used by humans.
These concerns can include how animals are killed for food, how they are used for scientific research, how they are kept (as pets, in zoos, farms, circuses, etc.), and how human activities affect the survival of wild species.
Animal welfare was a concern of some ancient civilizations but began to take a larger place in Western public policy. Today it is a significant focus of interest in science, ethics, and animal welfare organizations.
There are two forms of criticism of the concept of animal welfare, coming from diametrically opposite positions. One view, dating back centuries, asserts that animals are not consciously aware and hence are unable to experience poor welfare. The other view is based on the animal rights position that animals should not be regarded as property and any use of animals by humans is unacceptable.
Some authorities thus treat animal welfare and animal rights as two opposing positions. Accordingly, some animal rights proponents argue that the perception of better animal welfare facilitates continued and increased exploitation of animals. Others see the increasing concern for animal welfare as incremental steps towards animal rights. The most widely-held position in the western world is a mid-way utilitarian point-of-view; the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that adverse effects on animal welfare are minimized as far as possible.
Some authorities thus treat animal welfare and animal rights as two opposing positions. Accordingly, some animal rights proponents argue that the perception of better animal welfare facilitates continued and increased exploitation of animals. Others see the increasing concern for animal welfare as incremental steps towards animal rights. The most widely-held position in the western world is a mid-way utilitarian point-of-view; the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that adverse effects on animal welfare are minimized as far as possible.
Definitions
In animal ethics, the term animal welfare often means animal welfarism. In the Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, animal welfare is defined as "the avoidance of abuse and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain."
In the past, many have seen animal welfare chiefly in terms of the body and the physical environment (shelter, feed, etc.): if an animal is healthy and producing well, it is faring.
In the past, many have seen animal welfare chiefly in terms of the body and the physical environment (shelter, feed, etc.): if an animal is healthy and producing well, it is faring.
Animal welfarism
Animal welfarism, also known simply as welfarism or animal welfare, is the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that adverse effects on animal welfare are minimized as far as possible, short of not using the animals at all. An example of welfarist thought is Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's meat manifesto, Point three of eight is:
Think about the animals that the meat you eat comes from. Are you at all concerned about how they have been treated? Have they lived well? Have they been fed on safe, appropriate foods? Have they been cared for by someone who respects them and enjoys contact with them? Would you like to be sure of that? Perhaps it's time to find out a bit more about where the meat you eat comes from. Or to buy from a source that reassures you about these points.
Robert Garner describes the welfarist position as the most widely-held in modern society. He states that one of the best attempts to clarify this position is given by Robert Nozick:
Consider the following (too minimal) position about the treatment of animals. So that we can easily refer to it, let us label this position "utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people." It says: (1) maximize the total happiness of all living beings; (2) place stringent side constraints on what one may do to human beings. Human beings may not be used or sacrificed for the benefit of others; animals may be used or sacrificed for the benefit of other people or animals only if those benefits are greater than the loss inflicted.
Think about the animals that the meat you eat comes from. Are you at all concerned about how they have been treated? Have they lived well? Have they been fed on safe, appropriate foods? Have they been cared for by someone who respects them and enjoys contact with them? Would you like to be sure of that? Perhaps it's time to find out a bit more about where the meat you eat comes from. Or to buy from a source that reassures you about these points.
Robert Garner describes the welfarist position as the most widely-held in modern society. He states that one of the best attempts to clarify this position is given by Robert Nozick:
Consider the following (too minimal) position about the treatment of animals. So that we can easily refer to it, let us label this position "utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people." It says: (1) maximize the total happiness of all living beings; (2) place stringent side constraints on what one may do to human beings. Human beings may not be used or sacrificed for the benefit of others; animals may be used or sacrificed for the benefit of other people or animals only if those benefits are greater than the loss inflicted.
Welfarism is often contrasted with the animal rights and animal liberation positions, which hold that animals should not be used by humans, and should not be regarded as their property. However, it has been argued that both welfarism and animal liberation only make sense if you assume that animals have "subjective welfare". There is some evidence that the observed difference between human belief in animal welfare and animal rights originates from two distinct attitudes towards animals: attitudes towards suffering, and reverence for animals.
The difference of animal welfare and animal rights can be measured quantitatively by JM welfare index and JM rights index. The indexes range from 0 to 100. The higher the indices, the more endorsement or support people have for animal welfare or animal rights. Factor analysis and mathematical models were used to develop the indexes.
The indexes show that major determining factors of animal welfarism are attitudes to pet-keeping, rest deprivation of animals, animals experiencing pain during slaughter, deprivation of food and water of animals, killing young animals, animal body parts removal, and use of animals for entertainment or sports. In contrast, major determining factors of animal rights are attitudes to killing animals for food or clothing, killing young animals, zoos, animals experiencing pain during slaughter, marking animals, use of animals for entertainment, sports, and work, animal body parts removal and cosmetic decoration of animals. The factors are listed in decreasing order of importance.
Pet-keeping is a negative factor for animal rights but a positive factor for animal welfarism; people who is in favor of pet-keeping are more likely to support an animal welfare position than an animal rights position.
The difference of animal welfare and animal rights can be measured quantitatively by JM welfare index and JM rights index. The indexes range from 0 to 100. The higher the indices, the more endorsement or support people have for animal welfare or animal rights. Factor analysis and mathematical models were used to develop the indexes.
The indexes show that major determining factors of animal welfarism are attitudes to pet-keeping, rest deprivation of animals, animals experiencing pain during slaughter, deprivation of food and water of animals, killing young animals, animal body parts removal, and use of animals for entertainment or sports. In contrast, major determining factors of animal rights are attitudes to killing animals for food or clothing, killing young animals, zoos, animals experiencing pain during slaughter, marking animals, use of animals for entertainment, sports, and work, animal body parts removal and cosmetic decoration of animals. The factors are listed in decreasing order of importance.
Pet-keeping is a negative factor for animal rights but a positive factor for animal welfarism; people who is in favor of pet-keeping are more likely to support an animal welfare position than an animal rights position.
Motivation
Motivations to improve the welfare of animals may stem from many factors including sympathy, empathy, utility, genes (inherited traits), and memes (cultural factors). Motivations can be based on self-interest. For example, animal producers might improve welfare in order to meet consumer demand for products from high welfare systems. Typically, stronger concern is given to animals that are useful to humans (farm animals, pets etc.) than those that are not (pests, wild animals etc.). The different level of sentience that various species possess, or the perception of such differences, also creates a shifting level of concern. Somewhat related to this are size and appearance, with larger or more aesthetically pleasing animals being favored.
There is some evidence to suggest that empathy is an inherited trait (genetic). Multiple studies have found women have greater concern for animals than men, possibly the result of it being an evolutionarily beneficial trait in societies where women take care of domesticated animals while men hunt. More women also have animal phobias than men, but animal phobias are at least partly genetically determined, and this indicates that attitudes towards animals have a genetic component. Also, children exhibit empathy for animals at a very early age, when external influences cannot be an adequate explanation.
Laws punishing cruelty to animals tend to not just be based on welfare concerns but the belief that such behavior has repercussions toward the treatment of other humans by the animal abusers. Another argument against animal cruelty is based on aesthetics. Within the context of animal research, many scientific organisations believe that improved animal welfare will provide improved scientific outcomes. If an animal in a laboratory is suffering stress or pain it could negatively affect the results of the research.
Laws punishing cruelty to animals tend to not just be based on welfare concerns but the belief that such behavior has repercussions toward the treatment of other humans by the animal abusers. Another argument against animal cruelty is based on aesthetics. Within the context of animal research, many scientific organisations believe that improved animal welfare will provide improved scientific outcomes. If an animal in a laboratory is suffering stress or pain it could negatively affect the results of the research.
Cultural factors that affect people's concern for animal welfare include affluence, education, tradition, religious beliefs, and political ideology. Increased affluence in many regions for the past few decades afforded consumers the disposable income to purchase products from high welfare systems. The adaptation of more economically-efficient farming systems in these regions were at the expense of animal welfare and to the financial benefit of consumers, both of which were factors in driving the demand for higher welfare for farm animals. A 2006 survey concluded that a majority (63%) of EU citizens "show some willingness to change their usual place of shopping in order to be able to purchase more animal welfare-friendly products."
Interest in animal welfare continues to grow, with increasing attention being paid to it by the media, governmental and non-governmental organizations. The volume of scientific research on animal welfare has also increased significantly in some countries.
Interest in animal welfare continues to grow, with increasing attention being paid to it by the media, governmental and non-governmental organizations. The volume of scientific research on animal welfare has also increased significantly in some countries.
History, principles, practice
Systematic concern for the well-being of other animals probably arose in the Indus Valley Civilization as religious ancestors were believed to return in animal form; therefore animals must be killed with the respect due to a human.This belief is exemplified in the existing religion, Jainism, and in varieties of other Indian religions. Other religions, especially those with roots in the Abrahamic religions, treat animals as the property of their owners, codifying rules for their care and slaughter intended to limit the distress, pain, and fear animals experience under human control.
Since 1822, when British MP Richard Martin brought a bill through Parliament offering protection from cruelty to cattle, horses, and sheep, the welfare approach has had human morality and humane behaviour as its central concerns. Martin was among the founders of the world's first animal welfare organization, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, in 1824. In 1840, Queen Victoria gave the society her blessing, and it became the RSPCA. The society used members' donations to employ a growing network of inspectors, whose job was to identify abusers, gather evidence, and report them to the authorities.
Since 1822, when British MP Richard Martin brought a bill through Parliament offering protection from cruelty to cattle, horses, and sheep, the welfare approach has had human morality and humane behaviour as its central concerns. Martin was among the founders of the world's first animal welfare organization, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, in 1824. In 1840, Queen Victoria gave the society her blessing, and it became the RSPCA. The society used members' donations to employ a growing network of inspectors, whose job was to identify abusers, gather evidence, and report them to the authorities.
Painting by P. Mathews in or just after August 1838 of the Trial of Bill Burns, the first prosecution under the 1822 Martin's Act for cruelty to animals, after Burns was found beating his donkey. The prosecution was brought by Richard Martin, MP for Galway, also known as Humanity Dick, and the case became memorable because he brought the donkey into court.
However, significant progress in animal welfare did not take place until the late 20th century. In 1965, the UK government commissioned an investigation—led by Professor Roger Brambell—into the welfare of intensively-farmed animals, partly in response to concerns raised in Ruth Harrison's 1964 book, Animal Machines.
On the basis of Professor Brambell's report, the UK government set up the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in 1967, which became the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1979.
The committee's first guidelines recommended that animals require the freedoms to "stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs". The guidelines have since been elaborated upon to become known as the five freedoms:
On the basis of Professor Brambell's report, the UK government set up the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in 1967, which became the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1979.
The committee's first guidelines recommended that animals require the freedoms to "stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs". The guidelines have since been elaborated upon to become known as the five freedoms:
- Freedom from thirst and hunger – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour
- Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area
- Freedom from pain, injury, and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
- Freedom to express most normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind
- Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering
A number of animal welfare organisations are campaigning to achieve a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) at the United Nations. In principle, the Universal Declaration would call on the United Nations to recognise animals as sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and to recognise that animal welfare is an issue of importance as part of the social development of nations worldwide. The campaign to achieve the UDAW is being co-ordinated by the World Society for the Protection of Animals, with a core working group including Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, and the Humane Society International (the international branch of HSUS).
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has defined animal welfare as: "An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress." They have offered the following eight principles for developing and evaluating animal welfare policies.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has defined animal welfare as: "An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress." They have offered the following eight principles for developing and evaluating animal welfare policies.
Farm animals
A major concern for the welfare of farm animals is factory farming in which large numbers of animals are reared in confinement at high stocking densities. Issues include the limited opportunities for natural behaviors, for example, in battery cages, veal and gestation crates, instead producing abnormal behaviors such as tail-biting, cannibalism, and feather pecking, and routine invasive procedures such as beak trimming, castration, and ear notching. More extensive methods of farming, e.g. free range, can also raise welfare concerns such as the mulesing of sheep, predation of stock by wild animals, and biosecurity.
Farm animals are sometimes artificially selected for production parameters that impinge on the animal's welfare. For example, broiler chickens are bred to be very large to produce the greatest quantity of meat per animal. Broilers bred for fast growth have a high incidence of leg deformities because the large breast muscles cause distortions of the developing legs and pelvis, and the birds cannot support their increased body weight.
Therefore, they frequently become lame or suffer from broken legs. The added weight also puts a strain on their hearts and lungs and ascites can develop. In the UK, up to 19 million broilers die in their sheds from heart failure each year.
Therefore, they frequently become lame or suffer from broken legs. The added weight also puts a strain on their hearts and lungs and ascites can develop. In the UK, up to 19 million broilers die in their sheds from heart failure each year.
Another concern about farm animal welfare is the method of slaughter, especially ritual slaughter. While the killing of animals need not necessarily involve suffering, the general public considers that killing an animal reduces its welfare.
This leads to further concerns about premature slaughtering such as chick culling by the laying hen industry, in which males are slaughtered immediately after hatching because they are superfluous; this practice occurs in other farm animal industries, raising the same concerns.
This leads to further concerns about premature slaughtering such as chick culling by the laying hen industry, in which males are slaughtered immediately after hatching because they are superfluous; this practice occurs in other farm animal industries, raising the same concerns.
European Union legislation regarding farm animal welfare is regularly re-drafted according to science-based evidence and cultural views. For example, in 2009, legislation was passed which aimed to reduce animal suffering during slaughter and on January 1, 2012, the European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC came into act, which means that conventional battery cages for laying hens are now banned across the Union - Source
