Being with other animals: Transitioning toward sustainable food futures

How do non-human animals (hereafter animals) fit into sustainable food futures? This question prompts ethical reflection. However, especially in times of transformative change, one should not overlook ontological assumptions before engaging in ethics. We follow up on the work of the late Australian philosopher Val Plumwood as she prominently made this move to the ontological level when considering the edibility of animals. As she invites one (1) to listen to animals as well as (2) to embody one's own edibility, salient ontological assumptions about how humans relate to other animals, and the rest of reality, rise to the surface. While Plumwood also developed a modest ethical framework to address animal edibility, her ontological approach is highlighted here, especially as it appears to point toward moral relativism. Plumwood's ontological approach is further developed, notably by unraveling the dualism between self and other. Doing so results in a more non-conceptual way of relating to other animals. As a genuinely interdependent way of engaging with reality, it appears most relevant to considering what role animals might have in sustainable food futures

How Do Technologies Affect How We See and Treat Animals? Extending Technological Mediation Theory to Human-animal Relations

Human practices in which animals are involved often include the application of technology: some farmed animals are for example milked robotically or monitored by smart technologies, laboratory animals are adapted to specific purposes through the application of biotechnologies, and pets have their own social media accounts. Animal ethicists have raised concerns about some of these practices, but tend to assume that technologies are just neutral intermediaries in human-animal relations. This paper questions that assumption and addresses how technologies might shape human-animal relations in non-neutral ways. Building on the technological mediation approach, it proposes that technologies can influence human-animal relations by amplifying and reducing certain aspects of animals in human perception or by inviting and inhibiting certain actions towards animals. The paper next considers, in two concretizing steps, how this theoretical starting point can enrich ethical discussions on technology and human-animal relations. First, it shows how the technological mediation approach can help to conceptualize a main concern that has been raised regarding the impact of technologies on human-animal relations, namely the concern that animals might be ‘instrumentalized’ or ‘objectified’ in certain technological practices. Second, it considers how this approach can guide investigations of how particular technologies might affect human-animal relations, taking genetic selection technologies as used in livestock breeding as a case. The paper closes by briefly reviewing the prospects and challenges for the application of the technological mediation approach to human-animal relations, thus sketching directions for future research

From trust to trustworthiness: why information is not enough in the food sector

ABSTRACT. The many well-publicized food scandals in recent years have resulted in a general state of vulnerable trust. As a result, building consumer trust has become an important goal in agri-food policy. In their efforts to protect trust in the agricultural and food sector, governments and industries have tended to consider the problem of trust as merely a matter of informing consumers on risks. In this article, we argue that the food sector better addresses the problem of trust from the perspective of the trustworthiness of the food sector itself. This broad idea for changing the focus of trust is the assumption that if you want to be trusted, you should be trustworthy. To provide a clear understanding of what being trustworthy means within the food sector, we elaborate on both the concept of trust and of responsibility. In this way we show that policy focused on enhancing transparency and providing information to consumers is crucial, but not sufficient for dealing with the problem of consumer trust in the current agri-food context

Considering life and death: a qualitative vignette study among farm animal veterinarians in the Netherlands on considerations in end-of-life decision-making

Farm animal veterinarians are frequently involved in animals’ end-of-life (EoL) situations. Existing literature found that the decision-making process to end an animal’s life can be experienced as complex and stressful by veterinarians. The complexity of the process may find its origin in the multiple medical and non-medical aspects that veterinarians consider coming to their decision. Although research provides insight into what considerations are at stake, the literature does not provide information on how these aspects affect the decision-making process. This study explores how different considerations affect the decision-making process of farm animal veterinarians in EoL situations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nineteen farm animal veterinarians in the Netherlands. During the interviews, case scenarios in the form of vignettes were used to identify and explore the considerations that play a role for these veterinarians in EoL decision-making. Based on the analysis of the interview data, we discovered that farm animal veterinarians consider EoL situations using one of three identified frames: function, prospect, and duty. These frames illustrate one’s perspective on the interplay of medical and non-medical aspects. Whereas veterinarians for whom the function frame is dominant focus on the human-centred function that an animal fulfils, veterinarians for whom the prospect frame is dominant focus on an animal’s prospects based on the animal’s living conditions and the influence of the owner. Veterinarians for whom the duty frame is dominant focus on the owner’s legal position towards the animal, illustrating a clear distinction between the veterinarian’s professional duties towards the animal and the duty of care of the animal owner. As such, the key contributions of this study are the discovery of the importance of the interplay between considerations in EoL decision-making and the frame-specific approach of veterinarians. The identified frames may relate to the coping strategies of veterinarians dealing with the complexity of EoL situations

Experiences and recommendations of veterinarians for the Dutch disciplinary system-a survey-based study

INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, the veterinary disciplinary system is governmentally executed and was originally designed to provide an educational effect on veterinarians as part of maintaining quality standards. METHODS: Over 900 veterinarians were questioned (20% of the total number of veterinarians working in veterinary medicine in the Netherlands). It was ascertained whether or not they were aware of the disciplinary system, if it affected their way of working and what impact it had on their way of working after having faced a disciplinary case. Respondents were given the opportunity to express their opinions about the system and possible improvements. RESULTS: The risk of complaints was found to be significantly greater when a veterinarian owned a practice compared to veterinarians who were employees. Veterinarians with their own practice were generally older (male) veterinarians. Whether this was a direct effect or just the effect of having a longer career could not be answered. Multiple disciplinary procedures appeared to have no influence. In 13%, veterinarians indicated that the disciplinary system had led to a more defensive way of practicing medicine to avoid complaints. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Most veterinarians supported a disciplinary system as a tool for maintaining and improving the integrity and reputation of the profession as a whole. Recommendations to improve were (1) shortening the length of the procedure, (2) screening for validity, (3) using online systems for communication with the disciplinary council, (4) the option of mediation before getting involved in a full procedure and (5) instituting a complaint fee

The views of farm animal veterinarians about their roles and responsibilities associated with on-farm end-of-life situations

Farm animal veterinarians are often involved in on-farm end-of-life (EoL) decisions and questions concerning euthanasia. These decisions can be challenging for the veterinarian, particularly if the interests of the animal and owner conflict. Moreover, the challenge is related to fundamental assumptions about roles and responsibilities veterinarians ascribe to themselves in EoL situations. Getting insight into what roles and responsibilities veterinarians perceive in these situations is important to understand the challenges veterinarians face and to explore ways to enable them to manage such situations. Existing literature and professional guidelines do not provide sufficient clarity and guidance in terms of the role conception and responsibilities of veterinarians in on-farm EoL situations. The objective of the current qualitative study was to better understand the views of farm animal veterinarians in the Netherlands regarding their roles and responsibilities associated with on-farm EoL situations. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 farm animal veterinarians. In terms of roles in EoL situations, our analysis shows that 1) seven roles can be distinguished based on the interviews, 2) two contextual dimensions influence role perception: a) the stage in which a veterinarian gets involved at the end of an animal’s life and b) the question of whose interests should be taken into consideration and how to prioritize (conflicting) interests by a veterinarian, 3) veterinarians enact a number of the identified roles and the combination of roles varies between individuals and 4) the individual veterinarian changes between roles depending on contextual aspects. In terms of responsibilities in EoL situations, analyses show that 1) individual veterinarians perceive a combination of five identified responsibilities, and 2) the perception of responsibilities relates predominantly to specific animal sectors. This insight into the roles and responsibility perceptions of veterinarians facilitates understanding the challenges veterinarians face in on-farm EoL situations and creates a starting point for how veterinarians can be supported to deal with potential conflicts of interest. These insights could also be valuable in the training of future veterinarians and lifelong learning of veterinarians as it provides a starting point to reflect on, and discuss, one’s role and responsibility in EoL situations

15 years of facts and figures on veterinary disciplinary measures in the Netherlands

In most countries, a veterinary disciplinary system is in force to ensure the quality of the veterinary profession and to offer an objective platform for complaints. We present an analysis of 15 years of veterinary disciplinary verdicts (2001-2016) to compare facts and figures and identify which factors are of major influence on the outcome of the verdicts. Rulings were collected from both paper files and the digital database of the veterinary disciplinary council (VDC), categorized, and used to create a database that enabled a statistical analysis. The results showed that complaints pertaining to companion animals are filed predominantly by owners, whereas complaints about livestock are mostly filed by the governmental civil servant (CS). CS complaints mostly address compliance issues. For the complaints made by owners (client complaints, CCs), reporting, communication, and veterinary mistakes appeared to be of statistical significance. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of the complaints on veterinarians in general and how we can improve the veterinary disciplinary system