Blandford, David

English

Research Papers in Economics

CHOICES
The magazine of food, farm, and resource issues
3rd Quarter 2006 • 21(3) CHOICES 195
A publication of the
American Agricultural
Economics Association
3rd Quarter 2006 • 21(3)
©1999–2006 CHOICES. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced or electronically distributed as long as attribution to Choices and the American
Agricultural Economics Association is maintained. Choices subscriptions are free and can be obtained through http://www.choicesmagazine.org.
Animal Welfare
David Blandford
JEL Classification: Q13, Q17, Q18
Animal agriculture in North America has undergone a
revolution since World War II. Productivity has increased
enormously through the use of animal confinement,
genetic selection, scientific feed formulation, and produc-
tivity-enhancing pharmaceuticals. There has been a shift
to larger production units taking advantage of economies
of scale. Critics contend that these changes have reduced
the welfare or well-being of farm animals. Proponents
argue that the system reduces mortality due to predators,
the weather and the risk of disease.
Farm animal welfare is an increasingly prominent issue
in many wealthy countries. Concerns are expressed about
how farm animals are kept, some management practices,
and transportation and slaughter. There is increased legis-
lative activity and more buyer requirements for production
and marketing practices.
This article draws on a much longer report, The Future
of Animal Agriculture in North America (Farm Foundation,
2006).
Current Rules and Regulations
Legislation
Much of the legislation in North America deals with pets
or companion animals, animals used for research, and
those kept by zoos or circuses. Regulations for farm ani-
mals address humane slaughter and transport, but there is
no comprehensive animal welfare law. A comprehensive
bill was introduced in Mexico in 2004, but has not passed.
Canada has a federal law prohibiting cruelty to all ani-
mals and regulations dealing with the transportation and
slaughter of animals for food. Each province has its own
legislation dealing with animal welfare, which typically
recognizes accepted humane production practices. Indus-
try guidelines have been developed for each type of ani-
mal.
The United States has federal regulations dealing with
the slaughter of livestock, but not poultry, and for the
transportation of animals. Each state has an anti-cruelty
statute, but most do not target farm animals or there is an
exemption for accepted farming and ranching practices.
There has been a marked increase in the number of
animal welfare bills introduced in the U.S. Congress in
recent years. There is also much activity at the state level,
although relatively few bills have been passed. Recent state
initiatives include proposed prohibitions on the tail dock-
ing of cattle and on the use of stalls for sows and veal
calves.
Codes of Practice and Third-Party Auditing
Codes of practice have been developed by the animal
products industry, particularly in Canada and the United
States. In Canada, codes have been defined for all major
species of farm animals. The National Farm Animal Care
Council was created in 2005. Several U.S. producer
groups have introduced welfare programs, for example, the
National Pork Board for swine and the United Egg Pro-
ducers (UEP) for laying hens. Both of these are voluntary
and rely on independent auditing by third parties. The
costs are borne by the audited firms.
A major U.S. initiative has been spearheaded by the
Food Marketing Institute and the National Council of
Chain Restaurants. An expert advisory group developed a
series of standards for production and processing. The
focus is on the application of objective, measurable charac-
teristics that can be audited. Suppliers to the food retailing
and restaurant industry can voluntarily request an audit.
The results can then be made available to retailers or res-
taurant chains who can determine whether their own
requirements are being met.
Several animal welfare advocacy groups have developed
welfare schemes. The Animal Welfare Institute promotes196 CHOICES 3rd Quarter 2006 • 21(3)
voluntary standards for a range of
farm animals. Certification pro-
grams have been developed by the
American Humane Association and
by a consortium of animal welfare
organizations through Humane Farm
Animal Care. 
Drivers of Change
Consumer and Public Attitudes
U.S. surveys of public attitudes gen-
erally show that there is substantial
confidence in farmers and ranchers in
the treatment of animals. However,
there appears to be increasing con-
cern about some practices, such as
housing systems for veal calves, and
intensive confinement for pigs and
poultry.
Animal welfare issues are champi-
oned by a range of interest groups.
Some of their views may not be
widely shared, but the groups have
been effective in raising the profile of
animal welfare issues. Protection of
the reputation and value of branded
products is a key concern in the food
industry, and firms respond to public
pressures that threaten their interests.
International Developments
The European Union (EU) has been
very active in the development of
animal welfare standards, primarily
through legislation. New rules will
eventually result in the elimination of
traditional cage systems for laying
hens, and individual pens or stalls for
calves and pigs, and may reduce the
stocking density for broilers. 
Key Issues for Change
Practices Being Questioned
Many of the practices being ques-
tioned are associated with animal
confinement. Confinement can ben-
efit animals by allowing better envi-
ronmental control, but raises issues,
particularly in terms of the ability to
express “natural behaviors.” The size
of cages and whether these allow for
nests or perches is central to the
debate on the welfare of laying hens.
The issue for swine centers on stalls
that restrict the movement of sows
during gestation or farrowing, and
the provision of bedding material,
such as straw.
Some management practices,
such as restricting feed for laying
hens to induce molting and a subse-
quent egg-laying cycle, and diets
deficient in iron to produce white
veal have been questioned. Other
practices such as beak trimming and
toe clipping for poultry, and tail
docking, dehorning, branding, cas-
tration and early weaning for live-
stock are criticized.
The length of time animals are
transported, the duration of rest peri-
ods, loading densities and the han-
dling of non-ambulatory animals are
issues. Concerns are also expressed
about animal slaughter, particularly
methods for stunning and handling,
and culling to control disease out-
breaks.
Finally, a range of issues relate to
livestock breeding, particularly the
impact of genetic selection on the
reproductive efficiency, health and
viability of farm animals.
The Development of Standards
A central question is what constitutes
humane treatment for farm animals.
The answer depends partly on beliefs
and values that differ across individu-
als. Nevertheless, there is increasing
acceptance of the Five Freedoms –
freedom from hunger and thirst; dis-
comfort; pain, injury, and disease;
fear and distress; and any constraints
on the ability to express normal
behavior – as a basis for developing
objective methods for evaluating ani-
mal well-being.
Public opinion will exert a major
influence on the future development
of standards in North America. A
central issue is whether this will result
in more legislation or if the industry
will respond by developing and
applying higher standards.
Legislation versus Collective 
Action
The use of mandatory standards,
supported by legislation, has been the
primary approach adopted in
Europe. Public attitudes and percep-
tions about animal welfare are chang-
ing, and the science of animal welfare
continues to evolve. Consequently, it
is difficult to develop and apply
detailed legal codes for production
practices for farm animals. 
The alternative is to develop vol-
untary codes which evolve as more is
learned. The model that has been
adopted so far in North America—
the involvement of animal welfare
experts in the development of stan-
dards and the use of independent
audits—can address public concerns
if those in the industry fully accept
the process. Producers are the key to
animal welfare practices and must be
actively involved in developing stan-
dards.
Economic Impacts
Low animal welfare standards do not
impose an economic cost on society
unless they result in lower productiv-
ity and efficiency or pose a threat to
human health. In fact, there may be
gains if the prices of animal products
are lower. Some argue that animal
welfare is a public good, or that there
are external costs not reflected in cur-
rent prices of animal products. But
there is little evidence of market fail-
ure. The decision to impose higher
welfare standards in farming cannot
be based solely on economic criteria.3rd Quarter 2006 • 21(3) CHOICES 197
Production Costs and Consumer 
Response
Some changes in practices can be rel-
atively inexpensive to implement, but
others are likely to increase produc-
tion costs. Changes in confinement
operations, particularly increased
space requirements, may require the
modification or construction of facil-
ities. Extensive production systems
require more land. Operating costs
may increase due to higher labor
requirements, increased energy con-
sumption in larger facilities, and
reduced feeding efficiency. Higher
standards may also increase the costs
of transporting and processing ani-
mals.
There may also be cost savings.
Morbidity and mortality may decline
and expenditures on disease control
and treatment may fall. Greater
reproductive efficiency may lead to
cost savings. Product quality may
improve through reduced stress.
It is difficult to generalize about
the net effect, but available economic
studies indicate a net increase in
costs. A recent study of EU egg pro-
duction suggests that unit costs
under new systems are roughly 12%
to 20% higher than conventional sys-
tems. Over the long term, producers
might be able to adapt by adopting
new technology or production tech-
niques. However, this is unlikely to
negate the adverse effects on costs
and competitiveness, particularly if
producers in other countries use
lower standards.
Increased production costs will be
reflected in higher product prices.
Some consumers may be willing to
pay a price premium for products
that meet higher standards, others
may respond by switching to prod-
ucts whose prices are not affected.
European experience shows that esti-
mates of willingness to pay for higher
standards typically overstate actual
willingness to pay in the marketplace.
For welfare-friendly products to com-
mand a price premium, they must be
clearly distinguishable. Labels need
to be uniform and clearly under-
stood. Research indicates that Euro-
pean consumers are confused by wide
variations in labeling of animal-
friendly products. Consumer welfare
may decline if a proliferation of
information makes informed choice
difficult.
Welfare Standards and Competition
If all producers are required to adhere
to a particular standard, they will all
be on an equal basis in terms of com-
petitive position. Product prices will
tend to rise as higher costs are passed
through to the market. Consumer
response could affect the market
share of individual products and their
prices. Exporters will face a deteriora-
tion of their competitive position if
other countries supply non-conform-
ing products.
Producers who have difficulty
differentiating their product face par-
ticular risks from non-conforming
products. Domestic or foreign pro-
ducers operating at lower costs may
increase their market share. Domesti-
cally, this problem can be solved by
requiring that all producers meet the
standard. When non-conforming
supplies originate from other coun-
tries, the situation is more compli-
cated.
The General Agreement on Tar-
iffs and Trade (GATT) and its associ-
ated agreements contain no specific
provisions for animal welfare. The
Agreement on Technical Barriers to
Trade requires that imported prod-
ucts should be treated as “like” prod-
ucts of national origin. The Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Standards agree-
ment is limited to the protection of
animal health and recognizes stan-
dards developed by the World Orga-
nization for Animal Health (OIE). In
2005, OIE agreed on four interna-
tional standards for animal welfare
and is currently working on others.
This could go some way to address-
ing concerns over unfair competition
from non-conforming products.
Options for the Future
The North American livestock indus-
try is taking steps to address some of
the concerns about the impact of cur-
rent practices on animal well-being.
Much of the effort centers on the vol-
untary development of standards and
codes of practice. This is in contrast
to Europe, where legislation and
mandatory standards are playing a
major role. Pressures for legislation
are likely to intensify in North Amer-
ica if the general public perceives that
self-regulation is not effective. A
number of options could be used to
strengthen the process.
1. Improve the flow of information to 
the general public.
Industry policies on animal welfare
are not always visible. All stakehold-
ers could develop a statement of prin-
ciples and make this publicly avail-
able. Industry groups could support
the development of educational
materials.
2. Develop codes of practice.
The industry could ensure that stan-
dards and codes are developed for all
types of livestock. Information dis-
semination and support for training
could be made a high-priority activ-
ity. The industry could lend support
to the development and application
of appropriate science-based stan-
dards internationally.198 CHOICES 3rd Quarter 2006 • 21(3)
3. Increase research and education.
Higher priority could be given to ani-
mal welfare issues in publicly funded
research. Particular emphasis could
be placed on developments that are
both practical and economically via-
ble. A further step would be to ensure
that all educational programs in ani-
mal science, veterinary medicine, and
related fields incorporate material on
animal welfare—biological issues as
well as ethical and socio-economic
aspects. Animal welfare could be
made a priority in public extension
programs, particularly for the train-
ing of farmers and ranchers, and
employees in the animal products
industry.
The extent to which the industry
voluntarily addresses animal welfare
issues successfully will determine
whether legislation will eventually
require certain practices in animal
husbandry. The above options in
some combination may go a long
way to quieting concerns about ani-
mal welfare.
For More Information
Farm Foundation. The Future of Ani-
mal Agriculture in North America. 
2006. Available online: http://
www.farmfoundation.org/
projects/04-
32ReportTranslations.htm. Oak 
Brook, IL.
David Blandford (dblandford@psu.
edu) is Professor, Department of Agri-
cultural Economics and Rural Sociol-
ogy, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.

Animal Welfare

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics