Societal concerns on farm animal welfare
Unni Kjærnes, The National Institute of Consumer Research,
Emma Roe, Cardiff University
Bettina Bock, Wageningen University
Project aim: To integrate animal science
with societal concerns
Some issues:
¾ Concerns about farm animal welfare not only
about shopping, yet retailing a significant
domain
¾ How actors in the food chain inform and
respond to societies’ interest in AW
¾ The public framing of engagement
• Regulatory and market demands
• Personal interest and commitment
• Study major actors and arenas:
•
•
•
•
regulation,
processors and retailers,
farmers, and
consumers/citizens
SP 1:
France, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy,
the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden
CONSUMERS
Focus groups
Repr. surveys
FOOD
SERVICES
PROCESSORS/
RETAILERS
FARMERS
Pigs
Labels/assurance
systems
Cattle
Informant interviews
Poultry
Societal
approaches to
AW
SP 2, SP 3, ++
SP 4:
Standard,
monitoring,
information
strategy
Regulatory standards vary
The most important minimum animal welfare requirements to poultry and egg farming in Europe
EU
N
S
F
NL
UK
I
Enhanced cage - cm2 per
animal
750
850
750
750
750
750
750
Conventional cage - cm2 per
animal
550
700
n.a.
550
550
550
550
Enhanced cage is required
from
2012
2012
present
2012
2012
2012
2012
Is beak trimming allowed?
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Access to daylight required?
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
nest, perches and sand-baths
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
maximum stocking density for
broilers
-
34 kg /
m2
20 kg /
m2
-
-
34 kg /
m2
-
litter bedding for broilers
-
yes
yes
-
-
yes
-
Comparing Sweden and France
Sweden
Traditionally animal welfare a noncompetitive issue
• the state is responsible
• high regulatory standards
• consensus and collaboration
• high confidence
Since 1995 responses to more open market
Farmer cooperatives (SCAN) – Swedish
meats label – safety, quality, AW
Challenged by imports and low-price retailers
Outcomes
• High standards
• Few labels and schemes
• Less worry
France
Production standards at European legal
minimum
Concern about the conditions of farm animals.
• Over-industrialisation of farms - particularly pig
and poultry
• Contrast with expectations of quality food
products and more extensive farming systems
A raft of quality assurance schemes
Bundled in FAW with other issues like gustatory
quality, traditional production methods
- Label Rouge
Outcomes
• Greater range of products with welfare-claims
• Lower minimum standards
• More public concern
Label Rouge: a speciality quality
assurance scheme
• Quality = Higher price, guarantee of good product, impresses
consumers.
• Quality is tiered
• Innovated by French producers
• Guarantee that minimum industry standards have been met
• Label Rouge says increasing number of producers using AW to
increase farm incomes.
Growth in quality market is significant for farm animal welfare
Concept of tiered quality in chains.
Assurance schemes provide market access.
Quality Summary
• Quality bundles a number of elements
including AW to attract people to spend
more; not AW in isolation.
• How can a product have a unique selling
point if there is a level playing field?
• Different brands perform the notion of quality
in different ways to distinguish uniqueness,
AW is part of this.
• Added-value is lost from carcass sections
that do not attract premium price strategies.
Farmer cooperatives
Farmers contrasting
opinions of animal welfare
Dutch farmer 1
‘You can recognise good animal welfare by low mortality rates;
the animals grow optimally and perform well. You look at it
from a technical viewpoint. There should be no
abnormalities, no cripple animals, no tail biting, no injuries.’
Dutch farmer 2
‘[When there is good animal welfare] animals can express
natural behaviour constantly, with adequate space and litte.
For rooting, I think it is bad when you lock animals in a box
for farrowing. Especially the urge for natural behaviour is
very strong. They really need to build a nest.
Different production
styles/logic
• A good farmer is an efficient farmer, producing lots of meat
against minimal costs. Then, AW defined in terms of animal
health and zoo-technical performance makes sense.
• Farmers in speciality schemes where issues like care for
nature and the environment included in definition of farming,
good AW framed as natural behaviour and is rewarded by
premium price.
• Example: Straw bedding
The conventional farming logic is detrimental to progress to
farmers’ practical response to the issue of farm animal
welfare.
Animal welfare in supply
chain
But do all animal-based products (in the widest
sense) need quality assurance schemes? –
Typically only higher value products sold as
quality products.
Today, animal welfare should be understood
within its context: as one brand/product
quality indicator amongst others.
Animal welfare as a quality that works in exciting
and innovative ways in European society today.
Public responses: worries about farm animals
(proportions saying conditions are poor or very poor)
120
15
100
10
15
12
80
57
60
15
49
50
3
5
46
40
12
14
NO
SE
56
40
29
20
22
32
44
42
21
0
HU
IT
FR
Pigs
GB
Chicken
NL
Dairy cows
Focus groups on what is good welfare
Animal welfare as part of food quality
“In the farms the treatment is important, how the animal is
reared, that the cows are outdoor without being forced,
they live well, I think the meat tastes better …” (Italy)
Welfare as natural living
“A natural surrounding. A cow belongs in a meadow. And
a sheep as well and a pig in the mud, (Holland, Young
Single)
Welfare as feeling/emotion
“You must be able to notice if the animal feels well in its
situation. That the animals should maybe have rights to
not be subjected to pain or suffering.” (Sweden, Empty
Nester)
Animal welfare conditions the last ten years
100 %
90 %
21
15
15
14
14
12
13
23
22
18
63
66
69
NL
NO
SE
80 %
26
70 %
60 %
26
31
40
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
59
59
55
IT
FR
GB
39
10 %
0%
HU
Improved
The same
Got worse
Consumer/citizen concerns
•Farm animal welfare is important
•Many are worried, but quite
optimistic
•AW ranking: poultry – pigs –
cattle
•Fewer, but still many consider
animal welfare when shopping
•Many more than market
shares of foods labelled as
welfare friendly
•Good welfare associated with
national origin, high quality,
organic production, natural life
etc
Differences at a societal level –
politics, markets and publics
The welfare state approach
Non-differentiated market
Little worry
Welfare for all via state regulation
NO
SE
HU
GB
The producer
approach
Provenance and local
networks
Encompassing quality
Welfare via ”traditional”
production
NL
FR, IT
The supermarket
approach
Segmented market
Integration in the chain
Politicisation of AW
Welfare via
modernisation
Animal welfare part of the modernisation
of the European food sector
¾ Division of responsibility for animal welfare
• Outcomes linked to market structures and state/market relations
• Minimum regulations important lever (re veal)
• Supermarkets/integrated supply chains vs. local networks vs.
industry/state alliances
¾ Changes mainly on the producer side
• AW assurance schemes influencing producer-supply chain relations
• Significant part of branding strategies
• Linked to quality differentiation
¾ A positive public opinion
• AW a ”good cause”, acceptance of expert definitions
• Few product labels addressing animal friendliness specifically - little
marketing potential
• Opinions give legitimacy to schemes and policies, less effects via
consumer choice of labelled products
Thank you !
Market-led initiatives in 7 European countries against
state invention for animal welfare-friendly foodstuffs
High state
intervention
NO
SE
UK
Producer –
led quality
initiatives
NL
FR
IT
HU
Low state
intervention
Key:
Higher consolidation between quality assurance schemes and labels.
Retailer-led
quality
initiatives