Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:15:07.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

We demand compromise: which achieves more, asking for small or large changes?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MC Appleby
MC Appleby*
Affiliation:
Jeanne Marchig International Centre for Animal Welfare Education, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK; email: michael.appleby@ed.ac.uk
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.

Welfare is the state of an animal on a continuum, from poor to good, so many decisions about it are decisions of degree, such as how much feed, space or environmental enrichment should be provided. Other decisions are more discrete, such as whether animals should be kept in cages. However, in practice, many such decisions also involve a range of possibilities — such as whether laying hens should be kept in conventional cages, furnished cages, other housed systems or free range — so that decisions within the range are also of degree. Furthermore, in broader contexts, such as husbandry standards for farm animals, decisions are needed as to how many criteria are to be addressed, which are also decisions of degree. Similarly, decisions about which species to protect and from how early in individual development they need protection are to some extent categorical. This is sometimes referred to as ‘line drawing.’ However, this mainly refers to whether or not animals are sentient, and sentience is not clearly distinguished from other aspects of animals’ cognition and responses, so there is no conclusive boundary between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots.’ So, these decisions are also of degree: is there sufficient evidence to ‘move the line’ further? When there are pressures against change, such as financial cost, should welfare advocates ask for small or large changes? The answer to this question will depend upon circumstances. But discussion of different circumstances suggests that compromise, realism, gradualism and pragmatism are all important in achieving improvements in animal welfare, while noting that other tactics also contribute in particular contexts.

Keywords

animal welfarecompromisediplomacypolicysentiencestrategy
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 83 - 93
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Animal Welfare Institute 2017a Eat humanely. https://awion-line.org/content/eat-humanelyGoogle Scholar
Animal Welfare Institute 2017b Animal Welfare Standards: A Comparison of Industry Guidelines and Independent Labels. https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/FA-AWI-standardscomparisontable-070816.pdfGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 1997 Life in a variable world: behaviour, welfare and environmental design. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01197-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 1999 What Should We Do About Animal Welfare? Blackwells: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 2003 The European Union ban on conventional cages for laying hens: history and prospects. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6: 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0602_03CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC 2004 What causes crowding? Effects of space, faci-lities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens. Animal Welfare 13: 313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 2014 Whom should we eat? Why veal can be better for welfare than chicken. In: Appleby, MC, Weary, DM and Sandøe, PE (eds) Dilemmas in Animal Welfare pp 85–101. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780642161.0085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1997 Animal Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC, Mench, JA and Hughes, BO 2004 Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996677.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC, Mench, JA, Olsson, IAS and Hughes, BO 2011 Animal Welfare, Second Edition. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936594.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC and Mitchell, LA 2018 Understanding human and other animal behaviour: ethology, welfare and food policy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM and Johnson, KG 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0980-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, A, Mench, JA and Wielebnowski, N 2011 Practical strategies to assess (and improve) welfare. In: Appleby, MC, Mench, JA, Olsson, IAS and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare, Second Edition pp 200–214. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936594.0200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, A, Mench, JA, Wielebnowski, N and Olsson, IAS 2018 Practical strategies to assess (and improve) welfare. In: Appleby, MC, Olsson, IAS and Galindo, F (eds) Animal Welfare, Third Edition pp 232–250. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781786390202.0232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, MLH, Mellor, DJ and Sandøe, P 2014 How should the welfare of fetal and neurologically immature postnatal animals be protected? Animal Welfare 23: 369–379. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.4.369CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chatham House undated Chatham House Rule. https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule#Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 1999 Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities 203: 53–57Google Scholar
EUR-Lex 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam Amending The Treaty on European Union, The Treaties Establishing The European Communities and Related Acts: Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/collection/eu-law/treaties.htmlGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Committee 2014 Opinion on the Welfare of Farmed Fish. Farm Animal Welfare Committee: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1991 Report on the Welfare of Laying Hens in Colony Systems. http://webarchive.nation-alarchives.gov.uk/20110909181345/http://http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/old/laying-hens-report-dec1991.pdfGoogle Scholar
Farrant, J 1999 IEC's world action to keep cages. Poultry World November: 1–4Google Scholar
Fishwick, J 2018 BVA, Brexit and Animal Welfare. Address at the Animal Welfare Foundation Discussion Forum. 12 June 2008, London, UKGoogle Scholar
Francione, GL and Garner, R 2010 The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation. Columbia University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, AF 1992 The Behaviour of the Horse. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Global Animal Partnership 2018 The 5-Step® Animal Welfare Program. https://globalanimalpartnership.org/Google Scholar
Grandin, T 2008 Foreword: Strategies to improve farm animal welfare and reduce long distance transport of livestock going to slaughter. In: Appleby, MC, Cussen, VA, Garcés, L, Lambert, LA and Turner, J (eds) Long Distance Transport and Welfare of Farm Animals pp ix–xv. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R 1991 The myth of the barn egg: New proposals from the government's watchdog on the welfare of farm animals will do little to improve the wellbeing of Britain's most beleaguered bird, the laying hen. New Scientist 1797: 40–43Google Scholar
Herzog, HA Jr 1993 “The Movement Is My Life”: The psycholo-gy of animal rights activism. Journal of Social Issues 49: 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00911.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO 1976 Behaviour as an index of welfare. Proceedings of the Fifth European Poultry Conference pp 1005–1018. 5-11 September 1976, MaltaGoogle Scholar
Humane Farm Animal Care undated Certified Humane Raised and Handled. http://certifiedhumane.org/Google Scholar
Humane Farm Animal Care 2014 Animal Care Standards: Beef Cattle. http://certifiedhumane.org/wp-content/uploads/Std14.BeefCattle.2A-1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Humane Society of the United States undated Cage-free vs. battery-cage eggs: Comparison of animal welfare in both methods. http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/cag e-free_vs_battery-cage.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/Google Scholar
Kirkwood, J 2006 The distribution of the capacity for sentience in the animal kingdom. In: Turner, J and D'silva, J (eds) Animals, Ethics and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience pp 12–26. Earthscan: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Knight, S, Vrij, A, Bard, K and Brandon, D 2009 Science ver-sus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. Journal of Social Issues 65: 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01609.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marashi, V, Barnekow, A, Ossendorf, E and Sachser, N 2003 Effects of different forms of environmental enrichment on behavi-oral, endocrinological, and immunological parameters in male mice. Hormones and Behavior 43: 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0018-506X(03)00002-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ and Diesch, TJ 2006 Onset of sentience: The poten-tial for suffering in fetal and newborn farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2006.04.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McInerney, JP 2004 Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Report to Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/animalwelfare.pdfGoogle Scholar
New Zealand Government 1999 Animal Welfare Act. http://www.leg-islation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0142/56.0/DLM49669.htmlGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, BL, Appleby, MC and Waran, NK 2018 Solutions: Physical conditions. In: Appleby, MC, Olsson, IAS and Galindo, F (eds) Animal Welfare, Third Edition pp 253–270. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781786390202.0253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwood, FB and Lusk, JL 2009 The farm animal welfare deba-te. Choices 24(3): article 7Google Scholar
Oxford Dictionaries 2018 Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/Google Scholar
Plous, S 1991 An attitude survey of animal rights activists. Psychological Science 2: 194–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00131.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, S 2011 The morally informed consumer: examining animal welfare claims on egg labels. Temple Journal of Science, Technology and Environmental Law 30: 51. https://www.animallaw.info/article/morally-informed-consumer-examining-animal-welfare-claims-egg-labelsGoogle Scholar
Ryder, RD 2000 Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Christiansen, SB and Appleby, MC 2003 Farm ani-mal welfare: the interaction of ethical questions and animal welfa-re science. Animal Welfare 12: 469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1975 Animal Liberation. New York Review of Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Spedding, C 1996 Overview of animal welfare in farming. In: Suckling, A, Higgins, AJ and Wade, JF (eds) Welfare Problems of Food Animals and Horses 2. The Economics of Food Animal Welfare. Animal Health Trust, British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation and Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Svanberg, K 1993 Local and global optima. In: Rozvany, GIN (ed) Optimization of Large Structural Systems pp 579–588. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9577-8_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK Parliament 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/14/contentsGoogle Scholar
United Egg Producers undated UEP Certified. https://unit-edegg.com/programs/uep-certified/Google Scholar
US Legislature 1978 Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/humane-methods-slaughter-actGoogle Scholar
US Legislature 1966 Animal Welfare Act. https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-actGoogle Scholar
Vapnek, J and Chapman, M 2010 Legislative and regulatory options for animal welfare. FAO Legislative Study 104, Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM and Robbins, JA 2019 Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 28: 33–40. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, V 2017 Egg makers are freaked out by the cage-free future. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/22/egg-makers-are-freaked-out-by-the-cage-free-future.htmlGoogle Scholar