Intentions and Values in Animal Welfare Legislation and Standards

被引:0
作者
Frida Lundmark
C. Berg
O. Schmid
D. Behdadi
H. Röcklinsberg
机构
[1] Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU),Department of Animal Environment and Health
[2] Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL),Department of Animal Environment and Health
[3] Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,undefined
来源
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics | 2014年 / 27卷
关键词
Animal welfare; Assurance schemes; Ethics; Farm animals; Regulations; Stakeholders;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The focus on animal welfare in society has increased during the last 50 years. Animal welfare legislation and private standards have developed, and today many farmers within animal production have both governmental legislation and private standards to comply with. In this paper intentions and values are described that were expressed in 14 animal welfare legislation and standards in four European countries; Sweden, United Kingdom, Germany and Spain. It is also discussed if the legislation and standards actually accomplish what they, in their overall description and ethics, claimed to do, i.e. if this is followed up by relevant paragraphs in the actual body of the text in the legislation and standards respectively. The method used was an on-line questionnaire from the EconWelfare research project and text analyses. This study shows that the ethical values within a set of legislation or private standards are not always consistently implemented, and it is not always possible to follow a thread between the intentions mentioned initially and the actual details of the legislation or standard. Since values will differ so will also the animal welfare levels and the implications of similar concepts in the regulations. In general, the regulations described were not based on animal welfare considerations only, but also other aspects, such as food safety, meat quality, environmental aspects and socio-economic aspects were taken into account. This is understandable, but creates a gap between explicit and implicit values, which we argue, can be overcome if such considerations are made more transparent to the citizens/consumers.
引用
收藏
页码:991 / 1017
页数:26
相关论文
共 180 条
  • [1] Algers B(2011)Animal welfare—recent developments in the field CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 6 1-10
  • [2] Alroe HF(2001)Does organic farming face distinctive livestock welfare issues? A conceptual analysis Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 275-299
  • [3] Vaarst M(2014)Farmers under pressure. Analysis of the social conditions of cases of animal neglect Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 103-126
  • [4] Kristensen ES(2004)Science is not enough: How do we increase implementation? Animal Welfare 13 S159-S162
  • [5] Andrade S(1996)Welfare by design: The natural selection of welfare criteria Animal Welfare 5 405-433
  • [6] Anneberg I(2007)Effects of confinement and research needs to underpin welfare standards Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research 2 213-218
  • [7] Appleby MC(2004)Science-based animal welfare standards: The international role of the Office International des Epizooties Animal Welfare 13 S163-S169
  • [8] Barnard CJ(2010)Animal welfare: A complex domestic and international public-policy issue-who are the key players? Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37 3-12
  • [9] Hurst JL(1997)Farm animal welfare and food policy Food Policy 22 281-288
  • [10] Barnett JL(2003)Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method Agricultural Economics 29 85-98