Page 134 - The Welfare of Cattle

CattLe haVe a reasonabLY Good LIfe 111

the standards of care? Who applies the standards to a farm (and the animals) and what happens
if the farm fails to meet the standard? Equally important is: how does one motivate farmers to
implement best practices on farms that result in improved animal welfare?
To answer these questions, we envision a three-pronged approach. First, the development of
standards and audits that reflect societal and industry concerns based on an understanding of farm
animal-welfare requirements and recommended practices is crucial. These standards must reflect
the latest scientific evidence and be developed and executed with transparency to be sustainable—
maintaining public trust now and in the future. To maintain public trust third-party audits are
needed. Results that are kept confidential will not be sufficient; animal agriculture will need to
approach and embrace the topic of transparent third-party audits as these will provide external
stakeholders confidence that standards are being met (Olynk et al., 2010; Wolf and Tonsor, 2017).
Second, audits must result in improved animal welfare where needed. It is here where rigorous first-
and second-party audits will play an important role in preparing farmers to meet animal-welfare
standards (Weary and von Keyserlingk, 2017). Third, efforts must focus on producer engagement,
such as benchmarking, to improve the adoption of implementing proven welfare solutions on farm.

DeVeLOPING aNIMaL WeLFare StaNDarDS aND PrOVIDING aSSUraNCe

animal Welfare Legislation

Different countries have used different vehicles to develop farm animal-welfare standards and
ensure compliance (see von Keyserlingk and Hötzel, 2015) and there are various approaches to
ensuring welfare (Fraser, 2006). For example, in some parts of the world such as in the European
Union and New Zealand legislation plays a central role (e.g., European Commission Directive
2001/93/EC and the 1999 Animal Welfare Act, Parliamentary Counsel Office of New Zealand
(1999)).
In North America, the role of legislation has traditionally played a minor role in improving
animal welfare. This is likely due in part to “animal care” being primarily governed at the province
or state level, which has resulted, at least in Canada, in a non-harmonized approach to the issue of
animal welfare (Fraser et al., in press). Interestingly, six Canadian provinces (British Columbia,
Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan)
make reference to one or more of the industry-led national codes for farm animals in their regula-
tions (Fraser et al., 2016). To the best of our knowledge, no US state makes reference to industry-led
standards in state legislation.
In the US, many food animal industry groups have argued strongly against animal-welfare
regulations (Fraser, 2001): a position that has frequently led to polarized debates between food
animal industry lobby groups and animal advocates (Cantrell et al., 2013). This intense debate
has resulted in the introduction of a number of farm animal-welfare laws via legislation or ballot
initiatives in some US states. The first of this type was passed in 2002 (and took effect in 2008)
in the state of Florida and resulted in the banning of gestation stalls in pigs. Since then, this
political vehicle has been effective in introducing animal-welfare legislation in numerous states—
banning a variety of standard industry practices. One of the most discussed ballot initiatives was
California’s “Proposition 2,” passed in November 2008 prohibiting the use of the conventional
battery cage for hens and crates for gestating sows and veal calves (and took effect in 2015). The
use of the ballot initiative route in the US will likely continue in states where allowed, particularly
if the animal industries are not seen as adopting practices that resonate with widely held public
values. For instance, the Human Society of the United States has recently introduced a new ballot
initiative in California that calls for stricter animal-welfare standards (compared to Proposition
2) in addition to requiring out-of-state producers to comply with the California regulations when