Whose responsibility is farm animal welfare?

Question

Is it the major multiple retailers (supermarkets and fast food giants) who sell most of the meat? The farmers who raise the livestock? The government, who shape welfare legislation and guidelines? Or is it down the consumer, to read the labels and make the choices they can afford? And, in the end, is “higher welfare” meat merely a luxury, or a moral imperative?

Need more food for thought? I have teamed up exclusively with Yahoo! to offer my book at a special discount. More information is here: http://www.rivercottage.net/yahoo

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

In Australia, there is various levels of responsibility for Farm Animal Welfare, and Regulatory over sight.

There are farmer/breeder/producer associations, societies, and then Regulation involving quarantine & disease control, chemical use and withholding periods, food standards, animal transport, animal feed, and various other welfare issues.

There is no 1 single oversight Authority.

Australian products generally attract higher export prices because of the “clean, green” image of the livestock industries. The high level of attraction and marketability of Australian livestock products relates closely to the country’s freedom from most of the world’s most serious animal diseases and the very low use of chemicals and potential contaminants in livestock production. These factors alone have beneficial welfare effects and advanced husbandry, endemic animal disease and biosecurity controls add significantly to livestock welfare.

Animal welfare legislation in Australia

Each state has its own animal welfare Act and accompanying regulations that affect people who own or work with animals including farmers, livestock transporters, livestock exporters, saleyard personnel and processors.

The regulations include the reference to codes of practice (codes) that define what is generally regarded as acceptable welfare practices for livestock husbandry and transport. Compliance with the codes can be used as a defence against a charge of cruelty.

The current rationalisation of the various Commonwealth, State and Territory codes of practice into a national set of standards for animal welfare as recommended by the Neumann report is working with the following principles:

1. A strong national framework for the development of `minimum standards' with species specific definitions of animal welfare that are underpinned by legislation. minimum standards shold be outcome-based and measurable.
2. An efficient, agreed process for developing and maintaining minimum standard and best practice guidelines.
3. Consistency across state and territory jurisdictions in the application (enforcement) of legislation.
4. An industry-government partnership to make decisions.
5. Broad consultation with all stakeholders, especially end users.
6. A process for evaluating Standards through a Regulatory impact Statement (RIS).
7. Standards must be auditable for credibility abd international acceptance.
8. An outcome focus responsive to verified drivers and needs.
9. Science based inputs to be a critical element in the development of standards.
10. Efective communication to all stakeholders.

Source(s):

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/
http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/Inf…
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf…
http://kb.rspca.org.au/17/
http://www.wspa.org.au/news.asp?newsID=3…

Answer 2

It should be down to all parties mentioned to try and make a difference however in reality the people who have the most power to force change are the consumers. Supermarkets and farmers will continue to provide those products that people want to buy, and if consumers want plentiful amounts of cheap meat then they will continue to provide it. Consumers are also the voters and the governement in a democratic society will not pass legislation that is going to be widely unpopular.

The Media can also make a big difference by raising awareness on this issue. Most consumers who buy meat products have very little appreciation about the intensive farming methods employed.

Answer 3

Personally, I would say the farmers, or the surrogate parents of the said animal(s). But at the end of the day, farming is business, farmers need to spend less on their livestock, and sell it off a lot more expensive. PROFIT! Only the wealthier farmers from the south of England can realistically afford 'better' food,or 'better' accommodation, or 'better' conversations to enhance 'mental stimulus'?

Most farmers are poor, being out- competed with CHEAPER foreign goods. Now tell me, do you really think that any farmer who has bills to pay and mouths to feed is going to care about their animals' welfare? Food animals are exactly that: Animals bred to be eaten and to reproduce more animals that in time will be eaten. All domesticated animals have roles. Cattle, unfortunately are not pets. They are born with the sole purpose of dying...

Source(s):

Guy who loves his bacon. And his duck. And Lamb, Beef, Chicken, Turkey, Pork, Pheasant, and the occasional hippopotamus...WHOOPS!

Answer 4

The whole of society is responsible for the welfare of farm animals
Something has gone terribly wrong when rare farm animal breeds are becoming extinct just as fast or faster than many wild specie.Your
question is more concerned about the quality of the product than the welfare of the farm animal.How many breeds of poultry are no longer common.The variety of meat birds now available has diminished compared to 30-40 years.The only place you see many of them now is at agricultural shows.The consumer has to be interested in more than quality because if they aren't the variety of choices will disappear
You should be concerned the very survival of farm animals let alone their welfare.

.

Answer 5

I think the responsibility lies with them all. It is important for the consumer to make not only educated choices, but also to support the local farmers in the area (if there are any).
For example, I live in Berlin now and even though some of the products are not organic, I always read where the products come from and support as much as possible the dairy farmers in the surrounding Brandenburg area, who have to compete with huge enterprises from the west.

On the retail side, German retailers do make the effort to supply organic products and fare trade items, as well as to educate consumers about these products. Although, I sometimes wonder about this whole organic thing - farmers still need to spray crops anyway and in fact, they need to spray organic vines after every rainfall, while non-organic sprays are applied only once or twice. The non-organic sprays they use for certain foods nowadays are definitely not as harmful as they used to be back in the 50's when people thought DDT was good for the health.

Answer 6

Hi ya.

The situation is one where everyone blames each other for the conditions of farm animals.

Farmer will say that the retailers want to buy the farm produce at XYZ price & the retailers then say that their customers want their stock at ABC price, and then it goes around a viscous circle.

All three areas need to work together to improve animal welfare.

The farm that I worked at used to leave the calf's with their mothers for the first two weeks, then the mothers were allowed to return to the field,, but at milking time the mothers of the younger calf's were allowed back into the barn where the calf's stayed and not just feed their own young but the older calf's. After a month the the mothers are then no longer put in with the calf's but are milked as by that time other cows will have calved, so they would then be used to suckle the calf.

The male calf at I think two months old were then separated from the heifers and the vet would castrate them. They were then allowed to grow along side the future milking herd until the farm manager felt it was time for them to be sent to market.

Other farms worked differently and so I feel that at each level of the scales we all should be responcible for the best treatment of the animals from birth through to bing dinners on our plates.

I hope that my answer helps.

Joolz

Answer 7

The ultimate responsibility for farm animal welfare should be with the farmer, or, put another way, the livestock producing business persons.

Having said that, the supermarkets and other such outlets, and the government should bear some of the responsibility by not putting excess and undue pressure on the producers that is compromising the welfare of the animals.

The end consumer also should shop responsibly by not buying meat, dairy or eggs from sources where the welfare of the animals is not paramount.

Answer 8

I'd say the majority of the responsibility should be on the farmers raising the livestock & the government. after all, farmers should know the best conditions for their animals to be raised in, otherwise that sort of destroys the point of farming. at least i think so.

the government should be making rules and guidelines to ensure that farmers are living up to their own standards, as well as reprimand those who don't. it could be argued that how one treats animals is a clue to how one treats other people. if that's the case, and if we have a government who doesn't bother to ensure animals are being looked after, how could anyone expect them to care about how to run human social affairs properly?

however, the retailers also have a responsibility to ensure that customers get good value for money and get exactly what consumers demand, and the consumers have a responsibility to let retailers, farmers and government know what they want.

Source(s):

my opinion.

Answer 9

The consumers that buy the product will always be encouraging the product to be sold more. The more its baught the more it sells, the more they produce it... cheap and easy welfare. people dont care where there meat is from , they want cheap and easy things.in my opinion that is anyway, some people may not be bothred taking to detail and reading all the labels to find out where the product is from etc. Most people miss out that stuff , people want eye catching prices i suppose. at the end of the day to them meat is all the same unfortinately thats how most people do think. (the majority).
Supermarkets will always sell products that keep selling away, for the money ofcourse. Unless they get over a certian amount of complaints to stop selling a product, which i doubt will happen since the majority of the uk doesnt bother about the background of the products etc.
Government also , they do nothing to help out with this stuff , they can do a lot, but will need effort,and they have other things to do than to help tackle animal welfare, ignorant minds.

Answer 10

As a buyer of merchandise, I do strive to buy from ethical sources and therefore if the supermarkets namely the buyers only demanded the best, there would be no supply of animals raised within poor welfare.

But obviously there are always the cost constraints in the chain thus it is also up to the customers/consumers to ensure that they do not go for the cheapest thing possible as we all know cheap means factors such as low overheads and therefore poor conditions for animals.
It is the same with human conditions in factories.

It should be in people's conscience at all links of the chain to feel that they are doing the right thing by respecting animals and giving them the best life possible.

It is just obvious to me that the government should set the right guidelines for farm animal welfare and I can not understand that it is still a debate. Some conditions in which animals are raised and treated are unacceptable.

But unfortunately money rules the world - Economies of scale versus ethics

Answer 11

As the first cognisant dominant earth species (also happening to be ominvores) we actually believe we can correct our own behaviour. The Earth will ultimately balance any excesses we, as a species, impose upon it. Animal welfare and intensive farming practices go together like chalk and cheese, but we need intensive farming in order to feed our billions. Man is not programmed to lay down his life for the unfortunate animals lower down the evolutionary chain. Natural evolution made the billions, and the Earth will correct those billions-eventually, like the stockmarket corrects itself, eventually. Despite all of our interventions, we are not really in control. So it is not the retailer, the Government or the consumer to blame, it is good ol' Darwin's discovery-evolution. We do not control our destiny, we are predestined, so do not blame anybody or anything, just try to enjoy the ride! Oh, and do love all living things as far as practicable along the way, not withstanding, of course, that it is not your decision to do so. Unless that last sentence re-programmed you?

Answer 12

It is initially the responsibility of the farmer to ensure that their livestock are fed correctly, given space to roam and are not mistreated.

Supermarkets & other retailers however should be prepared to pay a fairer price for meat products, with part of this cost being passed on to the consumer.

As consumers, we should demand the highest quality meat we can, and if paying a bit extra helps ensure better treatment for livestock, then so be it. We do have to be careful though that the extra premium is not simply extra profit for those in the supply chain.

An independent, publicly elected body should be set up to monitor and spot check all UK livestock farms. This could work with animal welfare groups and the food standards agency.

Answer 13

The government should take more control. I hear the EU have a worse approach to animal welfare and will allow more chickens into already overcrowded sheds. The government should be the one to make the decision so that everyone is on a level playing ground.

The consumer should also take a bit more responsibility, it is unfortunate that supermarkets are playing word games with our food. Branding them as free chickens when they are only slightly better off than ones in a shed.

I think the farmer would also provide the animals with a better standard of living if the supermarkets would pay them a fair price. Its all down to a mixture of price wars between supermarkets, a bad consumer, and a government afraid to take action.

Answer 14

Regulations of farm animals which will eventually be used for human food is administered by the Department of Agriculture. Of course, there are a number of other State and Local Government agencies who also enforce their own rules and regulations. Farm animals such as horses and the like which are used for work and not food are goverened by various humane societies. If these same 'work animals' work in close contact with human food, then the Department of Agriculture does have something to say about them.

Answer 15

I think that the customer is at the bottom of the list for responsibility. Even with good intention many customers are ruled by their finances. I think it lies with the government and retailers. Customers can only buy what shops stock. I remember myself querying a big supermarket chain as to why they didn't stock a product anymore, they answered that there was no customer demand anymore, but I felt this was not the case. I think new things come out and we as customers get dictated to as what to buy and we just choose from the range available.

I think it is a moral issue and should be raised by government. I have recently become aware of a political party called 'Animals Count'. Their leader is Jasmijn de Boo. Have you heard of them? If not, here's a link for your information;

http://www.animalscount.org

Regards

Answer 16

Of course it it the major supermarkets that have forced farmers into a corner over food production. they are totally responsible for the decline in the high street where proper butchers have been force out of business. The only business that makes money is usually the supermarket and their mark up is usually about 300%, so you can work out how little the rest of the production and delivery business makes. I also note when looking round supermarkets how little they buy from Britain which also has an adverse effect on our farmers, personally I always look for British produce but it is becoming harder to find, especially in the frozen line.

Answer 17

Ultimately it is the farmer. He or she is the one that has all the overheads of running a farm. The property, the machinery, the food for the stock etc etc. The retailers only put demand on the farmers to produce the goods. The government have enough trouble trying to regulate retailers and do not support the farmers honestly.
When a farmer goes bum up, who is there to help them when the bank comes to take away their livelihoods? The retailers ? The government?
The consumers are basically blind to the behind the scenes efforts of farmers and really don't give a hoot as long as they get their dollars worth in the trolley and their bellies.
In Australia, we would be lucky to get "A Grade" produce on the supermarket shelves as the majority is shipped off shore and we and the farmers do not see the benefits of these sales.
We the consumers need to be aware of our farmers situations and support them as much as we can. No support. No quality. No economy.

Answer 18

It is the job of everyone above, the farmers are required by law to keep to the animal welfare laws and also the 'five freedoms' which are the animal must be free from:
hunger and thirst
discomfort
pain and injury and disease
free to express natural behaviours
distress and fear

It is the governments job to make sure these laws and standards are being upheld. It is up to the consumer to care about these things and read the label, unfortunatley many do not.

Source(s):

Me an animal care student who recently learned about this.

Answer 19

i think its partly everyones responsibility really. the foundations start with the farmer in how they feed the livestock, treat and raise them. then the major retailers should ensure that the livestock are fed and slaughtered properly and ethically so to speak before purchasing from farmers, and the goverment needs to ensure that laws are implemented and regulated periodically to see that farmers and retailers are trading within these ethical guidelines. the consumer too has a moral responsibility i think in what they buy. i think higher welfare meat is a bit of both. a luxury and a moral imperative. i am carefull about what i buy meat wise but to be honest i donot eat a great deal of it anyway. i think its more of a case of seeing how animals are treated such as in a documentary of poultry birds i think abroad, and they were being force fed food to fatten them up so the farmer could get more money for them. its disgraceful and inhuman! i hear your an advocate for the treatment of welfare conditions for chickens which is right, good on you!

my elderly mums a big fan of your show, river cottage.

Answer 20

It is the consumer.
If we don't buy the product there will be no demand for it, if we do buy the product there will be lots of demand for it.
Therefore it is up to our own morals and ethics to choose to pay that little extra to have a clearer conscience that the animals we eat did not suffer too much to feed us.
Because the farmers, supermarkets, government etc... are all made up of consumers everyone should be doing their bit in their own job to make sure this is happening so that eventually the consumers power and voice will be noticed and prices will drop and animal welfare increases.

By the way - I have been a vegetarian for 26 years (since I had a moral conscience about the suffering of animals on my behalf at the age of 11). Before I was 11 I had no care about animal suffering because I did not know it existed - unfortunately a lot of adults are still unknowledgable about it - so I thank you for bringing this topic to light on behalf of all the animals who cannot speak for themselves ;)

Answer 21

I think it's a combination of factors from the farmers who rear the animals right down to the consumer and every 'middle man' along the way. Higher welfare meat is expensive but ultimately better in so many ways. Retailers should try to improve the costs to us mere mortals in any way they can because it is expensive. If everybody did their part and higher welfare meat became the norm rather than a luxury then the costs would come down. Farmers should consider the welfare of their animals as a matter of course rather than a farming choice. There should be more legislation regarding the rearing of meat. I don't like feeding my kids crap and buy the better options when I can but sometimes its beyond my means. I shouldn't have to make that choice. I should be able to choose to buy higher welfare produce at a decent price.

Answer 22

I'm a townie who has moved to the countryside. I think the final consumer must take responsibility Even if the food isn't available that in your supermarket that conforms to the standards you think are important you should at the very least ask the staff/Manager why it isn't and better still email the supermarket CEO to let them know how you feel. If the supermarket feels it is not giving their customers what they want they will change their policy and farmers - who are just business people really - will change what they produce accordingly or go out of business. Some farmers farm differently near me because that is what matters to them but also because they can't keep up with demand providing meat from very happy animals in an organic environment with minimal distance from contented field to abattoir. I am sure that those of us who care can change farming policy by hitting business where it hurts - in their pocket.

Answer 23

It is everyone's responsibility. If retailers refused to sell anything but free range chicken (I'll use free range chicken as an example) then people would be forced to buy and eat free range chicken. If customers refused to buy anything but free range chicken then it would force farms to switch to farming free range chickens. If the government made a law stopping the sales of non free range chicken then farms would have to go free range.

I think that "higher welfare" is a moral imperative.

Answer 24

Primarily it is the farmer, there is no excuse for poor animal husbandry. But, given that there will be people that put profit before ethics then the retail chain and consumer also have a part to play.

I work on a farm rearing pigs and cows, some chickens and turkeys for christmas. The farm ethic is "natural as possible". The cows eat grass (hay and silage in winter) the pigs live outdoors in the summer. The ground is too wet and soft to support livestock in the winter so the animals come into the barns.
Kobe beef is far from the only pampered livestock, we scratch the cows and the pigs too, they love it and are easier to manage when they like our presence. Most of the cows and some of the pigs have names, this relationship is natural for livestock management, it helps us keep a close eye on physical and emotional health of the animals (a sad pig is a skinny pig)

Answer 25

I would say everyone i.e. Producers, Supermarkets and the consumer have the responcibility. However, the Supermarkets clearly have the most power over such a situation, they could potentially lead the farmers and the consumers down the right path if they really wanted too. Unfortinately the path in question clearly can not be the most profitable though, for if it was we would certainly all be eating 100%welfare chicken by now.

I think that as hard as the consumers and the Farmers might try, it will ultimately come down to the supermarkets to take the right step and sadly I have very little faith in the ethics of supermarkets so I fear that we have a long wait ahead of us.

Answer 26

Like all true free-enterprise democracies, the responsibility lies with all parties. Legislation regarding the welfare of animals should be dictated to government by the people. Governments pass this legislation. Regulatory bodies should ensure that both farmers and the supermarket chains are acting within those guidelines. Supermarket chains should only deal with those farmers operating within those guidelines. Consumers should be made aware of those that meet those guidelines (and those that aren't up to scratch) so they can make an informed decision. That cycle should be continuous

Answer 27

I believe it is the responsibility of the farmers who raise the livestock initially but this should then be "supervised" by inspectors and animal welfare groups such as the RSPCA (in Australia) or the SPCA (America). Until the animal leaves the farm the farmer should provide for its total welfare as humanely as possible. Cruelty or neglect cannot be tolerated or condoned in any circumstances and the ultimate fate of the creatures does not lessen the reponsibililties of those who are rearing them.

Answer 28

It is the responsibility (but not obligation) of every human being that has the cognitive ability to think about these things in ways that simple animals cannot.

It is not that long ago that we could send yong boys up chimneys to clean them or that women were not allwoed to own property or vote.

There is no law in the universe mandating that we should not send young boys up chimneys to clean them or that we should abuse children or that men should not beat up women. Yet most of us do not do these things becasue we want to better than we have to be.

If you were a vegetarain 50 yrs ago you would likely be viewed as a bit subversinve, untrustworthy, nowadays a vegaetarian option is almost standard practice.

Keep up with the promoting of the evolution of our improved values.
So while there is no universal law mandating human beings treat anuimals better, we are and will do well to choose this as one of our values. But as humans we also suffer from ignorance and our own animal nature of self interest and stupidity.

Answer 29

hi!!!!! i cant believe you're on this thing....if you wouldn't mind ill add you as a contact.
i saw the programmes you did in order to raise awareness and such for the awful treatment of chickens who aren't free-range and i also saw Jamie Oliver on the telly-box doing something similar.
however we haven't got BBC anymore unfortunately so we haven't been keeping up with what's been happening so it was lovely to spot you on this thing!!!
anyway, in answer to your question, i would assume it is the consumer's responsibility as i think once we start looking at labels and buying free-range and organic, not only will the majority of food bought be produced from animals treated well, but surely prices of organic and free-range products would go down.
maybe im making a completely nonsensical point here, but i just wanted to mention it anyway.
i would be delighted if you could add me back as a contact so i could learn more about this.

Answer 30

The farmers and the government. The farmers because they are the ones who raise the animals and the government because, they are the ones who lay down rules so that the animals are treated well. Of course it would be nice if everyone could afford the meat of animals who lived a pleasent life before they died but, it doesn't always work out that way. You have to look at cost, and not all labels actually tell you that much information about how the animal was treated before they died. Besides it wouldn't sell if the supermarket e.t.c were that honest.

Answer 31

Ohhhh puh-leeeeze!

The poor little moo cow needs hairless apes to give it a scratch behind the ears before smashing it over the head with a sledge, cutting it into pieces and gnawing the meat off the bones. Who are you trying to make feel better? It surely isn't the farm animals.

Believe me your self interested perspective on livestock welfare isn't going to make your "food for thought" any more tasteful. If you are so concerned with animal welfare why didn't you write a vegetarian cookbook to pedal on Yahoo?

Source(s):

Deep Ecosocial Egalitarian Sesquipedalian Epistemologist.