|
1.
EU Study: "Attitudes of Consumers Towards the Welfare of Farmed Animals"
In the most recent "Eurobarometer" survey conducted by the European Commission, nearly 25,000 people were asked about their opinions regarding farmed animal welfare in the European Union. The results, summarized below, seem quite positive for farmed animal protection. The detailed analysis includes comparisons of 25 EU member countries as well as aggregate, weighted results for all respondents. Because of the scope and sophistication of this study, we are presenting most of the EU's summary verbatim, below. Our thanks to Mary Finelli for highlighting the summary's most interesting findings. Note also that the full text of the results is available online (see link below).
Factors influencing attitudes to animal welfare
Visits to farms appear
to heighten awareness of and concern for animal welfare.
The majority of those surveyed had visited a farm
that rears animals at least once, with the highest
proportion being in Scandinavia (90%) and the lowest
in Portugal (29%) and Greece (34%).
There is a strong link
between the frequency of farm visits and acceptance
of price increases due to improved animal welfare.
Of the respondents who said they were willing to accept
a price increase of at least 25% for animal welfare
reasons, 54% had visited a farm at least 3 times.
Views on the protection of farmed animals,
by species
Laying hens:
On average, 58% of respondents rated the welfare of
laying hens as "fairly bad" or "very bad". The Dutch
and Danish (77%) surveyed were the most critical,
followed by the Germans and Belgians (73%). At the
other end of the scale, over 2/3 of Maltese questioned
had a positive view of the protection of laying hens.
Dairy Cows:
In 21 out of 25 Member States, the majority of respondents
had a positive view of the welfare and protection
of dairy cows. Optimism was highest in Finland (85%),
the Netherlands (83%) and Sweden (82%) and lowest
in Greece (42%), Latvia (43%), Portugal (46%) and
Slovakia (48%).
Pigs:
Views on the level of welfare and protection for pigs
were mixed. In 10 Member States, pigs were generally
thought to be well protected, with the most positive
responses in Malta (62%) and Finland (61%). On the
other hand, over 60% of those surveyed in Denmark
and Slovakia had a negative view of the welfare of
pigs.
Species to be protected as a priority
When asked which animals should be given priority
in improving welfare conditions, respondents gave
a clear first place to laying
hens (44%), followed by broiler
chickens (42%). Respondents from Sweden
(73%), the Netherlands (66%), Germany (65%) and Belgium
(62%) were most vocal on the need to improve the welfare
conditions of laying hens.
Pigs
(28%) were also highly ranked as animals that need
further protection. Respondents from Denmark (60%)
were the strongest advocates for more protection for
pigs.
Dairy cows
(17%) were in fifth place, and calves
(14%) in sixth place, which confirmed that bovine
animals are perceived to have better rearing conditions,
as was found earlier in the survey.
Purchasing behaviour and the welfare of farmed
animals
A slight majority of
EU citizens (52%) said that they did not take animal
welfare considerations into account when buying meat.
However, there were large disparities between Member
States on this issue. In all of the new Member States,
except for Cyprus (38%), the majority said that animal
welfare did not influence their purchasing behaviour.
The figure was more than two thirds in the Czech Republic
(74%), Slovakia (73%), Estonia (69%) and Poland (68%).
At the other end of the scale, 67% of Swedes, 66%
of Greeks and 64% of Luxembourgers surveyed said that
they did take animal welfare into account when buying
meat.
With regard to eggs,
almost 4 in 10 respondents said that they buy eggs
from free range or outdoor reared hens. Swedish (63%),
Luxembourg (61%) and UK (61%) consumers surveyed expressed
the strongest preference for purchasing free range
eggs. Respondents in Spain and Slovakia (12%) expressed
the lowest propensity to buy free range eggs.
Over three quarters
of those surveyed believe that they can influence
animal welfare conditions by their purchasing behaviour
(i.e. by buying animal welfare friendly products).
This opinion was strongest in Sweden (94%) and Cyprus
(90%), whereas it is less certain in Lithuania (56%),
Estonia (57%) and Portugal (62%).
However, 51% said that
they could never or very rarely identify products
sourced from animal welfare friendly production systems.
This figure was higher in the new Member States, exceeding
80% in Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland.
1. [Parts of the EU summary have been omitted for space reasons.
To read the full summary, please visit http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/198.]
2. Full Report: "Consumer Attitudes to Animal Welfare,"
Eurobarometer Survey, 6/8/05
PDF File (680k): http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf
2.
Article Says Welfare Improvements Would be Inexpensive
for Consumers
The Journal of Animal Science reported that increased costs that are related to improved farmed animal welfare would result in only modest increases in retail prices for consumers. The article is authored by Dr. Michael Appleby of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). It describes the relationship between perceived animal welfare conditions and animal "productivity," citing literature that outlines a five-point model of diminishing returns. The article notes that because the costs related to raising animals represent only a fraction of the final cost to consumers, changes in welfare conditions prior to slaughter will lead to only small increases in retail costs. Appleby writes, "as one illustration, the capital costs of animal production (housing and so on) typically account for about 10% of production costs. Suppose we double the space and facilities provided for the animals, increasing production costs by 10%. When a consumer buys a meal in a supermarket or restaurant, the cost of animal products in that meal accounts for only about 5% of its purchase price. So increasing the cost of production by 10% need only add 0.5% to the price of the meal. Most consumers would not even notice such a change and it seems likely that they would support it if asked."
The article also provides a context in which to evaluate
current food prices. Appleby reminds us that people
have historically spent much higher proportions of
their income on food; those in "developed" countries
would typically spend 20-30% of their income on food
in the 1940s, but now only 10% is typical. This new
paradigm creates an ongoing expectation of low prices
that Appleby calls "economic inertia," which he says
is an obstacle to improving conditions for farmed
animals. The article closes by encouraging animal
scientists to investigate ways of achieving significant
welfare improvements that result in only small price
increases. According to Appleby, "Society does not
need cheaper food production. On the contrary, from
the viewpoint of doing what is appropriate for animal
welfare and the environment, it is arguable that free-market
competition should no longer be the main determinant
of farm practices and food prices." (Note that only
an abstract is available online; see the link below
for options to purchase the full article.)
1. "The Relationship Between Food Prices and Animal Welfare," Journal of Animal Science, June 2005
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/13_suppl/E9
3.
Egg Companies May End Starvation of Hens, But Forced
Molting Will Continue
In March 2005, the US-based United Egg
Producers (UEP) suggested that it may ban forced molting
via starvation under the auspices of its "Animal Care
Certified" (ACC) program (see FAW
5-13, item #3). Last week UEP followed up on that
suggestion and officially recommended to member companies
that they cease withdrawing feed from hens and switch
to a different method to induce molting. According
to the announcement, egg companies have until the
start of next year to comply with the recommendation
in order to remain certified. The recommendation is
being lauded by some animal protection groups, but
others are more cautious in their support. The change
is noted as an improvement, but many welfare concerns
remain with the very restrictive diets that will be
used in place of total starvation.
One animal welfare expert has called
the entire practice of forcing hens to molt via starvation
"a barbaric practice which doubles mortality
in the flock and leads to great suffering in all the
hens involved." However, the group United Poultry
Concerns (UPC), which has been closely involved in
the issue for many years, also has concerns about
restrictive diets. According to UPC president Karen
Davis, PhD, "Instead of being starved to the point
of inanition, force-molted hens under the new 'animal
welfare' regimen receive just enough nutrients to
maintain sufficient energy to express their frustration
in a situation that transforms every natural behavior
into a complicated torment." Davis describes the history
of forced molting in a recent article, noting that
the practice was used by at least 75% of egg companies
by the end of the 20th century.
Davis's article also details UPC's 13-year
campaign (along with the Association of Veterinarians
for Animal Rights') to convince the US egg industry
to end all types of forced molting. The campaign included
appeals based on both compassion toward hens and science,
with supporting documents that emphasized the link
between forced molting and salmonella infections among
hens. Davis summarizes the implications of the most
recent UEP move, "UPC claims a genuine if qualified
achievement benefiting millions of hens in having
carried through our campaign to eliminate forced molting
by food deprivation. Qualified, because the practice
of forcing hens to molt artificially to benefit the
economics of egg production continues, albeit with
wheat middlings, corn combinations and/or other low
protein, low calcium components."
1.
"US Egg Producers to Phase Out Feed Withdrawal," Food Production Daily, 5/27/05
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=60285&m=1FPD527&c=tzlvsrxywshqwyj
2. "Hens Will No Longer Be Starved But They Will Still
Suffer," United Poultry Concerns, 6/9/05
http://www.upc-online.org/molting/60905suffer.htm
3. "United Egg Producers' Program Moves Away from
Starvation of Laying Hens," HSUS, 6/6/05
http://www.hsus.org/farm_animals/farm_animals_news/uep_forced_molting.html
4. Smithfield Foods Asked to Explain Death of 513 Pigs, Release Audit Results
The death of 513 pigs at Smithfield Foods subsidiary Murphy Brown is being investigated by state officials in Virginia. Excessive heat and insufficient ventilation resulting from a power outage are believed to have caused the deaths. However, at the urging of animal advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Virginia's Office of Veterinary Services will look for "extenuating circumstances" including improper animal handling or living conditions. The investigation follows a recent statement from PETA asking Smithfield Foods to make public the animal welfare audit results it claims to have conducted for its slaughter facilities. PETA has also submitted a shareholder resolution that would require the company to disclose the results of its animal welfare audits on its website beginning in 2006. Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pig slaughterer, has refused to make public any details of its animal welfare program; instead, the company simply stated that its practices conform to US legal requirements.
1.
"Virginia to Investigate Pigs' Deaths," Daily Press / Associated Press, 6/10/05
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--pigdeaths-probe0610jun10,0,753355.story
2. "PETA Seeks Details About Smithfield Food's 'Animal Welfare' Program," WAVY / Associated Press, 6/605
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=3421627&nav=23iiaZLi
5. Study: 90% of Antibiotics Used in Animal Farming Concentrated in 23 States
A comprehensive study from the nonprofit
group Environmental Defense estimates the use of antibiotics
as feed supplements for farmed animals. The study
concludes that "almost all (90%) of the 26.5 million
pounds of antibiotics estimated to be used in the
US as feed additives each year - seven times the amount
used in human medicine nationwide - occurs in 23 states."
North Carolina and Iowa are the two states using the
most antibiotics overall, but Delaware has the highest
concentration of antibiotic feed supplements used
per square mile. The study's calculations are based
on data from the US Department of Agriculture and
the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report, available
in full, also mentions that nearly half of the antibiotics
used in farmed animal feed are considered "medically
important" to humans. (Also see FAW
# 2-72, item #4). On a related note, the US House
of Representatives recently passed an amendment that
would ban the federal school lunch program from buying
poultry products from companies that treat birds with
antibiotics similar to Cipro, which is widely used
to treat humans.
1. "Antibiotic Use: State and Local Estimates," Environmental Defense, 6/1/05
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4154
2. Full Report: "Resistant Bugs and Antibiotic Drugs," Environmental Defense, 6/1/05
PDF File (1.7 MB): http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4301_AgEstimates.pdf
3. "Poultry Treated with Certain Antibiotics May be Banned from School Lunch Program," Meatingplace.com, 6/13/05
http://meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=14377
(Registration)
6.
Other Items of Interest
"The World's Leading Animal
Behavior Researchers Gather in Australia to Discuss
Animal-Welfare Research," Meat News, 6/8/05
A forum sponsored by Australian farmed animal industry
groups brought together animal behavior experts from
around the world to discuss welfare standards. The
stated goal of the forum was to develop a framework
based on behavioral, biological, and physiological
measures against which to evaluate current farming
practices. According to one organizer, "the framework
may be useful to direct future research projects and
identify measures which may be used to determine best
practice animal husbandry and achieve agreed industry
standards for animal welfare."
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=PArticle&artNum=9680
"Positive Test Prompts More Scrutiny of Possible
BSE Case," CIDRAP, 6/13/05
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) tests performed
on the corpse of a "downer" cow last November had
mixed results, but the USDA reported it as a negative
case. An internal audit of the department's efforts,
however, led to a third "Western Blot" test that resulted
in a "weak positive" indication of BSE. A sample will
now be sent to the World Organization for Animal Health
(OIE) laboratory in England for further testing.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/other/bse/news/june1305bse.html
"Tags, Chips Start to Sub for Cattle Branding,"
The Oregonian, 6/12/05
Although most cow farmers brand the animals to identify
them as their property, there is debate between farmers
and animal advocates over the effectiveness of currently
available alternatives. Animal protectionists lobby
for methods such as long-lasting paints, microchips,
and retinal scanning, but some farmers call these
impractical while acknowledging that branding can
cause cows significant pain.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1118484320150940.xml (Registration)
|
![[missing header image]](http://www.farmedanimal.net/images/faw_chicks.jpg)
![[missing header image]](http://www.farmedanimal.net/images/newsletter_ico.jpg)