Helena Röcklinsberg

The ethical contract as a tool in organic animal husbandry.

This article explores what an ethicfor organic animal husbandry might look like,departing from the assumption that organicfarming is substantially based in ecocentricethics. We argue that farm animals arenecessary functional partners in sustainableagroecosystems. This opens up additional waysto argue for their moral standing. We suggestan ethical contract to be used as acomplementary to the ecocentric framework. Weexpound the content of the contract and end bysuggesting how to apply this contract inpractice. The contract enjoins us to share thewealth created in the agroecosystem (by ourjoint contributions) by enjoining us to carefor the welfare and needs of the individualanimal, and to protect them from exploitation(just as human co-workers should not beexploited). The contract makes promoting goodanimal welfare a necessary condition forbenefiting farm animals. Animals for their partare guaranteed coverage under the contract solong as they continue to contribute to thesystem with products and services.

Ethical aspects of insect production for food and feed

Given a growing global human population and high pressures on resources, interest in insects as a source of protein for human food (entomophagy) and for animal feed is growing. So far, the main issues discussed have been the embedded technical challenges of scaling up the production. The use of insects as a major human food and feed source is thought to present two major challenges: (1) how to turn insects into safe, tasty socially acceptable feed and food; and (2) how to cheaply yet sustainably produce enough insects? Entomophagy, however, as any utilisation of animals and the rest of nature also entails ethical issues – both regarding the impact on human health, the environment and climate change and regarding production methods such as intensification and biotechnology. The aim of the paper is to give a systematic overview of ethical aspects embedded in the notion of utilising insects as protein providers in the Western food and feed production chains. We identify five areas where ethical questions are...

Content and structure of Swedish animal welfare legislation and private standards for dairy cattle

ABSTRACT In this study the animal welfare legislation and three private standards in Sweden, focusing on dairy cows, were analysed. The aim was to investigate to what extent these regulations consisted of resource-, management- or animal-based requirements, to analyse the content and discuss consequences. The results showed a higher proportion of management- and resource-based requirements than animal-based in all regulations. However, the borders between these categories were not as distinct as expected. The private standards put slightly more emphasis on the animal-based requirements and on animal welfare at herd level. It was primarily the organic standard that included higher animal welfare demands than the legislation. Due to vague wording and guideline statements it was not always clear if the welfare level achieved would be the same in practice although the requirements were similar. It will be necessary to clearly distinguish between requirements and measures to make the policy process more transparent.

‘Unnecessary suffering’ as a concept in animal welfare legislation and standards

The project ‘Legal systems and ethical values behind the official and the stakeholder-based animal welfare control’ covers studies of farm animal welfare legislation and ten private animal welfare standards from four European countries. Their expressed aim of prevention of suffering is in focus. Many pieces of legislation stating the aim of preventing ‘unnecessary suffering’ lack a clear distinction between ‘unnecessary’ and ‘necessary’ calling for definitions, as it is difficult to decide where to draw the line in actual farming, or for a citizen to interpret what is regarded acceptable by the legislator. Several interpretations are possible, e.g. the intensity and duration of the suffering, the intention behind the act, the fulfillment of human interests and the animals’ interests. Furthermore, countries differ regarding what species are legally protected and at what level. We will further discuss ethical values behind such differences. Painful management procedures are legal in many countries, and hence regarded as ‘necessary suffering’ in some –but not all – countries. As private standards are developed to meet consumer demands for a stricter interpretation of ‘unnecessary’ it is important to clarify inherent values. We tentatively argue that besides utilitarian ethical thinking duty, contractarian and/or virtue ethical thinking can be found in both legislation and private standards. If so, this mirrors consumer interest in an integrated and complex reasoning related to the concept of ‘unnecessary suffering’, a complexity that needs to be considered in forthcoming legislation.

Private Animal Welfare Standards—Opportunities and Risks

Simple Summary In all European countries, farmers keeping animals must comply with European and national animal welfare legislation. Each government has a responsibility to make sure that the legislation is complied with by the farmers. However, during the last decades it has become increasingly common that private organisations, such as the industry, farmers’ organisations, or animal welfare organisations, develop additional animal welfare regulations (‘private standards’) that the farmers also need to comply with. These private standards have the opportunity to improve animal welfare above the legislative level, however, in our study we have shown that this is not always the case and that all of these different private standards, in addition to the legislation, makes it difficult to get an overview of the animal welfare regulation and control arena. For the sake of the farmers, the animal welfare inspectors, the consumers, and the animals we conclude that it is important that policymakers consider this arena as a whole and not their own regulation as a single phenomenon. Abstract The current shift moves the governance of animal welfare away from the government towards the private market and the consumers. We have studied the intentions, content, and on-farm inspection results from different sets of animal welfare legislation and private standards with an aim to highlight the most important opportunities and risks identified in relation to the trend of increasingly relying on private standards for safeguarding or improving farm animal welfare. Our results show that different focuses, intentions, animal welfare requirements, inspection methods (i.e., methods for measuring and evaluating the compliance with a regulation), and inspection results, together with the use of vague wordings and a drive towards more flexible regulations does certainly not facilitate the interpretation and implementation of animal welfare regulations, especially not in relation to each other. Since farmers today often have to comply with several animal welfare regulations, including private standards, it is important to stress that a given regulation should never be seen as a single, stand-alone phenomenon, and the policymakers must hence consider the bigger picture, and apply the standards in relation to other existing regulations. This is especially relevant in relation to the legislation, a level that a private standard can never ignore.

Fish welfare, environment and food security: a pragmatist virtue ethics approach

With continued population growth, potentially negative impacts of climate change, and potential impacts of food access and security among poorer and more vulnerable communities fish as food resource is becoming more and more important. The growing recognition of fish as sentient beings must be considered in tandem with other concerns such as the relative weighting of their welfare, human equity, environmental protection, food security and food safety. Sensible environmental practices are needed and must be tied closely to effective policies around food security as well as regulation that take into account the issues of fish welfare. We suggest a pragmatic virtue ethics approach would be relevant and fundamental for such policies – both regarding process and substance – and show how it can contribute to the discussion on how to relate fish welfare to environmental concern and the issue of equity in a more secure global food system.

Sustainable Proteins? Values Related to Insects in Food Systems

Developing large scale production systems for farmed insects to supplement or replace feed and food ingredients from vertebrate livestock is often heralded as a more sustainable way to produce animal protein than currently used livestock production methods and is receiving increased interest from a diverse set of stakeholders ranging from political decision makers, environmental interest groups, farmers, industry and scientists. This is hardly a surprise, as sustainability has been widely embraced as a broad and inclusive political (ideological) as well as managerial (practical) framework. Ideally sustainability is a balance between a one-sided focus on productivity and profit on the one hand, and uncompromising demands for nature preservation and calls for radical changes in the agricultural production on the other. But there are different views on how to strike that balance – to some extent reflecting different values – which in turn gives rise to different challenges on how insects can contribute to food systems around the world.

Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees

Simple Summary In the EU, research projects using animals must be evaluated and approved by an ethical committee prior to start to balance potential harm to the animals with potential benefit to humans, in order to ensure moral standards, scientific validity, and public trust. However, different levels of knowledge among committee members, different views on which ethical aspects are relevant, member hierarchies, and a discrepancy between prevailing scientific norms of objectivity and the necessary conditions of a proper ethical evaluation makes it challenging. If applications are not properly evaluated, this can cause distrust in the ethics committees by society. We analyzed the role of scientific norms among Swedish committee members, application of the harm–benefit model, and the role of emotions in the ethical decision-making process. Researchers and chairpersons were most positive, whereas laypersons from animal welfare organizations were most negative. Laypersons more often felt emotionally engaged in the evaluation, but also that they felt they had less influence. We argue that the prevailing scientific norms are preventing necessary conditions for sound ethical evaluation consideration by excluding some members from the discourse. We propose that alternative models for ethical decision-making could contribute to an improved process and hence meet public trust. Abstract Ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.

Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows

Simple Summary In many cases, different animal welfare inspections are taking place at an animal farm over time, as the farmer has to comply with both the legislation and with various private standards. In this study, we compared official inspections carried out by CAB (the County Administrative Board, a governmental agency) with private inspections carried out by Arla Foods (a private company) on dairy farms in one Swedish county. For example, we looked at seasonal effects and compared the incidence of different non-compliances. This study shows that long time periods were sometimes allowed for correction, that follow-up systems are diverse, and that there were differences in the inspection result between CAB and Arla due to different focuses during the inspections. Dirty dairy cattle were, however, a common non-compliance found by both CAB and Arla. Tie-stall housing and winter season (Dec–Feb) were risk factors for non-compliance, while the risk was lower for both CAB and Arla to find non-compliances at organic farms compared to conventional farms. We conclude that the presence of both similarities and differences between different control systems underlines the need for transparency, predictability, and clarity of inspections. Abstract Farmers often have to comply with several sets of animal welfare regulations, since private standards have been developed in addition to legislation. Using an epidemiological approach, we analysed protocols from animal welfare inspections carried out in Swedish dairy herds by the County Administrative Board (CAB; official control of legislation) and by the dairy company Arla Foods (private control of Arlagården standard) during 2010–2013 in the county of Västra Götaland. CAB and Arla inspections were not carried out simultaneously. We aimed to identify common non-compliances, quantify risk factors of non-compliance, and investigate if non-compliances were based on animal-, resource-, or management-based requirements, as well as determining the time period allowed for achieving compliance. Non-compliance was found in 58% of CAB cases, and 51% of Arla cases (each case comprising a sequence of one or several inspections). Dirty dairy cattle was one of the most frequent non-compliances in both control systems. However, the differences in control results were large, suggesting a difference in focus between the two systems. Tie-stall housing and winter season (Dec–Feb) were common risk factors for non-compliance, and overall organic farms had a lower predicted number of non-compliances compared to conventional farms. The presence of both similarities and differences between the systems underlines the need for transparency, predictability, and clarity of inspections.

Deprivation as Un-Experienced Harm?: A Critical Analysis of Tom Regan’s Principle of Harm

Tom Regan encapsulated his principle of harm as a prima facie direct duty not to harm experiencing subjects of a life. However, his consideration of harm as deprivation, one example of which is loss of freedom, can easily be interpreted as a harm, which may not be experienced by its subject. This creates a gap between Regan’s criterion for moral status and his account of what our duties are. However, in comparison with three basic paradigms of welfare known in nonhuman animal welfare science, Regan’s understanding coheres with a modified version of a feelings-based paradigm: not only the immediate feelings of satisfaction, but also future opportunities to have such feelings, must be taken into account. Such an interpretation is compatible with Regan’s understanding of harm as deprivation. The potential source of confusion, however, lies in Regan’s own possible argumentative mistakes.