Consumer voices, dollars are changing animal welfare standards

by Joy A. Mench, Department of Animal Science and Center for Animal Welfare, University of California, Davis

During the last few decades there has been increasing public concern about the ways in which food animals are raised, transported, and slaughtered. This concern is part of a larger unease about the industrialization of animal agriculture and how that affects the environment, food safety and quality, and animal welfare.

In the early 1950s, farm animal production methods began to change rapidly, transforming small extensive farms into large intensive production units. This change has been most profound for poultry and swine production. Prior to the 1940s, for example, most poultry production in the U.S. consisted of hens kept by families for the production of eggs for their own consumption and for sale locally. These hens were kept outdoors on range in small groups, provided with rudimentary shelter, and given supplemental feed. Meat production was incidental and seasonal; when hens grew too old to produce eggs reliably they were sold for meat as “spent” hens.

TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES

In the 1950s, several technological developments occurred that changed the face of animal production. The first was the discovery of a method for artificially synthesizing Vitamin D₃. This meant that animals no longer had to be exposed to sunlight in order to synthesize the vitamin naturally, and could therefore be housed indoors throughout their lives. Indoor housing permitted better control of nutrition, temperature and light cycle, which in turn led to an improved ability to stimulate and manipulate production. Indoor housing also permitted greater mechanization of production, ultimately leading to reduced labor needs and reduced costs.

The second development was the discovery of antibiotics, which meant that diseases could be better controlled even when large numbers of animals were housed together in closely confined conditions. Lastly, genetic selection for desirable production traits was intensified. For poultry, for example, the “Chicken of Tomorrow” contest was launched with the intention of developing separate lines of egg and meat-producing chickens, a goal that was reached in short order and with remarkable success. Modern meat chickens (broilers) now reach market weight in only six weeks, a weight that without genetic selection and improved control over nutrition would normally take nearly 20 weeks to reach.

Today, broilers and laying hens are produced on different farms. More than 98 percent of laying hens are housed indoors in so-called “battery” cages, and it is not uncommon for a producer to house hundreds of thousands or millions of hens on his or her farm. Because of the efficiency of broiler production, spent hens no longer have any economic or market value, a situation that raises both environmental and animal welfare concerns, since these hens have to be killed and disposed of somehow. Nearly nine billion broiler chickens are produced each year in the U.S.; they are raised on litter floors in large houses holding as many as 70,000 birds. Broiler production (and to some extent egg production) is vertically integrated, which means that all aspects of production from hatch to slaughter are integrated within one company, usually at one site. Because large units like this are cost-effective but also have high capital costs, there are now very few companies nationwide producing broilers. These companies own the facilities and the birds, but contract the rearing of the birds to independent growers.

The poultry industry production model has been so successful that is has been embraced by the swine industry, which is rapidly moving to an intensive production mode based on vertical integration and the use of contract growers. Swine units housing thousands of sows are now common in the Midwest and South. The dairy industry is less intensified, but there has also been a steady increase in farm size, particularly in California. Only the sheep and beef industries are still largely extensive and small-scale.

CONSUMER CONCERNS

The increasing size and automation of farms is causing consumer concern about the welfare of the animals housed in them. While polls show that the public has confidence in farmers and ranchers, they also show that people want food animals to be treated well and are worried about the humaneness of certain production practices. In Europe, these kinds of concerns have led to legislation restricting or completely eliminating some practices. The current battery cage system used for laying hens, for example, must be phased out in EU countries by 2012, and the use of certain sow housing systems is also prohibited. Some of the most important concerns are:

• Special agricultural practices:
  For reasons related to production or to preventing animals or humans from injury, many farm animals are subjected to surgical or other potentially painful manipulations. These include procedures such as castration, dehorning, beak-trimming, toe removal, branding, teat removal, and tail-docking. These procedures are performed without anesthesia or analgesia.
  
• Behavioral restriction:
  Laying hens, veal calves, sows, and sometimes dairy cattle may be housed long-term in ways that severely restrict their movement, and particularly that prevent them from turning around. Even when given sufficient room, animals are often housed in barren enclosures that do not allow them to express many of their normal behaviors. Behavioral restriction can lead to the development of abnormal behaviors like tail biting, cannibalism, or stereotypies (e.g., pacing, bar-mouthing).
  
• Health:
  Despite antibiotics, diseases can still be particularly catastrophic in intensive units since so many animals are housed in close confinement. Control of air quality (particularly ammonia) is difficult in large units, and this can lead to respiratory and eye problems. There are also health problems related to selection for high production. For example, laying hens develop severe osteoporosis because they use so much calcium for eggshell production, which leads to bone breaks and fractures. Broiler chickens have a variety of cardiovascular and skeletal problems associated with high growth rate, including severe and painful leg problems that impair their mobility. Mastitis (a painful inflammation of the udder) in dairy cattle is associated with high rates of milk production.
• Transport and slaughter:
  Transportation and slaughter are undoubtedly and unavoidably stressful experiences for farm animals. However, these practices could be improved by ensuring that animals are handled with care, transported in such a way as to minimize thermal, physical and social stress, and that they are properly stunned prior to slaughter.

Unlike Europe, in the U.S. there are no federal laws regulating the care or treatment of animals on-farm (although there is a law requiring that livestock killed at federal plants be stunned prior to slaughter, the Humane Slaughter Act). U.S. farm animals are even exempted from many of the state animal anti-cruelty statutes as long as the practices to which they are subjected are considered “standard” for that particular industry. In the absence of regulation, it now appears that consumer concerns will be addressed here in an entirely different (and characteristically American) way—in the marketplace.

MARKETPLACE CHANGES

The first company to become involved in setting standards for animal welfare was one that some, in this era of queasiness about the effects of globalization of U.S. corporations, might consider an unlikely trend-setter: McDonald’s. As part of their overall corporate responsibility program and in response to public concerns, McDonald’s decided that it was time to tackle farm animal welfare issues in a practical and direct way. Working with Temple Grandin, an animal handling expert from Colorado State University, it established an auditing program for handling and stunning for its suppliers that led to major improvements in the humane treatment of cattle in processing plants (www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/social/marketplace/welfare/program/index.htm).

McDonald’s then established an Animal Welfare Council composed of scientists and a representative from an animal protection organization, to work with the corporation on the development of animal welfare policies. McDonald’s has now extended its auditing program to its laying hen producers, after establishing minimum standards for air quality, lighting, beak-trimming, and other aspects of hen management. In addition, McDonald’s required that each hen be given 72 square inches of space (the egg industry standard is currently 48-54 square inches) and that induced molting be stopped. Induced molting is a process that involves increasing the production of hens by depriving them of food for days to weeks, which has been criticized on both animal welfare and food safety grounds.

The effort started by McDonald’s quickly expanded throughout the food retail industry. Burger King, Wendy’s, and Kentucky Fried Chicken (Tricon) also formed animal welfare advisory groups and began implementing slaughter audits. And last year, in an effort that will usher in widespread changes in farm animal welfare in the U.S., the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), which represents most of the nation’s supermarket chains, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR), representing the fast-food industry, established an animal welfare committee to assist in setting nationwide animal welfare standards. These standards will apply not just to handling and slaughter, but also to all phases of animal production, birth to slaughter, and to all livestock and poultry species.

To accomplish their goals, the FMI and NCCR are working closely with the various animal commodity groups in the development of guidelines. FMI and NCCR stipulated that each of the commodity groups establish an independent advisory group composed of scientists, veterinarians, and consumer representatives to identify relevant issues and review the scientific literature related to animal welfare in order to provide a basis for thorough and responsible animal care guidelines. This model had already been used by one of the most proactive commodity groups, the United Egg Producers (UEP). The resulting UEP guidelines were, in fact, used as the basis for the McDonald’s hen auditing program.

WELFARE STANDARDS

The guiding principles of FMI are that farm animals be provided with adequate food, water, and shelter; be handled properly; and be kept in an environment that “protects them from physical, chemical, and thermal abuse, stress and distress.” Overall goals of the FMI/NCCR process are to: 1) achieve consistency across the U.S. retail sector; 2) implement practical and attainable guidelines based on science; 3) develop a measurable audit process; 4) maintain an advisory council of third party, independent animal welfare experts; and 5) improve communications across the supply chain on animal welfare issues. FMI/NCCR issued a report on this process last month (www.fmi.org/animal_welfare/). Although time will be required to develop guidelines and an auditing and labeling system for all aspects of animal production, the FMI/NCCR have now endorsed, with some modifications, the standards developed for caged laying hens by the United Egg Producers, the standards for dairy cattle developed by the Milk and Dairy Beef Quality Assurance Center, and the standards and auditing practices for livestock slaughter developed by the American Meat Institute.

The standards that will be implemented via the FMI/NCCR process will be sweeping and have a profound impact on animal agriculture in the U.S. When the auditing system is established, consumers will have an assurance that the animal products that they purchase in the supermarket or at their local chain restaurant have been produced according to best management practices. It is unlikely, however, that these standards will mandate a general move to more extensive production systems, i.e., free range or cage-free egg production systems for hens or outdoor housing systems for sows and their piglets. Only a relatively small number of animals in the U.S. are produced in such “alternative” systems (for example, fewer than two percent of laying hens are housed in cage-free systems), so ensuring a sufficient market supply of products from these systems would currently be impossible.

Consumers interested in purchasing animals raised in alternative systems like these have faced a challenge because of the lack of a clear labeling system for so-called “animal welfare friendly” products in this country. However, there is now one such labeling program, the Free Farmed program, which was developed by the American Humane Association and is audited by an independent auditing system verified by the USDA. The ethical principles underlying the Free Farmed guidelines are that animals should be provided with “Five Freedoms.” These include freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; from thermal and physical discomfort, fear and distress; and the freedom to express most normal behaviors. This means that animals must be housed in a way that provides sufficient space for movement, company of the animal’s own kind, and things like bedding material to increase comfort and provide the opportunities for behaviors like nest-building. Certified producers can place the Free Farmed logo on their products. There are currently certified producers for pork, chicken meat, dairy products, beef, and eggs. Certification requires adherence to a detailed set of animal welfare standards developed by a committee of animal science and veterinary experts; copies of these are available on request from the Free Farmed program (www.freefarmed.org).

Animal welfare has now joined food safety and environmental sustainability as a critical issue for U.S. consumers of animal products. More than ever, consumers will be able to influence the development of animal production systems and management practices with their voices and their dollars.

Joy Mench received her Ph.D. in animal behavior from the University of Sussex in England, and is currently a professor in the animal science department and the director of the Center for Animal Welfare at the University of California, Davis. Mench conducts research on the behavior and welfare of laboratory, farm, and captive animals, with a specialization in poultry behavior and welfare. She serves on many national committees related to farm animal welfare, including the National Turkey Federation Humane Culling Task Force, the United Egg Producers Animal Welfare Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committees of McDonald’s, Tricon Global Foods, and the Food Marketing Institute/National Council of Chain Restaurants. She chaired the committee that developed the standards for the American Humane Association Free Farmed program, and serves as an independent auditor for that program. She also chaired the writing committee for the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching, which is used nationally as the standard of care for farm animals used in research.

Relevant papers

Mench, J.A. 1999. Ethics in animal agriculture: ethics of animal use, animal biotechnology, and production practices. Proceedings, FAIR 2000, Federation of Animal Science Societies, Savoy, IL.

Kannan, G. and J.A. Mench, 1996. Influence of different handling methods and crating periods on plasma corticosterone levels in broilers. British Poultry Science 37:21-31.

Mench, J.A. 1992. The welfare of poultry in modern production systems. Poultry Science Reviews 4, 107-128.

Other suggested reading

D. Fraser, J. Mench, and S. Millman. Farm animals and their welfare in 2000. In State of the Animals, ed. D.J, Salem and A.N. Rowan, Humane Society Press, Washington, D.C.

Appleby, M. 1999. What Should We Do About Animal Welfare? Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.

Grandin, T. 1993. Livestock Handling and Transport. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, U.K.

---

ALTERNATIVES FOR FARMERS

Free, downloadable bulletins on alternative production practices for poultry and hog producers are available from the USDA’s Sustainable Agiculture Research and Education program (SARE). Access Profitable Poultry: Raising Birds on Pasture and Profitable Pork: Strategies for Hog Producers at www.sare.org/htdocs/pubs/ For more information see RESOURCES.