Response to the Defra Consultation ‘Delivering Good Animal Welfare

CFG 02/07

Foodaware response to the Defra Consultation ‘Delivering Good Animal Welfare: A draft delivery strategy under the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, November 2006’

Defra has published this consultation document to provide additional information on the Government’s goals for animal welfare, and impart the vision for delivering animal welfare in the future. Defra wishes to achieve a move away from ‘the traditional legislative approach, towards delivery of outcomes through other, more innovative means. This will mean effective enforcement of existing regulations, but also a greater emphasis on stakeholders and Government working together to deliver good welfare, with clarity about their respective roles and responsibilities.’ The Strategy covers England only, but recognises the value of sharing best practice and working with the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for Wales in this field.

Foodaware recognises that animal welfare can be compromised as a result of poor husbandry, disease including neglect, mistreatment, and the non-therapeutic use of drugs for yield enhancement. Our members support policies which contribute to the production of good quality, safe food and informed consumer choice from products on the market. Consumers can only exercise choice if they can obtain information about the methods of production of animal products that is accurate, reliable and readily available.

The UK has been at the forefront of the development of animal welfare legislation in the European Union. Foodaware has supported actions to reduce the stress on animals during transportation and before slaughter as this is beneficial to the animals and affects the quality of the food on sale. Our members have also supported initiatives to raise standards of husbandry for poultry and fish farming to improve hygiene and health status, and reduce dependence on prophylactic medication and antibiotic treatments.

We support Defra’s commitment to retain a broadly based animal health and welfare strategy within which good welfare is recognised as bringing economic benefits to producers and consumers.

In outlining potential benefits from the delivery strategy, Defra identifies four areas of particular interest to consumers, namely:

Validated and trusted national assurance schemes for welfare, which are easily identified and understood by consumers;
Improved capture of information on existing animals welfare standards and trends over time;
A proportionate and targeted enforcement approach;
Realised economic benefits from good welfare systems for producers.

In relation to farmed animals and fish, producers already carry responsibility for complying with legal requirements and meeting food safety and hygiene legislation. There are many different private assurance schemes which contain references to animal welfare and husbandry, but the picture for individual consumers is confused. The welfare standards which these schemes require producers to meet vary significantly, and it is difficult for consumers to know whether they merely meet existing legal requirements or offer higher standards of welfare.

Q.1     Does the scope proposed cover the right ground?

We acknowledge that there is already significant legislation in this area and take the view that this should be appropriately enforced. Where, in relation to farmed animals, there are ongoing welfare problems such as lameness in dairy cattle and problems with leg strength of poultry from selective breeding and rearing practices, Defra should continue to fund research and work with the industry to try to overcome them. We note that the scope of the consultation excludes wild animals except where they are under the control of humans, and recognise that there is some ambiguity in relation to animals shot for sport which enter the food chain. We understand that farmed game is covered by the scope of the consultation and believe that it should be. We note that the Strategy does not cover ‘animals used in research’ which are regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, but consider that there may be some uncertainty regarding animals which have been cloned outside a scientific establishment as is now happening in the USA. Can you please clarify that such animals are covered by this legislation so that their health and welfare can be appropriately protected?

Q.2     Is the vision sufficiently challenging / aspirational?

One area in which we consider Defra could offer greater leadership, clarity and commitment is in relation to welfare standards in assurance schemes and the extent to which they are met. Section 2.3 states that ‘standards above this [regulatory] baseline should be delivered by stakeholders, facilitated by Government with an increasing emphasis on sharing responsibility for achieving good animal welfare.' We agree with the principle of responsibility sharing in relation to welfare, for those who keep the animals should have the primary responsibility for day to day care. However, in relation to assurance standards it is not sufficient ’for Government to act simply as a facilitator, providing guidance and information or backing for initiatives that are entirely stakeholder-owned’ as suggested in the consultative document. Lack of a common approach has led to a situation where consumers are utterly confused about the welfare standards supported by different private schemes, and find it difficult to obtain objective information about what they mean in practice. We understand that even in the organic sector where standards are specified in legislation, it is possible for a producer who fails to meet welfare standards in one scheme to join another scheme without independent verification that animal welfare and the relevant legislation are not being compromised. Consumers need farm assurance schemes to set clear standards which are independently verified, and for any claims only to be allowed where they relate to objective measures which exceed basic legal requirements.

Q.3     To what extent will the proposed new approach help to improve achievement of good standards of animal welfare?

In relation to farm animals, this approach will only help to the extent to which producers and their representative organisations are committed to deliver good standards and supermarkets themselves choose to provide better information about what is happening in practice. We would like to see not just promotion of those schemes which demonstrate best practice, but exposure of those producers who flout the law and mislead consumers. A comprehensive strategy must include carrots and sticks, and Defra should not overlook the persuasive role which ‘naming and shaming’ can play in achieving compliance. This is also relevant in relation to imported animal products and not just those produced in the domestic or EU market. Where improvements in welfare can be delivered as a result of advances in knowledge, training or competence, Defra should promote them actively with producers, be clear about the standards it expects, and communicate them to the public at large. Where animal keepers knowingly and persistently flout the law, they need to be dealt with appropriately and ousted from the industry if they are producing animals for consumption.

Q.4     Is the proposed balance of responsibilities right?

We agree that the prime responsibility for welfare should lay with the animal owner and that they should fulfil a duty of care for the animals in their charge. The duty of care as described in section 2.4 does not specify the wider duty as far as is possible to protect the animals themselves, the public and employees from the spread of disease. This is undoubtedly covered in other legislation, but it would be helpful for the wider duty which is related to welfare to be acknowledged here.

Q.4 iv) Is it reasonable to require consumers of animals and animals products to ‘have regard to’ the welfare provenance of their purchases?

This may be a reasonable objective, but it is purely aspirational. Defra cannot require consumers to do this, merely encourage them to do so. Some consumers on low incomes may not have the luxury of considering the welfare provenance of their food, and it is Government’s role to ensure that minimum welfare standards for animal production are complied with. Consumers may take an interest in it but are reliant on Government to enforce minimum standards, and suppliers to provide accurate information which does not mislead. Consumers who do take an active interest in animal welfare cannot decide for themselves whether particular products meet specified standards. They must rely on third party enforcement agencies, supermarket quality assurance and inspection personnel to act with integrity and ensure that produce meets both legal requirements and any claims that are made for it. Consumers may consider the welfare provenance of their purchases, but this is of little value if they cannot obtain objective information about what that means in practice. Government should be taking a lead in this area by working with local authorities and other agencies to ensure that appropriate and factual information is available to those who want it. It is important that Defra include a strategy for communicating with the public as well as animal owners and keepers as part of the follow up to this consultation.

Q.6     To what extent will improving the quality, coverage and penetration of information to animal keepers help drive improvements in welfare?

We support the Government’s objective (Goal 1) of encouraging knowledge transfer and the promotion of expert advice. However, necessary as it will be, this is only part of the picture. Foodaware would like road shows to provide information to the general public about the relevance of welfare considerations for quality food and health, and does not believe that the Department should focus solely on the need to communicate with animal keepers and suppliers of food. Public information on these matters should be a priority within the Action Plan.

Q.7     Do you agree with the supposition that there is no shared, robust data with which to baseline existing standards?

If there is, we are unaware of it. There is certainly no agreement on the level at which the standards in assurance schemes are, or should be, pitched; what constitutes the minimum required by law; what best practice can deliver at reasonable cost; or indeed what the public should reasonably expect from such schemes.

Q.8     Will the provision of more comprehensive and standardised information facilitate consumer selection? Can you suggest how better use could be made of assurance schemes and/or labelling?

It should be possible to provide simple answers to these apparently simple questions but the market is complex, consumers have different requirements and they will be prepared to purchase products produced to a variety of standards. However, it goes without saying that more standardised, accurate, understandable and comparable information should facilitate informed choice. A major problem for consumers is the complexity of the present assurance arrangements and the fact that they are developed as marketing tools and not to provide objective information. There needs to be agreement on the baseline legal standards which all food must meet and any assurance scheme which wishes to make reference to higher welfare standards must be able to measure those objectively and consistently, and describe what that means in practice to those consumers who wish to know. While there is no agreement on baseline standards, Defra, FSA, or a nominated independent body, should provide comparative information illustrating how the schemes differ and what consumers should expect.

Q.9     Is there room for greater self monitoring / regulation by stakeholder organisations? If so how? Can you suggest other ways of reducing the burden of compliance with legislation on animal keepers?

Consumers cannot have confidence in self-regulation where there is no agreement on the standards which must be complied with! The farming community has to be able to demonstrate compliance on an ongoing basis and, in the light of past failures, this must be subject to sampling or independent monitoring. Assurance schemes have a significant role to play in this regard, but should require an assessment of all those who wish to join a scheme at the point of entry, and agree levels of inspection based on risk for all who wish to participate in a scheme. The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) requires inspection arrangements to be independent of the assurance schemes which set the standards, and this separation is vital for consumers to have confidence that standards are being met. There is undoubtedly scope for combined inspections, and perhaps for a risk-based approach, to be introduced to ensure that the inspections carried out are efficiently managed while achieving the objectives of independent verification.

Q.10    Should ngo’s have a role in representing the UK in international fora?

Consumer organisations support the view that ngo and stakeholder organisations should be encouraged to participate in international meetings and, where appropriate, represent the UK. We would suggest that this should be as part of a broadly based delegation, and only where it is appropriate. However, we are acutely aware that the UK has historically not encouraged such participation and that there is a significant risk that only those organisations with significant funding could afford to do so. If this is not to mean that producer interests have an even greater presence than they currently have, Government must lay aside some resources to facilitate ngo and consumer involvement. Government can also help by providing summary information and sharing intelligence with ngos on the discussions and decisions which are under consideration in international organisations, and how best to influence outcomes at appropriate times.

Q.12    Can you suggest any specific actions that your organisation could commit to taking forward as part of the Action Plan?

As stated from the outset, our interest is in the food chain and not in animal welfare in isolation. However, we are particularly interested in the ministerial commitment to improve welfare labelling, and would support the development of a consistent labelling framework which can be understood by and be useful for consumers. We would be prepared to assist with this work and participate in stakeholder groups in order to try to clarify the standards which consumers would expect from assurance schemes.

Q.13    Do you have any other general comments not reflected elsewhere?

In relation to welfare labelling, any new scheme will need to sit alongside legally required information. It will need to be clear, simple and easy for consumers to recognise and rely on. Defra should try to learn from the experience of FSA in introducing its voluntary labelling scheme for nutritional information on pack, and also share the lessons which can be learnt from consumer research done in this area by Government Departments and Agencies, retail organisations and consumer groups so that it is not re-inventing the wheel in this fraught area. Defra will also need to look to the future and consider how it might deal with issues for welfare labelling arising from the cloning of farm animals and genetically modified animals or poultry.

January 2007