Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 29, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports animal welfare
Animal welfare: what has changed in the past 50 years? The 3rd CABI symposium on animal welfare and behaviour was held on June 11, and featured a range of talks on ‘animals as machines’. The symposium marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of the book ‘Animal Machines’ by Ruth Harrison. The book decried the conditions experienced at that time by many animals kept in intensive farming systems, and the speakers at the symposium discussed how far animal welfare had come since its publication. Georgina Mills reports Working to improve animal welfare was like ‘climbing an infinite staircase’, according to Michael Appleby, chief scientific adviser at World Animal Protection (formerly known as the World Society for the Protection of Animals). Giving the first presentation at the CABI symposium, which was held at the Royal Veterinary College, London, he commented: ‘It often feels that, no matter how much progress you make, the actual overall impact is minimal, and the things that remain to be done continue to stretch ahead of us.’ In terms of improving animal welfare, over the past 50 years ‘much has been done, but much remains to be done’. However, legislation to safeguard and improve animal welfare had increased since the publication of Mrs Harrison’s book, said Donald Broom, emeritus professor of animal welfare at the University of Cambridge. For example, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 had ‘brought in a very important thing – duty of care’. This legislation had made it much easier to prosecute people who had not cared for their animals, he said. He also noted that, within the European Union, there were whole sets of laws that had been invaluable to animal welfare, and he thought that Mrs Harrison would be pleased with these. These EU laws had also had a knock-on effect on other countries, which had started to follow suit by bringing in similar legislation. A key development in animal welfare had been the increasing ease in communicating globally, Professor Appleby added. International meetings and collaboration were increasing, he said, and
The speakers at the CABI symposium: (from left) Michael Appleby, Tara Garnett, Peter Sandøe, Jen Walker and Donald Broom
this would only improve attitudes towards animal welfare. Indeed, all of the speakers at the meeting agreed that internationality was the key, as they discussed the issues of the day in a panel discussion. Countries needed to work together towards better animal welfare, and individual countries should make a stand for welfare and not be afraid, they said. There was often a tendency to believe that if welfare was improved in one country unilaterally, this would just export the problem elsewhere, said Professor Appleby. But this was not a reason for inaction. Many countries might have lower animal welfare standards than others, he said, and there was a fear that attempting to level up welfare standards internationally would lead to a downgrading of higher standards. However, the key to internationalism was that it should lead to an aspiration to improve welfare. Competition would happen whatever the welfare standards were, but the fear that internationalism would drive down
the standards of animal welfare had not been realised so far, he commented. Professor Broom agreed that action should be taken regardless of whether the issue was exported to other countries. He likened it to not stopping slavery or child labour because of fears that the problem would go elsewhere,. He believed that there needed to be ‘absolute standards’ that were adhered to. Animal welfare issues ought to be raised and improved, he said, even if, for a period, others were not following suit. It would be a gradual change, and not something that would happen overnight. You might have to lose something in the short run, to gain in the long run, added Peter Sandøe, professor of bioethics at the University of Copenhagen. It was a difficult trade off and there were compromises to be made. It was something that might not be perfect, but would be moving in the right direction. doi: 10.1136/vr.g4366
July 12, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 37
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 29, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Animal welfare: what has changed in the past 50 years? Veterinary Record 2014 175: 37
doi: 10.1136/vr.g4366 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/175/2/37
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
News & Reports animal welfare
Animal welfare: what has changed in the past 50 years? The 3rd CABI symposium on animal welfare and behaviour was held on June 11, and featured a range of talks on ‘animals as machines’. The symposium marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of the book ‘Animal Machines’ by Ruth Harrison. The book decried the conditions experienced at that time by many animals kept in intensive farming systems, and the speakers at the symposium discussed how far animal welfare had come since its publication. Georgina Mills reports Working to improve animal welfare was like ‘climbing an infinite staircase’, according to Michael Appleby, chief scientific adviser at World Animal Protection (formerly known as the World Society for the Protection of Animals). Giving the first presentation at the CABI symposium, which was held at the Royal Veterinary College, London, he commented: ‘It often feels that, no matter how much progress you make, the actual overall impact is minimal, and the things that remain to be done continue to stretch ahead of us.’ In terms of improving animal welfare, over the past 50 years ‘much has been done, but much remains to be done’. However, legislation to safeguard and improve animal welfare had increased since the publication of Mrs Harrison’s book, said Donald Broom, emeritus professor of animal welfare at the University of Cambridge. For example, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 had ‘brought in a very important thing – duty of care’. This legislation had made it much easier to prosecute people who had not cared for their animals, he said. He also noted that, within the European Union, there were whole sets of laws that had been invaluable to animal welfare, and he thought that Mrs Harrison would be pleased with these. These EU laws had also had a knock-on effect on other countries, which had started to follow suit by bringing in similar legislation. A key development in animal welfare had been the increasing ease in communicating globally, Professor Appleby added. International meetings and collaboration were increasing, he said, and
The speakers at the CABI symposium: (from left) Michael Appleby, Tara Garnett, Peter Sandøe, Jen Walker and Donald Broom
this would only improve attitudes towards animal welfare. Indeed, all of the speakers at the meeting agreed that internationality was the key, as they discussed the issues of the day in a panel discussion. Countries needed to work together towards better animal welfare, and individual countries should make a stand for welfare and not be afraid, they said. There was often a tendency to believe that if welfare was improved in one country unilaterally, this would just export the problem elsewhere, said Professor Appleby. But this was not a reason for inaction. Many countries might have lower animal welfare standards than others, he said, and there was a fear that attempting to level up welfare standards internationally would lead to a downgrading of higher standards. However, the key to internationalism was that it should lead to an aspiration to improve welfare. Competition would happen whatever the welfare standards were, but the fear that internationalism would drive down
the standards of animal welfare had not been realised so far, he commented. Professor Broom agreed that action should be taken regardless of whether the issue was exported to other countries. He likened it to not stopping slavery or child labour because of fears that the problem would go elsewhere,. He believed that there needed to be ‘absolute standards’ that were adhered to. Animal welfare issues ought to be raised and improved, he said, even if, for a period, others were not following suit. It would be a gradual change, and not something that would happen overnight. You might have to lose something in the short run, to gain in the long run, added Peter Sandøe, professor of bioethics at the University of Copenhagen. It was a difficult trade off and there were compromises to be made. It was something that might not be perfect, but would be moving in the right direction. doi: 10.1136/vr.g4366
July 12, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 37
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 29, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Animal welfare: what has changed in the past 50 years? Veterinary Record 2014 175: 37
doi: 10.1136/vr.g4366 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/175/2/37
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
