Cover Story, Part 2: The Pivotal Role of Animal Welfare Codes of Practice

Monday, August 5, 2013

Codes of practice exist across the country and in many sectors, but how binding are they?
And should they involve other groups like retailers and even consumers?

by MARY BAXTER

On June 1, the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) released its draft code of practice for the care and handling of pigs. Many had anticipated that the code would contain new standards for sow gestation stalls. They were right, and a measure of how pivotal the issue of gestation stalls has been for both the industry and animal rights advocates is how quickly public response followed the draft code's release. By June 4, it had already garnered more than 80 responses.

Animal care codes like the one proposed for pigs now play a pivotal role in Canada's emerging animal welfare system. Provinces such as British Columbia and Manitoba refer to them in their animal cruelty legislation. In Ontario, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals uses them in their activities. Industry associations that have introduced animal care assessment into their quality assurance programs use them as guidelines for farm auditing programs.

The codes typically address animal housing, pain management, health provisions, livestock management and euthanasia procedures. They are built through the collaboration of all of those who have a stake in the treatment of farm animals – farmers, processors, retailers, researchers and animal welfare advocates. Geoff Urton, a Canadian Federation of Humane Societies' representative on the NFACC, calls the process "very credible." There is tremendous scientific input, a place at the table for all stakeholders and a public comment period.

Yet, ultimately, this process culminates in a non-binding group handshake. What's to prevent one of those at the table from ignoring the code if, sometime further down the line, it suits their interests to do so? Is simple trust the best foundation on which to build a national animal welfare system?

Urton and many others in the industry think so. "When I look around the world and I see how animal welfare is being addressed, what I see are single groups controlling the agenda, I see a lot of emotions and divisive arguing from different points of view," says Jackie Wepruk, the Council's general manager. "I see a lot of outrage on all sides and I see very little collaboration that ultimately is going to lead us to a result that really is good for animals."

In contrast, around the code development table, she sees people who are willing to work through the issues and build trust with one another. Producers and representatives from the country's humane societies talk constructively with each other and even choose, at times, to sit side-by-side or lunch together. "I don't think that you can put a price tag on the value of that kind of exchange," she says.

It's also recognized the codes are only one component of animal welfare. Assessment is therefore vital to provide public assurance that the codes are being met, and the Council is working on a standardized assessment model that all livestock sectors can use. "We're shifting away from just a best management practice base through to a trust-but-verify system," observes Crystal Mackay, executive director of Farm & Food Care Ontario, which fosters greater understanding of modern farming practices with the public and other industry.

Funding languished
National and provincial legislation are other key backups, says Urton. Industry associations can implement regular monitoring of farms in a way that no one else can. "But you still need some kind of safety net below that when things go wrong."

Yet the codes remain the cornerstone. That's why their vulnerability to the whims of government support is so problematic. When funding languished in the early 2000s, so too did updates. The Council, formed in 2005 principally to take responsibility for the codes, pledges regular code updates on its website. Wepruk acknowledges, however, that the goal may be difficult to achieve.

Efforts to update a review of the egg layers' code of practice, which began earlier this year, is a case in point. The Council's project funding ends Dec. 31. "We know that the layer code, because it was started later in the process, will not be finished," she says.

The Council will apply for more federal project funding, but more stable ongoing funding would be a better support. Anyone who has worked with project funding knows that "when you have a multi-stakeholder process, the deadlines and the project restrictions aren't always conducive to the needs of code development," Wepruk says.

Another challenge is the absence of a formal commitment from the stakeholders to abide by the terms of the code until the next update. There is "absolutely a possibility" that some of those around the table will not honour the code, says Mackay. Retailers "are the customers; they can make up whatever demands they want," she explains. "In an ideal world, the code process encourages dialogue between all the stakeholders, so hopefully you don't have retailers making independent decisions."

Wepruk believes that the round table approach to a code's development is what ultimately achieves buy-in and that's why it's so important to engage retailers at the table. All stakeholders are asked to use the codes. "In the absence of that multi-stakeholder process, you're more vulnerable to the game changing on you."

Yet sometimes it's not so easy to entice retailers to become involved. Retail representation is missing from the chickens, turkeys and breeders code development committee that began its update process in 2011. "Requested but position not filled," reads the note beside the sector's designated seat listing on the Council's website.

Urton argues that the chance of being blindsided with new terms from the market is unlikely. Hot button issues "don't come out of nowhere." And maintaining stakeholder relations between code updates can help prevent problems from becoming politicized.   

Adding an economic impact analysis component to the code development process would assure a more achievable end result, says Mackay. She recalls meeting a representative from the Danish cattle federation shortly after the Canadian draft dairy code of practice was released. (The final code was published in 2009.) The Danish organization was developing a similar code for the dairy producers it represents. It would become legislation. "We compared document to document side-by-side," she recalls. "It was almost uncanny how identical they are."

But one significant difference stood out – the Dutch code contained an analysis of just how much the animal welfare initiatives would cost the taxpayer. So, when the code was circulated for feedback, "Guess what?" Mackay says. "The public said no."

Low priority
Animal welfare also needs to be looked at within the broader context of overall sustainability for food, she adds. She points to a recent study by Farm & Food Care that found consumers rated animal welfare the lowest of five principles of sustainability. Health and food safety came first, and then economics. "People love animals, they care about animals, they want them to be well treated," she says. But, put into perspective with other sustainable issues, "it's not the most important."

Consumers' perspectives on the issues are not necessarily the same as those held by citizens, counters Jeff Spooner, a social scientist and University of British Columbia animal welfare program researcher. Spooner is involved in a study that's collecting Canadian attitudes towards animal welfare to develop recommendations about establishing a comprehensive Canadian animal welfare system.

"What we're interested in doing is supplementing that process of agreement building by looking for overlapping or shared values, attitudes and beliefs of a fundamental nature among the major stakeholders," he explains. "If we can start with some areas of potential agreement or areas that we can build on, some building blocks, then we can supplement that process of the development of a comprehensive welfare program in the country."

Spooner says that, while citizens generate social attitudes which can be reflected in arenas such as government legislation and economic markets, consumers represent people undertaking one type of activity within society.

In the European Union and the United States, vocal citizen interest in animal welfare has resulted in legislative change. In Canada, however, it's not really known what the citizenry thinks. "That's partially why we're driving this research."

So far, the study has affirmed many points established by other research. For example, all groups recognize that consumers have great potential to influence the marketplace, which is important because market initiatives are heavily used to define and dictate animal welfare terms in Canada.

All groups also recognize that citizens have limited knowledge about modern farming practices. Spooner is finding, however, that once people express their passion over the issue, they admit their lack of knowledge and express a desire to learn more and obtain a more balanced view. Moreover, citizens interviewed recognize animal welfare solutions can be limited by factors such as environment, climate conditions or economics. "We get these little, what I call, ‘olive branches' that come out when we talk to members of the public about welfare," he says.  

The research is finding more common ground between the groups than might be expected. There's agreement over issues surrounding humane handling. All groups acknowledge that there are economic realities as to how animals are handled.

Spooner argues that there is a need for interaction between the different groups, not only at the blue-sky level with codes of practice but also at the grassroots. He recommends that industry groups or producers sit down with citizens and develop pilot tests for animal welfare production methods.

It's an educational opportunity that gives all groups a chance to focus on the issue in practical terms. "You bypass a lot of the stuff that I think can become problematic when you're trying to get just agreements in principle or even theoretical agreements in operations." BF

SIDEBAR: Nine codes of practice in place or in the works
by SUSAN MANN

There are currently nine codes of practice in various states of completion, says Jackie Wepruk, general manager for the National Farm Animal Care Council:

Dairy cattle – Updated in 2009
Beef cattle – To be released in August
Pork – Draft code released for public comment in June
Mink – Released in the spring of 2013
Fox – Released in the spring of 2013
Equine – Released in June
Sheep – Draft code released for public comment in July
Poultry meat (chicken broilers, turkey, hatching egg and hatchery
      industries) – Update initiated in 2011
Poultry layer – Update initiated in 2012

In addition, the industry has identified the transport code, released in 2001 as a priority to update because the transportation sections in the livestock commodity codes of practice only cover the decision-making process up to the farm gate. BF