The focus on animal welfare in society has increased during the last 50 years. Animal welfare legislation and private standards have developed, and today many farmers within animal production have both governmental legislation and private standards to comply with. In this paper intentions and values are described that were expressed in 14 animal welfare legislation and standards in four European countries; Sweden, United Kingdom, Germany and Spain. It is also discussed if the legislation and standards actually accomplish what they, in their overall description and ethics, claimed to do, i.e. if this is followed up by relevant paragraphs in the actual body of the text in the legislation and standards respectively. The method used was an on-line questionnaire from the EconWelfare research project and text analyses. This study shows that the ethical values within a set of legislation or private standards are not always consistently implemented, and it is not always possible to follow a thread between the intentions mentioned initially and the actual details of the legislation or standard. Since values will differ so will also the animal welfare levels and the implications of similar concepts in the regulations. In general, the regulations described were not based on animal welfare considerations only, but also other aspects, such as food safety, meat quality, environmental aspects and socioeconomic aspects were taken into account. This is understandable, but creates a gap between explicit and implicit values, which we

The hot topic of genetic modification and genome editing is sometimes presented as a rapid solution to various problems in the field of animal breeding and genetics. These technologies hold potential for future use in agriculture but we need to be aware of difficulties in large-scale application and integration in breeding schemes. In this review, we discuss applications of both classical genetic modifications (GM) using vectors and genome editing in dairy cattle breeding. We use an interdisciplinary approach considering both ethical and animal breeding perspectives. Decisions on how to make use of these techniques need to be made based not only on what is possible, but on what is reasonable to do. Principles of animal integrity, naturalness, risk perception, and animal welfare issues are examples of ethically relevant factors to consider. These factors also influence public perception and decisions about regulations by authorities. We need to acknowledge that we lack complete understanding of the genetic background of complex traits. It may be difficult, therefore, to predict the full effect of certain modifications in large-scale breeding programs. We present 2 potential applications: genome editing to dispense with dehorning, and insertion of human genes in bovine genomes to improve udder health as an example of classical GM. Both of these cases could be seen as beneficial for animal welfare but they differ in other aspects. In the former case, a genetic variant already present within the species is introduced, whereas in the latter case, transgenic animals are generated-this difference may influence how society regards the applications. We underline that the use of GM, as well as genome editing, of farm animals such as cattle is not independent of the context, and should be considered as part of an entire process, including, for example, the assisted reproduction technology that needs to be used. We propose that breeding organizations and breeding companies should take an active role in ethical discussions about the use of these techniques and thereby signal to society that these questions are being responsibly addressed.

No abstract

Simple SummaryIn 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.AbstractThe 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.

Until recently fish welfare attracted little attention, but international and national legislation and standards of fish welfare are now emerging and an overview of these developments is presented in this study. Whereas animal welfare legislation is based on public morality, animal ethics does not automatically accept public morality as normative and elaborates arguments regarding the way humans should treat animals (referred to as moral standards). In this study we present the most common animal ethics theories. For most of these, sentience is considered a demarcation line for moral concern: if an animal is sentient, then it should be included in the moral circle, i.e. receive moral consideration in its own right and some basic welfare should be ensured. As for fish, research has revealed that the sensory system of teleosts can detect noxious stimuli, and that some kind of phenomenal consciousness, allowing the fish to feel pain, seems to be present. This raises the ethical question as to how much evidence we need in order to act on such indications of fish sentience. A simple risk analysis shows that the probability that fishes can feel pain is not negligible and that if they do indeed experience pain the consequences in terms of the number of suffering individuals are great. We conclude that farmed fish should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should make efforts that their welfare needs are met as well as possible. Finally, the way forward is briefly discussed: efforts must be made to understand what fish welfare means in practical fish farming. This will involve the development of research and education, greater accountability and transparency, compliance with and control of policies, and quality assurance schemes.