Comparison of Norwegian health and welfare regulatory frameworks in salmon and chicken production

Abstract

The health and welfare of farmed fish are often regarded with less concern than for other production animals. This review compares the Norwegian legal health and welfare frameworks for broiler chickens and farmed salmon, with the aim of improving regulations for salmon farming in Norway. Highlighting differences in laws, regulations and governmental organisation are also highly relevant in general, especially in developing welfare regulations for farmed fish in other countries. Norwegian chicken farmers must comply with two main laws, the Norwegian Animal Welfare Act and the Food Act, governed by the same ministry and governmental agency. The salmon farmers must in addition relate to the Aquaculture Act, different ministries and several agencies with different objectives. Compared to the regulation of chicken farming, the regulation of salmon farming is more complex, has potentially conflicting aims and uses less positive welfare phrasings. Thus, the regulation may be perceived as focusing on profitability over welfare. Despite having many similar paragraphs to regulation for chicken farming, salmon farming regulation is less strict in the daily securing of animals and recordings of mortality. There is no specified slaughterhouse control of high‐density productions, as there is for broiler chickens. There are also differences in the mandatory welfare courses, one being that infection prevention is a stated topic for chickens. The Norwegian Animal Welfare Act has no possibility of dispensation, meaning exceptions, and treats fish and other animals equally. Future regulatory frameworks for farmed fish production should avoid unintended downgrading of fish health and welfare.

Minding the Gaps in Fish Welfare: The Untapped Potential of Fish Farm Workers

“…Many of these challenges stemmed from organizational conditions in the industry as well as from the complex framework of regulations and objectives that apply to aquaculture operations in Norway. In contrast to other IFAP industries, such as chicken production, in which producers must comply with two laws governed by the same governmental ministry, salmon producers are pursuant to multiple regulations from two different ministries as well as several different agencies (Gismervik et al, 2020 ). Additionally, some of these regulations, such as those aiming to prevent and combat outbreaks of Pancreas Disease (PD), divide the country into different regional zones with different directives and practices, adding to the complexity.…”

“…These and other issues are frequently discussed in polarized media debates about salmon farming (Olsen & Osmundsen, 2017 ; Stien et al, 2020a ; Young et al, 2019 ), exacerbating many farm workers’ own feelings of responsibility and moral pressure. Adding to this sentiment is a continuous expectation of economic growth and industrial intensification, juxtaposed with a complex and dynamic framework of legislation (Gismervik et al, 2020 ; Mellbye, 2018 ) to which fish farm workers are continually pursuant, and spend a great deal of time and energy pursuing.…”

“…This includes the ability to “read the fish” and the sea (Lien, 2015 ), knowing how to respond to various indications that these readings elicit in accordance with policy or best practice (Størkersen, 2012 ; Thorvaldsen et al, 2018 ), and a thorough familiarity with the many guidelines and regulations pertaining to salmon farming and animal welfare. These guidelines include not just explicit laws on animal welfare, but a network of related and overlapping regulations regarding everything from transport to sanitation, lice counts, and working hours (Gismervik et al, 2020 ; Mellbye, 2018 ). Within this dynamic regulatory framework, salmon farmers must perform daily tasks while maintaining the welfare of the animal lives under their purview by virtue of their intrinsic value [ egenverdi ] as well as their economic value [ økonomisk verdi ].…”

“…As one measure to ensure that fish welfare is maintained across the aquaculture industry, Norwegian animal welfare legislation requires that all fish farm workers tending the fish attend fish welfare courses similar to those in other IFAP industries in the country (Gismervik et al, 2020 ; Lien, 2015 ) at least every five years. Although held by several different organizers, welfare courses share a common regulatory framework under the national Norwegian Food Safety Authority ( Mattilsynet ), which also prescribes common guidelines for required content and learning outcomes.…”

Beyond 2020

“…The review article written by Gismervik et al . (2020) places a focus on fish welfare issues in the aquaculture industry, providing a number of good parallel examples from the on‐farm welfare issues encountered in poultry production in Norway. The lessons learned from other animal farming sectors, and the reasonings provided in this Norwegian aquaculture focused study, could be a useful contribution to the growing scientific debate and knowledge acquisition on fish welfare in aquaculture, for all countries across the multitude of cultured species and farming methods.…”