Welfare Regulations Sufficient to Solve

Welfare Regulations Sufficient to Solve

Bernie Rollin, Professor Philosophy Colorado State University, 2008, The Future of Animal Farming: renewing the ancient contract, eds. M. Dawkins & R. Bonney, p. 17

The last component needed for a full analysis of animal welfare is the ethical dimension. Given that husbandry no longer obtains, we must not only worry about the animals’ experiences entailed by meeting or not meeting their needs, but must also ask which needs and to what extent we ought to meet them. Industrial producers worry only about the physical needs required for productivity, and only to the extent that such fulfillment meets maximal efficiency for production. Hence the feeding of bone meal, sawdust, chicken manure, etc. to farm animals provides nourishment at minimal cost but with no respect for animals’ natures (such as whether they are herbivores), or about their physical health except to the extent that it impacts on production. In today’s society, the new definition of welfare that is implicitly emerging as a societal ethic is that in raising animals for food, we are obliged to worry about all needs emerging from their telos we can practically meet (e.g. freedom of movement, social needs). Thus, whereas a producer would accept a productive animal as well-off if it were producing milk, for example, even if it were painfully lame, ordinary citizens would not accept an animal, however productive, living in constant pain! As Europe has demonstrated, the emerging societal ethic decrees that if this no longer occurs automatically as presuppositional to production, it should be mandated by regulation or legislation.
ANIMAL WELFARE LAW REGARDING RESEARCH ANIMALS EMBODIES THE WELFARE ETHIC

Bernard E. Rollin, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado State University, 1995, Farm Animal Welfare: social, bioethical, and research issues, p. 22

Only our fourth principle, about care and housing fitting the animals’ natures, was not fully adopted into law. Instead, the law mandated “exercise for dogs” and environments for primates that “enhance their psychological wellbeing. Other species are still generally housed in accordance with researcher convenience, though more thought is being directed at creating “animal friendly” environments; an entire issue of Lab Animal, a trade journal, was recently devoted to enriched environments for non-mandated species.

Thus, the new ethic shaped these revolutionary laws governing biomedicine in a number of ways. First, the use of animals in research does not in and of itself ensure, as did traditional agriculture, that animals are relatively happy and are not suffering pain and distress. Second, at the same time, the pain and suffering experienced by research animals is not the result of cruelty. Third, society has embodied its demand for control of pain and suffering in the consensus ethic, at no little expense. (It is estimated that ensuring compliance with the 1985 amendment to the Animal Welfare Act alone has cost $500 million between 1985 and 1995.) Concern for the animals supersedes human utilitarian (economic) considerations. The right not to suffer in the course of being used for human benefit is thus encoded into law, as are the right to exercise for dogs and the right to a stimulating environment for primates. Fourth, virtually all animals used in biomedical research, with the exception of rodents and birds used in private industrial research, are covered by law. And in 1992, a federal judge declared that exemption of rodents from protection of the Animal Welfare Act by USDA regulations implementing the act violates the intent of the act. Finally, the law is not abolitionist: it does not intend in any way to stop animal use in science but simply guarantees that animal suffering is controlled as far as possible.

Bernard E. Rollin, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado State University, 1995, Farm Animal Welfare: social, bioethical, and research issues, p. 23

It is important that those involved in animal agriculture fully understand the lesson implicit in the foregoing discussion of animal research and the new social ethic. The view that it is permissible to use animals for research, so long as there exists certain guarantees that the animals’ fundamental interests are protected, can be extrapolated to agriculture. While the public accepts and demands animal products, it wants assurance that the animals are not miserable and indeed are happy. A 1991 survey reported by the National Cattlemen’s Association indicates that although the majority of the public believes that stockmen take good care of their animals, an even greater percentage wish to see such treatment legislated. The lesson is obvious.

Alternatives to Factory Farming Not Feasible

Roland Bonney, Food Animal Initiative, 2008, The Future of Animal Farming: renewing the ancient contract, eds. M. Dawkins & R. Bonney, p. 68

The problem is that the ethical aspirations of “citizens” are usually higher than those of “consumers.” We all have a dual personality—that of consumer and of citizen. The consumer within us articulates the way things “are,” the citizen the way we think things “should be”—in other words, present and future. Most of us, when shopping for food or clothes, are in a different frame of mind than when we are reading about animal welfare issues in the newspaper. In the shop we find often bargains irresistible. Many in the food industry cite this is an explanation as to why it is impossible to drive real progress, and in many ways it is not an unreasonable point of view. Why would a farmer or food manufacturer wish to put in place systems or standards that reflect aspirations but are not rewarded by actual consumer behavior?
CONSUMER BEHAVIOR DOESN’T MATCH PUBLIC OPINION ON THE NECESSITY OF ANIMAL WELFARE

Roland Bonney, Food Animal Initiative, 2008, The Future of Animal Farming: renewing the ancient contract, eds. M. Dawkins & R. Bonney, p. 70

Richard E. Wood, Agricultural Economist-University of Kansas, 2008, Survival of Rural America: small victories and bitter harvests, p. 128

But most important – and potentially of more interest to Kurtis and the others who are trying to gain market acceptance for grass-fed beef—Haw believes “the American public has cast its vote resoundingly that it prefers corn-fed beef to grass-fed beef. It does tend to be more tender. It does tend to be more flavorful. The grass-fed beef does not have as much external fat. It does not have as much marbling. It does not have as much total fat. But the preference vote is in and it is clearly for corn-fed beef.
DIFFICULT TO GET GRASS-FED BEEF TO THE MARKET

Richard E. Wood, Agricultural Economist-University of Kansas, 2008, Survival of Rural America: small victories and bitter harvests, p. 128

In addition to debates about health and flavor, there are other issues facing people such as Kurtis who are trying to expand market awareness and acceptance of their product. By its nature, grass-fed beef tends to be raised by a small number of independent ranchers, and since it does not end up in large, centralized feedlots, shipping in volume can be a hurdle. The prospect of getting grass-fed beef to the marketplace on anything like a national scale is daunting, requiring the creation of production like a national scale is daunting, requiring the creation of production and distribution channels and quality-control methods that will stand up to the demands of retailers and their consumers. As a result, most grass-fed producers – companies such as Thousand Hills Cattle Company in Minnesota and Mesquite Organic Foods in Colorado – limit their distribution to within a few hundred miles of their processing facilities.