A Critique of FAWC’s Five Freedoms as a Framework for the Analysis of Animal Welfare
- Steven P. McCulloch
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The Brambell Report of 1965 recommended that animals should have the freedom to stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs. The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) developed these into the Five Freedoms, which are a framework for the analysis of animal welfare. The Five Freedoms are well known in farming, policy making and academic circles. They form the basis of much animal welfare legislation, codes of recommendations and farm animal welfare accreditation schemes, and are the foundation of the Welfare Quality® assessment scheme. The Five Freedoms are also extensively employed for the education of veterinary and animal welfare science students. Hence they have proven to be of great practical utility. In this paper, the Five Freedoms framework is examined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for the analysis of animal welfare. Overall, the Five Freedoms are judged to be individually necessary and jointly sufficient as a framework for the analysis of animal welfare. FAWC has recently criticized the Five Freedoms for concentrating on negative aspects of welfare. However, it is shown here how the satisfaction of the Five Freedoms should lead to good welfare, from the animal’s point of view. The Five Freedoms are formulated as ideals of animal welfare. This has significant advantages that have likely contributed to their impact. However, the ideality of the Five Freedoms means that the framework is without power to determine what a satisfactory level of animal welfare is, in an ethical sense.
- Botreau, R., Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bracke, M. B. M., & Keeling, L. J. (2007). Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 16, 225–228.
- Brambell, R. (1965). Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
- Broom, D. M. (1986). Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal, 142, 524–526. CrossRef
- Broom, D. M., & Fraser, A. F. (2007). Domestic animal behaviour and welfare [4th Edition]. UK: CABI.
- Defra (2002). Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens. Defra Publications. London.
- Defra (2003). Codes of recommendations for the welfare of livestock: Cattle. Defra Publications, London.
- Defra (2003). Codes of recommendations for the welfare of livestock: Pigs. Defra Publications. London.
- Duncan, I. J. H. (1993). Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6(Suppl 2), 8–14.
- FAWC (undated). http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm. Accessed 27 April 2012.
- FAWAC (1967) Minutes of the First Meeting Final Draft, MAF 369/98. National Archives.
- FAWC (2009). Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future. Farm Animal Welfare Council. UK.
- FAWC (2010). Annual Review 2009–2010. Farm Animal Welfare Council. UK.
- Forsberg, E-M. (2007). Value pluralism and coherentist justification of ethical advice. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20, 81–97. Springer.
- Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. Wiley-Blackwell: UFAW Animal Welfare Series.
- Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997).A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns. Animal Welfare, 6, 187–205.
- Griffin, D. R. (2001). Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. Chicago.
- Harrison, R. (1964). Animal Machines. UK: Vincent Stuart.
- Haynes, R. P. (2010). Animal Welfare: Competing Conceptions and Their Ethical Implications. Springer.
- McGlone, J. J. (1993). What is animal welfare? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 Supplementary, 1–2, 26–36.
- Mill J. S. (1859). On Liberty. In Warnock, M.(Ed.) (1962).Utilitarianism (pp. 126–250). Fontana.
- Molony, V., & Kent, J. E. (1997). Assessment of acute pain in farm animals using behavioural and physiological measurements. Journal of Animal Science, 75, 266–272.
- National Archives. (2012). Animal Welfare Act 2006. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/pdfs/ukpga_20060045_en.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2012.
- Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Beyond “compassion and humanity”: Justice for nonhuman animals. In C. R. Sunstein, & M. C. Nussbaum (Eds.), Animal rights: Current debates and new directions (pp. 299–320). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Rollin, B. E. (1993). Animal welfare, science, and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 Supplement, 2, 44–50.
- Rollin, B. (2006). Animal Rights and Human Morality (Third Edition). Prometheus Books.
- Stamp Dawkins, M. S. (1993). Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness. W. H. Freeman.
- Thompson, D. (Ed), (1996). Oxford Compact English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
- Veissier, I., Jensen, K. K., Botreau, R., & Sandøe, P. (2011). Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare, 20(1), 89–101.
- Webster, J. (1994). Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
- Webster, J. (2005). Animal Welfare: Limping Towards Eden. UFAW.
- A Critique of FAWC’s Five Freedoms as a Framework for the Analysis of Animal Welfare
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
Volume 26, Issue 5 , pp 959-975
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Animal welfare
- Critical analysis
- Farm Animal Welfare Council
- Five freedoms
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Centre for Animal Welfare, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, AL9 7TA, UK