Abstract
Farm animal welfare standards have been adopted by major public bodies and also in a proliferation of private farm assurance schemes. This public/private dichotomy raises questions concerning the relationship between the public and private institutions and their respective animal welfare standards. This chapter explores the interface between the international public animal welfare standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and private global standards of animal welfare. Principles and standards of animal welfare based on science and applicable to food-producing animals are contained in the OIE International Terrestrial Animal Health Code (TAHC). Private animal welfare assurance schemes purporting to promote the added value of animal welfare standards in the agri-food chain have evolved alongside these intergovernmental standards.
The implications of standardisation, a voluntary marketing tool, are examined in the context of animal welfare in the global agri-food chain. Voluntary/de facto mandatory private animal welfare standard and certification schemes do raise, potentially, a number of regulatory concerns. Emphasis is placed on the steps that are being taken to ameliorate the tension should private animal welfare standards conflict with the public-science-based standards of the OIE. This chapter appraises the associated role for coordinated governance, a soft law regulatory tool, and introduces the capacity of standardisation to act as a bridge between the public/private dichotomy of animal welfare standards. It focuses on the theoretical underpinning and regulatory context of the emerging public and private interface in transnational animal welfare governance in the global agri-food chain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See McEldowney et al. (2013), pp. 4, 5, and 16.
- 3.
Botterill and Daugbjerg (2011), p. 489.
- 4.
Smith (2009), para 56.
- 5.
Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), p. 307.
- 6.
Smith (2009), para 10.
- 7.
‘As advances in science, increases in wealth and evolving societal concerns with respect to the environment, sustainability and animal welfare put greater focus on a wider range of food quality attributes, both private firms and public institutions find themselves responding increasingly to consumer and societal demands for higher quality food.’ Smith (2009), para 4.
- 8.
Ryland (2014), pp. 851–852.
- 9.
See, for example, Henson and Reardon (2005), p. 250.
- 10.
From the French acronym, ‘Office International des Épizooties’.
- 11.
World Trade Organization (WTO) in the Multilateral Regulatory Framework for International Trade.
- 12.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) TAHC (2016a), Section 7.
- 13.
Henson (2008), p. 64.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
Burrell (2011), pp. 251–270.
- 17.
Scannell (2008), at sections 2, 4.
- 18.
The growth of private food safety standards and certification schemes and their ‘role in global food safety governance’ has been the subject of scholarly research: Fagotto (2014), p. 85. See, for example, Henson and Reardon (2005), pp. 241–253; Hatanaka et al. (2005), pp. 354–369; Fulponi (2006), pp. 1–13; Tallontire (2007), pp. 775–791; Smith (2009).
- 19.
An evaluation as to whether public/private animal welfare standards, which are separate to the international standards for animal health of the OIE, fall outside the respective ambits of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures (science-based health requirements) https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15-sps.pdf and the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (product standards) https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt.pdf falls beyond the scope of this work. See WTO (2007b).
- 20.
See Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), pp. 307, 314, and 315.
- 21.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2002).
- 22.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2004).
- 23.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2004), Consideration 2.
- 24.
‘The scientific basis of OIE animal welfare standards provides the foundation for creating a consensus amongst all OIE Member Countries to support their adoption.’ World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2015b) Animal Welfare Fact Sheet.
- 25.
Currently 180 OIE Member Countries, http://www.oie.int/about-us/. Accessed 27 Aug 2016.
- 26.
There is only one pathway for adoption of OIE standards, i.e. approval by the World Assembly of Delegates meeting annually at the OIE General Session. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016d)
- 27.
OIE TAHC (2016a), Chapter 7.9.
- 28.
OIE TAHC (2016a), Chapter 7.10.
- 29.
OIE TAHC (2016a), Chapter 7.11.
- 30.
OIE TAHC (2016a), Chapters 7.2, 7.3, 7.4.
- 31.
OIE TAHC (2016a), Chapter 7.5.
- 32.
Animal means a mammal, bird or bee—OIE TAHC (2016b), Glossary for the purposes of the Terrestrial Code.
- 33.
The treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment: OIE TAHC (2016c), Chapter 7.1.
- 34.
OIE TAHC (2016c), Article 7.1.2. Guiding Principles for animal welfare, OIE TAHC Chapter 7.1.
- 35.
OIE TAHC (2016c), Article 7.1.3. Scientific basis for recommendations, OIE TAHC Chapter 7.1.
- 36.
(1) Genetic selection should always take into account the health and welfare of animals. (2) Animals chosen for introduction into new environments should be suited to the local climate and able to adapt to local diseases, parasites and nutrition. (3) The physical environment, including the substrate (walking surface, resting surface, etc.), should be suited to the species so as to minimise risk of injury and transmission of diseases or parasites to animals. (4) The physical environment should allow comfortable resting, safe and comfortable movement including normal postural changes, and the opportunity to perform types of natural behaviour that animals are motivated to perform. (5) Social grouping of animals should be managed to allow positive social behaviour and minimise injury, distress and chronic fear. (6) For housed animals, air quality, temperature and humidity should support good animal health and not be aversive. Where extreme conditions occur, animals should not be prevented from using their natural methods of thermos-regulation. (7) Animals should have access to sufficient feed and water, suited to the animal’s age and needs, to maintain normal health and productivity and to prevent prolonged hunger, thirst, malnutrition or dehydration. (8) Diseases and parasites should be prevented and controlled as much as possible through good management practices. Animals with serious health problems should be isolated and treated promptly or killed humanely if treatment is not feasible or recovery is unlikely. (9) Where painful procedures cannot be avoided, the resulting pain should be managed to the extent that available methods allow. (10) The handling of animals should foster a positive relationship between humans and animals and should not cause injury, panic, lasting fear or avoidable stress. (11) Owners and handlers should have sufficient skill and knowledge to ensure that animals are treated in accordance with these principles. OIE TAHC (2016c), Chapter 7.1.4., General principles for the welfare of animals in livestock production systems.
- 37.
Report of the Thirteenth Meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group (2014), at section 2 The Working Group noted that the draft sixth OIE Strategic Plan 2016–2020 circulated for Member Countries comment includes animal welfare as a mainstream OIE activity.
- 38.
Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group (2012), section 8, at p. 9.
- 39.
Robach (2010), pp. 1–6, at summary, section 2. Representative of Safe Supply of Affordable Food Everywhere (SSAFE), invited by the OIE.
- 40.
- 41.
See Botterill and Daugbjerg (2011), p. 499.
- 42.
Robach (2010), at Summary, section 2.
- 43.
Report of the Tenth Meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group (2011c), point g.
The Council of Europe, the OIE and the EU commit to providing mutual support and cooperating on all aspects of animal welfare: Council of Europe (2006) Joint Declaration on Animal Welfare in Europe: achievements and future prospects. Strasbourg. The important link between animal welfare and the need for adequate scientific and veterinary expertise is stressed in the document.
- 44.
OECD (2006), paras 13–15.
- 45.
An inventory compiled for the European Commission identified over 400 diverse voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs marketed in the EU Member States: Study conducted for Areté for DG AGRI (2010).
- 46.
WTO (2007c), para 2.
- 47.
See MacMaoláin (2015), pp. 117–148.
- 48.
- 49.
‘The structural power of retail corporations today reaches beyond the question of market power. This structural power is also reflected in the development of rule-setting power, i.e. private standards.’ Fuchs et al. (2009), p. 55.
- 50.
- 51.
See Burrell (2011), p. 252.
- 52.
Defined as ‘practices that address environmental, economic and social sustainability for on-farm processes, and result in safe and quality food and non-food agricultural products’: Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, www.fao.org/prods/gap/. Accessed 9 July 2015.
- 53.
See Burrell (2011), p. 252.
- 54.
‘This trend could be broadly described as the rise of the ethical consumer who not only is concerned about the physical content of the food he/she consumes but also about the conditions under which it is produced.’ Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), p. 308.
- 55.
See, generally, Henson and Reardon (2005), p. 245.
- 56.
See Burrell (2011), p. 256.
- 57.
Fulponi (2006), p. 4.
- 58.
Marks and Spencer (2014).
- 59.
Marks and Spencer (2014).
- 60.
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/our-impact/food-business-programme/good-farm-animal-welfare-awards/. Accessed 9 July 2015.
- 61.
It changed its ‘requirements in April 2013 to no longer stipulate non-GM animal feeds, it having become apparent that maintaining a non-GM animal feed policy was becoming increasingly difficult, due to complexities of segregation through the shipping process’. Marks and Spencer, Quality and Innovation, Plan A. http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/plan-a/policies-and-consultations/policies/food. Accessed 23 Feb 2015.
- 62.
RSPCA (2015).
- 63.
The Freedom Food brand will continue for business to business activity and will still be the name of the Limited company. The Freedom Food Label will still appear on some products until May 2016.
- 64.
McNair Report (2013).
- 65.
Freedom Food Limited is a company with charitable status, the sole shareholder of which is the RSPCA. McNair Report (2013), para 11.
- 66.
http://www.freedomfood.co.uk/industry/rspca-welfare-standards. Accessed 10 July 2015.
- 67.
http://freedomfood.co.uk/aboutus. Accessed 10 July 2015.
- 68.
‘In 1997, a group of supermarkets, food retailers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), consumer groups and others formed the Euro Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP). EUREP established a system of good agricultural practice (GAP) which went beyond simple food safety concerns.’ Botterill and Daugbjerg (2011), p. 491. See also Hachez and Wouters (2011), pp. 677–710; Naiki (2014), pp. 137–166.
- 69.
See Tallontire (2007), p. 777.
- 70.
The GLOBALG.A.P. system applies in over 100 countries in five continents, with over 1400 trained inspectors and auditors working for more than 140 accredited certification bodies. http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/what-we-do/the-gg-system/integrity-program. Accessed 10 July 2015.
- 71.
- 72.
http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/who-we-are/governance/. Accessed 10 July 2015.
- 73.
GLOBALG.A.P. (2016b) General Regulations GR V5.0_2 July 16, Part I – General Requirements, point 6.2. The new IFA Version 5 came into force on 1 July 2015—mandatory from 1 July 2016. IFA V4 certificates remain valid until June 2017.
- 74.
- 75.
http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/what-we-do/globalg.a.p.-certification/globalg.a.p./. Accessed 27 Aug 2016.
- 76.
http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/for-producers/livestock/. Accessed 27 Aug 2016.
- 77.
- 78.
As opposed to the ‘instrumental value of food consumption in which food is seen as a commodity to be traded in accordance with international trade rules’. Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), p. 307.
- 79.
Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), p. 311.
- 80.
Korinek et al. (2008), p. 5, note 1.
- 81.
OECD (2006), para 3.
- 82.
Cafaggi and Renda (2012), p. 6.
- 83.
See Fagotto (2014), p. 85, citing Henson and Humphrey (2009). Mr. Per Olson, chief veterinary advisor, noted on behalf of the International Federation for Agricultural Producers (IFAP) that private standards for animal welfare may offer opportunities to raise farmers’ income. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010a), section 7; See Naiki (2014), p. 143, citing Cashore et al. (2004), p. 23.
- 84.
Particularly for small and medium sized enterprises and farmers in developing countries and the requirements of some private schemes to use only specified certification bodies, for example. WTO (2007a), para 14, Table 2.
- 85.
Botterill and Daugbjerg (2011), p. 499.
- 86.
WTO (2007c), para 21. The International Federation for Agricultural Producers (IFAP) also voiced concerns that private standards could lead to the exclusion of small-scale producers in developing countries. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010a); See Fagotto (2014), p. 85, citing Hatanaka et al. (2005).
- 87.
See Henson and Reardon (2005), pp. 250–251.
- 88.
‘[T]he retailer scheme [individual or collective] may be de facto applied as the industry norm by all actors in the supply chain. Thus the choice of whether or not to comply with a voluntary standard becomes a choice between compliance or exit from the market.’ WTO (2007a), para 9.
- 89.
Korinek et al. (2008), para 7.
- 90.
Scannell (2008), at sections 2, 4.
- 91.
Fuchs et al. (2009), p. 64.
- 92.
- 93.
OECD (2006), para 95.
- 94.
Botterill and Daugbjerg (2011), p. 489.
- 95.
Vogel (2008), pp. 261–282.
- 96.
Fagotto (2014), p. 95.
- 97.
- 98.
‘Globalisation, and its impact on domestic economies, goes well beyond formal rules emanating from international organisations and agreements. In recent years, informal international regulatory structures have arisen alongside intergovernmental structures, and these can have a profound impact on the operation of the domestic economies.’ Botterill and Daugbjerg (2011), p. 489.
- 99.
‘A key requirement for efficient longer-term coexistence between public and private standards is that there should be better coordination between them.’ Burrell (2011), p. 265. See also Vogel (2010), p. 83, where he states: ‘the future effectiveness of global business regulation depends on the extent to which private and public authority, civil and government regulation, and soft and hard law, reinforce one another’.
- 100.
WTO/OIE Resolution No. 26 (2010d) Roles of public and private standards in animal health and animal welfare. Adopted by the World Assembly of Delegates of the OIE on 27 May 2010.
- 101.
The OIE has signed official Agreements and works in close collaboration with the international industry organisations such as International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP), International Dairy Federation (IDF), International Meat Secretariat (IMS), International Egg Commission (IEC), International Poultry Council (IPC) and Safe Supply of Affordable Food Everywhere (SSAFE). WTO/OIE Resolution No. 26 (2010d), Consideration 8.
- 102.
WTO/OIE Resolution No. 26 (2010d), Recommendation 4.
- 103.
WTO/OIE Resolution No. 26 (2010d), Recommendation 7.
- 104.
WTO/OIE Resolution No. 26 (2010d), Recommendation 9.
- 105.
WTO/OIE Resolution No. 26 (2010d), Recommendations 10 and 11, respectively.
- 106.
WTO (2008).
- 107.
Head of International Trade, OIE.
- 108.
The OIE convened an expert ad hoc Group on private standards, which developed a questionnaire that was sent to all OIE Members and to relevant organisations having an official agreement with the OIE. Nearly all developed countries (89%) could see benefits of private animal welfare standards. If the responses of the then 27 EU Member States are excluded, 76% of total respondents agreed with statement that private standards for animal welfare create or may create problems. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010c).
- 109.
Head of Unit, D5 Animal Welfare, European Commission.
- 110.
Report of the Ninth Meeting of the OIE Working Group on Animal Welfare (2010e).
- 111.
Robach (2010), at section 4.
- 112.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010b).
- 113.
Included Dr. Carlos Correa Messuti, President of the OIE; Dr. Bernard Vallat, Directeur General, OIE; Ms. Sylvie Coulon, International Issues DG Sanco, European Commission; Mrs. Catherine Francois, Director, Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI); Mr. Jean-François Legrand, Safe Supply of Affordable Food Everywhere (SSAFE) Representative; Mr. Beet Urlings, Board Member, GLOBALG.A.P.; Dr. Sarah Kahn, Head OIE International Trade Department.
- 114.
‘ISO is an independent, non-governmental international organization with a membership of 162 national standards bodies. Through its members, it brings together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant international standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges.’ http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm. Accessed 27 Sept 2016.
- 115.
‘The world association of Conformity Assessment Accreditation Bodies and other bodies interested in conformity assessment in the fields of management systems, products, services, personnel and other similar programmes of conformity assessment. Its primary function is to develop a single worldwide program of conformity assessment which reduces risk for business and its customers by assuring them that accredited certificates may be relied upon.’ http://www.iaf.nu/. Accessed 27 Sept 2016.
- 116.
Emphasis added.
- 117.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2007) Agreement between the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Center for Animal Health and Food Safety for the Safe Supply of Affordable Food Everywhere Initiative (SSAFE).
- 118.
http://www.ssafe-food.org/about-ssafe. Accessed 18 Feb 2015.
- 119.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2011a). Cooperation Agreement between the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)
- 120.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2011a) Article 5.
- 121.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2011b) Cooperation Agreement between the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).
- 122.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010b), at section 6.7.
- 123.
Ibid.
- 124.
Robach (2010), at section 5.
- 125.
http://www.mygfsi.com. Accessed 10 July 2015.
- 126.
Mrs. Catherine Francois, Director, GFSI, World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010b), at section 6.7.
- 127.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010a), discussion at section 3.
- 128.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2011a) Article 5.
- 129.
Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group (2012), section 8, p. 10.
- 130.
Eurogroup for Animals (2012).
- 131.
Dr. François Gary is the convenor of the ISO working group. The OIE is an observer in this process. Report of the Twelfth Meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group (2013a), section 9, p. 6.
- 132.
Report of the Thirteenth Meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group (2014), section 11, p. 6.
- 133.
Where Technical specifications developed by the private sector, including the ISO, EurepG.A.P., RSPCA (Freedom Food) and the Global Animal Partnership among others, and their relationship with the OIE standards and national regulations of the Veterinary Services, were discussed.
- 134.
- 135.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2013d) Book of Abstracts: International Standards Organization (ISO) Technical Specification on Animal Welfare, Based on the OIE Standards.
- 136.
See also the acknowledgement of cultural aspects in this context in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), Article 13 [2012] OJ C326/54.
- 137.
http://www.ssafe-food.org/our-projects/science-based-standards/. Accessed 10 July 2015.
- 138.
- 139.
See Burrell (2011), p. 267.
- 140.
- 141.
Naiki (2014), p. 146.
- 142.
Ibid.
- 143.
Scott (2007), p. 310.
- 144.
Naiki (2014), p. 146.
- 145.
Ibid., quoting from Cafaggi (2011), p. 48.
- 146.
Citing Posner (1974), pp. 335 et seqq.
- 147.
Fagotto (2014), p. 94 (emphasis added).
- 148.
Ibid.
- 149.
‘while giving expression to both materialistic and postmaterialistic understandings of the nature of food’, Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), p. 307 (emphasis added).
- 150.
Citing Thacher and Rein (2004), pp. 457 et seqq.
- 151.
‘Firewalling can help us understand the existence of parallel institutions founded upon conflicting values within a policy field, how they can be sustained over time and how they avoid being entangled in institutional battles.’ Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), pp. 314–315.
- 152.
‘As Thacher and Rein point out: “By focusing attention of each institution on a subset of the values that ultimately matter to public policy, it is possible to simplify the task of practice and keep the pathologies of value conflict at bay. That arrangement helps to ensure that each value has a committed defender.”’ Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), pp. 314–315.
- 153.
Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), p. 315.
- 154.
- 155.
The World Assembly of Delegates of the OIE, meeting on 27 May 2015, adopted a Resolution, which recommends that the Director General continue dialogue with the GFSI, GLOBALG.A.P. and the ISO to ensure awareness of OIE science-based animal welfare standards. Notable, also, is the consideration of the cultural and trade policy dimensions of animal welfare. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2015a) Resolution No. 28, Animal Welfare, 83 GS/FR-Paris, May 2015.
- 156.
‘Voluntary consensus standards arise from a formal coordinated process involving participants in a market with or without the participation of government. A variety of private entities may be involved in the establishment of voluntary consensus standards including industry and trade organisations, professional societies, standards-setting membership organisations and industry consortia, which in some cases are coordinated by a public entity. Broadly, the international standards developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and national and/or regional standards bodies take the form of voluntary consensus standards.’ Henson (2008), p. 63.
- 157.
Borrowed out of context from Fagotto (2014), p. 88.
- 158.
See World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Resolution No. 26 (2010d).
- 159.
Daugbjerg and Botterill (2012), pp. 314–315.
References
Botterill LC, Daugbjerg C (2011) Engaging with private sector standards: a case study of GLOBALG.A.P. Aust J Int Aff 65(4):488–504
Burrell A (2011) “Good agricultural practices” in the agri-food supply chain. Environ Law Rev 13(4):251–270
Cafaggi F (2011) New foundations of transnational private regulation. In: Scott C, Cafaggi F, Sendon L (eds) The challenge of transnational private regulation: conceptual and constitutional debates. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, pp 48 et seqq
Cafaggi F, Renda A (2012) Public and private regulation. Mapping the labyrinth. CEPS working document number 370. http://www.ceps.eu/publications/public-and-private-regulation-mapping-labyrinth. Accessed 29 Mar 2015
Cashore B, Auld G, Newsom D (eds) (2004) Governing through markets: forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority. Yale University Press
Compassion in World Farming (CIWF). http://www.ciwf.org.uk/our-impact/food-business-programme/good-farmanimalwelfare-awards/. Accessed 9 July 2015
Council of Europe (2006) Joint declaration on animal welfare in Europe: achievements and future prospects. Strasbourg. https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_international_joint_dec_aw_en.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2016
Daugbjerg C (2012) The World Trade Organization and organic food trade: potential for restricting protectionism? Org Agric 2(1):55–66
Daugbjerg C, Botterill LC (2012) Ethical food standards schemes and global trade: paralleling the WTO? Policy Soc 31:307–317
Eurogroup for Animals (2012) Briefing. Note on the development of an ISO technical specification for animal welfare. http://eurogroupforanimals.org/files/news/downloads/428/eurogroups_note_on_the_development_of_an_iso_technical_specification.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2015
European Union (2010) Study conducted for Areté for DG AGRI. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/certification/inventory/inventory-dataaggregations_en.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2015
Fagotto E (2014) Private roles in food safety provision: the law and economics of private food safety. Eur J Law Econ 37(1):83–109
Fuchs D, Kalfagianni A (2010) The causes and consequences of private food governance. Bus Polit 12(3):Art 5. doi:10.2202/1469-3569.1319
Fuchs D, Kalfagianni A, Arentsen M (2009) Retail power, private standards and sustainability in the global food system. In: Clapp J, Fuchs D (eds) Corporate power in global agrifood governance. MIT Press, Boston, pp 48–100
Fulponi L (2006) Private voluntary standards in the food system: the perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy 31:1–13
GLOBALG.A.P. (2015) General regulations livestock rules V5.0_Sep 15. http://www1.globalgap.org/north-america/upload/Standards/IFA/v5_0/150901_GG_GR_Livestock_Rules_v5_en.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2016
GLOBALG.A.P. (2016a) Livestock Control Points and Compliance Criteria (CPCC), Version V, July 2016. http://www.globalgap.org/export/sites/default/.content/.galleries/documents/160630_GG_GR_Livestock_Rules_V5_0-2_en.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2016
GLOBALG.A.P. (2016b) General regulations: GR V5.0_2 July 16, Part I – General requirements, point 6.2. http://www.globalgap.org/export/sites/default/.content/.galleries/documents/160630_GG_GR_Part-I_V5_0-2_en.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2016
Hachez N, Wouters J (2011) A glimpse at the democratic legitimacy of private standards: assessing the public accountability of GLOBALG.A.P. J Int Econ Law 14(3):677–710
Hatanaka M, Bain C, Busch L (2005) Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy 30:354–369
Henson S (2008) The role of public and private standards in regulating international food markets. J Int Agric Trade Dev 4(1):63–81
Henson S, Humphrey J (2009) The impacts of private food safety standards on the food chain and on public standard-setting processes. In: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarius Commission, ALINORM 09/32/9D-Part II
Henson S, Reardon T (2005) Private agri-food standards: implications for food policy and the agri-food system. Food Policy 30:241–253
Kemp B, Verstegen M (2012) Foreword. In: Pond W, Bazer F, Rollin B (eds) Animal welfare in animal agriculture. CRC Press and Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, London, and New York, p ix
Korinek J, Melatos M, Rau M-L (2008) A review of methods for quantifying the trade effects of standards in the agri-food sector. OECD trade policy working paper No. 79, TAD/TC/CAWP(2007)1/FINAL
MacMaoláin C (2015) Food law: European, domestic and international frameworks. Hart, Oxford
McNair D, Spelman C, Main D (2013) The McNair Report, May 2013
Marks and Spencer (2014) ‘Farming for the Future’ animal welfare policy. http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/. Accessed 23 Feb 2015
Marks and Spencer. Quality and innovation, plan A. http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/plan-a/policies-and-consultations/policies/food. Accessed 23 Feb 2015
McEldowney J, Grant W, Medley G (2013) The regulation of animal health and welfare: science, law and policy. Routledge, Abingdon
Naiki Y (2014) The dynamics of private food safety standards: a case study on the regulatory diffusion of GLOBALG.A.P. Int Comp Law Q 63(1):137–166
OECD (2006) Final report on private standards and the shaping of the agro-food system, AGR/CA/APM(2006)9/FINAL
Posner RA (1974) Theories of economic regulation. Bell J Econ Manag Sci 5(2):335 et seqq
Robach M (2010) A private sector perspective on private standards – some approaches that could help to reduce current and potential future conflicts between public and private standards. In: 78th General Session World Assembly, World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), Paris, 23–28 May, 78 SG/9
Robertson IA (2015) Animals, welfare and the law. Earthscan, London and New York
RSPCA (2015) Farm assurance and food labelling scheme. http://www.freedomfood.co.uk. Accessed 10 Jul 2015
Ryland D (2014) Advancing animal welfare: state, society and economy. In: Tom 4, Państwo Demokratyczne, Prawne I Socjalne. Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Kraków University/Jagiellionian University, Kraków, Poland, pp 851–867
Scannell M (2008) Private standards in the sanitary and phytosanitary area. In: 76th General Session, International Committee, World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), Paris, 25–30 May, 76 SG/10
Scott J (2007) The WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Smith G (2009) Interaction of public and private standards in the food chain. OECD food, agriculture and fisheries working paper No. 15. OECD, Paris
Tallontire A (2007) CSR and regulation: towards a framework for understanding private standards initiatives in the agri-food chain. Third World Q 28:775–791
Thacher D, Rein M (2004) Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance 17(4):457
Vogel D (1995) Trading up: consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Vogel D (2008) Private global business regulation. Annu Rev Polit Sci 11:261–282
Vogel D (2010) The private regulation of global corporate conduct: achievements and limitations. Bus Soc 49(1):68–87
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2002) Resolution No. XIV animal welfare mandate of the OIE. http://www.oie.int/about-us/key-texts/basic-texts/new-mandates/. Accessed 9 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2004) Resolution No. XXVI animal welfare. 72 GS/FR-Paris, May 2004. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/A_RESO_2004_WP.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2016
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2007) Agreement between the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Center for Animal Health and Food Safety for the Safe Supply of Affordable Food Everywhere Initiative (SSAFE). http://www.oie.int/en/about-us/cooperation-agreements/agreement=with-the-safe-supply-of-affordable-food-everywhere-initiative-ssafe/. Accessed 2 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010a) Meeting on private standards. Paris, 16 Feb 2010. http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D9690.PDF. Accessed 2 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010b) Report of the meeting on private standards. Paris, Annex XXXV11, 10 Sept 2010. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/Final_private_standards_report.pdf. Accessed 2 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010c) Final report – OIE questionnaire on private standards, executive summary. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/en_executive_20summary.pdf. Accessed 9 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010d) WTO/OIE Resolution No. 26 [2010] Roles of public and private standards in animal health and animal welfare. http://rpawe.oie.int/fileadmin/doc/eng/Resolutions/78_GS_2010_Resolution_26.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2016
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010e) Report of the ninth meeting of the OIE Working Group on Animal Welfare, Paris, 23–25 June 2010. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Welfare/docs/pdf/AWWG_Reports/ANG_AWWG_June_2010.pdf. Accessed 9 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2011a) Cooperation agreement between the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/About_us/docs/pdf/accords/ISO_ENG.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2011b) Cooperation agreement between the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Aboutus/docs/pdf/accords/GFSI_ENG.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2011c) Report of the tenth meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group, Paris, 21–23 June 2011. http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D11313.PDF. Accessed 9 July 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2012) Report of the eleventh meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group, Paris, 26–28 June 2012. http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D12122.PDF. Accessed 9 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2013a) Report of the twelfth meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group, Paris, 18–20 June 2013. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Welfare/docs/pdf/AWWG_Reports/A_AWWG_2013.pdf. Accessed 9 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2013b) Regional conference on animal welfare and international trade, Montevideo, Uruguay, 17–18 October 2013, objectives. http://www.oie.int/eng/A_MONTE/objectifs.htm. Accessed 12 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2013c) Regional conference on animal welfare and international trade, Montevideo, Uruguay, 17–18 October 2013, recommendations. http://www.oie.int/eng/A_MONTE/docs/A_Recommendations_Uruguay%20CON%20CAMBIOS-FINAL%20APROBADA.pdf. Accessed 12 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2013d) Regional conference on animal welfare and international trade, Montevideo, Uruguay, 17–18 October 2013, book of abstracts: International Standards Organization (ISO) technical specification on animal welfare, based on the OIE standards. http://www.oie.int/eng/A_MONTE/docs/abstract_monte_video.pdf. Accessed 12 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2014) Report of the thirteenth meeting of the OIE Animal Welfare Working Group, Paris, 24–26 June 2014. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Welfare/docs/pdf/AWWG_Reports/A_AWWG_June_2014.pdf. Accessed 9 Jul 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2015a) Resolution No. 28 animal welfare. 83 GS/FR-Paris, May 2015. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/About_us/docs/pdf/Session/A_FR_2015_public.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2015b) Animal Welfare Fact Sheet. Accessed 29 June 2015
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016a) International Terrestrial Animal Health Code: Section 7 animal welfare. http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=titre_1.7.htm. Accessed 27 Aug 2016
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) TAHC (2016b) Glossary for the purposes of the terrestrial code. http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=glossaire.htm. Accessed 27 Aug 2016
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) TAHC (2016c) http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_aw_introduction.htm. Accessed 27 Aug 2016
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016d) Procedures used by the OIE to set standards and recommendations for international trade, with a focus on the terrestrial and aquatic animal health codes (Updated May 2016). http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/A_OIE_procedures_standards_2016.pdf
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2007a) Private standards and the SPS agreement. Note by the Secretariat. G/SPS/GEN/746, 24 Jan 2007
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2007b) News items, private standards are a mixed blessing, committee hears. http://www.wto.org/English/news_e/news07_e/sps_28feb_1march07_e.htm. Accessed 18 Feb 2015
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2007c) Communication from L. Fulponi, OECD, private voluntary standards and developing country market access: preliminary results. G/SPS/GEN/763, 27 Feb 2007
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2008) Submission by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) considerations relevant to private standards in the field of animal health, food safety and animal welfare. G/SPS/GEN/822, 25 Feb 2008
Wouter J, Geraets D (2012) Private food standards and the World Trade Organization: some legal considerations. World Trade Rev 11:488
Acknowledgements
Thanks go to Professor Michael Cardwell, Professor of Agricultural Law, Law School, University of Leeds, United Kingdom, for his helpful comments, direction and guidance, which have further developed my thinking in reshaping the content of this chapter. All errors are my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ryland, D. (2017). Animal Welfare Standards in Agriculture: Drivers, Implications, Interface?. In: Alabrese, M., Brunori, M., Rolandi, S., Saba, A. (eds) Agricultural Law. LITES - Legal Issues in Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64756-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64756-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64755-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64756-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)