‘Unnecessary suffering’ as a concept in animal welfare legislation and standards

Abstract

The project ‘Legal systems and ethical values behind the official and the stakeholder-based animal welfare control’ covers studies of farm animal welfare legislation and ten private animal welfare standards from four European countries. Their expressed aim of prevention of suffering is in focus. Many pieces of legislation stating the aim of preventing ‘unnecessary suffering’ lack a clear distinction between ‘unnecessary’ and ‘necessary’ calling for definitions, as it is difficult to decide where to draw the line in actual farming, or for a citizen to interpret what is regarded acceptable by the legislator. Several interpretations are possible, e.g. the intensity and duration of the suffering, the intention behind the act, the fulfillment of human interests and the animals’ interests. Furthermore, countries differ regarding what species are legally protected and at what level. We will further discuss ethical values behind such differences. Painful management procedures are legal in many countries, and hence regarded as ‘necessary suffering’ in some –but not all – countries. As private standards are developed to meet consumer demands for a stricter interpretation of ‘unnecessary’ it is important to clarify inherent values. We tentatively argue that besides utilitarian ethical thinking duty, contractarian and/or virtue ethical thinking can be found in both legislation and private standards. If so, this mirrors consumer interest in an integrated and complex reasoning related to the concept of ‘unnecessary suffering’, a complexity that needs to be considered in forthcoming legislation.

Keywords:

ethics contractarianism consumer virtue ethics farm animal welfare law 

References

  1. Algers, B. (2011). Animal welfare – recent developments in the field. Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources. 6. Available at: www.cabi.org/cabreviews.
  2. Bayvel, A.C.D. (2004). Science-based animal welfare standards: the international role of the Office International des Epizooties. Animal Welfare 13: 163-S169.Google Scholar
  3. Behdadi, D. (2012). ‘The compassionate stock-keeper’ and other virtous ideals. Values and definitions in the animal welfare legislations of the United Kingdom, Spain and Argentina. Report 32. Department of Animal Environment and Health. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.Google Scholar
  4. Bentham, J. (1789). A utilitarian view. In: Regan, T. and Singer, P. (eds.) Animal rights and human obligations (1989), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, pp. 25-26.Google Scholar
  5. Braithwaite V.A. and Boulcott, P. (2007). Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75: 131-138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandroo, K.P., Duncan, I.J.H. and Moccia R.D. (2004). Can fish suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croney, C.C. and Millman, S.T. (2007). Board-invited review: The ethical and behavioral bases for farm animal welfare legislation. Journal of Animal Science 85: 556–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curry, P. (2011). Ecological ethics – an introduction. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  9. EFSA (2009). Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from European Commission on General approach to fish welfare and to the concept of sentience in fish. The EFSA Journal 954: 1-26.Google Scholar
  10. Elwood, R.W., Barr, S. and Patterson, L. (2009). Pain and stress in crustaceans? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 128-136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eurobarometer. (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animalsGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2007). Treaty of Lisbon.Google Scholar
  13. Forsberg, E-M. (2011). Inspiring respect for animals through the law? Current development in the Norwegian animal welfare legislation. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 24: 351-366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gregory, N.G. (2004). Physiology and behavior of animal suffering. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurnik, F. and Lehman, H. (1982). Unnecessary suffering: definition and evidence. International Journal for the Study of Animal 3(2): 131-137.Google Scholar
  16. Hursthouse, R. (2006). Applying virtue ethics to our treatment of the other animals. In: Welchman, J. (ed.) The practice of virtue. Hackett Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Landera-Luri, M. (2010). Animal welfare regulations in the EU: a matter of ethics or a matter of human economic interest? In: Casabona, R. (ed.) Global food security: ethical and legal challenges. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, p. 354-359.Google Scholar
  18. Lassen, J., Sandoe, P. and Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221-230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lund, V., Anthony, R. and Röcklinsberg, H. 2004. The ethical contract as a tool in organic animal husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17(1): 23-49.Google Scholar
  20. Lund, V., Mejdell, C.M., Röcklinsberg, H., Anthony, R. and Håstein, T. (2007). Expanding the moral circle: farmed fish as objects of moral concern. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75: 109-118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nussbaum M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Rachels, J. (2007). The elements of moral philosophy. 5th edition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Röcklinsberg, H. (2001). Das Seufzende Schwein. Zur Theorie und Praxis in deutschen Modellen zur Tierethik. Monograph, doctoral thesis. Harald Fischer Verlag, Erlangen, Germany.Google Scholar
  24. Sandøe, P. and Christiansen, S.B. (2008). Ethics of animal use. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Sandøe, P., Christiansen, S.B. and Appelby, M.C. (2003). Farm animal welfare: the interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science. Animal Welfare 12: 469-478.Google Scholar
  26. Striwing, H. and Ǻslund, M. (2005). Djurskydd – fakta och tips. Striwing, Falun, Sweden.Google Scholar
  27. Underwood, W.J. (2002). Pain and distress in agricultural animals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) 2: 208-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vapnek, J. and Chapman, M. (2010). Legislative and regulatory options for animal welfare. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  29. Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bock, B. and Roe, E. (2008). European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 279-297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wahlberg, B. (2011). Reglering och forvaltning av produktions- och slaktdjurs välbefinnande – En offentligrättslig undersökning. Doctoral thesis. Abo Akademi. Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  31. Würbel, H. (2009). Ethology applied to animal ethics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 118-127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Wageningen Academic Publishers 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Environment and HealthSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesSkaraSweden
  2. 2.Department of Animal Environment and HealthSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations