Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T13:45:41.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

I Veissier ,
KK Jensen ,
R Botreau  and
P Sandøe
I Veissier*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
KK Jensen
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
R Botreau
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
P Sandøe
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
*
Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: isabelle.veissier@clermont.inra.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

All systems of scoring animal units (groups, farms, slaughter plants, etc) according to the level of the animals’ welfare are based inevitably on normative decisions. Similarly, all methods of labelling, in terms of acceptability, are based on choices reflecting ethical values. The evaluative dimension of scoring and labelling does not mean that we should reject them, but it does mean that we need to make the normative and ethical background explicit. The Welfare Quality® scoring system is used as a case study in order to highlight the role of underlying value-based decisions. In this scoring system, which was designed in accordance with assessments and judgments from experts in animal and social sciences and stakeholders, we identify value-based decisions at the following five levels. First, there are several definitions of animal welfare (eg hedonist, perfectionist, and preferentialist), and any welfare scoring system will reflect a focus upon one or other definition. In Welfare Quality®, 12 welfare criteria were defined, and the entire list of criteria was intended to cover relevant definitions of animal welfare. Second, two dimensions can structure an overall evaluation of animal welfare: the individual animals and the welfare criteria (here 12). Hence, a choice needs to be made between the aggregation of information at the individual level (which results in a proportion of animals from the unit in a good vs bad state) and the aggregation at criterion level (which results in a proportion of criteria to which the unit complies vs does not comply). Welfare Quality® opted for the second alternative to facilitate the provision of advice to farmers on solving the welfare problems associated with their farms. Third, one has to decide whether the overall welfare assessment should reflect the average state of the animals or give priority to worse-off animals. In the Welfare Quality® scoring system the worse-off animals are treated as much more important than the others, but all welfare problems, major or minor, count. Fourth, one has to decide whether good scores on certain criteria can compensate for bad scores on others. In the opinion of most people, welfare scores do not compensate each other. This was taken into account in the Welfare Quality® scoring system by using a specific operator instead of mere weighted sums. Finally, a scoring system may either reflect societal demands for high levels of welfare or be based on what can be achieved in practice — in other words, an absolute assessment or a relative one may be proposed. Welfare Quality® adopted an intermediate strategy: absolute limits between welfare categories (Not classified, Acceptable, Enhanced, or Excellent level of welfare) were set, but the rules governing the assignment of an animal unit to a category take into account what had been observed on European farms. The scientists behind Welfare Quality® are keen to make the value-based choices underlying assessments of animal welfare transparent. This is essential to allow stakeholder groups to understand the extent to which their views are acknowledged and acted upon.

Keywords

animal welfareethicsmulti-criteria evaluationsciencesocietal concernsvalues
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 89 - 101
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appleby, M and Sandøe, P 2002 Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare 11: 283–294Google Scholar
Arrow, K 1963 Social Choice and Individual Values. John Wiley & Sons: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J 1948 (originally published in 1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Hafner: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Bock, B 2009 Farmers’ perspectives. Conference Delivering Animal Welfare and Quality: Transparency in the Food Production Chain pp 73–75. 8-9 October 2009, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007a Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, P, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, van Reenen, CG and Veissier, I 2007b Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare: Part 2: Analysis of constraints. Animal 1: 1188–1197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botreau, R, Capdeville, J, Perny, P and Veissier, I 2008 Multicriteria evaluation of animal welfare at farm level; an application to MCDA methodologies. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 33: 287–316Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009 Overall assessment of cow welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Animal Welfare 18: 363–370Google Scholar
Bouyssou, D, Marchant, T, Pirlot, M, Perny, P, Tsoukias, A and Vincke, P 2000 Evaluation and Decision Models a Critical Perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM and Schouten, WGP 2002 Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows: A Model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 80: 1819–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J 1991 Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time. Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Broome, J 2004 Weighing Lives. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2001 A method of assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, focusing on animal observations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science Supplement 30: 62–68Google Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1993 Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6: 8–14Google Scholar
European Commission 2002 Communication from the European commission to the council and the European parliament on animal welfare legislation on farmed animals in third countries and the implications for the EU p 626. EU: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2005 Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer 229/Wave 63.2 - TNS opinion and social. EU: Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2007a Attitudes of consummers towards the welfare of farmed animals: Wave 2. Special Eurobarometer 229(2)/Wave 64.4 - TNS Opinion & Social. EU: Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/sp_barometer_fa_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2007b Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1 - TNS Opinion & Social. EU: Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/sp_barometer_fa_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Evans, A and Miele, M 2007a Consumers’ views about farm animal welfare - Part II: European comparative report based on focus group research. Welfare Quality Reports. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Evans, A and Miele, M 2007b Consumers’ views about farm animal welfare - Part I: National reports based on focus group research. Welfare Quality Reports. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992 FAWC updates the five freedoms. The Veterinary Record 17: 357Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1999 Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
Fraser, D and Duncan, IJH 1998 ‘Pleasures’,'pains’ and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect. Animal Welfare 7: 383–396Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Grabisch, M and Roubens, M 2000 Application of the Choquet integral in multicriteria decision making. In: Grabish, M, Murofushi, T and Sugeno, M (eds) Fuzzy Measures and Integrals: Theory and Applications; Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. Physica-Verlag: Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J 1986 Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Jensen, KK 2003 What is the difference between (moderate) egalitarianism and prioritarianism? Economics and Philosophy 19: 89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjaernes, U, Miele, M and Roex, J 2007 Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers to Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality Reports. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006 Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miele, M and Evans, A 2005 European consumers’ views about farm animal welfare. 1st Welfare Quality® Stakeholder Conference: Science and Society Improving Animal Welfare. 17-18 November 2005, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Miele, M and Evans, A 2009 Citizen Juries, a comparative analysis of the public opinions about the Welfare Quality on farm assessment system. Welfare Quality Reports. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Miele, M and Evans, A 2010 When foods become animals, ruminations on ethics and responsibility in care-full spaces of consumption. Ethics, Place and Environment, submittedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miele, M, Veissier, I and Evans, A 2011 Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–117Google Scholar
Polten, R 2007 Proceedings of the Workshop on Animal Welfare Improving by Labelling? 28 March 2007, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Roy, B 1993 Decision science or decision-aid science? European Journal of Operation Research 66: 184–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P 1996 Animal and human welfare: are they the same kind of thing? Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science 27: 11–15Google Scholar
Sen, AK 1979 Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Advanced Text Books in Economies. North Holland: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Sen, AK 1997 On Economic Inequality. Expanded Edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, H 1981 (originally published in 1874) The Methods of Ethics. Hackett Publishing: Indianapolis, USAGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhonacker, F, Van Poucke, E and Verbeke, W 2010 Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science 131(1): 108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I and Evans, A 2007a Rationale behind the Welfare Quality assessment of animal welfare. Second Welfare Quality® stakeholder conference, Assuring Animal Welfare: from Societal Concerns to Implementation pp 19–22. 3-4 May 2007, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I and Evans, A 2007b Principles and Criteria of Good Farm Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality® Fact Sheet Welfare Quality®: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Botreau, R and Perny, P 2009 Scoring animal welfare: difficulties and Welfare Quality® solutions. In: Keeling L (ed) An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality® Assessment Systems, Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009a Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle (Fattening Cattle, Dairy Cows, Veal Calves). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009b Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Pigs (Sows and Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009c Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar