Animal welfare… let's talk about the animal welfare instead

  The conditions under which animals are raised for human consumption are a major source of controversy in society. Some call for an end to all animal farming, while others insist on the right to satisfy dietary preferences they consider legitimate. This debate centers primarily on animal ethics, the economy, and the environmental impact of animal production—three of the many, sometimes conflicting concerns that must be reconciled. The concept of “welfare” is at the heart of current developments: consideration of animal welfare, from genetic selection programs and the design of their living environments to the conditions under which they are killed; taking into account the well-being of farmers, who must derive a fair income and personal satisfaction from their work. It may seem anachronistic that the very idea of animal welfare as applied to farm animals is the subject of so much controversy, given that its foundations have been established for over 50 years and have recently been revisited in light of the latest knowledge regarding animals’ mental capacities. All scientific data agree on the recognition of a mental life in farm animals—beings with their own lives and a conscious relationship to their world. Consequently, well-being is not a disembodied theoretical concept (“animal welfare”), but must be understood as a reality experienced by sentient and conscious living beings in their relationship with their environment (“animal welfare”).  

The Brambell Report: A Pioneering Document

As early as 1964, Ruth Harrison’s book denounced the conditions of intensive farming of animals raised for production purposes. In response to this criticism, the British government established an initial committee, the Brambell Committee, named after its chair. Its mission was to make recommendations and propose minimum animal welfare standards that would meet the basic needs of animals under intensive farming conditions. In 1965, it produced a report considered to be the foundation for thinking and initiatives regarding animal welfare in Europe. The report’s first contribution is a definition that is often overlooked (Chapter 4, Paragraph 25):

“Welfare is a broad term that encompasses both the physical and mental well-being of the animal. Any welfare assessment must therefore take into account scientific knowledge regarding animals’ experiences, as inferred from their anatomy, physiology, and behavior.”

This definition already referred to the existence of mental states in animals, a recurring point of controversy among stakeholders. It is also worth noting that it refers to the animal as a sentient being and conscious individual. The report also analyzes the various risk factors for animal welfare, both in general and on a species-by-species basis. It then makes numerous concrete proposals to improve the animal welfare of farm animals.  

The “Five Freedoms” Principle

Following these recommendations, the British government established a second expert committee—this time a permanent one—tasked with proposing further solutions to improve animal welfare in farming. In the late 1970s, this committee put forward five key principles (the “Five Freedoms”), which do not define animal welfare but outline the key considerations for ensuring that animals enjoy satisfactory welfare:

• freedom from hunger, thirst, and malnutrition,
• freedom from discomfort and pain,
• freedom from injury and disease,
• freedom from fear and distress,
• freedom to express normal species-specific behavior.

French contribution to the definition

As early as 2012, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) incorporated animal welfare into the scope of the specialized expert committee on “animal health,” which was renamed in 2015 “animal health and welfare .” In 2018, it published a position paper on the topic “Animal Welfare: Context, Definition, and Assessment,” which incorporates the most recent knowledge, drawing in particular on two collective scientific expert reports from the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRAE) on animal pain and animal consciousness. [More than 80,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to better understand the world’s major issues. Subscribe today] According to the ANSES opinion (2018), “animal welfare is the positive mental and physical state associated with the satisfaction of its physiological and behavioral needs, as well as its expectations. This state varies depending on the animal’s perception of the situation.” This definition underscores the importance of the mental dimension of an animal’s experience within its environment. Thus, good health and satisfactory production levels are not enough. We must consider what the animal is experiencing: its unpleasant subjective perceptions (fear, stress, pain, and suffering) as well as its positive emotions (satisfaction, pleasure, etc.). This definition is essentially a reaffirmation—in light of scientific advances in our understanding of animal emotions and mental states—of the definition proposed 53 years earlier by the Brambell Committee.

International Recognition

Since 2001, at the request of its member states, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has positioned itself as the sole global contributor to the discourse on animal welfare. WOAH defines animal welfare as “the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions under which it lives and dies.” The concept of the mental state of animals is firmly established by this leading organization, which specifies that “while the concept of animal welfare refers to the [physical and mental] state of the animal, the treatment an animal receives is covered by other terms such as care, rearing conditions, and proper treatment.”

“Animal Welfare,” to Clarify the Debate

There is indeed a convergence among these various reference texts in making a clear distinction between animal welfare and proper treatment. Animal welfare must be assessed at the level of the animal, recognized by both the European Commission and French legislation (the Rural Code and the Civil Code) as a sentient being. In contrast, “proper treatment” refers to the measures taken by humans to help animals move toward a state of well-being; it is a potential for well-being that must be validated by the animal itself. However, the concept of well-being cannot be applied in all contexts. For example, it is clear that speaking of well-being at a slaughterhouse is an oxymoron. Instead, we speak of animal protection during transport and at the slaughterhouse, with the goal of minimizing stress, pain, and suffering. To be effective, efforts to improve animal welfare must incorporate all aspects of health and well-being—for animals, farmers, and the environment—a concept now known as “One Health” and “ One Welfare”). These efforts can be grounded in clear and widely accepted scientific principles. Pierre Mormede , Veterinarian, researcher in animal stress and animal welfare, INRAE ; Alain Boissy , Biologist and Ethologist, INRAE Research Director, INRAE ; and Pierre Le Neindre , Researcher, INRAE This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.