Skip to main content
Log in

Animal Care Ethics, ANZCCART, and Public Perceptions of Animal Use Ethics

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The public attitude to animal use in Australia and New Zealandcan be inferred from survey results and political activity. The publicis concerned about the rights of animals as far as any uses causing painare concerned, but takes a more utilitarian view of the taking of lifewhere no suffering is involved. Many of the participants in two recentANZCCART conferences fall short in their knowledge of and attitudetoward these concerns. Animal welfare legislation and standards need tobe reformed so that painful animal use is eliminated, even if economicgrowth suffers as a result.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Aldhouse, P., A. Coghlan, and J. Copley, “Let the People Speak,” New Scientist (1999), 26-31.

  2. ANZCCART, ANZCCART Information Package for Animal Ethics Committees (1998).

  3. ANZCCART/ANEAC, “Ethical Approaches to Animal-based Science,” Proceedings of the Joint ANZCCART/ANEAC Conference, Auckland, New Zealand 1997 (1998).

  4. AWAC/ANZCCART, Innovation, Ethics and Animal Welfare: Public Confidence in Science and Agriculture. AWAC/ANZCCART Conference, Wellington, New Zealand 1999 (2000).

  5. Brennan, A., “Ethics, Codes and Animal Research,” in L. F. M. van Zutphen and M. Balls (eds), Animal Alternatives,Welfare and Ethics (Elsevier Science, London, 1997), pp. 43-54.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Elliot, R., “Animal Welfare-Public Perceptions and Reality,” in ANZCCART/ANEAC (1998a), pp. 47-51.

  7. Elliot, R., “Foundation of the New Zealand Codes and Animal Ethics Committee System,” in ANZCCART/ANEAC (1998b), pp. 93-97.

  8. Fisher, M., Agricultural Ethics (Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Board, Wellington, NZ, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gregory, N. G. and C. D. Devine, “Survey of Sow Accommodation Systems Used in New Zealand,” New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 42 (1999), 187-194.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jessamine, S., “Developing Public Policy on Xenotransplantation,” in AWAC/ANZCCART. Innovation, Ethics and Animal Welfare: Public Confidence in Science and Agriculture. WAC/ANZCCART conference, Wellington, New Zealand 1999 (1999), pp. 97-103.

  11. Johnston, N. E. and B. Rusche, “Ethics Committees: How Do They Contribute to the Three Rs? Synopsis of the Workshop,” in (L. F. M. van Zutphen and M. Balls (eds), Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (Elsevier Science, London, 1997), pp. 391-395.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jolly, R., “Reviews of Animal Ethics Committees: the Proposed ANZCCART (NZ) System,” in AWAC/ANZCCART (2000), pp. 105-109.

  13. Kedgley, S., “Green Animal Farming-An Alternative to Factory Farming and Genetic Engineering,” in ANZCCART/ANEAC. Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science. Proceedings of the Joint ANZCCART/ANEACConference, Auckland, New Zealand 1997 (1999), pp. 37-40.

  14. Linzey, A., Animal Theology (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Loague, P., “Animals a Priority,” in ANZCCART/ANEAC (1998), pp. 141-143.

  16. Macer, D., Bioethics for the People by the People. Eubios Institute, Tsukuba and Christchurch (http://zobell.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/BFP.html) (1994).

  17. Macer, D., H. Obata, M. Levitt, H. Bezar, and K. Daniels, “Biotechnology and Young Citizens: Biocult in New Zealand and Japan,” Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 7 (1997), 111-114.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McCaw, A., “The Three Rs and How They Are Promoted,” in ANZCCART/ANEAC(1998), pp. 85-90.

  19. Mellor, D. and J. Battye, “Making a Profession of Science: The Two-way Street of Public Trust and Concern for Public Good,” in AWAC/ANZCCART (2000), pp. 125-133.

  20. Midgley, M., Animals and Why They Matter (The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Morris, M. C., “Ethical Issues Associated with Sheep Fly Strike Research, Prevention and Control,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2000), in press.

  22. Morris, M. C., “Review: ANZCCART Proceedings 1997 and 1999,” Agriculture and Human Values (2001), forthcoming.

  23. National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, 1998 Annual Report (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  24. NHMRC, Australian Code of Practice for the Care And Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Oogjies, G., “Hen Opinions Put to Premiers,” Animals Australia Media Release (http://www.melbourne.net/animals australia/media/25jan99.html) (1999).

  26. Overell, B., Animal Research Takes Lives-Humans and Animals Both Suffer. New Zealand Antivivisection Society, Wellington (http://www.health.org.nz/artltitle.html) (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Regan, T., The Case for Aanimal Rrights (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rifkin, J., Beyond Beef: Tthe Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture (Plume, New York, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Singer, P., Animal Lliberation, new revised edition (Avon Books, New York, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tsuzuki, M., Y. Asada, S. Akiyama, N. Y. Macer, and D. R. J. Macer, “Animal Experiments and Bioethics in High Schools in Australia, Japan, and New Zealand,” Journal of Biological Education 32 (1998), 119-126

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wilmut, I., “Xenotransplantation: Organ Transplants from Genetically Modified Pigs,” in D. Bruce and A. Bruce (eds), Engineering Genesis: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering in Non-Human Species (Earthscan, London, 1998), pp. 63-66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gifford, F. Animal Care Ethics, ANZCCART, and Public Perceptions of Animal Use Ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13, 249–257 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009588513796

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009588513796

Navigation