Abstract
Awareness of farm animal welfare issues is growing in Canada, as part of a larger food movement. The baseline Canadian standards for farm animal welfare—the Recommended Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals—are up for revision. The success of these standards will depend in part on perceived legitimacy, which helps determine whether voluntary code systems are adopted, implemented, and accepted by target audiences. In the context of the Codes, legitimacy will also hinge on whether the standards-developers marshal narratives about farm animals that accord with their audiences’ expectations. The aim of this paper is to catalogue factors that influence legitimacy in farm animal welfare standard-setting, including which narratives of animal welfare are emphasized by standard-setters. Drawing upon the example of the baseline Canadian standards, and the National Farm Animal Care Council, the paper will present a theoretical and methodological framework for analyzing legitimacy in the context of animal welfare standards-development and discuss associated policy considerations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Noske (1997) would caution that although animals cannot “speak,” they can still be listened to.
See Appendix B for a list of interviewees. Although most consented to being identified by name, we have elected to code and identify interviewees by general organizational affiliation.
Not all would agree that law should be defined so narrowly. Szablowski notes that the presumption that law derives from the state is a relatively recent notion. He argues for a broad conception of the term that is “capable of including within its ambit those regimes of normative ordering that are significant to the ability of persons to realize the social and material bases of their lives” (Szablowski 2005).
Note that legitimacy is not synonymous with support, although the two are interconnected. Authorities derive legitimacy from the support they enjoy and perceived legitimacy leads people to support an authority (Issalys 2005).
Many models of legitimacy analysis exist in the literature. Szablowski’s (2005) model was also influential to our analysis. He divides legitimacy into three factors: procedural fairness (whether the organization is perceived to use fair rule-making process), outcome favorability (whether the rule is perceived to be in audience’s interest), and substantive fairness (whether the rule is perceived to be normatively appropriate).
This paper is concerned with voluntary codes and does not directly examine provincial or federal laws governing animal welfare.
See, for example, Commission of the European Communities (2002). Note that European frameworks have progressively been enhanced since this report as part of the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006–2010.
For example, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36 was comprehensively updated in 2008 for the first time in approximately 90 years.
Positive obligations that do exist in law are broadly-stated requirements to provide for animals’ basic needs, rather than specific housing, feed, or care standards. See, for example, Ontario Regulation 60/09 to the Ontario Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.36 (online: <http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_090060_e.htm>). This regulation gives basic standards of care, including “adequate and appropriate” food, water, medical attention, care, and so on, without specifying what “adequate and appropriate” entails. However, these broad standards do not apply to practices “carried on in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices of agricultural animal care, management or husbandry” [see Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, s. 11.1(2)(a)].
A list of Codes with latest revision date is provided at Appendix A.
Canada Committee on Animals (2002), p. 6. The Agricultural Policy Framework (“APF”) was a coordinated policy plan for the Canadian agricultural and agri-food industries, launched in 2003 by federal, provincial, and territorial agriculture ministries in consultation with industry. All provinces and territories signed onto the APF, and concluded Implementation Agreements with the federal government. The APF consisted of five “pillars”: food safety and quality, environment, renewal, science and innovation, and business risk management. In 2008, it was replaced by “Growing Forward,” a new 5-year national policy framework.
Interviewees are coded I1–I8. See Appendix B.
Each Code employs similar language in the preface, indicating that the Codes are voluntary guidelines, and that laws and regulations take precedence. However, some of the prefaces also indicate that the Codes have been accepted as standards of practice by courts (see, e.g., the Chickens, Turkeys and Breeders from Hatchery to Processing Plant Code, at v). Codes are available on the National Farm Animal Care Council website at http://nfacc.ca/code.aspx.
The distinction between care and welfare will be discussed in further detail below. Although welfare can be defined as a part of animal care and vice versa, both industry actors and humane organizations often emphasize that these terms are distinct.
Manitoba’s Animal Care Act, S.M. 1996, c. 69 provides one example of the incorporation of the Codes into provincial legislation. Section 4(1) of the Act lists “agricultural uses of animals” as an accepted activity under the Act. Section 4(2) further specifies that to be acceptable, “an activity must be consistent with a standard or code of conduct, criteria, practice or procedure specified as acceptable in the regulations.” Under s. 2 of the Animal Care Act Regulation, the various Codes are specified as acceptable standards. Therefore, agricultural uses of animals are acceptable in Manitoba law as long as they are consistent with the Codes. The Act and Regulation can be found online at http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/index.php.
The websites for these programs are, respectively, at http://www.spca.bc.ca/welfare/farm-animal-welfare/spca-certified/; http://www.winnipeghumanesociety.ca/animal_Issues_And_News/WHS_Certified.php; and http://www.localfoodplus.ca.
In contrast, some private standards that have used the Codes as foundational material do have labeling programs.
The supply managed industries have a narrower range of market relations and a more restricted exposure to consumer concerns, and may be less willing to diversify their product lines to respond to consumer demands.
The second author has participated in many standard-setting and verification discussions among a wide range of Canadian commodity groups and has regularly heard this argument against verification systems.
CFHS consistently distinguishes itself from more extremist organizations within the humane movement. See the CFHS website section titled “Understanding the difference between animal rights and animal welfare” at http://cfhs.ca/info/understanding_the_animal_rights_animal_welfare_spectrum/. Another example is found in the president of the Humane Society of the United States describing the organization as the “legitimate” part of the animal protection movement (Garner 2004, p. 65).
See, for instance, the material on CFHS’s website on the “realities of farming in Canada” at http://cfhs.ca/farm/farming_in_canada/, accessed July 17, 2009.
For an example of the biological functioning approach, see the industry promotional brochure, “Farm Animals: Who Cares?” at http://farmissues.com/issues/facts/web/pdf/FarmAnimalsWhoCares.pdf, accessed July 17, 2009. For an example from the humane sector, CFHS relies on popular perceptions of “natural” and agrarian ideals in its descriptions of current production practices. The section of their website on farm animals describes current production practices in these terms: “Where chickens once roamed free in the barnyard, most are now cooped up in battery cages with so little space they can’t flap their wings.” Pigs, “instead of rooting in the mud…bite the bars of their cage and rarely see the light of day.” See http://cfhs.ca/farm/humane_labelling/, accessed July 17, 2009.
There are certainly many government actors who have the required expertise, but the criteria by which representatives are chosen by NFACC are not clear.
Of course, the risk remains that “lowest common denominator” standards will be generated if these actors do not have the expertise to effectively participate.
For numerous examples, see the educational material provided at www.livestockwelfare.com. Serpell also discusses this claim (Serpell 1999).
His desire to become involved came after witnessing the impact of foot and mouth disease. He also recounted an anecdote about two swine operations he viewed in the UK. The one he perceived to be the humane system was unable to sell to the local processor because it did not meet their requirement for outdoor housing. I4 returned to Canada with the desire to find out who was setting the standards in Canada, and the resolve that similar mistakes be avoided.
An example of the claim to independence can be found in the McDonald’s Corporation material on its welfare initiatives (Corporate Responsibility Committee 2005).
Science, of course, is not independent. Thompson (1998) argues that agricultural research is not morally neutral, and is informed by utilitarian philosophy. Fraser discusses the need to balance input from scientists and ethicists to overcome the simplistic claims from the “new perception” of animal agriculture and the industry response (Fraser 2001).
See, for example, the Ontario Farm Animal Council at http://www.ofac.org/.
Not all scientists would deny animal pleasure, however. See Balcombe for an exploration of non-human animals’ experiences of pleasure (Balcombe 2006).
See Haynes for a discussion of resistance to welfare terminology in the context of the Animal Care Panel in the United States (Haynes 2008).
All of the submissions to the Next Generation remain available online. This industry “Statement of Principles” is available at http://www4.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/pol/consult/miss/pdf/b08.pdf, accessed July 17, 2009.
Kheel notes, from an ecofeminist perspective, that an ethic of care should be distinguished from caretaking or stewardship (Kheel 2004). Haynes further articulates the distinction between care giving and caretaking. Care giving might be likened to the relationship between a parent and child. Caretaking, on the other hand, refers to the managerial relationship between a caretaker and his or her animal-property. The purpose of caretaking includes protecting the value of the property and ensuring that the animal is fit to the use to which it will be put. Haynes indicates that those who adopt the language of care giving are often applying an ethic of caretaking (Haynes 2008). See also “Welfare as Dependency” below.
Taken from the CFHS submission to the Next Generation of Agriculture and Agri-Food Policy, available at http://www4.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/pol/consult/miss/pdf/c16.pdf, accessed July 17, 2009. See footnote 31 above.
A copy of the CCFA’s email submission to the Next Generation is on file with the author.
The BC SPCA submission is available online at http://www4.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/pol/consult/miss/pdf/a03.pdf, accessed July 17, 2009.
See footnote 33 above.
See footnote 32 above.
For an example, see NFACC’s first Annual Report, available online at http://www.nfacc.ca/Documents/Default.aspx, accessed July 17, 2009.
For instance, Temple Grandin states that “producers need to ask themselves, what would the public think?” (Grandin 2001). The World Organisation for Animal Health (“OIE”) defines welfare as “a complex, multi-faceted public policy issue which includes important scientific, ethical, economic and political dimensions” (International Committee of the OIE 2002).
This quote is taken from an industry-produced video clip titled “Tie stall dairy virtual farm tour: Caring for animals?,” available at farmissues.com, accessed July 17, 2009.
See the CFHS website section titled “Understanding the difference between animal rights and animal welfare” at http://cfhs.ca/info/understanding_the_animal_rights_animal_welfare_spectrum/, accessed July 17, 2009.
The final Code development process is available online through the NFACC website at http://www.nfacc.ca/Projects/Detail.aspx?id=5, accessed January 9, 2010.
This last requirement is not included in the NFACC Process, but was communicated by I5.
There is also a legitimacy issue with auditing: third party auditing systems are perceived as neutral, and therefore more legitimate than internal auditing. The legitimacy of auditing systems is beyond the scope of this paper, as the Codes do not, as yet, have an auditing component.
The lack of awareness of the Codes was highlighted by a number of interviewees.
NFACC has commenced consultations on the development of an overarching animal care assessment framework. Discussions are at a preliminary stage and it is not clear that the framework would involve auditing the codes themselves.
For a fuller discussion of why, see Koc et al. (2008).
Recent surveys reported in AAFC (2008) suggest this is happening.
Integrated Fruit Production is a pest prevention oriented approach to fruit production that minimizes use of synthetic pesticides and enhances biodiversity on farms.
As with NFACC, the CHC envisages supporting verification systems operated by other parties but using their guidelines.
References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2002). Farm animal welfare and codes of practice consultation workshop, September 23–24, 2002, Gatineau, Quebec. Conference Proceedings. http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1184872705336&lang=eng. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. (2008). An overview of Canadian agriculture and agri-food. Ottawa: AAFC.
Animal Care Act, S.M. (1996). c. 69. http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/1996/c06996e.php. Accessed Jan 9, 2010.
Balcombe, J. (2006). Pleasurable kingdom: Animals and the nature of feeling good. New York: Macmillan.
Ballantyne, W. (2006). A proactive approach to animal welfare. Advances in Pork Production, 17, 139–144.
Bernstein, S. (2004). The elusive basis of legitimacy in global governance: Three conceptions. Institute on globalization and the human condition, Working Paper Series, 2. Hamilton: McMaster University.
Bisgould, L., King, W., & Stopford, J. (2000). Anything goes: An overview of Canada’s legal approach to animals on factory farms. Report. Animal Alliance. http://animalalliance.ca/projects/AGCREDIT.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Botterill, L. C. (2004). Valuing agriculture: Balancing competing objectives in the policy process. Journal of Public Policy, 24(2), 199–218.
Bracke, M. B. M., De Greef, K. H., & Hopster, H. (2005). Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 27–56.
Canada Committee on Animals. (2002). Annual report 2001–2002. (On file with author).
Canadian Agri-Food Research Council. (2003). Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of pullets, layers and spent fowl. http://nfacc.ca/pdf/english/PoultryLayers2003.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. (2006). Leading our industry into the future. Annual report 2005–2006. http://www.ccgd.ca/home/en/MemberReports.htm. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB). (2009). Organic production systems: General principles and management standards. CAN/CGSB 32.310–2006 Amended 2009. Ottawa: CGSB.
Cashore, B., Auld, G., & Newsom, D. (2004). Governing through markets: Forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cohen, D. (2004). The role of the state in a privatized regulatory environment. In K. Webb (Ed.), Voluntary codes: Private governance, the public interest and innovation (pp. 35–56). Ottawa: Carleton Research Unit for Innovation, Science and Environment.
Commission of the European Communities. (2002). Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament on animal welfare legislation on farmed animals in third countries and the implications for the EU. Brussels: CEC.
Corporate Responsibility Committee of the Board of Directors of McDonald’s Coproration. (June 29, 2005). Regarding the feasibility of implementing controlled atmosphere stunning for broilers. Report. http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/invest/gov/mcd_cr062905.html. Accessed March 7, 2009.
Fraser, D. (2001). The “new perception” of animal agriculture: Legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis. Journal of Animal Science, 79, 634–641.
Fraser, D. (2004). Applying science to animal welfare standards. In Proceedings from: Global conference on animal welfare: An OIE initiative, February 23–24, 2004 (pp. 121–125). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://www.oie.int/eng/Welfare_2004/proceedings.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Frewer, L. J., Kole, A., Van de Kroon, M. A., & de Lauwere, C. (2005). Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 345–367.
Garner, R. (2004). Animals, politics and morality (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Grandin, T. (2001). Corporations can be agents of great improvements in animal welfare and food safety and the need for minimum decent standards. Paper presented at the National Institute of Animal Agriculture, April 4, 2001. http://www.grandin.com/welfare/corporation.agents.html. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Haines, R. J. (2004). Farm to fork: A strategy for meat safety in Ontario. Report of the Meat Regulatory and Inspection Review. London, ON: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General. http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/meatinspectionreport/. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Haynes, R. P. (2008). Animal welfare: Competing conceptions and their ethical implications. New York: Springer.
International Committee of the OIE. (2002). Resolution No. XIV: Animal welfare mandate of the OIE, May 29, 2002. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/international/oie_resolution_en.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Issalys, P. (2005). Choosing among forms of public action: A question of legitimacy. In P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing Government (pp. 154–181). Montreal: McGill- Queen’s University Press.
Kheel, M. (2004). Vegetarianism and ecofeminism: Toppling patriarchy with a fork. In S. F. Sapontzis (Ed.), Food for thought (pp. 327–341). New York: Prometheus Books.
Koc, M., MacRae, R., Desjardins, E., & Roberts, W. (2008). Getting civil about food: The interactions between civil society and the state to advance food security in Canada. Journal of Health Environmental Nutrition, 3(2), 122–144.
Mayer, H. (2002). Animal welfare verification in Canada: A discussion paper. Report. Alberta Farm Animal Care Council. http://www.afac.ab.ca/reports/AWVReport.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2009.
National Farm Animal Care Council. (2006). Codes of practice guideline document. http://www.nfacc.ca/Projects/Detail.aspx?id=5. Accessed July 17, 2009.
National Farm Animal Care Council. (2007). Short history of the codes of practice for the care and handling of farm animals. http://www.nfacc.ca/Documents/Default.aspx. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Noske, B. (1997). Beyond boundaries: Humans and animals. Montréal: Black Rose Books.
Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o36_e.htm. Accessed January 9, 2010.
Purchase, B. (2004). The political economy of voluntary codes. In K. Webb (Ed.), Voluntary codes: Private governance, the public interest and innovation (pp. 77–96). Ottawa: Carleton Research Unit for Innovation, Science and Environment.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652–667.
Serpell, J. A. (1999). Sheep in wolves’ clothing? Attitudes to animals among farmers and scientists. In F. L. Dolins (Ed.), Attitudes to animals (pp. 26–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skogstad, G. (2003). Who governs? Who should govern? Political authority and legitimacy in Canada in the twenty-first century. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36(5), 955–973.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Szablowski, D. (2005). Legitimacy and regulation in the global economy: Legal mediation of conflicts between communities and transnational mining companies. (Doctoral dissertation, York University, 2005).
te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 203–219.
Thompson, P. (1998). Agricultural ethics: Research, teaching, and public policy. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Webb, K. (2004). Introduction: Understanding the voluntary code phenomenon. In K. Webb (Ed.), Voluntary codes: Private governance, the public interest and innovation (pp. 3–31). Ottawa: Carleton Research Unit for Innovation, Science and Environment.
White, L. (2004). Farmed animals in Ontario. Take Action. Newsletter. Animal Alliance. http://animalalliance.ca/newsletter/s2004.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2009.
Widowski, T. (2003). Meeting future demands for animal care. Advances in Pork Production, 14, 281–285.
Wood, S. (2005). Three questions about corporate codes: Problematizations, authorizations and the public/private divide. In W. Cragg (Ed.), Ethics codes, corporations and the challenge of globalization (pp. 245–289). Cheltenham: Edward Elga.
Wood, S. (2006). Voluntary environmental codes and sustainability. In B. J. Richardson & S. Wood (Eds.), Environmental law for sustainability (pp. 229–276). Portland: Hart Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bradley, A., MacRae, R. Legitimacy & Canadian Farm Animal Welfare Standards Development: The Case of the National Farm Animal Care Council. J Agric Environ Ethics 24, 19–47 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9240-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9240-z