Back to search

BIONÆR-Bionæringsprogram

GoodAnimal: Animal Welfare for Sustainable Futures

Alternative title: God dyrevelferd for bærekraftig fremtid (GoodAnimal)

Awarded: NOK 10.0 mill.

In GoodAnimal, we study animal welfare as an escalating field of conflict in the social debate. We observe conflicts between farmers, consumers, experts, and authorities, and increasingly within various groups. The overall aim of the project is to obtain knowledge that can contribute to sustainable livestock farming. Good animal welfare is a premise for what can be understood as sustainable. That animal welfare engages is not entirely new. Just as Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" (1962) awakened environmental commitment, Ruth Harrison's "Animal Machines" (1964) about the consequences of industrialized animal husbandry for animal welfare, affected both opinion formation and legislation. In Great Britain, the Brambell Commission was established (1965) and the result was a formulation of the animals’ five freedoms. These formed the basis for animal welfare regulation in most western countries, including Norway. The freedoms are about access to enough and the right food and water, a suitable living environment, being healthy and whole, avoiding fear and stress and freedom to exercise natural behaviour. GoodAnimal depart from the assumption that good animal welfare is practiced in ethically sound livestock farming. Animal welfare concerns what is good/bad for the relevant production animals. It implies, on the one hand, that value-based considerations are necessary given "good/bad", and that regardless of the professional tradition the researcher is in (for more detail, see Fraser et al. 1997). On the other hand, it implies that animal welfare per se does not include what is good/bad for humans. Over time, animal welfare research has expanded and developed the knowledge base for what is needed for animals to have good welfare. In parallel, there has been a development of understanding of what constitutes good animal welfare among livestock producers and in Norwegian society. One of the perspectives we use in the project is convention theory. A convention can be understood as a collective practice that is implemented based on justified attitudes. People's need for justification is fundamental within the theory and according to the French sociologists Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thèvenot, they will be rooted in different values. It is within these values that we also find justification for how we should treat animals. In GoodAnimal we find differences in farmers' justification of animal welfare. This is not about the degree of commitment to good animal welfare which has increased. Farmers value livestock's basic health and feelings as something that can be interpreted as a contradiction to livestock's freedom to exercise natural behavior (the fifth freedom mentioned above). When we understand valuing animal health and emotions (to avoid fear and stress) as one animal welfare convention, we also see that it is supported by an emphasis on Norwegian agriculture's role as primarily a producer of sufficient food. Animals' freedom to exercise natural behavior can be understood as another animal welfare convention. This is supported by an emphasis on the multifunctional role of agriculture. Within this convention, we also find higher support among organic farmers. Despite increased interest and intensity, the project's analyzes show that there is remarkably little change in people's attitudes towards animal welfare. There is little concern for animal welfare, but trust is important in opinion formation. Although there is little difference between people in what they think about animal welfare, we find that younger people and women are somewhat more concerned with animal welfare and that there is a growing divide between urban and rural areas. Interest in animal welfare wanders between anthropocentric and ecocentric extremes, where those who are furthest towards eco have more often made a choice not to eat meat and may wish to end livestock farming. In trade, we see that animal welfare increasingly is being sold. Good animal welfare is something everyone who sells meat must document in accordance with regulations. We also see that some actors want to distinguish their own products with better animal welfare and are often linked to the communication of the animals' natural behavior in marketing. This can both be to satisfy a special customer group, to achieve a better price, and it can be to establish a separate position in the market. Norwegian livestock production is an important industry and good animal welfare is crucial both for the animals and for the legitimacy of agriculture. GoodAnimal confirms that most Norwegians are not concerned about animal welfare, even if the public debate is marked by increased polarization. Our analyzes also show that it is difficult to fulfill all the goals for animals’ freedoms. Livestock's freedom to exercise natural behavior appears to conflict with specialized livestock production and may be an obstacle to regulation and practices that seek to improve animal welfare.

-

Good animal welfare (AW) in an ethically sound animal livestock production system is a basic premise in a sustainable food system. Societal values and attitudes have an important influence on food production and any shift in social attitudes about AW provides both significant risks and opportunities for Norwegian farming. GoodAnimal's primary objective is to acquire knowledge that will mitigate threats and increase opportunities for sustainable farm and industry practices. GoodAnimal will: 1) identify how societal attitudes and evaluations of AW are changing, and how this impacts on farmers' evaluations of their practice as 'good farmers', 2) identify the key sites and places where these evaluations are being mobilised or contested and how these create changing dynamics in farming's 'social contract to farm', 3) compare consumers' perceptions of a 'good farmer' with a biological perspective, taking physiological functioning, natural behavior, and animals' subjective experiences into account 4) use these first three objectives to structure a public 'deliberative engagement' process to evaluate ethical concerns, prioritise actions and design tools for use by farming and food sectors and government agencies. GoodAnimal will identify key pressures and design tools and interventions to mitigate risks to the future sustainability of farming and food production and take opportunities for value-creation through best practice. An international and interdisciplinary research team within social science, humanities and veterinary science will strive to achieve goals of openness and inclusiveness in research and active engagement in public debate, and to enhance socially responsible research and innovation (RRI).

Publications from Cristin

No publications found

Funding scheme:

BIONÆR-Bionæringsprogram