Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics

Carlier, Alexis; Treich, Nicolas

doi:10.1561/101.00000115

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course, the regulation can be based on moral notions different from utilitarianism (e.g., Regan, 1983). It is beyond the scope of the paper to discuss the extensive literature in philosophy and law about the moral status of animals (Sunstein and Nussbaum, 2004), and its implications for welfare economics and policy making (Carlier and Treich, 2020). 10 As far as we know, no economic analysis exists on the regulation of other environmental impacts of meat consumption, such as eutrophication or acidification.…”

Section: Fiscal Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meat consumption has increased significantly in the last 50 years. This trend raises various health and environmental issues, as well as moral concerns regarding farm animal welfare. In this paper, we discuss the regulation of meat consumption in developed countries. Specifically, we discuss possible justifications for this regulation in terms of environmental, health and animal welfare considerations, as well as the effect of fiscal, informational and behavioral regulatory instruments. Finally, we present a list of challenges that policy makers and food scholars may need to confront in the future.

show abstract

Section: Fiscal Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modern factory farming often involves animal suffering and research from diverse perspectives [2][3][4][5][6] is beginning to try to understand how humans think about and reconcile this with their moral principles. In the present study, adults appear to reconcile their eating habits and moral concerns by reporting that animals we eat ought not to be treated as well as other animals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…rats). Different normative and empirical disciplines, including psychology 2,3 , economics 4 , philosophy 5 , and law 6 increasingly discuss this puzzle in human behaviour. So what are the psychological processes that make this apparent moral conflict possible?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of speciesism: Age-related differences in the moral view of animals

McGuire¹,

Palmer²,

Faber³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans care for the wellbeing of some animals (e.g. dogs), yet tacitly endorse the maltreatment of others (e.g. pigs). What treatment we find morally appropriate for an animal depends on whether we characterise it as “pet” or “food”. Is this categorisation of animals and the resulting moral hierarchy of species present in childhood or instead taught through the lifespan? Comparing samples of children (9-11-years-old), young adults (18-21-years-old), and adults (29-59-years-old; total N=479), we find that children as compared to young adults and adults, a) show less speciesism, i.e. moral worth tied less to species-membership, b) are less likely to categorise farm animals as food than pets, c) think farm animals ought to be treated better, and d) deem eating meat and animal products less morally acceptable. These results are not due to children having a lower general acceptance of violence against living beings than adults. Our findings imply that our moral view of animal worth is not innate but instead develops over the lifespan in our specific societal context.

show abstract

“…Livestock diseases have a direct impact on the livelihoods of people raising the animals, and more generally on stakeholders of the value chains of livestock and livestock products (Rushton 2003 ). The costs associated with the biological impact on animals could be higher—perhaps much higher—if an intrinsic value of animals is recognized instead of limiting the value of animals to their instrumental use to humans, as proposed by some conservationists (Batavia and Nelson 2017 ) and economists (Carlier and Treich 2020 ). Moral costs associated with humans’ altruistic disutility regarding animal welfare loss could also be introduced based on standard valuation methods (Clark et al 2017 ), but this has so far been ignored in animal health impact studies.…”

Section: The Costs Of Infectious Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infectious Diseases and Meat Production

Espinosa

Tago

Treich

2020

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

171

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most infectious diseases in humans originate from animals. In this paper, we explore the role of animal farming and meat consumption in the emergence and amplification of infectious diseases. First, we discuss how meat production increases epidemic risks, either directly through increased contact with wild and farmed animals or indirectly through its impact on the environment (e.g., biodiversity loss, water use, climate change). Traditional food systems such as bushmeat and backyard farming increase the risks of disease transmission from wild animals, while intensive farming amplifies the impact of the disease due to the high density, genetic proximity, increased immunodeficiency, and live transport of farmed animals. Second, we describe the various direct and indirect costs of animal-based infectious diseases, and in particular, how these diseases can negatively impact the economy and the environment. Last, we discuss policies to reduce the social costs of infectious diseases. While existing regulatory frameworks such as the "One Health" approach focus on increasing farms' biosecurity and emergency preparedness, we emphasize the need to better align stakeholders' incentives and to reduce meat consumption. We discuss in particular the implementation of a "zoonotic" Pigouvian tax, and innovations such as insectbased food or cultured meat.

show abstract

Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics

Cited by 22 publications

References 30 publications

Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare

Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare

The development of speciesism: Age-related differences in the moral view of animals

Infectious Diseases and Meat Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About