Private animal health and welfare standards in quality assurance programmes: a review and proposed framework for critical evaluation

Abstract

In recent years, 'private standards' in animal health and welfare have become increasingly common, and are often incorporated into quality assurance (QA) programmes. Here, we present an overview of the use of private animal health and welfare standards in QA programmes, and propose a generic framework to facilitate critical programme review. Private standards are being developed in direct response to consumer demand for QA, and offer an opportunity for product differentiation and a means to drive consumer choice. Nonetheless, a range of concerns have been raised, relating to the credibility of these standards, their potential as a discriminatory barrier to trade, the multiplicity of private standards that have been developed, the lack of consumer input and compliance costs. There is a need for greater scrutiny of private standards and of associated QA programmes. We propose a framework to clarify the primary programme goal(s) and measureable outputs relevant to animal health and welfare, the primary programme beneficiaries and to determine whether the programme is effective, efficient and transparent. This paper provides a theoretical overview, noting that this framework could be used as a tool directly for programme evaluation, or as a tool to assist with programme development and review.

Private Animal Welfare Standards—Opportunities and Risks

“…According to Main and co-workers [ 14 ], a private standard’s aim should be to improve animal welfare and not only certify compliance with the governmental minimum legislation. According to More and co-workers [ 3 ], two of the first questions for a policy maker to ask and determine is what the private standard’s goal and intention should be when it comes to animal welfare, and who should benefit from the standard. These questions would perhaps be obvious to most of us.…”

“…The paper is based on discussions emanating from our project Mind the Gaps! From Intentions to Practice in Animal Welfare Legislation and Private Standards [ 13 ], but also on results from other research groups and studies, such as those by More and co-workers [ 3 ], who identified a need for greater scrutiny of private standards, and Main and co-workers [ 14 ], who have presented a framework for developing private standards with an aim to improve animal welfare. They have, however, not scrutinesed the relation between existing regulations and the effect of the control outcomes.…”

“…In addition, various types of voluntary animal welfare standards have lately been introduced in Europe as a mean to improve animal welfare. One can even talk about a trend of the 21st century of moving the governance of food safety and animal welfare away from government to the market place and consumers [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Hence, today, European animal farmers do not only have to meet animal welfare legislation, but also certain kinds of private animal welfare standards in order to be able to market their products [ 4 , 7 , 8 ].…”

“…The current trend to shift responsibility for animal welfare away from the public sphere into the private arena is in many cases supported both by politicians and researchers [ 11 , 12 ], but also evokes a number of practical and ethical issues [ 3 , 13 ]. For example, the presence of both public and private regulations has changed the pattern of inspections of animal welfare at farm level.…”

Challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland: 2. On-farm use of veterinary antimicrobials

“…Further, each European member states has developed national action plans, including limiting antimicrobial usage in farm animals. A large number of management strategies are relevant, but may vary between farms and regions, including Quality Assurance Schemes [ 51 ], biosecurity, vaccination and on-farm diagnostic testing. It is clear that an integrated approach is needed, including improved on-farm management of herd health, ongoing measurement and benchmarking of on-farm antimicrobial usage, and relevant education and training.…”