Who is responsible for ensuring animal welfare?

Abstract

Research on animal welfare influences practice by providing basic understanding of the needs and nature of animals, by identifying indicators of animal welfare, and by testing how animal welfare is influenced by specific environments and management procedures. Such research is sometimes adopted directly into practice, but application more often occurs by science being incorporated into animal welfare standards. Standards differ considerably because they prioritize different animal welfare objectives including protecting health, preventing pain and distress, promoting comfort, and allowing animals to perform natural behavior. Creating standards essentially involves value-based decisions about which objectives to prioritize, followed by the use of science to set requirements needed to achieve the objectives. Current trends include increased use of animal-based outcome requirements (e.g., low levels of lameness), the use of inclusive processes to develop standards with “social validity,” and more emphasis on human factors by selection and training of staff and by engaging animal managers in dynamic processes of animal welfare improvement.

I Introduction

The term ‘animal welfare,’ in both the lay and scientific community, is often used to refer to a concept. In this context, positive animal welfare may be substituted with the term ‘well-being.’ Animal welfare serves as a cornerstone, or foundation, for laboratory animal medicine and the use of animals in research. ‘Animal welfare’ also refers to a measurable state in an animal which may be related to the adequacy of an animal’s ability to cope with its environment. Animal welfare is a branch of science which looks at these measurable states in almost all areas of our interaction with animals – agriculture, entertainment, companionship, research, and others. This chapter will highlight the significant emphasis on animal welfare in the field of laboratory animal science and medicine, beginning with some of the history, philosophies, ethics and events which have shaped the impact of animal welfare on the use of animals in research. Laws and regulations will only be briefly mentioned as they are covered elsewhere in this book; however, guidelines and principles, such as the 3Rs, will be covered in more detail. Using examples of reduction and refinement, strategies for optimizing laboratory animal welfare in general and in several specific areas of research will be discussed. Animal welfare as a science, measuring the animal’s perception of their state of well-being and going beyond just physiologic measurement of health and production, will be discussed, with particular focus on the use of behavioral monitoring to measure welfare.

Staff

Continues advancement in the area of animal welfare impacted on the type of personnel needed to fulfill all the tasks in daily activities (Table 4.10). More training and education were introduced and new job posts created. The staff structure, types of positions and number of personnel depend on the size of the facility, species housed, and type of research performed. Some positions like animal technicians, managers will be present in all the facilities and others like directors, supervisors and study directors will be present only in larger institutions.

Table 4.10. Job specifications in animal facilities.

The bigger establishment will have higher job specialization where employees spend most of the time on specific tasks gaining more efficient skills. However, a more complicated staff structure can be challenging to manage. Clear task division, close supervision, and written work schedules are essential to ensure successful operations. In the larger team, there is usually also higher staff rotation. Well-structured training programs and supervision will ensure that new members have a good understanding of animal welfare requirements in their facilities.

The staff in smaller institutions will generally have a wider range of techniques but be less efficient with individual procedures. Generally, their work will be located in one particular area or room. Small teams can become problematic in case of annual leave/sickness. Cross-training within different areas and projects can ensure that covering staff can provide the best possible care to the animals.

Animal care staff has a substantial influence on animal welfare therefore, each position within the animal facility should be carefully considered. Not only experience should be taken into account but also the attitude toward animals and consideration for their well-being.

Regardless of the staff structure and number of personnel, the focus should always be on good communication within a team and a clear division of responsibilities. This ensures a high level of care and prevents any potential mistakes which could impact the welfare of the animals.

Potential Conflicts Between the Animal Welfare Requirements, GLPs, and Other Study Requirements

As mentioned previously, some regulatory requirements may conflict with each other or make it difficult to determine who has the ultimate say in certain study-related decisions. It is important to be aware of these since they can lead to potential conflict between the Contracting Scientist, Study Director, AV, IACUC, and others. These issues often come up when unanticipated adverse effects occur in a study and a quick course of action needs to be taken to ensure animal welfare. Although these effects cannot be predicted, an appropriate course of action with a clear outline of responsibilities can be established before the start of the study so that all parties understand their roles when an unanticipated effect occurs.

Under the GLPs, the Study Director has overall responsibility for the technical conduct of the study and is the single point of control. This implies that the Study Director needs to make all decisions regarding the conduct of the study. However, under the AWA and the “Guide”, the AV must have the authority to make decisions about animal care and use. Since decisions about animal care and use are entwined with study conduct, there is a conflict about who has the authority and responsibility to make certain decisions involving animal care and use, especially when they impact the scientific conduct of the study. Ideally, the AV, Study Director, and Contracting Scientist should work together to arrive at appropriate solutions. However, it should also be clearly established before the study starts and within the protocol, who has the ultimate authority if a consensus cannot be reached. For example, an animal may be experiencing severe pain and distress that was unexpected. The Study Director and Contracting Scientist want to keep the animal on study but the AV determines that the animal is close to being moribund and should be euthanized. The majority of laboratories will default to the decision of the AV to avoid any animal welfare issues; however, the Study Director is ultimately responsible for the scientific conduct of the study, presenting a potential conflict.

Humane endpoints should be included in the protocol so that clear criteria for euthanasia, supportive care, or removal from the study are established. The protocol should include criteria for initiating euthanasia such as the degree of physical or behavioral deficit or tumor size that will enable a prompt decision to be made by the veterinarian and the investigator to ensure that the end point is humane and the objective of the protocol is achieved. This can be challenging for some studies, such as toxicology studies, since the potential induction of serious adverse effects may be a scientific requirement of the study. Also, some studies may require a certain number of animals to survive until a certain age and/or the planned necropsy in order to have a valid study. If animals are euthanized prior to this, the study may have to be repeated which poses a dilemma between keeping sick animals on the current study until the designated timepoint is reached versus using additional animals and repeating the study.

The use of analgesics for animals in pain or distress is often a contentious point for studies. The AV and IACUC are required to prevent or eliminate pain or distress but analgesics can interfere with the response of the animals to the test article making the study scientifically invalid. Depending on the laboratory, IACUC and AV, the amount of written scientific justification for withholding analgesics can vary greatly and this should be taken into consideration. This also applies to environmental enrichment since the “Guide” recommends enrichment for all animals but the scientific needs of the study may require no enrichment since the enrichment is another study variable that could impact the interpretation of the study findings. If no enrichment is used, it must be scientifically justified and approved by the IACUC.

Animal Welfare

Animal welfare was identified as a priority when OIE member countries mandated the organization to take the lead internationally on animal welfare and to elaborate recommendations and guidelines covering animal welfare practices. This is all the more relevant to the OIE since animal health is a key component of animal welfare. The Permanent Animal Welfare Working Group was inaugurated at the 70th World Assembly of Delegates in May 2002.

To date, the OIE has developed guidelines for the transport of animals by land, sea, and air, for the slaughter of animals, and for killing animals for disease control purposes. The next standards to be developed are on the control of stray dog populations, livestock production systems, and laboratory animal welfare.

To further progress on animal welfare standards, the OIE has held two global conferences, in 2004 and 2008, in order to promote the worldwide implementation of OIE animal welfare standards, to raise the profile of animal welfare, and to encourage veterinarians and VSs to take greater responsibility for animal welfare.

Publisher Summary

Animal welfare is becoming a greater and greater concern. This chapter focuses on the animal welfare and food safety at the slaughter plant. Maintaining high standards of animal welfare should be an integral part of a processing plant's overall meat quality and food safety program. In many plants, animal welfare audits are conducted by the quality assurance department that has responsibility for food safety, meat quality, and animal welfare. Many plants have also implemented their own internal animal welfare audits, usually conducted by the plant's Hazard Analysis at Critical Control Points (HACCP) food safety department as part of their overall quality program. These auditing programs have resulted in great improvements in animal welfare. Careful handling of animals before they arrive at the plant and a reduction of electric prod use will help reduce bruises and greatly improve animal welfare. For both food safety and good animal welfare, cull breeding stock should be sent to slaughter before they have deteriorated to a debilitated state.

Introduction

Animal welfare is important to meat production because poor animal welfare is associated with poor animal production or health, and because consumers' concerns may influence market access. Throughout the world, animal welfare is the topic of legislation, retailer standards, and codes of practice. An animal has good welfare if it is in good health and feeling good, and the psychological component must not be ignored. Challenges to animal welfare differ between species and production systems. Concern about animal welfare is highest for intensive production but extensively housed animals also have welfare problems. Poor welfare is apparent in the animal's health, behavior, production, and physiology. Different welfare indicators detect specific challenges to animal welfare, rather than measuring the overall welfare.

Abstract:

Animal welfare is considered an important attribute of an overall ‘food quality concept’, and there is a growing realisation of a link between animal welfare and food safety. Threats to animal welfare, including stress-induced immunosuppression and promotion of foodborne pathogens, and genetic modifications have the potential to compromise the healthiness and safety of food. The growth in the organic farming sector presents new animal welfare and food safety concerns with regard to animal health security, the prevalence of zoonotic diseases, and the presence of toxic residues in the food produced.

Animal Welfare

Animal welfare was identified as a priority when OIE Member Countries mandated the organization to take the lead internationally on animal welfare and to elaborate standards and guidelines covering animal welfare practices. This is all the more relevant to the OIE since animal health is a key component of animal welfare. The Permanent Animal Welfare Working Group was inaugurated at the 70th World Assembly of Delegates in May 2002.

To date, the OIE has developed welfare standards both for terrestrial and aquatic animals. These encompass the transport of animals by land, sea, and air, the slaughter of animals, the killing of animals for disease control purposes, the control of stray dog population, the use of animals in research and education, and livestock production systems (beef, broilers). The next standards to be developed are on dairy cows and later hens and pig production systems, working animals as well as disaster management and risk reduction in relation to animal health and welfare and veterinary public health.

To further progress on animal welfare standards, the OIE has held three global conferences, in 2004, 2008 and 2012, in order to promote the worldwide implementation of OIE animal welfare standards, to raise the profile of animal welfare, and to encourage veterinarians and VSs to take greater responsibility for animal welfare.

Link to the infographic on Animal welfare standards: www.oie.int/infographic/StandardsAW/index.html.

Abstract

The animal welfare debate includes unresolved key issues, like defining animal welfare principles and requirements in legislation and private standards, practically implementing and measuring them and ways to most efficiently support them through public and/or private means. In this chapter, different definitions for animal welfare are explored. Improved legislation and rules are discussed, with a focus on organic farming. The chapter then proposes more outcome-oriented approaches to assess animal welfare, including also avenues to involve consumers and market actors in the development of commercial products with a high level of animal welfare. The role of policymakers, legislators and private standard-setters is emphasized for the development of clear and easy to implement animal welfare rules, including both farmers self-assessments and third party certification. At last, financial rewards and innovation for animal-welfare friendly husbandry and assessment systems will play a role in advancing animal welfare.