Consumers are pushing for improved animal welfare, demanding antibiotic free food, but few are willing to pay more
TORONTO — There’s a public outcry for something to be done whenever another undercover video surfaces depicting abuse of farm animals.
Farm groups scramble to de-nounce the behaviour, and sometimes charges are laid or practices are changed.
Codes of practice for the humane handling of livestock may be ensconced into provincial legislation or a commodity group’s food safety program as a show of good faith.
There was some resistance to the imposition of guidelines when the codes were first developed. Producers said science was on their side and they would be unprofitable if their animals were mistreated.
Read Also
Strong demand for generics prompts expansion
LANGHAM — Farmers Business Network is responding to strong demand for generic agricultural chemicals by expanding its Canadian operations. The…
All that is changing.
“There is a gradual shifting of producers as they are able to absorb what is in the code and then acceptance grows,” said Jackie Wepruk, manager of the National Farm Animal Care Council.
Many codes have existed for more than 20 years and most have been revised at least once.
Some, like the rabbit code of practice, is new. Older codes often made recommendations, but revised versions insist that certain practices must stop or be altered.
Wepruk has been involved with farm animal welfare for 20 years and has helped shepherd these documents through the process, working with volunteers from livestock organizations, retailers, processors, veterinarians and scientists.
“One of the things (producers) need to understand is that these codes are not being developed by government or by animal rights groups,” she said in an interview during a Canadian Meat Council symposium on animal health and welfare that was held in Toronto Oct. 1-2.
“This is your industry that has taken the leadership and taken the time to develop this code.”
Canada has taken a collaborative approach in the creation of its codes of practice through the National Farm Animal Care Council.
Pain control and housing systems are the most contentious issues.
The codes are intended to be scientifically based documents, and outside groups want assurances that they are followed.
The ultimate goal is to create a consistent set of standards that food service and retailers can rely on when seeking animal based products.
Organizations such as the SPCA see both sides.
A recent survey from the British Columbia SPCA showed 94 percent of Canadians feel strongly that farm animals should be treated humanely. However, Geoff Urton of the SPCA said less than two percent know anything about farming, which means their ideas about humane treatment may not match the reality of farm life.
The public still says the most important priority for the SPCA is to continue investigations into cruelty cases and reduce over-population of pets with spaying and neutering programs.
However, a better standard for the care and treatment of animals raised for food is the fifth priority.
“This indicates the times are changing,” he said.
“Members of the public who are supporting charities want us to do proactive work in the form of policy and education.”
The public often sees no difference between a case of cruelty and what is considered common practice on the farm.
For example, the B.C. SPCA in-vestigated a case where the owners of a Rottweiler kept it in a Rubbermaid container. The dog was eventually removed from the owners. People hear of such cases and wonder why sow gestation crates are acceptable.
“They really cannot reconcile that,” he said.
They expect livestock to be treated kindly, and up to 40 percent said they would buy meat products with humane labels. In 2002, B.C. introduced a third party farm certification and food labelling program featuring a red barn that says “SPCA certified.”
Surveys show consumers place the desire for healthy, affordable food at the top of their shopping list, but improved animal welfare has moved up the scale, said Crystal Mackay, executive director of Farm and Food Care Canada, which has a 25 year plan to build public trust in food and farming in Canada.
“What people say on the survey and what they buy are very different.”
The average Canadian knows little about agriculture or science but claims to want food “free from” antibiotics, preservatives, hormones and GMOs.
They do not know or care about the definition of judicious use of antibiotics and cannot conceptualize what parts per million means.
The foundation published a million booklets called The Real Dirt on Farming and recently inserted 300,000 copies into the Globe and Mail.
Reviews were favourable, said Mackay.
Farm and Food Canada will also be the Canadian home for the Centre for Food Integrity, which is based in the United States.
For more information, visit www.bestfoodfacts.org-shared and www.farmfoodcarefoundcation.ca.
