Sharelle Hart and Bidda Jones 
RSPCA Australia, PO Box 265, Deakin West, ACT 2600, Australia

Abstract

In a discussion on how animal welfare organisations might define animal welfare it is necessary to first clarify the term animal welfare organisation. Animal welfare organisations tend to define their position by indicating that they accept some use of animals by humans – provided it is both justified and humane. In contrast, animal rights organisations tend to advocate a move away from animal use altogether.

Animal welfare is defined in many different ways: some definitions focus purely on the physiological requirements of the animal, while others also consider factors relating to the behaviour and mental state of an animal. The RSPCA in Australia bases its definition of animal welfare on the ‘five freedoms’ for animals which provide a logical and comprehensive framework for analysis of welfare needs. 

Origins of animal welfare 

In Ancient Greece it was thought that most humans sat just below spiritual and divine beings near the top of the ‘Great Chain of Being.’ All lower-rung dwellers such as slaves, animals and plants were therefore designed to serve those above them in the chain. In the early 1800s this concept began to be questioned with public concerns about slavery and scientific developments such as Darwin’s theory of evolution which recognised humans as part of the animal kingdom (Wise, 2000). 

This change in public thinking was supported by the formation of the very first animal welfare organisation which was founded in 1809 in Liverpool, England. Unfortunately the “Society for the Suppression and Prevention of Wanton Cruelty to Animals” petered out after only a few meetings. Fifteen years later, in 1824, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was founded in London. Its formation followed the development of the humanist movement, which advocated the protection of basic rights for the most vulnerable in society. The SPCA was preceded by the first animal welfare legislation which was passed in 1822 by the British House of Commons. This acted “to prevent the cruel and improper treatment of any horse, cow, ox, heifer, steer, sheep or other cattle in the charge, care or custody of any person or persons” and it applied only to farm animals or beasts of burden. 

Development of organisations concerned about animal welfare 

The first meeting of the RSPCA’s founders sought to form an organisation “instituted for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals” that would seek to prosecute offenders under the new legislation. But those involved, one of whom was the anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce, also wanted to “alter the moral feelings of the country” towards the welfare of animals. So the two main objectives of the animal welfare movement were set down at this early stage: to enforce anti-cruelty legislation and to promote animal welfare in the community. As legislation to protect animals was developed, the role of animal welfare organisations in extending, improving and enforcing that legislation became increasingly important. The movement quickly spread internationally, in the USA through the Humane Societies and in Australia through the RSPCAs. The first RSPCA was founded in Victoria in 1871 and was soon followed by Tasmania, NSW, SA and the other States.

Soon after the advent of the prevention of cruelty to animals movement, a second movement developed that was much more radical in its philosophy and activity. This movement focussed entirely on the use of animals for scientific research. In 1874 the first law regulating vivisection was presented to the UK House of Lords and a Royal Commission of enquiry was set up. In response to this development, a lobby group called “The Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection” was formed. This later split into the UK National Anti-Vivisection Society and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Like the first RSPCA, these two organisations are still active in the UK. 

While the animal welfare movement grew in its influence and achievements over the next 100 years or so, the antivivisection movement waned, as the power and influence of the scientific community grew. That is, until the 1970s, when the publication of works by the philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan provided the catalyst for a rebirth of the movement under the banner of animal rights. While the agenda of the animal rights movement is much broader than just anti-vivisection, animal research was its first target. 

Differences between animal welfare and animal rights organisations

The underlying theme of the first animal welfare legislation was that unnecessary cruelty, or causing pain for no reason was not acceptable. The early animal welfare movement reflected this position: it was built on the assumption that animal welfare should prevail only if it did not conflict with human interests. It sought to improve treatment of animals without challenging the inherent right of humans to use animals as sources of food, clothing, labour or entertainment. This issue of the use of humans by animals is at the core of the difference between animal rights and traditional animal welfare organisations. While the immediate aims of both groups often coincide, their underlying philosophies differ over whether it is acceptable for humans to use animals. 

Animal welfare organisations tend to define their position by indicating that they accept some use of animals by humans - provided it is both justified and humane. In contrast, an animal rights position advocates a move away from animal use altogether. The term ‘exploitation’ of animals is often used. This position argues that animals have an intrinsic worth in themselves and deserve to live on their own terms, not just as a means to human ends.

Role of the RSPCA in Australia

The main objectives of mainstream animal welfare organisations, such as RSPCA Australia, are fundamentally the same across the world and have changed little from the original intent of the movement’s founders. They are:

• to prevent cruelty to animals by enforcing existing legislation
• to work towards improving such legislation for the protection of animals
• to educate the community about the humane treatment of animals; and 
• to encourage and sustain public debate on animal welfare. 

Definitions of animal welfare

There is no single definition of animal welfare that is universally accepted. Certainly the term ‘animal welfare’ has been redefined by authors as new scientific information has become available. The definition most often quoted in scientific papers is that animal welfare is “the state of the animal as regards its ability to cope with the environment in which is finds itself” (Broom, 1986). This definition is useful as it recognises that the welfare of an animal is a result of its interpretation of incoming stimuli from it environment and the outcomes of its attempt to deal with the stimuli. However some authors have raised the fact that this definition does not make an attempt to say what constitutes good or bad welfare, ie both the quantity and quality of an animal’s experiences (Appleby, 1999; Phillips, 2004; Webster, 2005). 

Several factors are recognised as being important in an animal’s welfare - that it is fit, healthy, free from mental distress and is able to exhibit natural behaviours or living in an environment consistent with that in which it has evolved and adapted. Overlying this is discussion over sentience and the capacity of an animal to suffer. Webster (2005) attempts to summarise this by proposing that the ‘welfare of a sentient animal is determined by its capacity to avoid suffering and sustain fitness.’

As discussed further in this paper, an analysis of how animal welfare should be defined is not simply an academic argument, but helps provide a basis for discussion on how animal welfare standards should be measured, implemented and improved over time.

A framework to define animal welfare

In 1964 the book Animal Machines by Ruth Harrison raised awareness about husbandry conditions in commercial farming operations and sparked sufficient public outcry to instigate a government investigation. The subsequent report of the Brambell Committee (1965) is often quoted as the pivotal step forward in recognition of the importance of behaviour in assessing animal welfare (Mench, 1998). The report concluded that in intensive farming systems “an animal should at least have sufficient freedom of movement to be able without difficulty, to turn around, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs.” The Brambell Report also concluded that the welfare of an animal includes its physical and mental state and that any animal kept by Man must, at least, be protected from unnecessary suffering.

The Brambell Committee introduced the concept of the ‘five freedoms’ for animals which are a set of principles which provide a logical and comprehensive framework for analysis of welfare within any animal production system.

The Five Freedoms are: 

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst: by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour;
2. Freedom from discomfort: by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area;
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease: by prevention through rapid diagnosis and treatment;
4. Freedom to express normal behaviours: by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind; and
5. Freedom from fear and distress: by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

The Five Freedoms have been promoted by the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council which advises the UK government on all aspects of farm animal welfare, including new legislation (EU doc). They are also used by internationally by many animal welfare organisations, including RSPCA Australia, as the basis for animal welfare codes and policies on the treatment of food animals and other livestock.

In assessing an animal-based food production system it is important to assess it against each one of the five freedoms. For example, the live transport of animals compromises the five freedoms as animals are likely to be hungry, thirsty, uncomfortable and distressed, they are restricted in movement and behaviour and are often injured (Appleby, 1999). Other systems may meet only some of the minimum standards for the five freedoms and therefore thresholds need to be developed as to what is acceptable. When implementing animal welfare standards it becomes necessary to measure welfare, to give it a practical framework, and to decide which parameters are important.

The importance of science-based animal welfare standards and the value of the five freedoms is stressed by Jago et al (2000) who also highlights that people’s beliefs and understanding of what is meant by welfare will vary depending on their cultural, scientific, religious and political backgrounds. 

How does RSPCA Australia define animal welfare?

RSPCA Australia considers that the welfare of an animal includes its physical and mental state and that good animal welfare implies both fitness and a sense of well-being. The RSPCA believes that the welfare of an animal should be considered in terms of the Five Freedoms which provide a logical and comprehensive framework for assessment. 

Historically animals were categorised by their value to humans (extrinsic value) which is why livestock were the first animals to be given legal protection. In contrast, the RSPCA recognises that animals have an intrinsic value of their own and, accordingly, must be considered to possess the right to live in a way which enables them to have a positive life and to develop and enjoy their inherent qualities. Public perceptions may categorise animals into good and bad according to context which may in turn effect how people treat them. However, a utilitarian animal welfare perspective places the emphasis on the capacity of the animal to suffer (regardless of the context it is placed in). The RSPCA considers that a rat should be defined by its own sentience: therefore, regardless of whether it is a white rat considered a pet or a black rat in the food cupboard considered a pest, rats should be treated humanely. Following on from this, the RSPCA tends to consider animal welfare at the level of the individual animal. As much as possible, this level is based on our scientific and deductive understanding of the requirements of that animal rather than an anthropomorphic perspective.

The RSPCA’s definition of animal welfare applies to free-living wild animals, those held in captivity, animals for production, pets, used for sport, labour or entertainment and those used for research purposes. To account for the diversity and complexity of animal welfare issues, RSPCA Australia therefore expands on the principles of the Five Freedoms and has developed a document which outlines all current RSPCA Policies and Position Papers. The document contains both ethical statements as well as statements based on scientific principles. The Policies and Position Papers allow for consistency across a national organisation, they provide a transparent mechanism for members to be informed about the RSPCA and it is a resource document that can be used by other animal welfare organisations, students, government agencies etc. The document is published every year and is reviewed and updated as new information arises (see www.rspca.org.au). 

Scientific Approach to animal welfare

In the implementation of animal welfare standards it is necessary to be able to measure levels of welfare and to determine appropriate thresholds so that animal welfare criteria can be stipulated in codes of practice, guidance can be provided to producers and situations can be assessed under the law.

As Webster (2005) highlights, ‘animal welfare is a complex thing. It deals with the totality of experience that determines the state of body and mind of a sentient animal.’ Therefore to assess welfare an understanding of a wide range of biological phenomena (such as health, physiology, immunological state and behaviour) is required and no single measure of welfare is adequate on its own (Dawkins, 1998). Currently model codes of practice for animal welfare in Australia consider basic physiological requirements and some basic behavioural requirements although the standards applied are not consistent amongst the Codes for the various species. Animal management and regulatory systems have not yet evolved to consider more complex analyses of animal welfare. The RSPCA supports research and further investigation into the development of holistic assessments of animal welfare which consider both biological parameters and behavioural aspects. 

Food Production Accreditation Schemes

In Australia and overseas efforts have been made by animal welfare organisations to promote animal welfare standards in food production systems through accreditation schemes. This has arisen out of a need to provide consumers with products that represent high welfare standards and to provide a practical means to promote and improve animal welfare.

Freedom Foods, UK

The first national animal welfare based food accreditation scheme was introduced in 1994 by the UK RSPCA under the title ‘Freedom Food’. Freedom Food Ltd is an independent, non-profit making organization set up with the aim of improving farm animal welfare in the UK by providing labelled products which represent high standards of animal welfare. The basis of the Freedom Food standards are the ‘five freedoms’, however these have been expanded to provide detailed and precise documents setting out the standards for each of the food animal species so far covered by the scheme.

Freedom Food's welfare standards are written by the UK RSPCA's farm animal specialists in consultation with veterinary surgeons, farm animal experts and producers. The standards are based on the needs of the animals and are written around scientific research and practical farming experience. The standards cover the animal on the farm, transport from the farm and slaughter. A farmer, transporter, processor or abattoir must meet all the RSPCA standards before they can be accredited and become members of the scheme. Accredited producers are able to label their products with the Freedom Food logo which provided the consumer with an assurance that the product has come from animals reared, transported and slaughtered in accordance with RSPCA standards. However, farmers cannot use the Freedom Food label on their products until they have linked up with other accredited members throughout the whole supply chain. So far, welfare standards have been written for the following species: sheep, chickens, turkeys, laying hens, ducks, beef cattle, dairy cattle, salmon and pigs (RSPCA UK, 2005). 

RSPCA Australia’s accreditation scheme

In Australia, the RSPCA has set up a similar accreditation to the Freedom Food scheme in the UK. Again, the scheme is based on the ‘five freedoms’. So far the only food production system that has been nationally accredited is for eggs. The RSPCA Australia Certification Standards for Eggs require that, amongst other things, layer hens must have litter in which to dust bath, space to flap wings, stretch and socialise, nests in which to lay their eggs and adequate perch space. 
RSPCA Australia has also developed standards for the housing and husbandry of pigs for the accreditation of pig meat products and is in the early stages of accrediting producers. 

Schemes in other countries

The American Humane Association (AHA) has introduced animal welfare guidelines for producers to market dairy, beef, or poultry products with a certification from the AHA under their ‘Free Farmed’ label. Again, the AHA’s scheme is based on the five freedoms and is intended to advance market-driven improvements in animal welfare standards throughout the food animal industry. Similar schemes have also been set up in Canada and New Zealand.

Effectiveness of food accreditation schemes

The aim of food accreditation schemes is to encourage producers to convert to the scheme or to adopt high welfare standards and ultimately to phase out production methods that do not satisfy the five freedoms. Food accreditation schemes provide consumers with a choice of product with high animal welfare standards and also serve to educate the public about how their food is produced. The rapid adoption of the UK Freedom Foods scheme indicates that, at least in the UK, there is some progress being made towards this goal. However there are other issues connected with food production in the public’s mind which can act against improving animal welfare in the food industry. 

Public reactions to food health scares and disease outbreaks in food animals have prompted producers to give assurances to the public over the health and hygiene of their livestock, products and processes. The cost of this may be high. For example, a requirement to produce stock uncontaminated by organisms such as salmonella (which may contaminate livestock without causing them any illness) will tend to drive producers towards controlled environment systems and away from outdoor systems. 

Furthermore, allowing market forces, rather than legislation, to determine animal welfare standards will never protect the welfare of all food animals. There will always be some consumers who are unconcerned with animal welfare or who place welfare concerns below price constraints. Because of the financial temptations to disregard animal welfare, strict government controls will always be necessary to deter inhumane treatment of farm animals.

The solution to these problems is to take a holistic approach to food production that incorporates food safety, animal welfare and environmental issues and to ensure that the principles enshrined in the ‘five freedoms’ are adopted as our social consensus ethic. 

Future of animal welfare

As Australia becomes an increasingly urbanised society the public are generally isolated from direct contact with wildlife management and farming husbandry practices. The challenge for animal welfare organisations is to inform the general public about animal welfare issues to achieve a greater respect for animals in the wider community. The RSPCA hopes that this will result in a shift in attitudes regarding consumer choices and concern for the treatment of animals in our society, which combined with an increase in the scientific study of animal welfare, will result in changes in legislation to improve animal welfare and greater compliance with animal welfare standards.

Note:
This paper contains material previously published in Jones B (in press). The changing face of animal welfare organisations. In: Animal Ethics: New Frontiers, New Opportunities: Proceedings of the 2004 ANZCCART Conference, ANZCCART Publications.

References

Appleby, M. (1999) What should we do about animal welfare? Blackwell Science, London.

Brambell FWR (1965) Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. HMSO, London

Broom, D (1986) Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal. 142: 524-526. 

Dawkins, Marian (1998) Evolution and Animal Welfare. The Quarterly Review of Biology, September 1998, Vol 73(3) pp 305-328.

Jago, J., Fisher, A. and Le Neindre, P. (2000) Animal Welfare and Product Quality. In: Biological Resource management. Connecting Science and Policy 2000 pp 163-171.

Mench, J (1998) Animal Well-being: Immune Function, Behaviour, Morphology and Psychoneroimmunology. ILAR Journal Online, 39(1). 

Phillips, C. (2004) Animal welfare matters. Australian Veterinary Journal 82(1&2): 64-64.

RSPCA UK (2005) http://www.rspca.org.uk Click on Freedom Food

Webster, J. (2005) Animal Welfare: limping towards eden. UFAW Animal Welfare Series. Blackwell Publishing, UK.

Wise, S.M. (2000) Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Perseus Publishing, New York.