Category: Animal Welfare

Eating animal meat – it all includes sea and land animals – is bad as it raises concern in three major aspects: the animal welfare, health consideration, and the environmental impact of meat production.

“Eating animal is like eating a friend”. For Leo Tolstoy, one of the greatest author of all time, a human can be healthy without killing animals for food. Therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. It is clearly given that animals do have lives. They also have their rights to live, so raising and killing them for food is morally wrong.

Many animals – such as dogs, cats, and even the animals that are raised for food like pigs, chickens and cows – are being considered a friend, sometimes, a family, by most people because they find these animals more comfortable to be with rather than other humans. But it is different for others. People nowadays do love eating animal meat because they think it will benefit them. They don’t know that eating animal meat is same as risking for your own health. They eat too much meat without knowing how it will affect their health.

It is given that humans should atleast consume an animal meat so that they cannot missed out the important nutrients it gives, such as vitamin B12. But consuming it gives more disbenefit in human’s health. Either processed or raw meat has its negative effects in health. One of those effects is that meat causes blockages in blood vessels, which can lead to stroke.

According to researchers, meat is ‘one of the most well-established dietary risk factors’ for diabetes. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that even modest consumption of red or processed meat significantly increases the risk of type 2 diabetes — an illness that can cause debilitating health problems, including blindness, kidney failure, heart attacks, and strokes.

Also, researches at the Mayo Clinic reviewed multiple studies and found that compared to shorter-term vegetarians, people on a vegetarian diet for more than 17 years enjoyed an increase in life expectancy of 3.6 years. They concluded that “physicians should advise patients to limit animal products when possible and consume more plants than meat.”

People who consume vegetables instead of animal products is expected to be low in health-risk. Eating vegetables provides health benefits – people who eat more vegetables and fruits as part of an overall healthy diet are likely to have a reduced risk of some chronic diseases. Vegetables provide nutrients vital for health and maintenance of your body.

Leo Tolstoy claimed that ‘vegetarianism is the taproot of humanitarianism’. He meant that people who wish to sow the seeds of peace should be eating as peaceful a diet as possible. Eating meat supports the killing of animals for no reason other than to satisfy humans’ acquired taste for animal flesh. The great humanitarians Mahatma Gandhi and Thich Nhat Hanh have argued that a vegetarian diet is the only diet for people who want to make the world a kinder place.

Not only to health, animal products has negative effects also to the environment. Animal agriculture also contributes to environmental destruction. The consumption of meat products is morally wrong because it causes enormous suffering to sentient creatures and is causing disastrous harm to our planet. 99% of the meat that people eat today comes from factory farming and industrial fishing.

Based from a Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations report in 2006, animal production contributes on a ‘massive scale’ to global warming as well as land degradation, water and energy use, deforestation and a decline in biodiversity.

Knowing the effects of eating animal meat, people should now consider their health before it becomes too late. Eating animal products, probably red meat, may be trendy for some people, but its effects is life-risky. Not only to humans but also, it gives destruction to the environment. People should start consuming green foods, or vegetables, for it will be more beneficial to their health.

Ethics is a term used to describe what is either right or wrong. It is sometimes referred to as moral philosophy. It is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with concepts such as right, wrong, bad, noble, ignoble, and good. Ethics is divided into meta-ethics, normative ethics, moral ethics, and applied ethics. Ethics plays an important role in determining an individual’s behavior in the society. It informs what a person does or how an individual reacts to certain situations. The society considers certain behaviors to be either ethical or unethical. In this case, what a society considers ethical are what most of the members of the society considers right; whatever the society does not consider to be ethical is otherwise referred to as unethical

Unethical Hunting and Poaching

Hunting of animals has been there since time immemorial. With growing technology, the rate of dying animals in the hands of hunters and poachers has been in the increase. Even though in the past, hunting of specific types of animals was purposely meant for food, in the current 21st century, hunting and poaching of animals have gone beyond search for food. There are other motivations that lead to unethical killing of animals. Governments all over the world have come up with legislations protecting the animals, especially the wild ones, against dangers or interference by human beings. This is due to unethical killing of animals for other reason than food. For instance, several animals like elephants, rhinos, snakes and other wild animals are not killed because they are edible, but because of their valuable tasks and skins. The hunters and poachers are never mindful that some of these wild animals are becoming extinct and soon may stop existing on the surface of the earth (The Humane Society, pp. 1-4).

The activities of canned hunting, regardless of what type of species of animals are being hunted, are completely unethical and amounts to abuse of animals within the society as a whole. Detaining an animal until it is ready to be killed for the purposes of trophies is a form of inhumane act against the animal. Canned hunting victims are always those (animals) from a zoo or private breeders. The unethical cruelty to animals happens even through the internet. For instance, an entrepreneur let his friend to become the first hunter to kill an animal through internet. The animal was located in a ranch found within Texas Hill County. The individual fired a bullet that hit the animal thereby wounding it severely; the entrepreneur later shot the animal to death in the ranch at close range. This is atrocity of the highest order towards the animals. To make the matter even worse, these killers of animals using internets do not need to have licenses and they must not posses sophisticated weapons; they simply kill the animals by a mouse click.

Both poaching and hunting cause pain and suffering to animals. It may be understandable to kill the animals solely for the purposes of food but to cause them pain on the grounds of fighting it out for trophies and as a recreational activity is to cause an unethical act against innocent creatures. The worst form of unethical behavior against the wild animals is through using dogs in the process. This is mostly commonly practiced as a rural way for hunting fast animals like deer and antelopes. The way dogs are released to tear the wild animals into pieces is disrespectful to the animals and is an inhumane way of killing the animals.

All these activities of hunting and poaching actually contravene the theoretical approaches that should guide the behaviors of human beings. For instance, it is important to note that most countries recognize the rights of animals which are well spelt in the constitution. This is well supported by the arguments of the rights ethical theories.

How Hunting Could be Turned into Ethical an Activity

In considering how hunting could be turned into ethical behavior and poaching should never be considered as ethical under any circumstances, it is important to take into account the ethical theories as guiding principles. Wildlife is very important to both the state and to several individuals in the society. The wildlife attracts tourism and also requires to be sustained through protection in order to preserve them for the benefit of the next generation. It is therefore important for the society to be guided through the utilitarianism ethical theory in realizing that, in this context, wildlife is of great benefit to majority of members of the society. With this theory in mind, human beings should reason on whether it is the hunting and killing of animals on one side and letting them live, especially the ones that are becoming extinct, on the other side that will benefit the majority of the members of the society.

The states should continue enacting more laws to protect the wild animals and only allow government licensed hunting to take place in situations where a particular species of animals has an unnecessary population. Everybody is expected and should take it as an obligation to obey the laws and only use required methods in killing the animals as may be permitted. This will reduce the rate of killing animals and also ensure that they are killed in decent ways. In this case such a hunting activity will be considered ethical by both the state and the other members of the society. This practice will be inline with deontology ethical theory.

To conform to virtue ethical theory, it is important for an individual to take it as a responsibility to protect the wild animals. This may be through participation in activities that discourage unnecessary hunting of wild animals, creating awareness on the importance of preserving the wild animals and ensuring this forms part of his or her morals, reputation and values. In fact, it is important for an individual to ensure that one of his or her principles is to protect and conserve the environment which includes protection of the environment. Such a person does not actually need the law to forbid or regulate hunting but should be guided by personal ethical beliefs in ensuring the wild animals are safe and respected (Rainbow, pp. 10-15).

Conclusion

Animal welfare is very important both to the human kind and for the sustenance of the wildlife for the future generation. Poaching of animals should be considered as ethical since it is an act of crime and should continue to be regarded so. Hunting should be controlled to ensure it is not used unethically against the wild animals. Ways through which hunting can be made ethical are through government legislations on the certain rights of animals, coming up with laws that clearly spell out circumstances under which hunting should take place and individuals taking personal or collective initiatives to ensure that wild animals are protected from all forms of unnecessary cruelties and inhumane treatments.

The article, “Ethical Issues of Technologies Used for Animal Breeding,” by Jac. Swart, covers various ethical considerations surrounding new technological advancements in animal breeding. Throughout the article, Swart delineates vital topics such as animal ethics, utilitarianism, animal rights considerations, biocentric considerations and environmental ethics. The article discusses whether technological advancements break certain moral codes, and ultimately begs the question of whether we should create more technology.

The first established idea surrounds animal ethics, the ‘Five Freedoms’ by the British Farm Animal Welfare Council. The article explains all five of the freedoms, as well as their relation and importance through technologies used for animal breeding. It raises ethic issues surrounding mortality, and a human’s responsibility towards other creatures in Earth.

Additionally, Swart explores utilitarian considerations, which describe how sentient beings, (creatures that have the ability to feel,) deserve to avoid suffering and enjoy life. He argues the fact that because animals are sentient, and can feel pain, as well as happiness, they deserve to be treated in such a way that suffering is avoided. Although advances in technology may lead to increased animal welfare, the animals may not always we living normally, or as part of a natural environment. This in tern violates one of the ‘Five Freedoms,’ and can be questioned from a utilitarian standpoint.

Another idea that is explored throughout the article is biocentric considerations, which describes how genetic modification of animals can be viewed as playing God or as an unnatural act. As a result, technologies that genetically modify animals such as selective animal breeding or genomic tools are immoral. Biocentric approaches follow the value that a natural balance exists, and when technology is mixed with animals, this balance is disrupted or disturbed. The article essentially shows that as well as the suffering and welfare of the animal, the integrity or authenticity of the animal’s constitution should be considered.

Lastly, the article discusses the impact of animal breeding technologies on their surrounding environment. Animal reproduction and breeding technologies such as artificial insemination, genetic modification or embryo transfer also effect the environment such as ecosystems, species, or animal populations. This must be taken into consideration when contemplating the ethics of animal breeding in 2020, as it plays an important role in our natural environment.

Ultimately the article views advancement in technology within the farming, and animal breeding industry, from a variety of ethical perspectives. It questions both our personal views, as well as the type of society that we are becoming.

This article accurately exemplifies a variety of topics that we have learnt throughout the term. One of these is the digital disruption, and different technological advances throughout the agricultural industry. Digital disruption refers to the change in technology and business models that effects the operations of a business as well as the value proposition of existing goods and services. This article explores some different technological advancements within the farming industry, such as selective breeding, genetic modification and artificial insemination. Throughout our class work we have discussed and researched the impact of technology on other industries, such as the trade and medical industry. Majority of the information we have studied seems to outline the disadvantages, though primarily agree with the benefits that come with the digital disruption. However, the article I have chosen takes a completely different approach, focuses on the ethics of technology and AI, and it’s impact on animals and their welfare.

Moreover, the article portrays a precise example of CSR, corporate social responsibility. The corporate social responsibility of a company refers to how companies manage their business processes to produce an overall positive impact on society. In class, we briefly focussed on how a company should be committed to running their business ethically, and morally. By using unethical breeding technologies, companies do not comply with CSR, and this may reflect badly on their public image. If a company fails to comply with the opinion of the public, then ultimately, that business will lose customers and profit.

Finally, this article links to my current research project, in which I am studying the impact of technology on the farming industry. The article specifically focuses on the ethical repercussions, which is an important, yet unique aspect. Often, we as a society fail to question whether the technological advancements humans are making are ethical. We are so focused on the advancement of our race, we forget to reflect on the type of society we are becoming. When evaluating the impact of such a vital and prominent concept I think it’s important that I also consider the moral impact, rather than the economic and social.

In conclusion, the article brought up multiple ethical perspectives, and discussed the social responsibility of farm and agricultural businesses. It portrayed how the digital disruption may impact us negatively, in a new light that is not often shown. Finally, it was argued that technology and society interact and technologies carry with them implicit moral codes. Modern reproductive animal technologies put questions on the table that exceed the level of animal or environmental ethics and ask us to consider what kind of society we really want.

Only 70% of animal testing stay true when made contact with humans according to crueltyfreeinternational.org which means there is still a 30% chance of you getting a reaction. Animal testing is not a correct or accurate way for telling if a product is harmful. Human skin and animal skin are very different if you test something on an animal and they don’t break out or get a reaction there still is a good chance you could. Animal testing is a problem because 100 million animals will continue to die every year.

In the 1940’s animal testing started when someone used a product ad got reaction according to navs.org. People decided it would be better if they could start testing products before selling them. People then thought if something was wrong with the product something would show up on the animals. Companies would use testing as a form of protection from lawsuits according to navs.org. Companies are forcing the workers to do these harsh tests just to ensure protection from the law. If animal testing continues more than 100 million animals will die every year. Animal test is starting to be ban but some companies still do to prove that their products are “safe”. “No U.S law requires that cosmetics or household products be tested on animals” according to peta.org. People might not think enforcing laws will work because some people might not follow those laws. I think that the majority of people will follow them because they will want to keep their company or their job. More people are now realizing that animal testing is still happening and they are against it according to navs.org. I think that matters because if people don’t buy their products that business will be shut down or will go out of business and, the amount of animals they tested on will now be safe.

FDA supports certain laws like, service policy of humane care and use of laboratory animals, animals welfare act, and public health according to fda.gov. Diseased tissues create a more accurate recording than animal tissues according to crueltyfreeinternational.org. People might think that it won’t create an accurate response. Animals tests create a less accurate response because we are different species and we have different textures of skin.”Almost every type of human and animal cell can be grown in the lab” says crueltyfreeinternational.org. If we even get one cell sample from us as humans we can grow more and harvest different kinds of cells and tissues. Human skin can be made and grown in labs for sensitive skin testing.

According to the laws of most nations, animals are covered under property rights. That means the value of their life is dependent upon market forces and demand. If something happens to a pet, unless there is cruelty in the actions taken, the responsibility involves replacing the “property” of that pet instead of addressing a fundamental right of life.

For that reason, some nations and jurisdictions have begun to protect the rights of animals as living beings instead of as property. Switzerland, Germany, and the United Kingdom have overhauled many of their laws to provide better protections for animals so that their welfare can be guaranteed.

The primary benefit of giving animals rights is to protect the general welfare of society. Not only are animals living creatures, but people who take their fury out on an animal are just a few steps away from doing so to humans. By identifying people who take these actions early, the rest of society can be protected while the individual in question can be entered into a rehabilitation program.

The disadvantage with animal rights is that it equates animal life with human life. With much of our diet coming from animal muscle protein, such a legal structure would change the entire agricultural community and potentially create many more food deserts throughout the world.

Here are some additional facts to consider when looking at the pros and cons of animal rights.

What Are the Pros of Animal Rights?

1. The death of an animal doesn’t really benefit a human.

Humans may eat animals, but animal protein isn’t necessary for human survival. Vegetarians and vegans prove this every day. If we kill animals, then we create a gap in nature’s evolutionary process that can affect the rest of the world. Sustainable food approaches, when combined with a greater respect for human life, could create a healthier society.

2. Saving animal lives would save our water supply.

Animals have a large water footprint. It is one of the most resource-intensive items in our current food supply. To produce just 1 pound of beef requires almost 1,800 gallons of water. One pound of pork requires nearly 600 gallons of water. In comparison, producing an equivalent number of soybeans or corn would cost 216 gallons and 108 gallons respectively.

3. Animal testing is not a guarantee of safety.

The number of medications that are safe for animals to take, but unsafe for humans, could fill a list the length of your arm. There are also a handful of medications that are safe for humans to take, but are quite harmful to animals. Although there is a similarity between humans and certain animals, there are enough differences that make the data gathered become unreliable.

4. Preventing animal rights is a costly venture.

Many of the animal testing procedures that are initiated never result in a product and the figures continue to rise. In the 1990s, up to 92% of products that were tested on animals never made it to market. By the 2010s, the figure rose to over 98%. These tests all come at a cost and that money needs to come from somewhere.

5. Animals have a certain intelligence to them.

Chimpanzees have the same ability as humans to manipulate their environment, use tools, and finish specific tasks. An adult pig has a comparative intelligence to a 3-year-old human child. Dolphins have a complex language and can recognize themselves in the mirror, which proves self-awareness. Elephants have complex social groups, display empathy and grief, and have an outstanding memory. If we saw many of these traits in humans, we’d expect that person to have rights. Why should an animal be any different?

6. Allotted funds could be used elsewhere.

Money that is being spent on animal testing right now could be dedicated to food programs that feed the hungry. Most food programs around the world can average $0.20 per meal provided. In the United States, about $16 billion is spent every year on animal testing. If just half of those funds were sent to food programs, that would create 40 billion extra meals to feed the hungry.

What Are the Cons of Animal Rights?

1. It would change medication testing processes.

Many of the research projects which involve new medications test the products on animals before testing them on humans. The goal of doing so is to protect human lives by seeing how a medication would react. Some animals, such as rats and chimpanzees, have a DNA profile that is very similar to humans. The data gathered can help researchers understand more about the medication they’re working on to benefit human societies.

2. We need to test new items on something.

It is unethical to try experimental products of humans. Some could argue that it is immoral. Even with informed consent, research that causes harm to a person may not be classified as being beneficial to society. By using animals as a last line of defense to measure the effectiveness of various products, the harm that an untested and dangerous item can cause to humans is naturally limited.

3. Not having animal rights reduces human risks.

Although there are honest questions about the effectiveness of animal testing, it boils down to an us vs. them debate. Having an animal die because there are unforeseen consequences of a drug or product means a human being doesn’t need to die. In the chain of life, human life is superior to animal life, which some argue makes the sacrifice worthwhile.

4. There would be added enforcement costs.

By offering animals rights that are equivalent to the rights of humans, an extra layer of law enforcement would need to be added to our criminal justice systems. People would be spending more time in prison because of charges related to the new rights afforded to animals. Added officers and officials would be needed for enforcement. Since existing laws often afford many rights to animals already in terms of proper treatment, spending this extra cost to provide equivalence may not be the right choice to make.

5. Animals would require a human representative.

Our current legal system recognizes the advancements of humanity. To represent animal rights, a human being would be forced to represent an animal who may have had their rights violated. Although some cases show clear-cut evidence of abuse or neglect, there would be an added level of interpretation to some cases that could make animal rights be more about “getting even” with others rather than be a true case of seeking justice.

The pros and cons of animal rights should cause us to question our belief structures. How we treat animals is a reflection of how we treat others. Giving animals more protections under the laws that govern property may make sense, but giving animals an equivalency may not. There is no easy answer or compromise to this debate.

Animal welfare refers to the physical and social well-being of animals or rather the concern for animals. Animal welfare movement is a movement that began in the mid 19th century with a primary goal of protecting and improving the treatment of animals that are used by human beings. Just like humans, animals feel pain, hunger, loneliness, fear, and anxiety. They, therefore, have a right to live without being harmed, abused, or exploited.

Black Beauty is a novel written by Anna Sewell with the intention of promoting better treatment of horses. In modern society, the government and unions have come up with mandatory animal welfare standards to offer protection to animals against exploitation by their owners. This essay is a short explanation on to why animals should be treated with kindness and respect. I think that animals should be treated well because they are living creatures and thus also deserve proper treatment.

Discussion

Everywhere around the world, people use animal products, including meat, eggs, milk, among others. Also, animals are used in the entertainment sector, for instance, horse racing, to entertain people. In some of these sports, for instance, bull fighting as practiced in Mexico, animals are exposed to great dangers. The fact that animals have feelings and emotions is a good reason to allow these animals to live normally without subjecting them to brutal conditions.

I am advocating for better treatment of animals. Animals should be treated well without subjecting them to the harsh conditions that they are often subjected to. Animals serve us with a lot of respect and loyalty. Animals always obey instructions from their master without question. Also, once you own an animal, it will be your possession forever.

Unique care for these animals calls for providing for them good shelter, good food, and treating them well in general. Ensuring stable growth and good health of animals should be a major concern as this is the only way we can reward them for their continued support in our lives (Anderson 1).

There is a need to understand the characters of horses and treat them well. Due to different experiences and situations that horses are subjected to, each has different characters. In Black Beauty, chapter twenty-three, Beauty says that if the mistreatment lasted much longer, then his health or temper would have paved its way.

This explains why some horses have a temper and why they behave the way they do, and therefore, it is upon the owner to understand his or her horse. According to Duchess, Colts ought not to work like horses. He understands that they are yet to mature, and therefore, they can not be assigned to hard tasks (Fraser 3).

Animals belong to God. In the Bible, God created all animals and instructed man to take good care of these animals, as seen in Genesis 1:20 (The Bible 1). Since human beings are meant to take care of the animals on behalf of God, it is prudent that we do not abuse animals. Christians, therefore, have the responsibility of looking after animals irrespective of their take when it comes to animal welfare and rights.

In the bible in Matthew 6:25, we see God taking good care of the animals when he says that he feeds birds in the air (The Bible 673). Also, it is illegal to mistreat an animal. This means that one should abide by the law which prohibits any individual from mistreating animals.

Animals are our social companions. Duchess’ master used to talk to horses in a kind manner. Though animals do not talk, they are happy when they are treated well. Duchess was always happy to see his master. He jumped up with joy and trot up to him. Sometimes he accompanied his master for a walk. This means that Duchess was a social companion of his master. Animals, especially dogs, provide security to man when needs arise.

Animals feed us; they give us products like eggs, milk, and honey. People who keep animals for these purposes need to ensure good health for such animals in the interest of both the animals and themselves. By so doing, they obey the command from God and also benefit fully from these animals. The fact that these animals are a source of food means that we should treat them the same way we treat other sources of food. To be precise, many people value their jobs because it is from these jobs that they get income, which helps them to purchase food.

Teachings of Duchess in Black Beauty are very significant in our everyday life. Duchess advised Beauty to have good manners. To be precise, she urged Beauty to be good and gentle, to do good things, and do the best that she could.

This does not only apply to horses but human beings as well. In many walks of life, there are different people, people with different beliefs and attitudes. Some people will treat you in a good way, while others will treat you in a bad way. I think that Sewell was trying to bring across the fact that good people or people with good moral values will always treat animals in a good way.

Sewell advocated for moral concern for others, which will lead to moral concern for animals. Duchess advised Beauty to have manners and to have a good heart. She urged beauty to be good and gentle, do good things, and do the best that she could. When we have moral concern for others, it means we will also have moral concern for animals. One should try to put himself/herself in the shoes of animals and feel how it feels like to be treated harshly. This can make it possible for one to treat animals with respect.

Conclusion

It is high time we stop treating animals like animals; rather, we should treat them like living creatures that need to be treated with kindness and respect. Abuse of animals is on the rise. It is, therefore, the duty of every individual, to treat every living creature with kindness and respect.

The government should also try to educate the public on the need to treat animals well by holding campaigns, educational programs, and seminars on animal rights. Laws should also be formulated to protect animals that are exploited, and legal action should be taken on anyone who does not respect the rights of these animals. This way, we will be able to build a generation that fosters kindness and respect for all animals.

In most western countries the demand for organic food is rising (Kearney, 2010). This trend seems to be driven by consumers’ beliefs on health, animal welfare, environmental impact and their surroundings. In west European countries the percentage of the organic agricultural land is higher than in Balkan countries (See Figure 1; Willer & Lernoud, 2017). But still, west European countries have a higher market growth than production growth, therefore their production cannot meet their demand (Willer & Lernoud, 2017). Retail percentages also differ, indicating that consumers’ from Balkan countries seem to be less interested in organic food. This could be related to several differences, such as: perception of animal health and welfare, average income, culture and, national laws and standards for organic animal production systems. These differences are interesting to for instance understand where further development is needed to meet the demand of organic food.

The European Union is at the top of the world’s animal welfare standards (European Court of Auditors, 2018). The EU made a legislation for general animal welfare according to the following 3 objectives: “Establish a sustainable management system for agriculture; Aim at producing products of high quality; and Aim at producing a wide variety of foods and other agricultural products that respond to consumers’ demand for goods produced by the use of processes that do not harm the environment, human health, plant health or animal health and welfare” (Jurn Sanders, 2013).

Additionally, the EU stated a legislation for organic farming following these four principles: “ The appropriate design and management of biological processes based on ecological systems using natural resources; The restriction of the use of external inputs; The strict limitation of the use of chemically synthesized inputs to exceptional cases; The adaptation, where necessary, of the rules of organic production taking account of sanitary status, regional differences in climate and local conditions, stages of development and specific husbandry practices.” (Jurn Sanders, 2013)

Furthermore, the EU provided more specific principles for farming, processing of organic food and feed. This includes husbandry conditions, breeding strategies, feeding rules, disease prevention and veterinary treatments (Jurn, Sanders, 2013).

All these objectives and principles are achieved by mandatory controls and rules on labelling and trade (Jurn Sanders, 2013). These control systems are important to make sure that animal welfare legislation is followed properly. The consistency of official inspections have shown to be accurate (European Court of Auditors, 2018).

The European legislation is not very detailed, which creates different interpretations in the EU member states, causing differences in animal welfare (Jurn Sanders, 2013). Besides this legislation of the EU, every country can therefore add their own national legislation and the official companies who check the farms can also add rules which need to be met to be approved (“Verordening » Skal.nl,” n.d.). This makes it very complex to make a clear distinction between west European countries and Balkan countries. This is also confusing for citizens in the member states and makes them question the trustworthiness of organic farms and organic products.

Since the amount and accessibility of information on animal welfare increased, consumers gained more concern about animal welfare (BROOM, n.d.). The concern varies in different societal groups, with division by age, gender, education and familiarity with farming (Clark, et al., 2016). Organic farming in the EU mostly increased, because of the increasing consumer demand for organic food, which started later in Balkan countries(Jurn Sanders, 2013).

Social-demographical characteristics influence consumer’s attitudes and concern for farm animal welfare (Clark, et al., 2016). For example, concern for welfare decreases with age and increases with feminine gender. More interestingly, people living in a rural areas tend to have less concern about farm animal welfare, because they approve of current welfare conditions. The percentage of people living in rural areas in Balkan countries is higher than in west European countries, indicating that less people in Balkan countries care about farm animal welfare (Eurostat, 2018). Additionally, people living in rural areas, on average have a lower education, which is also related to less concern about farm animal welfare.

Furthermore, per capita income is lower in Balkan countries than in west European countries (“European countries by GDP per capita 2018 – StatisticsTimes.com,” n.d.). Organic products are mostly more expensive than non-organic products, which makes them possibly too expensive for citizens from Balkan countries. Figure 2 clearly shows the lower per capita sales in Balkan countries, comparing to west European countries.

To protect the consumers the EU created an EU organic logo, which ensures that organic food is produced following the official legislation (See Figure 3). Most consumers know the concept of organic farming, but they don’t recognize or trust the EU organic logo yet.

Besides the EU organic label, there are a lot of other organic or animal welfare related labels, which creates confusion and distrust for certain labels (Janssen & Hamm, 2012). Which labels consumers do trust, is mostly not related to objective knowledge. This indicates that the labelling scheme of animal welfare can be different than the consumers anticipate, making it hard for consumers to follow up on their beliefs for animal welfare.

Subsidies determine the growth and maintenance of organic farming. In Poland for example, organic production depends more strongly on additional payments from the agricultural policy, than in some west European countries (European Union, 2018). In the whole of Europe the economic slowdown also slows down the increase in organic agriculture, which is a bigger burden in the less wealthy Balkan countries (Schaer et al., 2013). This is such a burden because, these financial resources are needed to retrieve more costumers which can buy organic products and it is also needed for developmental issues such as; subsidies, education, upscaling and informing consumers.

The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development determined an amount which they contributed from 2014 until 2020 for organic farming, which is based on the size of organic farming area in 2014 (Meredith & Willer, 2016). However, the amount of support each member state contributes for organic farming is not related to their total organic farming area and there is also no clear pattern between the different Member States (See Figure 4).

Furthermore, there is a difference between Member States in how they determine the budget distribution. Governmental support from Member States is needed in the form of education, marketing support, maintenance and conversion support. Not all Member States have accurate, elaborated strategies to allocate the contributions in the right way.

The percentage of the organic agricultural land is higher in West European countries than in Balkan countries and their organic food sales per capita are also higher.

First of all, this difference may be influenced by the European legislation for organic farm animals, which it is not detailed enough. Therefore every country interprets the rules differently, which makes it complex and unclear what the specific rules in each country are. When citizens of a country don’t know the legislation and rules, they tend to distrust animal welfare in organic farms.

Secondly, the consumer demand in Balkan countries might be lower, because of the higher percentage of people living in rural areas and with a lower educational level, which makes them less concerned about animal welfare. furthermore, per capita income is on average lower in Balkan countries, which can make organic products too expensive for these citizens.

Thirdly, there are a lot of different animal welfare related labels on products, which creates confusion and distrust for certain labels. Even if consumers would like to buy organic products or products from high animal welfare systems, it is hard to chose the one that is in line with their beliefs.

Lastly, the growth of organic agricultural land in Balkan countries is lower, which may be due the global economic slowdown and an uneven distribution of the contribution from their governments.

This shows from different sides that there is a difference in organic farming between West European countries and Balkan countries. The difference being that the West European countries are more developed in organic farming and consumer concern, while the Balkan countries still have a long way to go.

Taronga Zoo is the largest zoo in Sydney and is arguably one of the most visited zoos in Australia. It has a variety of different animals across the world. It has an area of approximately 30 hectares and is located on the magnificent Sydney Harbour. Getting 1.5 million visitors a year, there are a lot of negative impacts on the Sydney Harbour environment. To try to prevent harming marine life in the harbor, Taronga Zoo tries different ways to be sustainable and not affect the surrounding environment in negative ways. Two of the strategies are the Waste Reduction and Purchasing Policy and water management and usage of recycled water.

Waste Reduction and Purchasing Policy (W.R.A.P.P)

Taronga Zoo takes care of over 5,000 animals from 350 species. This means a lot of waste is being generated. An estimated amount of waste is 50 tonnes a month. There is a steep slope (about 20 degrees) that leads animal excretion waste into the Sydney Harbour. This worsens the quality of water in the harbor and affects the life of the animals and plants in the harbor. Sydney Harbour once received polluted water and many species of animals were killed. Due to this, the zoo underwent some strategies and follows the law of WRAPP, which stands for Waste Reduction and Purchasing Policy. This meant that the zoo had to think about reducing waste when making purchases. They encourage state-owned agencies to increase purchasing materials with high recycled content.

To reduce the animal waste, Taronga Zoo found many uses for it. They make it into fertilizer and sell it to customers, use it as compost for plants within the zoo, and also use it to engage carnivore animals because of its smell. However, this only applies to the poop of herbivores. The carnivores’ poop is too toxic as the carnivore animals have a lot of bacteria in their digestive tracts. The carnivore poop is dumped in the landfill. Both wastes are treated to prevent harmful microorganisms under the Exhibition Animals Protection Act in a quarantined area in Camden.

According to the Taronga Zoo waste management website, the zoo is aiming towards a waste reduction goal of 90% diversion from landfills. Its current diversion rate is 84%. This means that the majority of its waste is either reused, recycled, recovered, composted, or converted into an alternative fuel source called PEF.

Since over 1.5 million people visit Taronga Zoo in a year, there is also waste made by humans. Many people do not dispose of their waste properly. The main reasons are that many people come from abroad and might not be literate when it comes to English, they might have a disability that doesn’t allow them to understand the instructions well enough and they might have their ways of disposing of waste in their cultures. To ensure that people dispose of their waste properly, Taronga Zoo tries to interpret the information in different languages like Mandarin, Hindi, Korean, etc., have visual instructions, label each bin, and color code the bins depending on what waste is to be dumped in there. The zoo is also partnered with Suez (a waste management company) that segregates and classifies the waste during collection. This ultimately led to their 84% diversion rate from landfills.

Water Management and Recycled Water:

Over 3.5 million liters of salt water from the Sydney Harbour is pumped into the seal pools. In the past, the seal pools were filled with chlorine and animal waste and were pumped into the Sydney Harbour every fortnight without remediation (cleaning of water before being sent back into the harbor). This threatened the environment in the harbor, as the oysters that used to live in the base of the zoo started dying and the fairy penguins migrated elsewhere. The acidity of the water in the harbor increased, therefore making the water have very little oxygen and causing nutrients to build up on the surface of the water. This allowed introduced species and algae to grow on the water and not allow native species to thrive.

Taronga Zoo realized the negative impacts on the harbor’s environment and tried to prevent this by improving the filter system by adding more glass filters and improved their remediation by daily cleaning of the pool and using ozone to check the pH of the water in the pool twice a day, after a fortnight, the water is pumped back into the harbor and doesn’t use chlorine any more.

The usage of recycled water has dramatically increased in the past 26 years.

A water treatment plant was made in 1996 to treat and recycle fresh water as part of an original initiative called ‘Clean up Australia’. It was upgraded recently with a new stormwater tank, a new microfiltration unit, and process enhancements. The system is made to recover 100 million liters of water annually. The main uses of recycled water in the zoo include exhibit moat filling, hosing down of animal exhibits, toilets, and lawn and garden irrigation. This includes many benefits like less reliance on Sydney Water; especially during water restriction periods and reducing the dry weather discharge into the harbor. However, fresh water is still needed for the health of staff, customers, and animals.

The Taronga Zoo has thought of many ideas to be sustainable and prevent the ecosystem of Sydney Harbour from being harmed and destroyed due to the runoff and discharge. Two of their ideas were following the law of Waste Reduction and Purchasing Policy (WRAPP) increasing the usage of recycled water and improving remediation (the cleaning of water before sending it back into the harbor to prevent pollution). These ideas have reduced the negative impacts on the Sydney Harbour, while also providing the Zoo with benefits for the zoo such as less reliance on Sydney Water and improved wellbeing of animals, staff, and visitors, thus making Taronga Zoo a very sustainable tourist destination.

Introduction

Incremental innovation in food production has resulted in different animal products that meet people’s needs. The developments and achievements recorded in this field have transformed people’s consumption and marketing strategies. The link between food innovation and animal welfare is something continues to inform superior ideas for promoting sustainable practices. Governments and societies have managed to implement superior policies and initiatives to protect both wild and domestic animals.

Animal welfare remains an issue that stakeholders, environmentalists, biologists, and researchers continue to take seriously. The purpose of this research paper is to analyze consumer attitudes towards animal welfare from the lens of food innovation. The findings can inform superior policies and programs to maximize sustainability in the manner in which companies and entrepreneurs embrace innovative procedures to process or produce animal-based food materials.

Background Information and Problem Statement

Every culture or group has its unique understanding of the role of animals in the natural environment. The norms, beliefs, and practices specific cultural groups promote tend to dictate the way they consume different products. Different religious teachings have been observed to determine the level at which human beings can interfere with animals (Vetter et al., 2014). Past laws and regulations also create room for people to use animals for their personal benefits or aims.

However, the last century has resulted in a number of laws and policies aimed at protecting different animals from human brutality. Such amendments have continued to reshape most of the ideas, principles, and practices many people consider whenever interacting with animals.

Consumer concern is an issue that has emerged as more people continue to focus on the most appropriate measures to support the welfare of different animals. Emerging challenges experiencing in different parts of the world have managed to transform people’s attitudes and perceptions about domesticated animals and the use of the products they give (Heise and Theuvsen, 2017). However, these expectations have failed to converge due to the absence of streamlined policies that can support the rights of all animals across the globe. Emerging technologies have resulted in genetic modified organisms (GMOs) and the use of medicines to improve animal breeds and their products.

These issues have encouraged different stakeholders to present divergent opinions regarding the attitudes of different animals towards animal welfare. The proposed study will, therefore, offer evidence-based ideas to understand consumer attitudes towards the influence of food innovation on animal production and how stakeholders can strike a balance to promote sustainability.

Literature Review

Human beings have for many centuries viewed animals as essential creatures that support or meet their needs. Vetter et al. (2014) observed that animals were important since they provided manure for agricultural product, meat for consumption, and milk. Wild creatures were also observed as integral parts of the global biodiversity. Such animals play a positive role in maintaining the integrity of the natural environment and making it possible for different plant species and microorganisms to thrive. Similar trends or ideas would eventually be considered to address the issue of animal production for human consumption.

Most of the studies completed in the recent past have presented evidence-based information that can guide more people to understand their relations with animals. For example, Miranda-de la Lama et al. (2018) observed that around 75 percent of global citizens were certain that all animals were important. Another study by Heise and Theuvsen also revealed that many people across the world were concerned about the welfare of different animals domesticated for various economic purses (2017). This was a clear indication that many consumers were becoming more concerned about different animal products.

Several aspects or viewpoints have emerged as different stakeholders focus on the most appropriate approaches to process animal products. For instance, Miranda-de la Lama et al. (2018) observed that many people believed that animals were capable of experiencing different levels of suffering (see Figure 1). Majority of consumers are against the idea that all animals raised for milk or meat production do not require desirable husbandry practices. Only around 17 percent of consumers believed that there was no need for better support systems and habits whenever raising different animals, including pigs, cattle, and poultry (Heise and Theuvsen, 2017). Many people across the globe acknowledged that there was a need to raise animals properly and fulfill their needs. Additionally, all individuals had a duty to protect animals from any form of suffering.

Figure 1: General ethical aspects.

Researchers and animals rights activists have in the past taken the issue of processing animal-based food products seriously. You et al. (2017) acknowledged that animal welfare and agricultural practices could not be separated from each other. In a country like Germany, many citizens managed to stage public protests against inappropriate food factory procedures and practices that affected the welfare of such animals.

Their main concern was that hens raised for egg production were confined in different cages. The ultimate challenge was that such animals were deprived of natural sunlight. Similarly, many people have raised concerns regarding the manner in which different animals are raised. For example, some have indicated that farmers fail to provide adequate food or support to different animals while at the same time expecting to reap numerous economic benefits from them.

Factory farming and food processes practices have forced many consumers or citizens to raise their concerns. The point of contention has been that most of the approaches make it impossible for people to support the rights of the affected animals. Activists in different regions were observed to view such animal practices as a form of slavery (You et al., 2017). This was the case since most of the behaviors and economic activities were unethical, inappropriate, or cruel to the targeted animals.

With the above issues in mind, many people have gone further to change their purchasing behaviors and consumption trends. In a study conducted by de Graaf et al. (2016), it was observed that many people were becoming reluctant to purchase eggs produced throughout the use of modern innovations and technologies. This was also the same case for meat associated with inappropriate animal handling or raising practices. Additionally, people’s beliefs and religious thoughts played a critical role in dictating the purchasing behaviors of different consumers.

Many scholars have identified several consumption aspects in the recent past. For instance, You et al. (2017) observed that issues of quality, trust, attitudes, and product image could be considered to dictate the purchasing behaviors of different people. Individuals who were convinced that specific products were produced using unhealthy procedures found it hard to purchase them. Those who questioned the husbandry practices involved throughout the production process were cynical about the targeted meat, milk, or eggs (de Graaf et al., 2016). This is a clear indication that human beings have over the years been keen to focus on the procedures and practices used to maximize animal production for economic gains.

Findings and Discussions

The consulted studies and research articles have presented evidence-based ideas that address the issue of consumer perceptions on inappropriate food innovation practices that put animals at risk. The outstanding observation from such findings is that many people have become sensitive whenever focusing on the way producers of different animal products raise their domesticated animals (Spain et al., 2018).

Heise and Theuvsen (2017) conducted a study that revealed that over 60 percent of consumers in the United States were becoming concerned and interested in the welfare of different animals. The main focus was on the manner in which emerging technologies was dictating the nature of animal production.

When human beings genetically engineer animals to increase food production, it becomes possible to endanger different species. In the United States, majority of citizens believe that all domesticated livestock should receive humane treatment throughout their lives and should not be use for pursuing innovation (Spain et al., 2018). They should also be slaughtered using the most acceptable or least painful procedures.

Such a practice meets the ethical standards for promoting the most appropriate husbandry practices. Many consumers have indicated that farmers should ensure that their animals are handled effectively, fed properly, and housed in healthy environments. These practices can support the integrity and welfare of different animals. Such practices will ensure that the population of domesticated animals remains sustainable.

Within the past decade, consumers have been keen to promote practices and concepts that resonate with the principles of animal rights and welfare. For instance, many people have been keen to ensure that they purchase eggs produced using care-free or free-range methods (Mikuš et al., 2017). They also avoid genetically-modified animal-based animal products. When human beings take such practices into consideration, it becomes possible for them to protect animals from different forms of abuse.

The use of antibiotics is an issue that continues to raise numerous concerns in different regions across the globe. Most of the consumers of chicken meat have been keen to ensure that the identify chicken that have not been injected with antibiotics. The use of such drugs has become a common practice in an attempt to maximize production. Unfortunately, such antibiotics weaken such birds and affect fertility (Mikuš et al., 2017). Consumers of the marketed meat will also record increased levels of such drugs in their body systems. This means that many people are concerned and worried about emerging food innovation practices whenever focusing on the welfare of animals.

Different consumer groups in America and other countries across the world have engaged in a number of campaigns to ensure that they receive health products from domesticated animals. A report released by the Packaged Facts revealed that more people were willing to purchase eggs and milk that met the credentials for positive husbandry practices (You et al., 2017). Consequently, many companies and farmers were embracing such ideas to introduce superior practices whenever marketing their products to different consumers.

Several trends have been observed whenever analyzing consumer perceptions and attitudes towards animal welfare. Firstly, many people or consumers have become informed about the importance of associating themselves with animals that have been raised in healthier and friendly conditions. Some of the outstanding benefits include improved or better nutrition, food safety, reduced risks for infections, and superior flavors. Activists have been using these aspects to implement different campaigns (Mikuš et al., 2017). Secondly, social media networks and platforms are transforming the way consumers, producers, corporations, and government agencies share information. Today, many people are aware of their unique rights and health demands. Consequently, this knowledge has guided them to support initiatives and actions that will eventually maximize the welfare of all domesticated animals. They also acknowledge that such approaches will empower them to consume healthy animals while at the same time protecting them for posterity purposes.

When human beings use innovative procedures to genetically modify animals, chances are high that they will be exposed to numerous dangers, including extinction or mutation (You et al., 2017). This is something that can threaten such animals and make them unsustainable. Those who consume eggs and milk might be exposed to numerous health dangers or problems. Another concern is that the use of inappropriate husbandry practices will result in a situation whereby the sustainability of such animals is no longer taken seriously (see Figure 2). This means that different species will be exposed to the problem of extinction. Poor husbandry practices might also result in different diseases that can affect the targeted domesticated animals and human beings.

Failure to promote desirable practices is something that has been observed to encourage more people to become vegetarians. This is the case since such individuals are convinced that plant-based products are appropriate for consumption and capable of protecting them from a wide range of diseases or infections. Such a development or scenario can affect different sectors of the economy supported by animal-based products, such as manufacturing, food, and tourism (Mikuš et al., 2017). The predicted outcome is that many people will lose their jobs and find it hard to pursue their economic goals.

The use of animals for innovative and scientific purposes is another issue that has raised numerous questions among consumers. For instance, a study conducted by Vetter et al. (2014) revealed that many people were unwilling to associate themselves with cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies that were testing animals to determine the efficacy of their products. Some citizens were also categorical that they would stop to purchase such commodities since they did not support the welfare of animals. Such insights can, therefore, guide stakeholders and corporations to implement superior policies and practices that will eventually promote the rights of all animals, both wild and domesticated.

Conclusion

According to the above discussion, many consumers are curious about the way corporations, individuals and producers are introducing the idea of food innovation in animal production. They have been keen to support stakeholders who embrace desirable practices by purchasing their products. The power of social media has resulted in extensive campaigns aimed at encouraging more people to associate themselves with companies and policies that will eventually maximize the rights and welfare of all animals. Consequently, such measures will protect all domesticated animals and ensure that their numbers remain sustainable.

Works Cited

de Graaf, S., E. J. Van Loo, J. Bijttebier, F. Vanhonacker, L. Lauwers, F. A. Tuyttens, W. Verbeke. 2016. Determinants of consumer intention to purchase animal-friendly milk. Journal of Dair. Sci. 90: 8304-8313.

Heise, H. and L. Theuvsen. 2017. What do consumers think about farm animal welfare in modern agriculture? Attitudes and shopping behaviour. International Food and Agribus. Manag. Rev. 20: 379-399.

Mikuš , T., O. Mikuš, L. Kozačinski, Ž. Mesić. 2017. Croatian meat consumer attitudes towards animal welfare-friendly products and production. MESO. 19: 324-330.

Miranda-de la Lama, G. C., L. X. Estévez-Moreno, M. Villarroel, A. A. Rayas-Amor, G. A. María, W. S. Sepúlveda. 2018. Consumer attitudes toward animal welfare-friendly products and willingness to pay: Exploration of Mexican market segments. Journ. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 22: 13-25.

Spain, C. V., D. Freund, H. Mohan-Gibbons, R. G. Meadow, L. Beecham. 2018. Are they buying it? United States consumers’ changing attitudes toward more humanely raised meat, eggs, and dairy. Animals. 8: 128-141.

Vetter, S., L. Vasa, L. Ózsvári. 2014. Economic aspects of animal welfare. Act. Polytech. Hung. 11: 119-134.

You, X., Y. Li, M. Zhang, H. Yan, R. Zhao. 2014. A survey of Chinese citizens’ perceptions of farm animal welfare. PLoS One. 9: e109177.

Consciousness refers to a wide range of states in which there is an awareness of thought, image or sensation. Sentience refers to the immediate sensations and experiences, making sentience a basic part of consciousness (Dawkins, 2006). Darwin believed that animals possess it, although it is hard for others to believe. The difficulty is that it is unknown how sentience arises from the brain cells, how to study it and what to look for. Two sorts of evidence were proposed in order to prove consciousness among animals. One based on animal cognition, and the second evidence is from the study of animal emotions. The first argument states that if animals show high intellectual achievements, then they might have consciousness. However, it merely shows what animals are capable of intellectually but carries no guarantee of sentience without any clear evidence (Dawkins, 2006). The second argument is based on the study of animal emotions. The studies showed that animals can experience emotions, however, they may be unconscious. As a result, sentience still remains a largely unstudied area. However, one must take animal sentience seriously, and they should be treated nicely and with respect.

The knowledge of animal sentience supports the entire animal welfare movement. Demonstrating what animals are capable of is key to achieving a positive change in attitudes and actions towards animals (Proctor, 2012). In the 20^th century, a study on sentience motivated UK Government to set up a committee that looked at the welfare of animals in farming systems. Although, the knowledge of sentience is still limited because of the following reasons. It is difficult to measure and prove existence, especially for animals. As a result, sentience is often described as anthropomorphic assumptions, and its credibility as a science has suffered (Proctor, 2012). Fear of anthropomorphism is a second reason why it is difficult to prove the existence of sentience among animals. On the positive side, recent reports have shown what emotions animals experience. However, the commonalities between different species are still being studied. It is stated to be important to continue the exploration of the sense of sentience among the animals because its positive impact on animal welfare will be robust.

References

Dawkins, M. S. (2006). Through animal eyes: What behavior tells us. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100(1-2), 4-10.

Proctor, H. (2012). Animal sentience: Where are we and where are we heading?. Animals, 2(4), 628-639.