Inside D.C.

‘Global animal welfare’ — who’s on first?

Consider the following while thinking about “global” animal welfare and the explosion of producer group, government and food company “standards:”

* All producer and meat processing groups in the U.S. and Canada decades ago set science- and producer experience-based standards for best-care and handling practices for the animals they raise; Canada has nonbinding “best practices” developed among industry, government and a true animal welfare organization;

* The EU sets animal welfare directives for its member nations. It announced a few years back it was revisiting these directives to ensure they’re science-based and apolitical. Not every country in the EU follows all the directives based on cost, politics, etc.

* In the ongoing negotiations to reach a Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) between the EU and the U.S., Europe has attempted to insert “animal welfare” into the talks on multiple occasions; the U.S. Special Trade Rep’s office has so far rejected all attempts. In the Canada Europe Trade Agreement (CETA), the proposed final treaty includes the commitment to “promote cooperation related to animal welfare,” as well as language on “social priorities,” Euro-speak for a lot of hot-button issues, including animal welfare, roundly rejected in earlier GATT negotiations;

* U.S. animal rights groups have their own standards for animal “welfare,” with some creating “certification” programs for producers and retailers based on their perception of “welfare.” These include the Humane Farm Animal Care’s “certified humane” program. The one I like is the science-based “humanely certified” sponsored by the American Humane Assn. (AHA);

* Since 2005, the OIE, known to us as the World Animal Health Organization – made up more than 150 international government veterinary officers – has worked on nonbinding international recommendations on animal welfare based on species and practice, soliciting input from various groups including U.S. producers;

* In 2012, ISO, a private certification organization based in Europe, asked OIE to provide “standards” for a global program it could implement to formally certify “animal welfare” for food companies and suppliers. This effort is promoted by a global coalition called Safe Supply of Affordable Food Everywhere (SSAFE) and the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), both collections of multinational companies.  SSAFE’s members include Cargill, Coca Cola, Nestle, Fonterra, Kellogg’s, McDonalds, and Zoetis.  GFSI’s members include Cargill, Coca Cola, Nestle, Walmart, Tysons and McDonalds. U.S. producer groups – and others around the planet — are not necessarily comfortable with this effort.

* In August, Nestle SA, the Switzerland-based mother ship of all global Nestle operating companies and the world’s largest food company, declared a formal partnership with World Animal Protection (WAP), the old World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), and announced the use of formal supplier audits to ensure they follow the new set of welfare requirements. Part of the announcement explained while Nestle SA buys generally through middlemen, the standards give it access to “hundreds of thousands of farms” worldwide.  The move was applauded by HSUS and just about every other animal rights group on the planet, though no details have emerged on what the standards are, when they’ll be implemented, etc.

* This month, Unilever, the world’s third largest consumer products company based in the Netherlands, is reportedly beefing up its supplier animal welfare criteria, no doubt playing catch-up with Nestle SA. When you check out Unilever’s website on animal welfare you’ll find it very proud of the fact HSUS and Compassion in World Farming – no friends to farmers and ranchers – applaud it welfare actions.

The developments listed above beg questions, including the following:

* Is it practical or possible to create a set of “global animal welfare standards” when production systems vary dramatically by region, country, government regulation, culture, economics, climate, size of operation, sophistication of producer, use/availability of technology, etc.?

* Are these public and private efforts in any way, shape or form coordinated?

* How many of these efforts included discussions with and buy-in from farmers and ranchers – without whom these companies can’t exist?

* Should the farmer follow his/her own priority and experience, his/her industry group, the government? To which multinational organization or food company should the producer pay attention, if any?

* Are cultural differences, i.e. the status of animals as food in a particular country or region, considered when a European-based multinational or a European-based organization decides to set global animal welfare standards? Simply put, does what plays in France with consumers play in the U.S. or Australia or Argentina?

* Are any of the standards being promoted complementary to ongoing farmer/rancher efforts and the millions in check-off dollars spent on such standards development?

* Is cost of production to a farmer, i.e. farm income, considered when standards are developed?

* Is consumer cost and availability of product considered when standards are announced?

* Who will unravel this tangle of existing and proposed standards and when? When will someone with credibility – and mastery of an Excel spread sheet – sit down and compare/contrast all of these efforts, programs and proposals?