The Use and min-use of science in animal welfare regulation in New Zealand

Michael C. MorrisDepartment of Marine and Environmental ManagementBay of Plenty Polytechnic

Theory: The law in New Zealand

• The Animal Welfare Act (2000) makes it an offence to neglect the “physical, health and behavioural needs of an animal”

• Animals must be able to “display normal patterns of behaviour”

Codes of Welfare

• Codes of Welfare allow non-complying activities in “exceptional circumstances”, which allows farmers to have time to phase in acceptable practices.

• Codes of Welfare are “science based”.

• The process of code formulation is “inclusive”.

• Codes of Welfare are drafted by an independent body, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council.

• 85% of the public opposed battery cages and sow stalls.

• Over 100,000 people sent in post card submissions opposing these practices.

• These were ignored.

The practice:“Consultation”

• NAWAC officials openly scorned the concerns of the public, comparing them to Medieval zealots opposing Galileo.

• The “common sense” science of the public shows a strong correlation with that found by expert scientists, when it comes to animal welfare

The practice:“Consultation”

• The SVC findings on broilers, pigs and layer hens were not mentioned in government reviews.

• The Poultry industry included dubious science, which was accepted by the government.

• Scientific reviews by animal welfare organisations were ignored.

• Behavioural data was ignored or marginalised

The practice:“Science-based”

Report results are deliberately misrepresented

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 1 2 3 4 5

Gait score

Perc

en

tag

e o

f b

ird

s

Live weight Grp 1

Live weight Grp 2

Live weight Grp 3

average

***

***

***

40% of New Zealand broilers

are visibly lame

These results show that leg health of New Zealand broilers is better than

birds in the UK, Denmark and Sweden and that overall the welfare of our

commercial birds is world class

MAF Press Release, 19/9/06

• Use of non-existent survey data.

• Discounting behavioural data – very narrow definition of animal welfare.

“Among the best in the world”

Legal in New ZealandIllegal in:Switzerland (since 1990)SwedenFinlandGermany

Being phased out in:EC (by 2012)California (by 2013)

“Among the best in the world”

Legal in New Zealand(reduced to first 4 weeks of pregnancy after 2013)

Illegal in:United Kingdom

Being phased out in:OregonFloridaCalifornia (by 2013)

“Among the best in the world”

40% lameness in New Zealand

3-30% lameness in Europe

Government responses

“There is no reason to believe” that pigs are unhappy in sow crates

Peter O’Hara, Chair of NAWAC, May 2009

Vivisection in New Zealand

• Appointment of Animal Ethics Committees (AECs)

• Membership of AECs

• Criteria under which experiments can be approved by an AEC

Rules set out under the Animal Welfare Act

• Criteria for benefits is too broad Pure research Animal productivity Educational benefits Profit for companies

• Criteria for harm is too narrow Opportunity costs not considered Disbenefits not considered

Problems with the harm/benefit analysis

• No requirement in AWA to examine scientific validity

• Alternatives are not considered

Scientific validity of experiment not questioned

• AECs are stacked with researchers

• Researchers approve each others experiments

• Lay members of AECs report intimidation by scientists

• Culture of secrecy prevents public finding out what goes on in laboratories

Other considerations

• Require government and NAWAC to actually listen to public

• Give animals the benefit of the doubt (precautionary approach)

• Take all science into account

And most importantly• Independent animal welfare regulator

Possible solutions