Methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy

被引:24
|
作者
Nielsen, Soren Saxmose
Alvarez, Julio
Bicout, Dominique Joseph
Calistri, Paolo
Canali, Elisabetta
Drewe, Julian Ashley
Garin-Bastuji, Bruno
Rojas, Jose Luis Gonzales
Schmidt, Christian Gortazar
Herskin, Mette
Chueca, Miguel Angel Miranda
Michel, Virginie
Padalino, Barbara
Pasquali, Paolo
Roberts, Helen Clare
Spoolder, Hans
Stahl, Karl
Velarde, Antonio
Viltrop, Arvo
Edwards, Sandra
Ashe, Sean
Candiani, Denise
Fabris, Chiara
Lima, Eliana
Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf
Gimeno, Cristina Rojo
Van der Stede, Yves
Vitali, Marika
Winckler, Christoph
机构
关键词
animal welfare assessment; Farm to Fork Strategy; husbandry systems; welfare consequences; animal-based measures;
D O I
10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7403
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
This document provides methodological guidance developed by the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to produce Scientific Opinions in response to mandates received from the European Commission in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. The mandates relate to the welfare of (i) animals during transport, (ii) calves, (iii) laying hens, (iv) broilers, (v) pigs, (vi) ducks, geese and quails, and (vii) dairy cows. This guidance was developed in order to define the methods and strategy to be applied for responding to the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the mandates. The mandates each consist of a set of General ToRs which refer to the husbandry systems used in the production of each animal species or the current transport practices for free moving animals and animals transported in cages, and a set of specific ToRs for which difficulties in ensuring animal welfare have been identified and where specific scenarios are envisaged. Part I of the guidance includes a description of welfare consequences for the animals. Part II includes a new methodology for providing quantitative recommendations regarding animal welfare. The proposed methodology follows the assumption that the effect of an exposure variable (e.g. space allowance) on animal welfare can be quantified by comparing the expression of an animal-based measure (ABM) under 'unexposed conditions' (e.g. unlimited space) and under high exposure (e.g. restrictive conditions). The level of welfare as assessed through this ABM can be quantified for different levels of the exposure variable (e.g. at increasing space allowances) and quantitative recommendations can thus be provided. The final version of the methodological guidance was endorsed for public consultation, which took place between 14 February 2022 and 31 March 2022. The comments received are integrated in this document.
引用
收藏
页数:29
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [1] Farm to fork strategy: Animal welfare, EU trade policy, and public participation
    Molitorisova, Alexandra
    Burke, Ciaran
    APPLIED ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES AND POLICY, 2023, 45 (02) : 881 - 910
  • [2] Farm animal welfare in an economic context
    Huirne, R
    den Ouden, M
    ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL HEALTH, 2002, : 71 - 79
  • [3] Animal Welfare Competence Group calls for national Farm Animal Strategy
    不详
    FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT, 2016, 96 (10): : 21 - 21
  • [4] STUDY ON THE USE AND MARKETING OF PESTICIDES IN ROMANIA IN THE CONTEXT OF APPLYING THE FARM TO FORK STRATEGY
    Dinu, Toma Adrian
    Popescu, Agatha
    Chiurciu, Irina-Adriana
    Soare, Elena
    Stoicea, Paula
    Iorga, Adina Magdalena
    SCIENTIFIC PAPERS-SERIES MANAGEMENT ECONOMIC ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 2022, 22 (02) : 279 - 292
  • [5] Farm animal welfare: Three essential ingredients from an international context
    De Paula Vieira, A.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2016, 94 : 133 - 134
  • [6] Development of a Decision Support System for Assessing Farm Animal Welfare in Relation to Husbandry Systems: Strategy and Prototype
    M.B.M. Bracke
    J.H.M. Metz
    A.A. Dijkhuizen
    B.M. Spruijt
    Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2001, 14 : 321 - 337
  • [7] Development of a decision support system for assessing farm animal welfare in relation to husbandry systems: Strategy and prototype
    Bracke, MBM
    Metz, JHM
    Dijkhuizen, AA
    Spruijt, BM
    JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, 2001, 14 (03): : 321 - 337
  • [8] Legitimacy & Canadian Farm Animal Welfare Standards Development: The Case of the National Farm Animal Care Council
    Andrea Bradley
    Rod MacRae
    Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2011, 24 : 19 - 47
  • [9] Legitimacy & Canadian Farm Animal Welfare Standards Development: The Case of the National Farm Animal Care Council
    Bradley, Andrea
    MacRae, Rod
    JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, 2011, 24 (01): : 19 - 47
  • [10] METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT MEASURE "ANIMAL WELFARE PAYMENTS"
    Krisciukaitiene, Irena
    Galnaityte, Aiste
    Zemeckis, Romualdas
    Kuliesis, Gediminas
    MANAGEMENT THEORY AND STUDIES FOR RURAL BUSINESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, 2008, 12 : 80 - 87