Exploring the legitimacy of industry-led farm animal welfare governance using examples of Canadian and United States dairy standards.

IF 2.3
Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) Pub Date : 2025-03-31 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/awf.2025.17
Christine Kuo, Daniel M Weary, Steven M Roche, Marina A G von Keyserlingk
{"title":"Exploring the legitimacy of industry-led farm animal welfare governance using examples of Canadian and United States dairy standards.","authors":"Christine Kuo, Daniel M Weary, Steven M Roche, Marina A G von Keyserlingk","doi":"10.1017/awf.2025.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The governance of farm animal welfare is led, in certain countries and sectors, by industry organisations. The aim of this study was to analyse the legitimacy of industry-led farm animal welfare governance focusing on two examples: the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle and the Animal Care module of the proAction programme in Canada, and the Animal Care module of the Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) programme in the United States (US). Both are dairy cattle welfare governance programmes led by industry actors who create the standards and audit farms for compliance. We described the normative legitimacy of these systems, based on an input, throughput, and output framework, by performing a document analysis on publicly available information from these organisations' websites and found that the legitimacy of both systems was enhanced by their commitment to science, the presence of accountability systems to enforce standards, and wide participation by dairy farms. The Canadian system featured more balanced representation, and their standard development process uses a consensus-based model, which bolsters legitimacy compared to the US system. However, the US system was more transparent regarding audit outcomes than the Canadian system. Both systems face challenges to their legitimacy due to heavy industry representation and limited transparency as to how public feedback is addressed in the standards. These Canadian and US dairy industry standards illustrate strengths and weakness of industry-led farm animal welfare governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":520228,"journal":{"name":"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)","volume":"34 ","pages":"e22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12056415/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2025.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The governance of farm animal welfare is led, in certain countries and sectors, by industry organisations. The aim of this study was to analyse the legitimacy of industry-led farm animal welfare governance focusing on two examples: the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle and the Animal Care module of the proAction programme in Canada, and the Animal Care module of the Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) programme in the United States (US). Both are dairy cattle welfare governance programmes led by industry actors who create the standards and audit farms for compliance. We described the normative legitimacy of these systems, based on an input, throughput, and output framework, by performing a document analysis on publicly available information from these organisations' websites and found that the legitimacy of both systems was enhanced by their commitment to science, the presence of accountability systems to enforce standards, and wide participation by dairy farms. The Canadian system featured more balanced representation, and their standard development process uses a consensus-based model, which bolsters legitimacy compared to the US system. However, the US system was more transparent regarding audit outcomes than the Canadian system. Both systems face challenges to their legitimacy due to heavy industry representation and limited transparency as to how public feedback is addressed in the standards. These Canadian and US dairy industry standards illustrate strengths and weakness of industry-led farm animal welfare governance.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

以加拿大和美国乳制品标准为例,探讨以行业为主导的农场动物福利治理的合法性。
在某些国家和部门,农场动物福利的管理由行业组织领导。本研究的目的是分析以行业为主导的农场动物福利治理的合法性,重点关注两个例子:加拿大的奶牛护理和处理行为准则和促进行动计划的动物护理模块,以及美国农民确保负责任管理(farm)计划的动物护理模块。这两个项目都是由行业参与者领导的奶牛福利治理项目,他们制定标准并审核农场的合规性。我们根据输入、吞吐量和输出框架,通过对这些组织网站上的公开信息进行文件分析,描述了这些系统的规范性合法性,并发现这两个系统的合法性都因其对科学的承诺、执行标准的问责制的存在以及奶牛场的广泛参与而得到增强。加拿大体制的特点是代表权更为平衡,其标准发展过程采用基于共识的模式,与美国体制相比,这增强了合法性。然而,在审计结果方面,美国的制度比加拿大的制度更加透明。由于重工业的代表性,以及在标准中如何处理公众反馈的透明度有限,这两个系统的合法性都面临挑战。这些加拿大和美国的乳制品行业标准说明了行业主导的农场动物福利治理的优势和劣势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书