Ethics, Law and Society - Volume 4

Ethics, La

w and

S oci ety

This page has been left blank intentionally

Ethics, Law and S ociety Volume IV

Jennif er Gunnin

Edited by g, S ør en H o lm and Ian K enw a y University of Cardiff, UK

© Jennifer Gunning, S øren H olm and Ian Kenway 2009 A ll rights reserved. N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Jennifer Gunning, S øren H olm and Ian Kenway have asserted their moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi.ed as the editors of this work. Published by A shgate Publishing Limited A shgate Publishing C ompany W ey C ourt East S uite 420 U nion R oad 101 C herry S treet F arnham Burlington S urrey, GU 9 7PT VT 05401-4405 England USA www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Ethics, law and society Vol. 4 1. Professional ethics 2. Law and ethics 3. Bioethics 4. S ocial ethics 5. H uman rights I. Gunning, Jennifer II . H olm, S øren III . Kenway, Ian IV. C ardiff C entre for Ethics, Law & S ociety 174 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ethics, law and society / edited by Jennifer Gunning, S øren H olm and Ian Kenway p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. IS BN 978-0-7546-7646-1 1. A pplied ethics. 2. Law. 3. C ivilization. I. Gunning, Jennifer. II . H olm, S øren. III . Kenway, Ian. BJ1581.2.E85 2005 170--dc22 IS BN : 978 0 7546 7646 1

2005007651

C ontents List of Figures and Tables List of Contributors    Acknowledgment   List of Abbreviations   

ix xi xxi xxiii

INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction   Jennifer Gunning, Søren Holm and Ian Kenway

3

PART I: ETHICAL ISSUES IN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD 2 M odern F arming Practices and A nimal W elfare   Joyce D’Silva

7

3 A nimal Integrity in M odern F arming   Kate Millar and David Morton

19

4 CA P R eforms: Effects on A griculture and Environment   Franz Sinabell and Erwin Schmid

31

5

T he Ethics of A nimal C loning   Christian Gamborg, Mickey Gjerris and Peter Sandøe

43

6

European F ood R egulation and A ccountability: T he Interplay of Influences Shaping the New Regulatory Terrain   Samarthia Thankappan

55

7

Globalization and S ustainability in A griculture: R ole of Law and Ethics   John Hodges

91

8

Production Economics, Markets and Assurance Programmes for F arm A nimal W elfare   Michael C. Appleby

105

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

vi

PART II: BIOETHICS 9

Puzzle-Solving for Fun and Profit: The Abusive Potential of Non-Genetic Health Data in Epidemiological Biobanks   Anne Maria Skrikerud and Jon Grov

10

The Ethical Topography of Research Biobanking   Jan Reinert Karlsen and Roger Strand

117 127

11 F uzzy Law Encountering Life, D eath, and M orality: A R eport on N ine C linical Ethics C ommittees’ Legal C onsiderations   Reidar Pedersen and Reidun Førde

149

12

165

Bioethics, Biopower and the Post-Genomic C hallenge   Kjetil Rommetveit

13 W hat’s W rong with Genetic Inequality?   Claudio Tamburrini 14

Public and Private Interests in the Genomic Era: A Pluralist A pproach   Margit Sutrop and Kadri Simm

15 C hallenging S cience: Public Views of Personalized M edicine   Elisa Pieri 16 T herapeutic C loning and the Protection of Embryonic Life: D ifferent A pproaches, D ifferent Levels of Protection – A View from the U nited Kingdom   Søren Holm 17 Informed C onsent, T rust and Virtue in C zech M edicine   Jiri Simek, Eva Krizová, Lenka Zamykalová, Marie Mesanyová

187

205 217

229 237

PART III: ETHICS AND SOCIETY 18 A merica and the C ase for Just W ar A gainst Iraq   Chris J. Dolan 19

Childhood in Conflict: Can the Real Child Soldier Please S tand U p?   Helen Brocklehurst

247

259

Contents

20

Ethical D imensions of Y outh Justice   Rob Allen

21 R eproductive T echnologies and the Question of the C hild’s F uture F reedom   Erik Malmqvist 22

271

279

Ethics, Paediatric Doping and the Limitations of Gillick Consent   289 Mike McNamee

23 W hat Protection D o C onsumers R equire in the Information Economy?   Jane K. Winn 24

vii

Justifying C laims of S tate R esponsibility to M eet the N eeds of Irregular M igrants: T he Problem with Proceeding from H uman R ights   Marit Hovdal Moan

303

319

25

Women Workers in the Global Economy: A Feminist Critique of the C ore Labour S tandards   Juanita Elias and Hayley Stevenson

331

26

A llocating H ealthcare R esources: T he R ole of Personal R esponsibility   Alena M. Buyx

341

27 T he R esponsibilities of H ealthcare Professionals in C risis S ituations  351 Michael Igoumenidis PART IV: COMMENTARIES 28 C ase C ommentary: Evans v The United Kingdom   Natasha Hammond

363

29 T he Incident of the C ontainer S hip MSC Napoli: Is it an Intractable Problem?   Ho-Sam Bang

369

30 T he (N ot S o) Great Escape: T he Legal and M oral R esponsibility for the Foot and Mouth Outbreak 2007   Robert G. Lee

377

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

viii

31

Ethics and the A dvent of the H oly Grail of S tem C ell R esearch   389 Søren Holm

Index  

393

List of F igures and T ables Figures 4.1

Production, PS E, M PS , and the EA GGF expenditure in the EU  

6.1

EUR EPGA P’s control points and compliance criteria for fresh fruits and vegetables   6.2 F ood quality control systems   6.3 F resh fruit and vegetable supply chain and its regulation  

34 75 80 84

Tables 2.1

The effects of genetic selection on the performance of turkeys over time (males of a commercial breed)  

3.1 S ome examples of surgical operations  

9 25

4.1 R elative change of support structure in the EU   35 4.2 D evelopment of employment and income in A griculture and GD P   36 4.3 Expected environmental effects of the 2003 CA P reform in A ustria  39 6.1

Private label penetration in Europe 1999  

10.1 Inventory of cartographical elements of an ethical map of biobanking  

70 136

This page has been left blank intentionally

List of C ontributors Rob Allen is director of the International C entre for Prison S tudies at King’s College London. Prior to joining ICPS in March 2005, he ran Rethinking Crime and Punishment, an initiative set up by the Esmée F airbairn F oundation to change public attitudes to prison and alternatives. R ob was previously director of research and development at N acro, the U K’s largest non governmental organization concerned with crime and criminal justice. H e was a member of the Y outh Justice Board for England and W ales from 1998 to 2006 and is currently C hairman of C LIN KS , the umbrella group for the criminal justice voluntary sector. Dr Michael C. Appleby is an Adviser on scientific and social aspects of Welfare Policy with T he W orld S ociety for the Protection of A nimals, based in London, U K. WS PA is both an active campaigning organization and a federation, with over 850 member organizations in more than 150 countries. Born in Edinburgh, D r A ppleby took a BSc in Zoology at the University of Bristol and a PhD in Animal Behaviour at the U niversity of C ambridge. H e then carried out research at the Poultry R esearch C entre in S cotland (now the R oslin Institute, producer of D olly) and the U niversity of Edinburgh for 20 years on behaviour, husbandry and welfare of farm animals. Publications include six books as author, co-author or editor, including Animal Welfare (1997) and Long Distance Transport and Welfare of Farm Animals (2008). F rom 2001 to 2005 he was head of the F arm A nimals and S ustainable A griculture section of T he H umane S ociety of the U nited S tates in W ashington, DC . H e returned to the UK to work on Trade Policy with four NGOs: the World Society for the Protection of A nimals, Eurogroup for A nimal W elfare, RS PCA and C ompassion in W orld F arming. H e moved to his current post in 2006. Ho-Sam Bang is a PhD candidate of C ardiff Law S chool. H is thesis focuses on the contribution of port S tates to the prevention of marine pollution from ships. It is also concerned with the International M aritime O rganization (IMO ). H is research interests lie in the fields of Law of the Sea and Maritime Law. Dr Helen Brocklehurst has been a Lecturer in Politics and International R elations at S wansea U niversity since 2002. S he gained her doctorate at A berystwyth and worked on ESRC projects at the University of Ulster and at Swansea University. S he co-edited History, Nationhood and the Question of Britain (2004), and her book Who’s Afraid of Children? Children, Con.ict and International Relations was published in 2006. H er research and teaching interests are international relations, gender and conflict, childhood, citizenship and the politics of age and ability.

xii

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Dr Alena M. Buyx, M Phil is a medical ethicist working at the Institute for Ethics, H istory and Philosophy of M edicine at the U niversity H ospital in M ünster. S he studied medicine in M ünster and London (medical doctorate in N eurology) and philosophy, sociology and health sciences in Münster and York (master thesis on the just allocation of resources in healthcare). H er main teaching and research interests are justice in healthcare, transplantation ethics, wish-fulfilling medicine, neuroethics and medical professionalism. S he directs a research programme on ethical issues in live organ donation. S he co-edited Fairly Treated? Rationing and Priority-Setting in Healthcare (2006). Chris J. Dolan (PhD , U niversity of S outh C arolina, 2002) is an A ssistant Professor of Political S cience at Lebanon Valley C ollege in Pennsylvania. H e is the author of In War We Trust, co-editor of Striking First, and co-author of The Presidency and Economic Policy. H is research on International R elations and A merican Politics appears in Foreign Policy Analysis, International Studies Perspectives, Politics and Ethics Review, Policy Studies Journal, International Politics, Congress and the Presidency, Review of Policy Research, White House Studies and numerous other journals and edited volumes. H e previously held positions at the U niversity of C entral F lorida and Presbyterian C ollege. Joyce D’Silva is the A mbassador and former C hief Executive of C ompassion in W orld F arming, the leading charity advancing the welfare of farm animals worldwide through research, education and advocacy. Compassion works to ban cruel factory farming systems and to achieve global standards of farm animal welfare. It works with politicians in the UK and European Union (EU), intergovernmental organizations, such as the International F inance C orporation, and leading retailers and the food industry. Between 1991 and 2005, Joyce took the organization from the status of a UK-based NGO working in the EU to an EU-based organization working internationally. U nder Joyce’s leadership, sow stalls and tethers were banned in the U K (and are to be banned in Europe), and barren battery cages for laying hens will be banned in 2012. Joyce’s knowledge of her subject is second to none and she is a very compelling communicator of the issues and the legal framework surrounding them. She speaks and publishes widely on the welfare of farm animals, genetic engineering and cloning of animals. Her numerous speaking engagements have included the British Veterinary A ssociation’s A nnual C ongress and the Intergroup on A nimal W elfare at the European Parliament. S he has given evidence to the U K and N ew Zealand governments on genetic engineering of animals, and to the UK government Enquiry into the handling of BSE. In 2007, she was invited to make a presentation to the European C ommission’s European Group of Ethical A dvisers on S cience and N ew T echnologies on the welfare aspects of cloning farm animals for food. Joyce addressed (and organized, with the RSPCA) the first conference on pig welfare in Beijing in 2005, at the invitation of the C hinese government. In March this year, C ompassion in W orld F arming and three other animal welfare N GO s organized a further conference, ‘T he Importance of F arm A nimal W elfare S cience to S ustainable

List of Contributors

xiii

A griculture’, co-hosted by the C hinese A cademy of S ocial S ciences. C ompassion’s 2005 Conference ‘From Darwin to Dawkins: the Science and Implications of Animal S entience’ attracted over 600 delegates from 50 countries and has resulted in two publications: Animals, Ethics and Trade (Earthscan), for which Joyce wrote the Introduction, and a special edition of the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Juanita Elias is a S enior Lecturer in International Politics at the U niversity of A delaide, A ustralia. S he is the author of Fashioning Inequality: The Multinational Firm and Gendered Employment in a Globalizing World (A shgate 2004). Juanita’s research interests include ‘gendered’ approaches to international political economy and studies of globalization, labour standards, migration studies and the political economy of S outheast A sia. H er research has been published in journals such as New Political Economy, International Feminist Journal of Politics, the Review of International Studies, Economy and Society, and Men and Masculinities. Reidun Førde trained as a physician. H e has been C hair of the Ethical C ouncil of the N orwegian M edical A ssociastion for eight years and is Professor of M edical Ethics at the U niversity of O slo, responsible for the national co-ordination of the clinical ethics committees in N orway. Christian Gamborg (PhD ) is a senior scientist in natural resource ethics at the D anish C entre for F orest and Landscape and a senior research fellow at the D anish C entre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, University of Copenhagen. His time is divided between these two centres with extensive project experience at a national and EU level. S ince 1998 the major part of his research and teaching have been within applied ethics with a particular emphasis on ethical issues in relation to sustainability, nature and natural resource management, modern technology, animals and agriculture. Mickey Gjerris is associate professor in bioethics at the D anish C entre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, University of Copenhagen. His main research areas are bioethics, ethics of nature and nanoethics. H e teaches within the areas of bioethics and philosophy of science and is an often used expert in public context. Jon Grov is a PhD -student in C omputer S cience at the U niversity of O slo, N orway. H is specialties are databases and transaction processing. F rom 2004 to 2007 he was employed as researcher and lecturer at the D epartment of Informatics, U niversity of O slo. In 2006 he spent six months at the U niversity of M inho, Braga, Portugal, collaborating with the project GORDA . Jon has previous experience as software consultant and manager. C urrently, he is employed as senior consultant in the Norwegian company BEKK, working on enterprise data integration. Dr Jennifer Gunning originally trained as a scientist, over the years she became an expert on the regulatory and legislative aspects of assisted reproduction, having provided advice both to the European C ommission and the British government. S he

xiv

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

was secretary to the Voluntary (later Interim) Licensing A uthority for H uman in vitro F ertilisation and Embryology, which regulated human embryo research and IVF before statutory regulation was introduced. Later she was seconded to the D epartment of H ealth to write a report on the comparative regulation of human IVF and embryo research for use while the 1990 H uman F ertilisation & Embryology Bill was going through Parliament. S ubsequently, she was involved in science policy, developing research assessment methodology and research ethics. A Visiting F ellow for six years at the C entre for the A nalysis of S ocial Policy at the U niversity of Bath she is now a S enior R esearch F ellow in bioethics and law at C ardiff Law S chool and an independent consultant in bioethics and science affairs. F rom 2003–2007 Jennifer was C o-ordinator of the C ardiff C entre for Ethics, Law and S ociety (CC ELS ). Natasha Hammond LLB, LLM is a Graduate T eaching A ssistant at C ardiff Law School undertaking research on the legal and moral aspects of human embryonic stem cell research. H er interests include embryo research, cloning, biotechnology and bioethics. Professor John Hodges directed activities in the UN F ood and A griculture Organization (FAO) for sustainable use and conservation of livestock agroresources in developing countries and was involved in drafting the UN C onvention on Biodiversity. Previously he was on faculty at C ambridge U niversity and was Professor of A nimal Genetics at the U niversity of British C olumbia, C anada. Earlier he was Head of the Production Division of the Milk Marketing Board of England and W ales. H e has a BS c (H ons.) in A griculture (R eading), MA in A nimal Production (C ambridge, D owning C ollege), PhD in A nimal Genetics (R eading) and a degree in Business A dministration from H arvard. Professor Søren Holm is a medical doctor and philosopher. H e is D irector of the C ardiff C entre for Ethics, Law and S ociety and Professor of M edical Ethics (parttime) at the U niversity of O slo. H e has written extensively on numerous topics in bioethics and the philosophy of medicine. Michael Igoumenidis is a PhD candidate at the U niversity of M anchester, S chool of Law. H e holds a M asters of A rts in H ealth C are Ethics & Law from the same institution, and a BS c in N ursing from the U niversity of A thens. H e has participated in a number of European projects on health issues, and has presented several papers concerning medical ethics in international conferences. H e is currently a part-time tutor at the Institute of Professional T raining in A igaleo, A thens. Jan Reinert Karlsen, research-fellow at the D epartment of General Practice and C ommunity M edicine, S ection for M edical Ethics, U niversity of O slo. Karlsen studied philosophy at the U niversity of Bergen and holds the degree of C and. Philol. Finalizing his PhD thesis, Karlsen has studied research biobanking as a case for European ethics policies in the field of biotechnology, science and

List of Contributors

xv

development and the emergent knowledge based economy. Currently, Karlsen is employed as a researcher on the GeneBanC consortium, which is funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework Programme. Dr Ian Kenway is currently D irector of the C entre for the International S tudy of C yberethics and H uman R ights (CISCHR ), H onorary R esearch F ellow in Ethics and ICT at C ardiff U niversity and C o-ordinator of CC ELS . Previous positions have included A ssistant S ecretary of the C hurch of England’s Board for S ocial R esponsibility at W estminster, where he exercised a brief for legal affairs and edited its journal Crucible (1988–1993), and D irector of S tudies at the C entre for the S tudy of T heology – later renamed the C entre for T heology and S ociety – at the U niversity of Essex (1993–1999). D uring 1999–2001 he was engaged in independent research in S outhern N evada in ethics and information and communication technologies. H is interests include: internet governance, ‘the digital divide’, censorship and privacy issues, digital watermarking and the relationship between IT and public policy. Dr Eva Krizová teaches medical sociology, medical ethics and public health at the T hird F aculty of M edicine, C harles U niversity in Prague. Professor Robert G. Lee was H ead of C ardiff Law S chool from 1995–1999, and is C o-D irector of the ESRC C entre on Business R elationships, A ccountability, S ustainability and S ociety (BRASS ). H e is an environmental lawyer and an acknowledged expert on contaminated land and on waste management. He is editor of Environmental Law Monthly, Environmental Editor for the Journal of Business Law and C urrent D evelopments Editor of the Journal of Environmental Law. Bob is a professional development consultant with the Environment, Products and Regulation Group of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, and continues to have an active interest in legal practice. He is a Member of the QAA Benchmarking Panel for Law, and the Lord C hancellor’s S tanding C onference on Legal Education. H e is a F ellow of the R oyal S ociety of M edicine. Erik Malmqvist teaches bioethics and does research at the D epartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden. He is at the time of writing finalizing his doctoral thesis, a philosophical enquiry into the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies. Mike McNamee is Professor in Philosophy at the D epartment of Philosophy, H umanities and Law in H ealthcare, S chool of H ealth S cience, S wansea U niversity. H is research interests are the philosophies of education, health, leisure and sport, and especially the ethics of medicine, research, and sport. His most recent book is Sports, Virtues and Vices: Morality Plays (R outledge 2008). H e is editor of Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, a former President of the International A ssociation for the Philosophy of S port, and the inaugural C hair of the British Philosophy of S port A ssociation.

xvi

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Marie Mesanyová, graduated in pedagogic nursing at F aculty of Philosophy & Arts, Charles University in Prague and in psychology at Masaryk University in Brno. She is teacher of nursing and she works in the area of psychological counselling. From 2001 she takes part in grant projects sponsored by Grant Agency of C zech R epublic at C harles U niversity and at S outh Bohemian U niversity. Kate Millar is director of the C entre for A pplied Bioethics, S chool of Biosciences, U niversity of N ottingham. S he is currently vice president of the European S ociety for A gricultural and F ood Ethics (EurS afe). H er research focuses on the ethical issues raised by the application of biological knowledge to the use of animals, agrifood production, and environmental management. S he has a particular interest in biotechnology ethics, and the development and application of ethical frameworks and stakeholder participatory methods. Marit Hovdal Moan is a PhD research fellow at the N orwegian U niversity of S cience and T echnology (NTNU ), Programme for A pplied Ethics, Philosophy D epartment. H er project focuses on how to ground claims of state responsibility to meet irregular migrants’ basic needs in the particular context of modern liberal democratic society. Professor David Morton is Professor Emeritus of Biomedical S cience and Biomedical Ethics at the U niversity of Birmingham where he set up the department of H ealthcare Ethics and Law over 15 years ago. H e is a veterinarian with research interests in the welfare of animals, particularly the recognition and assessment of animal pain, distress and suffering during husbandry and slaughter. H e is a member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Scientific Panel on Animal Health and A nimal W elfare, the EU C ommission D G R esearch Ethics R eview Panel for F P7 projects, the U K C ompanion A nimal W elfare C ouncil and the F arm A nimal W elfare Council (FAWC) where he sits on the ruminants and welfare strategy working groups. H e was awarded the RC VS ’s Livesey M edal (1993) for the prevention or alleviation of pain and fear in animals, the S mithKline Beecham/RDS award for animal welfare (1995), and the R ussell and Burch A ward (2002) for outstanding contributions to the T hree R s in animal research. H e is a member of various animal welfare-oriented scientific and professional organizations such as the Farm Animal W elfare T rust, the British Veterinary A ssociation’s Ethics and W elfare Group, and the F und for the R eplacement of A nimals in M edical Experiments (FRAM E). Reidar Pedersen trained as a physician and philosopher. H e has been employed by the S ection for M edical Ethics, U niversity of O slo as a research fellow, and coordinator for the clinical ethics committees in N orway since 2004. In addition he is working on a PhD project about the concept of empathy in medicine. Elisa Pieri is an applied linguist and a social scientist, with a background of interdisciplinary research in controversial aspects of science, technology and policy.

List of Contributors

xvii

H er research interests and publications are in the areas of: public engagement with science; sociology of science and technology; ethical, legal and social aspects of new technologies; human and plant genomics (with specific reference to GM crops and foods, personalized medicine, psychiatric and behavioural genetics, the neurosciences); biopolitics, power and surveillance (including biometrics). Elisa recently joined the ESRC N ational C entre for e-S ocial S cience (M arch 2008), where she is researching the debate over the N ational Identity S cheme and the Introduction of Biometric ID C ards in the U K. S he had previously (2004–2008) been working at the ESRC Centre for Social and Economic Aspects of Genomics (C esagen), Lancaster U niversity, where she investigated the ethical, social, legal and policy impacts of genomic technologies, specifically in the areas of behavioural genetics and pharmacogenetics. Before joining C esagen Elisa was coapplicant and research associate on an ESRC -funded project on ‘T he D iscourse of the GM F ood D ebate’ (2003–2004) and research associate on the ESRC -funded project ‘T he C ommunication of GM C rop R esearch from Expert to N on-Experts’ (2001–2002), both at the U niversity of R eading, U K. Kjetil Rommetveit is associate professor at the C entre for the S tudy of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen, and has a background in law and philosophy of science. H is main research interests are in biopolitics, ethics, science and technology studies and the philosophy of science. R ecent publications include R ommetveit, K. (2007): ‘Biotechnology: A ction and choice in second modernity’, PhD T hesis, F aculty of A rts, U niversity of Bergen; R ommetveit, K. (forthcoming) ‘T owards a hermeneutic of technomedical objects’, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics; R ommetveit, K., Porz, R . (forthcoming) ‘T ragedy and boundary situations in predictive genetic testing’ in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, R ommetveit, K., S trand, R . (forthcoming): ‘N anoparticles, IPR s and strict liability’, Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology. Peter Sandøe (D Phil, O xon), Professor of Bioethics at the F aculty of Life S ciences, U niversity of C openhagen since 1997. H e was educated in philosophy at the U niversity of C openhagen and the U niversity of O xford (D Phil. 1988). Peter Sandøe is also the director of the Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment (C eBRA ), an interdisciplinary and cross-institutional research centre founded in 2000. S ince 1992 he has served as the chairman of the D anish Ethical C ouncil for A nimals, an advisory board, set up by the D anish M inister of Justice. F rom 2000 to 2007 he served as the President of the European S ociety for A gricultural and Food Ethics. Since 1990 the bulk of his research has been within bioethics with particular emphasis on the ethical issues raised by animals and biotechnology, mostly in broad, multidisciplinary cooperation. Erwin Schmid is leading the working group resources/sustainability at the Institute for S ustainable Economic D evelopment, U niversity of N atural R esources and A pplied Life S ciences in Vienna. H is research focus is on integrative analysis

xviii

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

to support policy decision-making in the sustainable management of natural and biological resources. H e has been partner in many national and international research projects on topics including agricultural and land use policy analysis, multifunctional agriculture, and adaptation strategies in agriculture to global change. M ore information on: . Jiri Simek, physician with qualifications in internal medicine, psychiatry, psychoanalysis and psychosomatics. F rom 1990–2007 he was H ead of the Institute for M edical Ethics and N ursing at 3rd F aculty of medicine, C harles U niversity in Prague. F rom 2007 H ead of the C hair for Philosophy and Ethics in H elping Professions at the F aculty of H ealth and S ocial S tudies, U niversity of South Bohemia in Ceské Budejovice. He has conducted research projects in transformation of healthcare systems in post-communist countries, informed consent, research ethics, care for elderly patients. Kadri Simm, PhD , is a senior researcher in the Institute for Philosophy and S emiotics at the U niversity of T artu. H er research interests include moral and political philosophy, bioethics (esp. justice issues in medical research), gender studies and science and technology (STS ) studies. S he has previously published on benefit-sharing debates in biomedicine, ethical and social aspects of biobanking and feminist political philosophy. Franz Sinabell is senior researcher at the A ustrian Institute of Economic R esearch in Vienna. H e is a lecturer at the U niversity of N atural R esources and A pplied Life S ciences, Vienna and member of the A dvisory C ouncil of the F ederal M inister of A griculture and Environmental affairs. H e has been partner in many national and international research projects on topics including agricultural policy analysis, agri-environmental indicators, the multifunctionality of agriculture and costbenefit analyses of measures to control natural hazards. More information on: . Anne Maria Skrikerud is a philosopher with the degree of C and. Philol. from the D epartment of Philosophy, U niversity of O slo. S he delivered her thesis in 2003 about embryonic stem cell research. Currently Anne Maria is working as a research fellow at S ection for M edical Ethics, F aculty of M edicine at the U niversity of Oslo. There she is working on her PhD thesis about information, privacy, and risk in biobank research. Hayley Stevenson is a PhD candidate in the S chool of H istory and Politics at the U niversity of A delaide, A ustralia. H er main research interests include international relations theory, international environmental politics, and normative change within the international community. H er present research explores the diffusion and contestation of international norms of climate change governance.

List of Contributors

xix

Professor Roger Strand, D irector of the C entre for the S tudy of the S ciences and the H umanities, U niversity of Bergen, N orway. Visiting Professor, Inst. of Environmental S cience and T echnology, A utonomous U niversity of Barcelona, S pain. Prof. S trand holds a PhD in biochemistry. H is research mainly falls within the philosophy of natural science and biomedicine, including research on the ethical and social aspects of bio- and nanotechnology. T he focus of research is on the nature and significance of scientific uncertainty and complexity for environmental and health-related decision-making processes. He is a member of various ethics committees, including the N ational C ommittee of R esearch Ethics of N atural S cience and T echnology in N orway. Margit Sutrop is Professor of Practical Philosophy and D irector of the Institute for Philosophy and S emiotics at the U niversity of T artu, Estonia. S he is the founding D irector of the interdisciplinary C entre for Ethics at T artu U niversity. S he has published widely on aesthetics, moral and political philosophy, and most recently on bioethics. S he is the author of Fiction and Imagination: The Anthropological Function of Literature (Paderborn: M entis, 2000), and the editor of six books. She has been a guest editor of a special issue of Bioethics (vol. 18, 2004) on pharmacogenetics and of Trames (vol. 8, 2004) on the ethical, legal and social issues of human genetic databases. S he has co-authored (with Kadri S imm) an article on the Estonian healthcare system and the genetic database project in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics and recently contributed to the volume The Ethics and Governance of Human Genetic Databases. A European Perspective (eds M . H äyry et al.) published by CU P in 2007. S he has co-ordinated numerous national (ten grants) and international (eight grants) R &D projects. S he is member of the Estonian President’s A dvisory Board, member of the Estonian C ouncil of Bioethics, member of the C linical Ethics C ommittee of T artu U niversity C linic, member of the C ouncil of the Academia Europaea, of the European C ommission’s A dvisory Board for H umanities in the 7th F P and an ethical expert of the European C ommission. Claudio Tamburrini is an Associate Researcher at the Stockholm Bioethics Center, Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, in Sweden. He is the author of Crime and Punishment? (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, 1992) and of several international articles on penal philosophy. In the area of the philosophy of sports, T amburrini has published The “Hand of God”? Essays in the Philosophy of Sports (A cta U niversitatis Gothoburgensis, 2000), which has also been translated into S panish. Both in S weden and in A rgentina, T amburrini has accomplished a pioneering work in introducing the philosophy of sports as an academic discipline. Together with Torbjön Tännsjö, he is the co-editor of Values in Sport: Elitism, Nationalism, Gender Equality and the Scientific Manufacture of Winners (London and New York, E & FN Spon, 2000), Genetic Technology and Sport: Ethical Questions (London and New York, Routledge, 2005) and The Ethics of Sports Medicine (S pecial Issue of Sport, Ethics and Philosophy; R outledge, vol. 1,

xx

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

number 2, August 2007). At present, he is working on two different books, one on moral relativism and its implications for the punishment of human rights violators, and another on ethical aspects of genetic physical enhancements. T amburrini was also a professional soccer player in A rgentina. Dr Samarthia Thankappan is a lecturer in the D epartment of Environment at the University of York. She has conducted research on a wide range of issues relating to sustainable production and consumption. S ome of her recent research involvements include: examining the complexities of the private-interest model of food regulation and the role played by retailers in the food sector in trying to influence consumers; the diffusion of climate change ideas and issues along the food supply chain in the U K; the nature-society relationships, on the production and consumption of food and issues surrounding religious, moral and ethical perspectives on food biotechnology. H er research interests include: supply chain management; sustainable communities and lifestyle; regulation, governance and space; sustainable ecosystems and energy modelling and environmental issues surrounding SM Es. Jane K. Winn is C harles I. S tone Professor at the U niversity of W ashington S chool of Law and D irector of the S hidler C enter for Law, C ommerce and T echnology. H er teaching and research interests include commercial, comparative and technology law developments in the US , EU and Greater C hina. S he is co-author of T he Law of Electronic C ommerce (4th ed. 2008 updated) as well as numerous articles on law and technology topics, copies of which are available at <www.law.washington. edu/faculty/winn/> or at <ssrn.com/author=334081>. Mgr. Lenka Zamykalová graduated in sociology at F aculty of S ocial S ciences, Charles University in Prague. From 2001 she took part in sociological research in medicine at the Institute of S ociology of the A cademy of S ciences of the C zech R epublic, at the C enter for T heoretical S tudy, C harles U niversity in Prague and at S outh Bohemian U niversity.

Acknowledgment T he production of this volume would not have been possible without the assistance of John C oggon, N atasha H ammond and last, but not least, S arah Kennedy to whom we are indebted for ensuring that the volume came together in a publishable form. Jennifer Gunning S øren H olm Ian Kenway

This page has been left blank intentionally

List of A bbreviations ACP African Caribbean and Pacific (countries) ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers (UK) ADR A dverse D rug R eaction AMS Associated Marketing Services AWA A nimal W elfare A ct 2006 (U K) BS E BT V

Bovine S pongiform Encephalopathy Blue T ongue Virus

CA P C ommon A gricultural Policy (Europe) C EC C linical Ethics C ommittee C EN European S tandards O rganization C ESA Gen C entre for Economic and S ocial A spects of Genomics CIOMS C ouncil for International O rganizations for M edical S ciences CIT ES C onvention on International T rade in Endangered S pecies C LS C ore Labour S tandards CMO Chief Medical Officer CO LR EG C onvention on the International R egulations for Preventing C ollisions at S ea CONTU ���������������������������������������������������������������� US N ational C ommission on N ew T echnological U ses of C opyrighted Works CSR C orporate S ocial R esponsibility C VM C enter for Veterinary M edicine D efra D epartment for the Environment F isheries and R ural A ffairs (U K) DME Developed Market Economy DNAR D o N ot A ttempt R esuscitation DRM D igital R ights M anagement EA GGF European A gricultural Guidance and Guarantee F und ECHR European C onvention on H uman R ights EEA European Economic A rea EFSA European F ood S afety A uthority EGE ���������������������������������������������������������������� European Group on Ethics in S cience and N ew T echnologies to the European C ommission EIA Energy Information A dministration EIM European Internal Market

xxiv

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

ELSI����������������������������������� Ethical, Legal and S ocietal Issues EMD European Marketing Distribution ESC Embryonic S tem C ells EU European U nion EUREP Euro Retailer Produce Working Group FAWC F arm A nimalW elfare C ouncil (U K) FDA US F ood and D rugs A dministration FDI F oreign D irect Investment F EO GA F ondo Europeo de F ondación y Garantía para la A gricultura FF V F resh F ruit and Vegetables FMD F oot and M outh D isease FMI Food Marketing Institute FSA F ood S tandards A gency (U K) GA P GATT GFSI GM GMO

Good A gricultural Practice General A greement on T ariffs and T rade Global F ood S afety Initiative Genetically modified Genetically Modified Organism

HACC P H azard A nalysis and C ritical C ontrol Points hESC H uman Embryonic S tem C ells HF EA H uman F ertilisation and Embryology A uthority HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus HS E H ealth and S afety Executive (U K) IA B International A ssociation of Bioethics IAH Institute of A nimal H ealth ICM Integrated C rop M anagement IFOAM International F ederation of O rganic A griculture M ovement IGD Institute of Grocery D istribution II ED International Institute for Environment and D evelopment ILO ��������������������������������� International Labour O rganization IMF International M onetary F und IMO International M aritime O rganization IPM Integrated Pest M anagement iPSC Induced Pluripotent S tem C ells ISO International O rganization for S tandardization LOD

Limit of D etermination

MAFF M inistry of A griculture F isheries and F ood (U K) MCA U K M aritime and C oastal A gency

List of Abbreviations

xxv

MPS Market Price Support MR L M aximum R esidue Level MTR M id T erm R eview NA PCCI N orth A merican Pallet, C arton, and C ase Initiative NCCR N ational C ouncil of C hain R estaurants NFU N ational F armers U nion (U K) N GO N on Governmental O rganization NHS N ational H ealth S ervice (U nited Kingdom) NOU N orges offentlige utredninger O ECD O rganization for Economic C ooperation and D evelopment OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN) OI E W orld O rganization for A nimal H ealth OTA Office of Technology Assessment (USA) PGD PGx PND PPT PSC PS E PS J

Preimplantation Genetic D iagnosis Pharmacogenetics Prenatal D iagnosis Post-Productivist T ransition Port S tate C ontrol Producer S upport Estimate Port S tate Jurisdiction

R &D R esearch and D evelopment R EC R egional Ethics C ommittee RFID Radio Frequency Identification S &T S cience and T echnology SCAHAW Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare (European C ommission) SCNT S omatic C ell N uclear T ransfer SO LAS International C onvention for the S afety of Life A t S ea SOSR EP S ecretary of S tate’s R epresentative for M aritime S alvage and Intervention (U K) S PCA S ociety for the Prevention of C ruelty to A nimals STCW International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers SVC Scientific Veterinary Committee T PM T echnical Protection M easures UNC LOS U nited N ations C onvention of the Law of the S ea UNCRC UN C onvention on the R ights of the C hild

xxvi

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

UNIC EF U nited N ations C hildren’s F und UNIF EM U nited N ations D evelopment F und for W omen UNMOVIC United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission WMA W orld M edical A ssociation WMD W eapons of M ass D estruction WTO W orld T rade O rganization YIS P Y outh Inclusion and S upport Panel Y JB Y outh Justice Board (England)

INTRODUCTION ntroduction

This page has been left blank intentionally

C hapter 1

Introduction Jennifer Gunning, S øren H olm and Ian Kenway

Ludwig Feuerbach’s stark but truthful observation ‘Der Mensch ist war er isst’ (translated – with license – ‘People are what they eat’) has frequently been the subject of misconstrual and controversy. D uring 2007–2008, however, the phrase seems to have taken on a remarkably new lease of life; not through its adoption by a new generation of materialist philosophers, but rather in its ability to provide a useful lens through which to interpret tectonic shifts in economic and political reality. T he past eighteen months have seen a number of noteworthy events, developments and overt threats which have served to remind us forcefully of the extremely fragile nature of our existence and the genuine difficulties of ensuring sustainable economic growth. In the U K, for example, we have witnessed the accidental release of foot and mouth pathogens from the research facility at Pirbright, the rising threat of bluetongue disease to UK flocks and the spectacle of a celebrity chef taking the case for enhanced poultry welfare directly to the shareholders of a multi-billion pound retailer. Internationally, we have witnessed the deliberations of the H igh-Level C onference on W orld F ood S ecurity in R ome in June 2008 – grappling fitfully with rising commodity prices, the potential role of GM crops and the desirability of biofuels – and, more recently, the collapse in Geneva of the Doha Round of world trade talks after seven years of detailed and painful negotiation. Against such a febrile background, few can remain oblivious to the interlocking and tightening relationships which are rapidly developing between food production, energy security, climate change and our general sense of economic and social well being. M any of the chapters in this volume bear varied witness to this particular confluence of concerns and provide as a result timely insights into the burgeoning agenda of contemporary ethical debate. A nd the questions are numerous and pressing. H ow can we survive as a species? A nd, what is perhaps more important, survive with dignity? How can humankind, as the dominant species on our planet, make imaginative use of ‘the good Earth’ while at the same time vouching sincerely to act as its true protector and guarantor? Is food simply a matter of utility or is it ultimately symbolic of something greater, regardless of one’s ethnicity, culture or religious persuasion? C an recourse to law, not least internationally, ensure that the interests of the most vulnerable are, at least from time to time, heard rather than ignored?



Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Part I of the volume attempts to explore some of the ethical issues that are raised by modern farming practices, contemporary food production and its associated regulation, agricultural subsidy regimes and animal welfare advocacy. Part II focuses on a number of bioethical issues, especially those associated with healthcare, reproduction, biobanking and the potential benefits of genetic research. Part III widens the scope to examine several contemporary hot debates in society, especially those associated with human competition and conflict. Finally Part IV consists of commentaries on a miscellany of issues that have found particular prominence in recent headlines. D espite the diversity of topics covered, several common themes emerge, including the rediscovery and redefinition of personal responsibility as we slowly face up to the constraints and limitations of the modern state or the relative impotence of international bodies to initiate or broker change for the betterment or enrichment of society. Ethics as a distinct area of philosophical inquiry may of course be approached and understood in a number of ways. H owever, there is always a sense in which it arises both initially and practically from our hunger or thirst, in short our desire, to do what is right; this requires us not only to interrogate our motives routinely but also to scan the horizon widely and diligently for the likely outcomes of our actions. H ow does a self-perpetuating ‘me generation’ understand intergenerational justice and work towards its effective realization? How does a celebrity-obsessed culture learn to turn off the camera, microphone, mobile and laptop and begin to dig and plant, if not for victory, then new forms of self-reliance and self-worth? C an the past be the new future? U nfortunately the idyllic charms of A rcadia or its suburban equivalents are not easily reconcilable with the brash boastings of new technologies which promise a ‘brighter’ future through the endless exploitation or ‘makeover’ of the environment. Ethical reflection in a rapidly changing world is rarely neat or tidy. None of our contributors are likely to imagine that what they offer here is more than a timely ‘report from the frontline’, the opportunity to tease out and articulate some broader principles, in short to provide us with useful food for thought. W e are enormously grateful for their effort and enthusiasm.

PART I ETHICA L ISSU ES IN A GRICU LTUR E AND FOOD

This page has been left blank intentionally

C hapter 2

M odern F arming Practices and A nimal W elfare Joyce D ’S ilva

T he last 50 years has seen a transformation of farming practices in the developed world and this transformation is now expanding rapidly to countries with fastgrowing economies and populations like China and Brazil. Essentially, farming has changed from being a source of livelihood for individual families to being big business, from being family farm centred to being market and profit driven. T his scenario has created winners and losers. T he winners are the big national or global agribusiness companies, many of which operate integrated operations, supplying breeding stock, feed and markets. Some would say consumers are winners too, as they can now eat far more meat, dairy products and eggs, as the relative price of these products has fallen. T he losers are often the traditional family farmers and the peasant farmers in developing countries, who now cannot compete with large-scale farming and who feel forced to give up and find alternative employment, often drifting to urban areas in desperation. T here are many arguments to say that the environment is also a loser. M ass production of farm animals results in pollution of water and soil and has a detrimental impact on water use, global feed crop production and deforestation. As we now know, livestock production is responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases associated with human activity (S teinfeld 2006). C onsumers could be long-term losers too. M eat and dairy are responsible for much of the unhealthy saturated fat in ‘modern’ diets. In 2007 the W orld C ancer R esearch F und recommended that people should eat ‘mostly plant foods’, cut down on red meat and avoid processed meat, in order to reduce the risk of certain cancers (W orld C ancer R esearch F und /A merican Institute for C ancer R esearch 2007). S o the cheap price of animal products may – inadvertently – be detrimental to our health. F arm animals themselves may be the biggest losers from the growth in industrial production. O f course it would be inappropriate to ignore the advances in veterinary treatments available and our capacity to prevent disease outbreaks through routine vaccination. But these real improvements in prevention and treatment of disease may well be the only welfare benefits to farm animals over the last half century. In fact, maximizing productivity has been the driving force in the increasingly intensive nature of the farming of animals and has resulted in serious threats to the health and welfare of the animals.



Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Selective Breeding F arm animals have been selectively bred for centuries, but new technology has speeded up the rate of change enormously. F arm animals are normally selected for fast growth and high yield. Increased growth rates and muscular development or higher yields of milk or eggs can put enormous strain on both the skeleton and the cardiovascular systems of animals. A prime example of this is the modern meat chicken or broiler. Broiler (meat) chickens Most of the breeding stock for the 48 billion broiler chickens slaughtered globally per annum comes from just three companies. M any breeds are developed to reach market weight one day earlier each year (Cruikshank 2003). Already broiler chickens can grow from fluffy yellow chick to slaughter weight in less than six weeks. In O ctober 2007 one of these breed companies, C obb-Vantress, issued a press release about their latest broiler, the C obb 700, which, they say ‘is aimed at the rapidly expanding demand for breast meat for premium value-added products. The market is looking for broilers that will grow to heavier weights and achieve a high meat yield, with also the preferred breast muscle profile for the most valuable “whole muscle” products’ (C obb-Vantress 2007). T his emphasis on breast muscle growth can be particularly damaging. A long with rapid growth rates, it can affect locomotion: the rapidly increasing body weight will place greater demands on the immature skeleton, and the change in shape can alter the forces produced during walking (Corr 2003). This places extra strain on the legs. T he impact of fast growth can be seen most clearly in the prevalence of lameness in the broiler chicken flock. In 2006 Defra published the results of a three year study into broiler lameness conducted by the U niversity of Bristol. Five major UK broiler companies took part, and approximately 51,000 birds were gait scored, where an objective assessment was made of their walking ability. At least 27.6% of the chickens showed gait scores of 3 and above (out of a scale of one to five), revealing widespread lameness problems in the broiler chicken flock (U niversity of Bristol 2006). Even though broiler chickens get sent to slaughter at such a young age, around 1–2% may develop heart problems and ascites (fluid build-up in the chest) before this time. Genetic factors are one of the causes of the increased strain placed on the cardiovascular system due to fast growth (Julian 2000; M axwell 1995). In 2000, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Animal Health and A nimal W elfare (SCAHAW ) produced a report on the welfare of broilers saying ‘It is clear that the major welfare problems in broilers are those which can be regarded as side effects of the intense selection mainly for growth and feed conversion. These include leg disorders, ascites, sudden death syndrome in growing birds and welfare problems in breeding birds such as severe food restriction’ (SCAHAW 2000, C h. 13).

Modern Farming Practices and Animal Welfare



They concluded: ‘Most of the welfare issues that relate specifically to commercial broiler production are a direct consequence of genetic selection for faster and more efficient production of chicken meat’ (SCAHAW 2000, Ch.12). This is a story with an ironic twist in its tail. Because broiler chickens are bred for this exponential growth rate, there is a problem in keeping the breeding birds alive and healthy long enough to reach puberty (at around 18 weeks) so that they can breed. If these birds ate as much as their descendants, many would develop high rates of lameness and heart disease by that time. T o ensure they do live long enough, they are fed just enough food to keep them growing – sometimes this can be only 25% of what they might normally eat (Savory et al. 1993). W hen C ompassion in W orld F arming challenged the U K government on this practice in the H igh C ourt in 2003, the judge agreed that such birds were in a state of ‘chronic hunger’ – while dismissing the case (R (Compassion in World Farming Limited) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).  Turkeys The modern farmed turkey bears little resemblance to its still-existing wild ancestor, who can live in tough conditions and fly (and is still widely hunted in N orth A merica). A ccording to Dr James Bentley of British United Turkeys, a male turkey now grows to 19.6 kg at 21 weeks. He adds, ‘Current rates of genetic progress in live-weight are estimated at 3% per annum in male lines and 1% in female lines, giving an overall rate of progress in cross progeny of 2%’ (McKay et al. 2000). The ‘progress’ in breeding turkeys for rapid growth rates is shown in T able 2.1. Leg and hip problems are common, and may be exacerbated by the practice of hanging these very heavy birds upside down from shackles at the slaughterhouse before they are stunned and killed. In another twist to the poultry story, the breeding turkeys now grow so large that natural mating is impossible. People are employed to ‘milk’ the breeding turkey cockerels for their semen and all breeding is done by artificial insemination. Apparently some kinds of bestiality are quite legal! Table 2.1

The effects of genetic selection on the performance of turkeys over time (males of a commercial breed)

Year Time required to reach slaughter weight 1960 22.0 weeks 1970 20.5 weeks 1980 18.7 weeks 1990 17.4 weeks 2000 15.5 weeks Source: National Turkey Federation Convention

Food Conversion Ratio 3.20 2.97 2.75 2.53 2.30

10

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

‘Modern’ breeds of dairy cows T he effects of selective breeding can also be seen in the modern dairy herd. T he average dairy cow in the UK now produces over 6800 litres of milk a year (Defra 2007), about 30% more than her counterpart of just 10 years ago (Defra 2004). This is five times more milk than her calf needs. Yield in the US is over 9000 litres a year (FAO 2007), indicating an even higher intensification. The breeding of larger and longer H olstein cows has meant that many dairy ‘cubicle’ sheds are now inadequate as, when the cows stand in their cubicles, their hind feet have to rest on the slurry-covered floor behind the cubicle rather than in the cubicle itself. Rates of 20% to 50% lameness per annum are regularly revealed in Western dairy herds (Webster 2005). A study in the Netherlands found that more than 83% of cows examined suffered lameness (Broom 2007). If not treated swiftly and well, the pain from lameness can be ‘severe and enduring’ (W ebster 1987). T he actual shape of the cow has also been altered to give an ever-larger udder so that they can produce more milk. This is also one of the contributory factors to increasingly high levels of mastitis, painful udder inflammation. At any given time half of all US dairy cattle have mastitis (Adcock 1995). A wide-ranging investigation into the incidence of mastitis in dairy herds found 71 cases of mastitis per 100 cows per year in England and W ales. T he authors estimated 47–65 cases of mastitis per 100 cows per year as the likely average (Bradley et al. 2007). T his extreme breeding has had adverse impacts on the calves born to such cows. N early all calves born to dairy cows are removed from their mothers within two days and the cows are milked to capacity for the dairy trade. Sadly, the bull calves are not favoured by the beef trade, being long and bony like their mothers, so many are killed shortly after birth and others are reared for a few months for veal. W ith most European veal farming centred in the N etherlands, Belgium and F rance, calves are exported to these countries in large numbers from eastern Europe and from the U K, subjecting them to long and stressful journeys. Beef cattle T he ‘Belgian Blue’ breed of cattle is one extreme example of selective breeding for excessive muscle development (British breeders now refer to the ‘British Blue’). Breeders latched on to a ‘natural’ mutation in a gene which produced ‘doublemuscled’ animals. N ow these mighty creatures with their enormous hindquarters are highly prized for the large quantity of meat yielded by each animal. T he downside is that the females don’t have a sufficiently expanding pelvic region to be able to give birth to their calves, and many births are by caesarean section (SCAHAW 2001). Pigs M odern breeds of pigs in the W est are usually based on the genetics of two breeds, the Landrace and Large W hite. T hey have been selectively bred for high

Modern Farming Practices and Animal Welfare

11

reproductive performance, often doubling the litter size of their ancestors. T his can put a strain on the sow which has to produce enough milk and it can lead to more, weaker piglets, with a poorer survival rate. As with the chickens, faster growth rates can strain the metabolism and put pressure on heart and lungs. Leaner carcasses and paler skin make outdoor rearing, with all its welfare benefits, harder to achieve with such breeds, as they can be more susceptible to cold and heat stress and sunburn. Their longer bodies can put increased stress on their back legs (Arey and Brooke 2006, Ch. 10). Con.nement and Over crowding All animals on factory farms are confined in some way, either in individual pens, sometimes chained or tied by the neck, or confined to a small area of floor space in crowded pens, houses or cages. N atural behaviour and social groupings – as well as normal exercise – are thwarted in such conditions. Veal calves One of the most notorious examples of individual confinement is the keeping of calves in individual crates from the age of one week to slaughter at 4–6 months for veal production. F or most of the rearing period they are unable to turn round and only able to stand up or lie down. In nature, calves live in social groups and suckle from their mothers around seven times in the 24-hour cycle. In the veal crate they are isolated and have no regular physical contact with any other being. T hey are fed their low-iron milk substitute once or twice a day. The low-iron liquid diet is fed so that the flesh produced will be the ‘white veal’ most favoured by gourmet restaurants. This means the calf is on the verge of clinical anaemia. When finally taken to slaughter, calves are often seen to stagger towards the truck, as they have never used their legs for walking. From 2007, the European Union has banned the keeping of calves in crates in which they cannot turn round. Both iron and roughage are now added to the diet. H owever, in N orth A merica, the system continues, although in 2007 both A rizona and O regon banned the system and a move to ban it is underway in C alifornia. However, even though kept in groups, EU law does not require bedding material such as straw to be given (although U K law does require it) and many veal calves live on concrete or wooden flooring with a slatted drainage area. Pregnant sows Pregnant sows are also commonly kept in single stalls, known in Europe as sow stalls and in A merica as gestation crates. T he sow is housed individually and either chained to the floor or side of her crate or it will have bars at the front and two sides and a chain across the back which can be removed when she is taken away.

12

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

The sow spends most of her 16½-week pregnancy in the individual stall and is unable to turn round throughout that time. She lies on a concrete and slatted floor with no straw or other bedding material for comfort. A s pigs too have been bred to grow heavier and meatier, the sows often develop leg sores as they lie on the cold, wet concrete. M ost of a pig’s nervous system is connected to its highly sensitive snout. In natural conditions, which for pigs is light woodland, the animals would spend up to 50% of their time using their snouts to root in the soil, seeking tubers and grubs to eat and another 23% in foraging behaviour (Stolba and Wood-Gush 1989). Such behaviour is totally impossible in the confines of a concrete and metal-barred crate. The UK (1999) and Sweden (1988) took the lead in banning sow stalls. The EU plans to ban them from 2013, whilst allowing their use for the first 28 days of pregnancy. They are being phased out in New Zealand, Australia and three US states, but are still in widespread use elsewhere in the world. The sow’s individual confinement continues when she is ready to farrow (give birth). S he is put into another crate with an additional space for her piglets and possibly a little sawdust to lie on. H er strong instinct to build a metre-high nest in which to farrow is totally frustrated and often sows can be seen making down-forward-and-up movements at the front of the farrowing crate in a desperate attempt to build a nest. O nce she has farrowed, her maternal instincts are completely frustrated as she can barely touch her piglets with her snout. They are allowed to suckle only for three to four weeks before they are taken away for fattening. In normal conditions they would suckle for three to four months or more. As with the dairy cow, the maternal instinct is consistently frustrated in factory farming systems. Broiler (meat) chickens Other animals are crowded together to maximize profit. The broiler chicken is an obvious example. Day old chicks are placed, perhaps 20,000 at a time, into huge, often windowless, sheds. The floor is composed of wood shavings known as ‘litter’. In the early days there is plenty of room for the chicks to move round, but as they get near slaughter weight, their space allowance drops so that often there are 16–20 chickens per sq m of floor space (less than a sheet of A4 paper per chicken). The birds’ natural behaviours of perching, walking, running, even flying, are obviously frustrated. By this time, the floor appears to be carpeted with chickens and birds can be seen struggling to get to the food and watering points. The floor becomes increasingly filthy with excreta and the build up of ammonia. Burns to the hocks and blisters on the feet are a frequent result (SCAHAW 2000, S ect. 4.2). Egg-laying hens The other type of chicken is the egg-laying hen and we keep her with four or more cage mates in a battery cage. The Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European U nion declared in 1996 ‘It is clear that because of its small size and

Modern Farming Practices and Animal Welfare

13

barrenness, the battery cage as used at present has inherent severe disadvantages for the welfare of hens’ (SVC 1996). Research by Professor Marian Dawkins at O xford U niversity has shown that the average space used by hens to perform basic behaviours, such as standing, ground-scratching, wing-flapping and preening varies between 475 sq cm and 1876 sq cm, although the top end of the range was up to 2606 sq cm (Dawkins and Hardie 1989). Under current EU rules, each caged hen has, at the moment, 550 sq cm, although in the US it is considerably less. Because caged hens stand on a sloping wire mesh floor they are unable to indulge their instincts for dust-bathing or pecking at the ground for food. They tend to turn on each other and peck each other’s feathers out instead. Often the birds have the front third of their beak cut off when they are a day or two old to prevent severe damage being done during feather pecking. The beak tip is apparently well supplied with blood vessels and nerve endings and the cutting of it with a hot metal guillotine has been shown to cause both immediate and enduring pain (D uncan et al. 1989; Gentle et al. 1982). Up to 30% of battery hens suffer broken bones when being removed from their cages at end of lay and during transportation to the slaughterhouse (Gregory and Wilkins 1989). The lack of exercise and the constant demand for calcium for egg production undoubtedly combine to cause bone fragility and susceptibility to breakage. H ens have a strong preference for laying their eggs in a nest and are highly motivated to perform nesting behaviour (S VC 1996). F rustration of nesting is the most severe behavioural problem of hens in battery cages (A ppleby 1992). Research shows that hens will ‘work’ harder to gain access to a nest box prior to laying than they will work to get to food, even after several hours’ food deprivation. (C ooper and A ppleby 1996, 2003). Battery cages do not provide nests. In 1999 the EU voted to ban these barren battery cages by 2012. A rearguard action is being fought by the egg industry to postpone that ban for several years. Even after it comes into effect, so-called ‘enriched’ cages, which offer a token nest box and marginally more floor space, will be allowed. Battery cages are widely used across the globe and an increasing number of hens are being incarcerated in them. Fattening pigs Pigs being reared for meat are often kept in very crowded pens. Frequently no bedding material is provided on the concrete floor which slopes towards a slatted drainage area. T hese highly inquisitive rooting animals are frustrated and often proceed to bite each other’s tails, presumably out of boredom. If tails get bitten badly, antibiotics may be needed and if they are not used, infection can set in and travel up the spine causing abscesses. To prevent this, pigs are often routinely tail docked in infancy, usually without anaesthesia or analgesia. O nce again the animal is mutilated physically in order to fit in with a system of deprivation and frustration of natural behaviour. When a

14

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

more stimulating environment is provided with bedding material and sometimes additional ‘toys’, or when the pigs are kept outdoors free-range, the tendency to tail bite evaporates (Arey and Brooke 2006, Ch. 11). Conclusion Modern farming has failed to take account of the welfare of the animals themselves. It has failed to recognize that each animal is an individual sentient being – even though the EU adopted a legally binding Protocol to that effect in 1997 (T reaty of A msterdam 1997). S elective breeding has resulted in the use of genotypes or phenotypes which may result in a short burst of productivity or high yield, but are unsustainable for the animals’ own health and welfare and make longevity impossible. Two obvious examples are chickens with painful legs and cows with unwieldy bodies and high rates of lameness and mastitis. W hilst it could be argued that these animals are only required to live for a few weeks, months or years, there is surely something deeply unethical about breeding animals who are unable to live out their natural lifespan – even in the most benign conditions. W e have now bred farm animals whose own bodies may be their worst enemies. Confinement and/or overcrowding leads to lack of exercise, often weakening bones and muscles in the process. T hese environments are so far removed from the animals’ ‘natural’ habitat, that not only is movement restricted, but psychological and social well being are likely to be impossible. Sometimes the resulting aberrant behaviour – like tail-biting in pigs – is dealt with by mutilating the animals’ bodies. Industrial animal farming frustrates inherited behaviour, such as maternal instinct. It denies young animals opportunities for exploratory ‘play’ behaviour. It keeps animals in isolation, away from their peers, or in such close proximity to them that the animals are unable to establish normal group sizes. A s our appreciation of the mental and emotional capacities of farm animals develops, and their intelligence and sentience are realized, such farming systems look to be not modern at all, but Cartesian, out-dated and inherently cruel. If we accept the range of new evidence on the sentience, the emotions and the intelligence of farm animals, then we can start to devise farming systems that are truly modern, that take account of the animals’ physiological, behavioural, environmental and social needs. What would this kind of ‘post-modern’ farming look like? S elective breeding for faster growth and high yields would be abandoned in favour of breeding dual-purpose animals such as cattle providing both milk and meat in reduced quantities. A nimals would be allowed free movement and adequate space, which would not only encourage healthy bone and muscular development but would reduce the likelihood of anti-social or stereotypic behaviour. Group sizes would be reduced to resemble natural family or peer groupings. O utdoor

Modern Farming Practices and Animal Welfare

15

access in clement weather would be compulsory and indoor environments would be spacious and incorporate environmental enrichment and comfortable bedding. Being modern has come to mean being technologically advanced, fastthroughput, resource-efficient and of course profitable. Perhaps the truth is that so-called modern farming of this kind has failed society on virtually every count. W hat farming needs now is a regeneration based on strong ethical values, values of compassion for other sentient beings and of concern for the environment and for the health of consumers. This kind of farming will be able to restore dignity and right livelihood values to farmers themselves and make farming a more desirable way of living. This kind of farming will promote high animal welfare standards, will aim for whole-farm self-sufficiency, will seek green solutions for its emissions and will produce animal products in possibly smaller quantities, but which will earn more per unit, as consumers learn to revalue the foods they eat. C onsumer and government buy-in to such a vision for farming will be essential. T he question now is not whether such post-modern farming can replace our out-dated and damaging current practices, but when? References Adcock M. and Finelli M. (1995) The Dairy Cow: America’s ‘Foster Mother’. A reprint from HSUS N ews. W inter 1995. A ppleby M .C ., H ughes B.O . and Elson H .A . (1992) Poultry Production Systems – Behaviour, Management and Welfare (W allingford: CA B International). Arey D. and Brooke P. (2006) Animal welfare aspects of Good Agricultural Practice: Pig Production. C ompassion in W orld F arming. Bradley A .J. et al. (2007) ������������������������������������������������������������� ‘S urvey of the incidence and aetiology of mastitis on dairy farms in England and W ales’. Veterinary Record 160:8, 253. Broom D .M . and F raser A .F . (2007) Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare. 4th Edition. (W allingford: CA BI Publishing), C h. 28. C obb-Vantress, 1.10.07. C obb 700 broiler sets new standard for high yield. Press release. . C ooper J.J. and A ppleby M .C . (1996) ‘D emand for nest boxes in laying hens’. Behavioural Processes 36, 171–182. C ooper J.J. and A ppleby M .C . (2003) ‘T he value of environmental resources to domestic hens: a comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time’. Animal Welfare 12, 39–52. C orr S .A ., Gentle M .J., M cC orquodale C .C . and Bennett D . (2003) ‘T he effect of morphology on walking ability in the modern broiler: a gait analysis study’. Animal Welfare 12, 159–171. Cruickshank G. (2003) ‘Cobb focuses on bottom line performance’. Poultry World July, p. 22.

16

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Dawkins M.S. and Hardie S. (1989) ‘Space needs of laying hens’. British Poultry Science 30, 413–416. D epartment of Environment, F ood and R ural A ffairs (D efra). (2007) Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2006. D efra S tatistical D epartment, C h 5. . D epartment of Environment, F ood and R ural A ffairs (D efra). (2004) Economics of Milk Production – E&W 2002/2003. D efra S tatistical D epartment. . D uncan I.J.H ., S lee G.S ., S eawright E. and Breward J. (1989) ‘Behavioural consequences of partial beak amputation (beak trimming) in poultry’. British Poultry Science 30, 479–488. F ood and A griculture O rganization of the U nited N ations (FAO ). S tatistical Databases. Agriculture: Prodstat. <www.fao.org>. Accessed 10.12.07. Gentle M.J., Hughes B.O. and Hubrecht R.C. (1982) ‘The effect of beak-trimming on food intake, feeding behaviour and body weight in adult hens’. Applied Animal Ethology 8, 147–159. Julian, R .J. (2000) ‘Physiological, management and environmental triggers of the ascites syndrome: a review’. Avian Pathology 29:6, 519–527. M axwell, M .H . (1995) ‘A genetic control for ascites’. Poultry International, D ecember 1995, 62–65. M cKay J.C ., Barton N .F ., Koerhuis A .N .M . and M cA dam J. (2000) The challenge of genetic change in the broiler chicken. Proceedings of the BSAS conference, ‘T he challenge of genetic change in animal production,’ 1999, British S ociety of A nimal S cience. R (C ompassion in W orld F arming Limited) v S ecretary of S tate for Environment, F ood and R ural A ffairs [2004] EWCA C iv 1009. S avory C .J., M aros K. and R utter S .M . (1993) ‘A ssessment of hunger in growing broiler breeders in relation to a commercial restricted feeding programme’. Animal Welfare 2, 131–152. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW). (2001) The Welfare of Cattle Kept for Beef Production. European C ommission, H ealth and C onsumer Protection D irectorate-General, A pril 2001. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW). (2000) The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers). European C ommission, H ealth and C onsumer Protection D irectorate-General, M arch 2000. Scientific Veterinary Committee (SVC). (1996) Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section on the Welfare of Laying Hens. Brussels, O ctober 1996. S teinfeld H ., Gerber P., W assenaar T ., C astel V., R osales M . and de H aan, C . (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow: environmental issues and options. (R ome: F ood and A griculture O rganization of the U nited N ations), Executive S ummary, p. xxi < .

Modern Farming Practices and Animal Welfare

17

S tolba A . and W ood-Gush, D .G.M . (1989) ‘T he behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment’. Animal Production 48: 419–425. National Turkey Federation Convention. ‘Nicholas News’ 43, No. 1. . T he T reaty of A msterdam A mending the T reaty on European U nion, the T reaties Establishing the European C ommunities and R elated A cts. Protocol on Protection and W elfare of A nimals. Official Journal C 340, 10 N ovember 1997. . U niversity of Bristol (2006) Leg Health and Welfare in Commercial Broiler Production. R eport for D epartment for Environment, F ood and R ural A ffairs (D efra), p. 2. W ebster J. (2005) Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing), C h. 6. W ebster J. (1987) Understanding the Dairy Cow. (O xford: BS P Professional Books). W orld C ancer R esearch F und/A merican Institute for C ancer R esearch (2007) Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective, Chapter 12, p. 380 <www.dietandcancerreport.org>.

This page has been left blank intentionally

C hapter 3

A nimal Integrity in M odern F arming Kate M illar and D avid M orton

Introduction The aim of this chapter is to explore current thinking regarding the notion of animal integrity in the context of society’s concerns for farmed animals and to examine how current animal farming methods may respect or disrespect this concept. In addition to exploring how current farming methods impact on the integrity of farm animals, it is valuable to highlight briefly how emerging animal biotechnologies, such as cloning and transgenic techniques, affect integrity and how this may influence views of the acceptability of these technologies. Ethical acceptability may, in turn, determine the future of animal production systems. Exploring Concepts of Animal Integrity W hen examining our ethical responsibilities to farm animals, the assessment of an animal’s welfare has played a significant role in determining what society defines as acceptable in terms of the way we breed, raise and slaughter farm animals. H owever, other concepts have been important in shaping society’s concerns and defining acceptable practices on farms. One of these concepts is the notion of animal integrity and although it has implicitly played a role in societal discussions of human–animal interactions for a number of decades, explicit discussion of the concept of integrity has only recently become prominent as a result of the debate of the ethical acceptability of the creation and use of genetically modified (GM) animals as well as cloned animals in farm animal production. Before discussing how modern farming may respect or disrespect animal integrity it is important to explore current understanding of ‘integrity’. M any philosophers and welfarists have attempted to define the concept of animal integrity and as a result a number of potentially conflicting meanings have emerged. In its  ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� F armed animals may be different to farm animals which could include the sheepdog, but for ease of reading ‘farm’ animals will be used to denote those animals that are kept for food production.  ������������������������������������������������� F or example thorough the writings of: T om R egan, The Case for Animal Rights. (London: R outledge 1985); Bernard R ollin. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science (O xford: O xford U niversity Press 1989), and so on.

20

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

simplest form the term animal integrity has been characterized as the ‘intact’ nature or ‘wholeness’ of an animal. R utgers and H eegar (1999, p. 45) translated the term as: ‘the wholeness and completeness of the animal and the species-specific balance of the creature, as well as the animal’s capacity to maintain itself independently in an environment suitable to the species’. This classical definition, as de Vries (2006) referred to it, elaborates three important dimensions with integrity not only referring to the animal as an individual but, as Vorstenbosch (1993) originally proposed, the concept can be sub-categorized into ‘subject’ levels. In this regard, respect for animal integrity can refer to respect for the ‘wholeness’ of: (i) the genome; (ii) an individual animal; and (iii) a species or an ecosystem (D e Vries 2006). T he above translations of the term do not convey the complexity of meanings for many philosophers as these definitions can miss the essence of their concerns. ‘R espect for animal integrity’ has become a point of political tension in the current assessment of our responsibilities towards animals, for example, the ethical acceptability of the application of genetic engineering to animals. A s such, a number of interpretations of the concept also encapsulate or are linked with a notion of ‘inherent worth’ or ‘intrinsic value’ where animals have worth beyond any instrumental value or utility, for example, as food or companions (M epham 2000; Hauskeller 2007). T he notion of ‘telos’ is an important concept in the wider discussion of integrity, particularly genetic integrity, and by definition these two terms have similarities in meaning if not in etymology. C lassically, telos is defined as the innate purpose or goal of an individual or being. R ollin (1999) proposed a translation of this A ristotelian concept for animals, with telos specified as the ‘… unique, evolutionarily determined, genetically encoded, environmentally shaped set of needs and interests which characterise the anim…’ Rollin’s concept of telos focuses on the notion of needs and interests and, as such, the telos of a genetically altered animal is only infringed if any modification impacts on the animal’s ability to fulfil these needs or interests (Rollin 1995). This understanding of telos focuses on the ‘plight of the creature’ so that the ethical acceptability of a proposed action is assessed on whether it reduces suffering or it furthers its interests (for example, positive experiences). A s R ollin has described this notion of telos, which can be linked to an understanding of integrity, assessing whether it is respected or infringed is largely interpreted by the way an intervention (for example, genetic modification, tail docking, and so on) impacts on animal well being. For example examining whether a system respects an ‘animal’s capacity to maintain itself independently in an environment suitable to the species’ would likely involve a welfare assessment (R utgers and H eegar 1999). H owever, for many philosophers the concept of integrity represents a deontological dimension of humans’ ethical responsibilities to animals that goes beyond classical animal welfare concerns (Vorstenbosch 1993). T he utilitarian focus on maximizing ‘interests’, as proposed by R ollin, is in many ways contrary to the understanding of ‘respect for integrity’ as articulated

Animal Integrity in Modern Farming

21

by Vostenbosch (1993) and others (H eegar and Brom 2001) and the positions of other proponents of the concept have highlighted the significance of this concept for understanding the ethical acceptability of genetically, or otherwise, modifying animals (Verhoog 1992, 2003). T hese tensions are apparent when we consider how to apply this concept in practice. Lamb’s recent interpretation of integrity, drawing on Hauskeller’s (2007) valuable work, highlights the conflict that arises from any human intervention in animal lives: In the most general sense ‘integrity’ is a concept that can be applied to anything that can be damaged, physically, mentally, morally, or spiritually. A thing can only be said to retain its integrity as long as it is entire, unharmed, or unspoilt, and remains in possession of its powers, or is as it should be. C learly the concept of integrity refers to an ideal condition, with a normative content suggesting that any departure from this state must be for the worse – an indication of deterioration. ‘A thing that has integrity is as good as it can be and cannot be improved’ (Hauskeller 2007, 30). Integrity should not be violated, and any action that causes loss of integrity requires justification.

Therefore, one of the key aspects to consider is whether all interventions (for example, vaccination, restricting self-selection of sexual partners, and so on), including those that may not cause harm per se, always infringe integrity. A pplying the definitions articulated by Vorstenbosch (1993) and Rutgers and Heegar (1999) would also mean that many current practices on farms would infringe animal integrity. Vorstenbosch’s definition implies that respect for integrity is an absolute, such as a right as linked to Regan’s right-based position where animal’s are ‘subjects of a life’ (R egan 1985). F or example, veterinary procedures, such as surgical interventions, which are carried out for the benefit of the animal alone would infringe animal integrity. H owever, not carrying out the procedure could negatively impact on the long-term welfare of the animal. T his form of intervention might be acceptable if respect for integrity is deemed prima facie, that is, it is an incremental concept where infringement is assessed by degree and by justification. This illustrates the potential conflict between respecting welfare and integrity and the pivotal role that an ‘appeal to appropriate justification’ may play in decisionmaking processes on farm. The discourse surrounding the definition of integrity naturally colours the application of the concept in practice. W ithin this chapter, later sections will draw on the approach of R utgers and H eegar, and R ollin as a way of exploring in more depth our understanding of integrity and how this concept can inform our understanding of our ethical responsibilities to farm animals.  ������������������������������������������������������������������ Personal C ommunication – D avid Lamb, Birmingham U niversity, 2008.  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ For extended discussion of integrity, among others see: Hauskeller (2007); de Vries (2006); H eegar and Brom (2001) and M epham (2000).

22

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Animal Integrity and the Law F arm animal welfare and the wider ethical treatment of animals have been prominent areas of political debate for a number of decades and no more so than in Europe. F or example, an annex to the T reaty of A msterdam (1997) recognizes that animals are ‘sentient beings’ and requires the C ommission and M ember S tates to take the sentience of animals into consideration whenever legislation is being drafted (that is, to recognize that animals can suffer and that their welfare should therefore be a prime concern). M ore recently, with the possibility of incorporating transgenic techniques and cloning into animal breeding programmes, there has been a heightened societal discussion of our responsibilities to farm animals. It is claimed that in the last ten years there has been a significant global shift in our social ethic towards animals (R ollin 2003), that is to say in the way society as a whole has formally responded to our changing understanding of our responsibilities to animals, and reflected in terms of legislative changes. It is notable that this shift has not only occurred at an EU level but has also resulted in the introduction of new animal welfare legislation at national level. T he concept of animal integrity can be seen to be applied both implicitly and explicitly within these new legal instruments. Legislation that illustrates the changing status of animals and what appears to be a concerted effort to improve the lives of animals has been recently introduced in the U K. T he A nimal W elfare A ct (AWA ) 2006 requires owners of animals to demonstrate a duty of care, to promote positive welfare and to prevent harm, not just to refrain from causing harm. Another key change in UK animal welfare law is that animal protection officers are able to prosecute owners when they believe a harm is likely to occur, and not only when it has occurred. Although the new legislation does not explicitly refer to respect for animal integrity, clauses within the act that specify acceptable and unacceptable actions in relation to the care of animals appear to go beyond traditional animal welfare assessments. F or example tail docking in dogs is significantly breed restricted in England and Wales, and specifically banned for all breeds in the Scottish application of the AWA. Caring for an animal requires respect for more than just welfare, it may imply a respect (which informs actions in exercising a duty of care) for an animal as ‘an end in themselves rather than a means to an end’.

 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� The Treaty of Amsterdam. Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals. Official Journal C 340, 10 November 1997; The Treaty of Lisbon. Article 6b. Official Journal C 306, 17 D ecember 2007.  ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� MAFF . ‘Banner R eport: R eport of the C ommittee to consider the ethical implications of the emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals’. HMSO (1995) IS BN 0 11 242965 3; European Group on Ethics. O pinion nr. 23: Ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply. 16 January 2008, .

Animal Integrity in Modern Farming

23

A number of countries have also developed legal instruments or have made amendments to their existing legislation in an attempt to explicitly include ‘respect for animal integrity’ within their animal law(s). The first national legislator to incorporate a clause requiring consideration of a notion of animal integrity occurred in S witzerland in 2000. T his amendment to the S wiss C onstitution (S wiss Legislation and D ignity of C reation – W ürde D er Kreatur and the F ederal C onstitution of S witzerland’s, A rticle 120 [2000] Gene T echnology in the N onH uman F ield) was initiated in 1992 by the S wiss Parliament as a result of discussion on dignity of animals. T his legislation states that when humans use animals for their utility, not only should the well being of animal be considered but the underlying dignity should not be infringed unless clear and full justification can be given. The prominent component of Article 120 is the requirement to take into consideration the dignity of living beings, specified as the ‘Wurde der Kreatur’. The article was evoked as a result of Swiss public dialogue regarding genetically modified (GM) animals, but this notion of dignity must be applied to all aspects of the human use of animals, from farm animals to companion animals. In part, the application of the ‘W urde der Kreatur’ has resulted in detailed recommendations on animal care, such as bans on keeping single companion animals and specific mutilations. There has also been significant discussion of ‘animal integrity’ in The N etherlands, with the D utch A nimal H ealth and W elfare A ct, 1992 requesting consideration of animal integrity. More specifically, the National Committee on A nimal Biotechnology requires animal biotechnological applications to be accessed against whether they violate animal integrity, among a number of other criteria (D e Vries 2006). T he application of this concept, as in the S wiss legislation, is not absolute as infringements of animal integrity may be permitted, if clear justification is given. This prima facie application of the concept is often referred to as the D utch ‘no, unless’ policy. S everal national advisory bodies across Europe have also considered this concept in a policy-oriented rather than a regulatory capacity. A dvisory bodies, such as the U K Banner C ommittee, were established to examine the application of emerging biotechnologies with a remit to review the potential ethical issues raised. In their R eport although the Banner C ommittee noted no objections to the use of genetic modification in animals per se, they did identify that some actions may be objectionable as they could be thought to ‘constitute an attack on the animal’s essential nature’. S imilarly, the F arm A nimal W elfare C ouncil noted that a procedure may be considered objectionable for any one of the following reasons: (i) if it inflicts very severe or lasting pain on the animals concerned; or (ii) if it  ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� MAFF ‘Banner R eport: R eport of the C ommittee to C onsider the Ethical Implications of the Emerging T echnologies in the Breeding of F arm A nimals’.  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� UK Farm Animal Welfare Council’s definition of farming and research procedures that may give rise to concern and deserve closer scrutiny. F arm A nimal W elfare C ouncil ‘S econd R eport on Priorities for R esearch and D evelopment in F arm A nimal W elfare’, MAFF , HMSO (1993, London, U K).

24

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

involves an unacceptable violation of the integrity of a living being. In a later report (FAWC 1993) they noted a procedure may be considered objectionable for any one of the following reasons: (i) if it is associated with the mixing of kinds of animals to an extent which is unacceptable; and (ii) if it generates living beings whose sentience has been reduced to the extent they may be considered to be mere instruments or artefacts. A s can be seen from the application of the concept of animal integrity even within the regulatory and advisory contexts discussed above, there is still a considerable level of ambiguity. However one looks at it the key procedural question that arises from examining these regulatory approaches is whether these legal instruments are fit for purpose or whether existing legislation, that responds to specific ‘violations’, are of sufficient scope to ensure that animal integrity is respected. With an ambiguity of definition, does legislation such as the recent animal welfare legislation introduced in the U K, AWA 2006, implicitly protect integrity in a more appropriate or effective way than legislation that explicitly requires consideration of animal integrity, such as the S wiss ‘W ürde D er Kreatur’ legislation? It is clear that further analysis is needed. Animal Integrity and Animal Welfare Codes W hen examining how farming systems do or should respect the integrity of an individual animal it is valuable to examine the current codes of practice that guide actions on farms. O ne of the most widely adopted approaches is the F ive F reedoms. T he Brambell C ommittee is generally credited with developing the F ive F reedoms, but in fact they set down its foundations and the code itself came later as a result of deliberations of the U K F arm A nimal W elfare C ouncil.10 T hey comprise: 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst, by ready access to water and a diet to maintain health and vigour. 2. Freedom from discomfort, by providing an appropriate environment. 3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease, by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment. 4. Freedom to express normal behaviour, by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and appropriate company of the animal’s own kind; and 5. Freedom from fear and distress, by ensuring conditions and treatment, which avoid mental suffering.

 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� MAFF , ‘R eport of the T echnical C ommittee to Enquire into the W elfare of A nimals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems’. Chairman: Professor F.W. Rogers Brambell. C mnd. 2836, D ecember 1965. HMSO (London, 1965). (R eferred to hereafter as the Brambell R eport). 10  <����������������� www.fawc.org.uk>.

Animal Integrity in Modern Farming

25

By providing these freedoms there is an inherent notion of respect for the integrity of farmed animals. H owever, there are many exceptions in practice to their provision and so they are seen by many as being aspirations rather than absolute requirements. T here is probably not a farming system in existence that can be said to meet all these freedoms for all of an animal’s life, although most systems meet some of them for some of the time, for example, extensive systems may provide for the 4th F reedom, more than intensive systems, but the converse is often true for the 3rd and 5th F reedom. Disrespect for Animal Integrity on Farms D espite the aims of various legal instruments and codes of good practice to provide freedoms and resources for animals, as well as to reduce harms, surgical operations, or mutilations as they are sometimes called, are probably one of the commonest ways in which animal integrity is not respected. T hese operations are inherent in many farming systems (see T able 3.1) and, indeed, such systems would not be able to function without animals being surgically altered in some way or another. T he reasons for carrying out these procedures include: (i) to reduce the effects of inter-animal aggression; (ii) to remove tainting of meat as animals may be slaughtered after sexual maturity; and (iii) to facilitate husbandry and transport. Table 3.1 Animal C alves

Piglets

Lambs Poultry (laying hens kept in cages)

Some examples of surgical operations11 Operation C astration R emoval of supernumerary teats R emoval of horn buds

Justification Prevent aggression, mis-mating and taint Prevent growth and ease milking

Prevention of wounding resulting from aggression, ease of transport T ooth clipping Prevent damage to sow’s teats and udder during suckling R emoval of part of the T o minimize damage caused by tail-biting tail (docking) C astration T o reduce aggression and meat taint C astration Prevent aggression, mis-mating and taint Docking To prevent fly strike De-beaking T o reduce the effects of aggression

11 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ MAFF (now DEFRA) have produced a booklet on the legislation controlling these mutilations. S ummary of the Law R elating to F arm A nimal W elfare 1995 PB 2531. MAFF , HMSO (London, 1995).

26

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

S ome operations continue as a matter of tradition without there being any real need, in other cases they could be modified to eliminate the need, for example, only castrate those animals that will live beyond sexual maturity. F urthermore within current systems, animal integrity could instantly be better respected if less pain, discomfort and suffering were caused by providing an anaesthetic for these operations as well as longer term pain relief (violation of 2nd and 3rd F reedoms). Not providing adequate space and resources for animals to fulfil their mental needs and not, therefore, giving them the opportunity to carry out their natural or normal12 behaviours disrespects their mental, as opposed to their physical, integrity. In some circumstances the inability to fulfil some instinctive ‘hard-wired’ mental drives such as migration in captive wild birds, nest building in sows, dustbathing in chickens, can result in animals developing stereotypic behaviours and reflects a mental illness sometimes affecting an animal’s long-term survival (for example, through self-mutilation). H owever, in farming, animals have a limited productive lifespan and their death may be tailored to their ability to survive only for that period and it may also be determined by economic factors and practical applications. T he breeding of farm animals considering only animal productivity, for example, weight gain, feed conversion, milk or egg production, reduces animals to a form of ‘physiological machine’ to be fed and ‘milked’ in some way or another. In many cases, genetic selection for such traits has been done to the exclusion of their mental needs, and sometimes their physical needs, and so raises welfare considerations. S uch focused breeding strategies can lead to increased disease susceptibility (for example, mastitis, lameness and metabolic disorders in dairy cows) or an abnormal conformation that can improve productivity. F or example, in the case of Belgian Blue cattle a defective double muscling gene has been selected as its increases meat production to the exclusion of the welfare of the dams that have to be regularly C aesarean sectioned (W ebster 2002). In other farmed species, such as rabbits, does are bred to the point where they can no longer cope and they either die, or develop such serious diseases they are culled at a very young age, long before the end of their natural lifespan. C onsidering the notion of integrity may also require the assessment of production methods that represent a ‘significant’ instrumentalization of animals, for example: (i) production of featherless chickens, (ii) transgenic animals with increased growth rates, (iii) use of bovine somatotrophin to increase milk yield in older cows coming to the end of their natural lactation, (iv) killing bull calves at birth because they are uneconomic to rear, (v) starving broiler breeders to prevent them gaining weight if fed to appetite so they can be bred.

12 ������������������������������ A distinction is made between natural behaviours – those that are observed in antecedents, and those behaviours which an animal could normally carry out given the confines of a farming environment. It should be noted that not all natural behaviours promote good welfare, for example, predation.

Animal Integrity in Modern Farming

27

According to the definitions of both Rutgers and Heegar, and Rollin, and even when applying a prima facie approach to ‘respect for integrity’, the majority of these routine breeding and farming practices would represent a significant infringement of integrity. T herefore the questions that arise include: ‘H ow can we enhance respect for integrity and more specifically on farms, what ought we to do?’ What Should be Done, If Anything? T he Banner R eport13 set out three principles that the C ommittee proposed ‘ought to be observed’ when considering the ethical implications of the new technologies in the breeding of farm animals, but they can also be applied to old farming technologies. The first is that some things should never be done at all because they can never be justified or because they are so abusive (for example, removing the tongue of calves to prevent them sucking themselves or others). The second is that some things can be done providing there is a strong justification (for example, docking of tails and castration). And, thirdly, if something is permissible then it should be done in the most humane manner (that is, with suitable pain relief). These principles have also been applied in a paper on docking puppies (Morton 1992) and they emphasize that respect for integrity is an important concept that should inform our reflection on ‘duties’ and should not be taken lightly. According to the strict application of a classical definition of integrity the majority, if not all types, of biotechnological intervention would represent an infringement of animal integrity. In terms of welfare, biotechnologies such as the application of cloning or artificial insemination, may be forces for promoting good (for example, respecting needs and interests), as well as poor welfare particularly during the early stages of technical development. T here are considerable harms being incurred from cloning due to a range of abnormal developments resulting in large offspring that result in pain and suffering to both dam and calf.14 N otably, the same ‘side-effects’ do not appear to be true for cloned pigs. If these ‘technical’ problems can be resolved there may be the opportunity to clone only those animals with good health and welfare while maintaining productivity. H owever, the drive to enhance productivity may outweigh harms economically and hence welfare and integrity will not be respected in a commercial setting unless some prima facie rules are put in place. T he same issues also apply to the potential application of transgenic techniques. In addition, when examining the potential use of transgenic 13 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� MAFF ‘Banner R eport: R eport of the C ommittee to consider the ethical implications of the emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals’. 14 �������������������������������������������������������������������������� European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) ‘Scientific Opinion on Food Safety, A nimal H ealth and W elfare and Environmental Impact of A nimals derived from C loning by S omatic C ell N ucleus T ransfer (SCNT ) and their O ffspring and Products O btained from those Animals’. DRAFT Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee; EFSA-Q-2007092. 19 D ecember 2007 (Pisa, 2007).

28

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

animals in farming, some have claimed that it may be possible to produce and farm these animals without impacting on welfare, although genetic integrity will be infringed (due to gene insertion or deletion). This leads us to again highlight the essence of the philosophical conflict that surrounds the interpretation of integrity for farmed animals: D o harms always infringe integrity, or can a loss of respect for integrity be balanced by harms that may do good, for example, vaccination, docking to prevent fly-strike? Is integrity incremental or is it an all or nothing concept, that is, can it be harmed to a degree or is it equivalent to a ‘right’? W ithin a farming context, when attempting to answer this, one might reason that it is disrespecting integrity by not protecting the welfare of animals, or exposing some of them to inevitable disease, being reasonably sure that a greater harm would arise. In addition, how would one determine major and minor infringements of integrity? C ould a major infringement come from a minimum harm? In other words is it the outcome or is it the process that matters, or both? H ow can we judge in practice? S ome of these questions are fundamental to the overarching debate of the ethical standing of animals, however in terms of respect for animal integrity, stakeholders (for example, consumers, farmers, veterinarians, and so on) will respond to these questions differently, as a result of their understanding of the concept as previously discussed. Concluding Remarks Ethically an important human aim is to give animals the resources to have a life lived well, or a life worth living, even a good life.15 It is proposed that the legal minimum should be a life worth living where their integrity is respected and where animals’ physical and mental needs are met. T hey would not be subjected to avoidable harms and only experience minimal suffering. A n aspiration would also be that they should experience a good life where many of their wants are met, they have a state of positive welfare and not just the absence of poor welfare. T o put it another way, their quality of life is so enhanced that any necessary harms are easily outweighed by feelings of positive welfare in both intensity and duration for any one animal. Stock-keepers, such as farmers, play an important role in facilitating the provision of a good animal life. T his implies a form of ‘contract’ (Larrère and Larrère 2000) to respect integrity between humans and animals where stockkeepers respect the animals they use, and treat them fairly in accordance with their needs and wants, that is, to give them a good quality of life. Farm stock produce ‘goods’ for the farmer who in return owes them a duty of care through 15 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� F or example, Peter S andøe and S tine B. C hristiansen. ‘Ethics of A nimal U se’. (Blackwell, London, 2008); FAWC papers by S.R. Clarke (1997), M. Reiss (2006), C. W athes (2007) and a further FAWC R eport will be published in 2009, please refer to <www. fawc.org.uk>.

Animal Integrity in Modern Farming

29

the provision of shelter, feed, treatment and disease control, and so on. H owever, this contract can be broken if animals are seen not to matter, particularly if they are viewed as ‘machines’, to be fed and plundered. This lack of human respect for animal integrity results not only from individual choices, but more commonly is an inherent part of production systems that are structured according to economic drivers, where stock-keepers are required to instrumentalize animals in order to function commercially. T his not only has negative implications for human–animal interactions, but humans are also starting to realize that not respecting animals has a knock-on effect for how humans treat other humans. What may result from greater reflection on this concept of integrity is a growing awareness that many traditional farm methods significantly infringe the majority, if not all, philosophical interruptions of animal integrity. T his in turn implies that if respect for animal integrity plays a significant role in determining what society defines as acceptable human–animal interactions, expressed either implicitly or explicitly through legislation and codes of practice, notable changes in some ‘common’ farming practices are required. References D e Vries, R . (2006) ‘Genetic engineering and the integrity of animals’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 469–493. FAWC (1998) Report on the Implications of Cloning for the Welfare of Farmed Livestock (London: HMSO ). Hauskeller, M. (2007) Biotechnology and the Integrity of Life: Taking Public Fears Seriously (A ldershot: A shgate). H eeger, R . and Brom, F . (2001) ‘Intrinsic value and direct duties: from animal ethics towards environmental ethics’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14, 241–252. Larrère, C . and Larrère, R . (2000) ‘A nimal rearing as a contract?’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12, 51–58. M epham, B. (2000)‘“W ürde D er Kreatur” and the C ommon M orality’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13, 65–78. Morton, D.B. (1992) ‘Docking of dogs: practical and ethical aspects’. Veterinary Record 131, 301–306. R egan, T . (1985) The Case for Animal Rights (London: R outledge). R ollin, B. (1989) The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science (O xford: O xford U niversity Press). R ollin, B. (1995) The Frankenstein Syndrome Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals (C ambridge: C ambridge U niversity Press). R ollin, B. (2003) ‘Ethics and species integrity’. The American Journal of Bioethics 3:3, 15–17. R utgers, B. and H eeger, R . (1999) ‘Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity’, in M arcel D ol, M artje F entener van Vlissingen, S oemini Kasanmoentalib,

30

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Thijs Visser and Hub Zwart (eds), Recognizing the Intrinsic Value of Nature (A ssen: Van Gorcum), 41–53. Verhoog, H . (1992) ‘T he concept of intrinsic value and transgenic animals’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5, 147–160. Verhoog, H. (2003) ‘Naturalness and the genetic modification of animals’. Trends in Biotechnology 21, 294–298. Vorstenbosch, J.M.G. (1993) ‘The concept of integrity its significance for the ethical discussion on biotechnology and animals’. Livestock Production Science 36, 109–112. W ebster, J. (2002) ‘R endering unto C aesar: welfare problems in Belgian Blue cattle. The Veterinary Journal 163, 228–229.

C hapter 4

CA P R eforms: Effects on A griculture and Environment F ranz S inabell and Erwin S chmid

Introduction T he implementation of the C ommon A gricultural Policy (CA P) has been one of the core responsibilities of the European U nion (the European C ommunities before the M aastricht C ontract, respectively). A ccording to the T reaty in 1962, the objectives of the C ommon A gricultural Policy are: 1. to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour; 2. thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture; 3. to stabilise markets; 4. to assure the availability of supplies; 5. to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.

The history of the CAP is a history of ever ongoing reforms (Ackrill 2000) and a continuous struggle to make progress in attaining the policy goals. The policy instruments had remained untouched during the first three decades of the CAP, except the introduction of milk quotas in 1984. In the 1980s, it became evident that the various mechanisms resulted in commodity surpluses, ever growing budgetary burden, and surmounting social costs (Buckwell 1982). A turning point in the operation of the CA P was introduced by C ommissionar M cS harry, who proposed a reform in 1992. W hen the reform was implemented in 1994, the dogma to reach income goals by high producer prices had been overcome. T he reform introduced a set-aside scheme in the crop production sector, which allowed producers to curtail the crop land and to gain control of surpluses in some sectors. T hree accompanying measures including an early retirement scheme, an agri-environment scheme, and a scheme for afforestation were part of the reform. T he objective of the reform was to better address the goals listed above by a set of fine-tuned instruments, which took two more reforms to make the progress needed. T he 1992 CA P reform introduced accompanying measures (CR 2078-

32

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

1992), which were directed towards limiting the adverse effects of the reform of market regimes (price drops and introduction of crops and livestock premiums). Since then, funds allocated for such measures have taken up an ever increasing part of farm payments. Political agreement on the A genda 2000 was reached at the Berlin European C ouncil on 26 M arch 1999. T he reform was launched in the form of 20 legislative texts with agriculture being among the priority fields. Emphasis was put on the continuation of the M cS harry reform with a view to stimulating European competitiveness and taking greater account of environmental and food quality considerations. The reform acknowledged the multifunctional role of the European model of farming. A t the instrumental level, the reform further reduced price supports for beef and cereals. Intervention prices for dairy products were lowered as well, but the implementation was postponed to the 2005/2006 marketing year because of the budgetary costs of the compensation of producers. The Agenda 2000 package brought about a new agenda for agriculture. It introduced the idea of an integrated rural development policy as a second pillar of the CAP. Therefore the policy addressed no longer one specific sector but a territorial entity. T his move was not integrated into the structural policies of the EU but has remained in the domain of agricultural policy. O perationally, this brought together the accompanying measures of the M cS harry reform plus compensatory allowances under the less favoured areas measure, as well as rural development measures previously financed by the FEOGA Guidance Fund, into a single Rural D evelopment R egulation. A fter the A genda 2000 reform, these measures became part of the rural development programme (CR 1257-1999), which established the tools for a ‘European model of agriculture’. This vaguely defined long-term strategy has been aiming at strengthening rural development, improving the well being of the farming community, and trying to achieve efficient and environmentally friendly farming. T he programme is a synonym for the ‘second pillar of the CA P’, the rhetorical alternative to the ‘first pillar of the CAP’ (market regimes for specific farm commodities, for example, intervention, export refunds, production quota). Measures of the ‘first pillar’ are financed solely by the EU funds. Financing of ‘second pillar’ measures is shared between M ember S tates and the EU . The CAP Reform in 2003 T he A genda 2000 agreement covered the period 2000–2006, but mandated a midterm review in 2003. In the summer of 2002, the European C ommission published the mid-term review of the A genda 2000 reform. Based on this document, a detailed proposal for a C ouncil R egulation was submitted in January 2003 in which elements for a follow-up reform were defined in detail. After a thorough discussion of reform issues between the European C ommission and agricultural ministers of the EU Member States, the Greek presidency achieved a compromise on 26 June 2003.

CAP Reforms: Effects on Agriculture and Environment

33

D ecoupling of direct payments from farm output and the reduction of administrative prices were core elements of this reform. T he goals of the reform were less output of cereals, beef and milk, to stabilize farm incomes, and a farm sector that should be more competitive. T he M id-T erm R eview (MTR ) had four main elements: 1. Decoupling – the bundling of all production-linked payments into a single farm payment (SF P). F armers get payments on the basis of their historic entitlements and are linked to land rather than production levels. The eligibility for payments is subject to cross-compliance with a variety of EU environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards. 2. Continuation of the sectoral reform process – changes to the market regimes for important commodities such as durum wheat, rice and rye. 3. M odulation – the transfer of money between CA P objectives – up to 5% of the value of the SFP to larger farmers will be transferred to rural development measures. 4. F inancial discipline mechanism – payments can be further reduced to ensure that overall CAP expenditure on market and income support remains within budgetary limits. W hile this agreement is the core of the M id-T erm R eview, further reforms were agreed in A pril 2004 with respect to a number of M editerranean products (cotton, olive oil, tobacco). The Commission pushed forward reforms of the market orders of several more commodities like sugar, vegetables and wine in the aftermath of the 2003 reform. Model simulations showed that the objectives of the reform could likely be achieved. O ne result of such changes would be a slight acceleration in the rate of structural change (owing to the fact that the demand for farm labour will further decline). In order to facilitate the gradual structural adjustment, the presidency’s compromise offered a wide scope for national modifications. Effects of the CAP reform 2003 on selected economic indicators T he O ECD publishes an international comparison of indicators of support for the agricultural sector in the annual monitoring report (Figure 4.1). The key indicators of this survey are the Producer S upport Estimate (PS E) and the estimate of the Market Price Support (MPS) element within the range of support measures: •

PS E is an indicator of the annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to support agricultural producers, measured at farm gate level. T he PS E measures support arising from policies targeted at agriculture relative to a situation without such policies, that is, when producers are subject only to general policies (including economic, social, environmental, and tax policies) of the country. T he PS E is a gross value

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

34    

7RWDO9DOXHRI3URGXFWLRQDWIDUP



JDWH

 0LR(852

  

3URGXFHU6XSSRUW(VWLPDWH36(

  

0 DUNHW3ULFH6XSSRUW0 36

 

($**)([ SHQGLWXUH

   

Figure 4.1

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Production, PSE, MPS, and the EAGGF expenditure in the EU

Source: O ECD

•

implying that the costs associated with such policies and incurred by individual producers are not deducted. It is also a nominal assistance value, that is, increased costs associated with import duties on inputs are not deducted. F urthermore, it is a value net of producer contributions to help finance the policy measure (for example, producer levies), and it shows a given transfer to producers. M PS is an element of the PS E, indicating the annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures that create a gap between domestic producer prices and international reference prices. C onditional on the production of a specific commodity, MPS includes the transfer to producers for total production (for domestic use and exports), and is measured by the price gap applied to current production. In the case of livestock production, it is net of the market price support for domestically produced coarse grains and oilseeds used as animal feed.

T he comparison of the levels of PS E and M PS over the last two decades shows the effects of the CA P reform in 1992: an ever decreasing part of farm support (measured as PSE) is due to (direct and indirect) measures to lift domestic market prices above world market prices (see MPS versus PSE in Figure 4.1). This process has continued since the Agenda 2000 reform. Market price support was at its lowest level in the most recent years and much lower than during the time when the EU had only 12 M ember S tates. T he shift among support measures has several implications: the weight of direct support measures has been increasing, and the weight of export subsidies has declined. T he reform efforts since 1992 have gained considerable momentum

CAP Reforms: Effects on Agriculture and Environment

Table 4.1

EU 27 EU 25 EU 15 Belgium Bulgaria C zech R epublic Denmark Germany Estonia Ireland Greece S pain F rance Italy C yprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg H ungary M alta N etherlands A ustria Poland Portugal R omania S lovenia Slovakia F inland S weden U nited Kingdom

35

Relative change of support structure in the EU Subsidies on products

Other subsidies

2003 2005 Ø 1999/2001= 100 . . 109 76 109 69 94 44 . . 90 129 112 5 107 0 112 144 371 182 100 83 107 117 110 114 106 57 – – 263 403 117 703 120 0 220 459 3,117 4,114 143 176 121 36 147 1,232 120 120 118 205 226 284 147 191 108 106 117 26 91 9

2003 2005 Ø 1999/2001= 100 118 223 118 223 118 209 367 945 399 498 161 451 105 699 95 368 90 924 47 127 136 205 164 153 161 127 100 149 132 0 1,144 17,066 28 402 115 221 168 698 86 896 139 140 113 155 53 862 127 166 122 250 187 366 86 107 107 114 102 220 148 681

National expenditures for agriculture 2003 2005 Ø 1999/2001= 100 . . . . 97 100 111 75 . . . . 95 54 106 280 . . 109 119 77 34 91 44 102 80 87 44 . . . . . . 95 93 . . . . 85 52 96 79 . . 102 5 . . . . . . 107 137 99 76 83 70

Source: Economic A ccounts of A griculture, EUROSTAT

in 2003. The share of subsidies that are linked to output has been reduced considerably (see column ‘subsidies on products’ in T able 4.1). D ecoupled direct payments were paid first in 2005. The process of decoupling has not been adopted consequently in all EU Member States. In Germany, Luxembourg, Denmark and in the U K decoupling was thoroughly implemented. H owever, in F rance and in S pain there have been even more coupled subsidies in 2005 than in 2003. T he 2003 reform was achieved in a consensual manner because the overall volume of transfers was not touched. T he volume of other subsidies was increasing

36

Table 4.2

EU 27 EU 25 EU 15 Belgium Bulgaria C zech R epublic Denmark Germany Estonia Ireland Greece S pain F rance Italy C yprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg H ungary M alta N etherlands A ustria Poland Portugal R omania S lovenia Slovakia F inland S weden U nited Kingdom

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Development of employment and income in Agriculture and GDP Employment in agriculture 2003 2005 Ø 1999/2001= 100 90 85 93 89 94 90 97 93 105 83 102 91 92 82 89 85 62 60 99 94 106 104 93 92 95 91 92 87 96 92 94 93 93 74 92 92 85 77 93 88 96 90 97 94 91 91 96 85 78 75 90 85 83 69 94 85 97 99 88 87

Real factor income per labour unit 2003 2005 Ø 1999/2001= 100 . . 100 99 99 94 102 101 . . 82 143 84 96 79 110 160 250 90 110 87 82 115 94 95 89 95 85 99 87 120 208 98 195 93 88 84 133 91 91 90 85 102 105 88 149 88 92 111 93 102 163 89 108 111 125 118 107 128 116

Real GDP 2003 2005 Ø 1999/2001= 100 105 110 105 110 105 109 104 109 115 130 109 121 102 107 102 104 125 149 119 132 114 124 110 118 105 109 103 104 108 118 123 147 125 144 111 122 113 124 101 105 103 107 104 108 108 118 103 105 116 131 110 120 113 126 107 114 107 115 108 113

Source: Economic A ccounts of A griculture, EUROSTAT

in 2005 compared to 2003. N ational subsidies to agriculture did not change at EU level, but the levels of support changed within the EU M ember S tates. S tructural change in the agricultural sector is progressing in the EU . In EU -15 the farm sector lost 10 % of its labour force within half of a decade (measured in annual working units, the statistical equivalent of fully employed persons). Not only did employment decline, but also real factor income per annual working unit. T herefore, EU farmers were worse off in 2005 compared with the reference period 1999/2001. T able 4.2 shows that GD P grew in every EU M ember S tate in the same

CAP Reforms: Effects on Agriculture and Environment

37

period. F armers of the countries that entered the EU in 2004 were better off in 2005 than they were in 2003 and before. T he same was true only in some EU -15 M ember S tates. T he assessment of the effects of the 2003 CA P reform on agriculture based on statistical data therefore shows that farmers in EU -15 were not better off after the reform. However, a longer term comparison is necessary for a final judgement. Expected effects of the CAP reform of 2003 on the environment: Results from case studies Production linked subsidies, the predominant transfer vehicle in agriculture, are classified by the OECD as environmentally harmful (Portugal 2002; Steenblik 2002). S ome observers maintain the position that on a global scale agriculture is the primary threat for the environment (C lay 2004). H ence, attempts to quantify the impact of subsidies granted to this sector and the magnitude of their consequences for the environment is of substantial interest. T he recent CA P provides an interesting example of an analysis of the consequences of farm subsidies on the natural environment because European agriculture is substantially subsidised and reliable agri-environmental indicators are available (O ECD 2001, 2002). An analysis of the Agenda 2000 reform concluded that it had significant economic costs but almost no effects on the environment – neither positive nor negative (W ier et al. 2002). This case study was done for Denmark. For the case of A ustria, S chmid and S inabell (2007) analyzed whether this conclusion holds for the 2003 CA P reform as well. A coherent way to evaluate the environmental improvements after policy reforms is to monitor indicators. O ECD has developed a set of internationally accepted environmental indicators. In the field of agriculture, the work on indicators has been fruitful and recent publications allow sound country comparisons (O ECD 2001). C onsequently, the current CA P reform gives an opportunity to analyze how environmental indicators might change due to the abolishment of subsidies that were previously linked to farm output. OECD (2001) classified agri-environmental indicators according to the following categories: •

• •

agriculture in the broader economic, social and environmental view with contextual information (like agricultural value added, farm employment) and information on farm financial resources (farm income, agri-environmental expenditures); farm management indicators of whole farms (organic farming, farm management plans), nutrient, pest, soil, land, irrigation and water management; use of farm inputs and natural resources concerning nutrient use (nitrogen balance and efficiency), pesticide use and risk, and water use (water use intensity, water efficiency, water stress);

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

38

•

environmental impacts of agriculture with respect to soil and water quality, land conservation, greenhouse gases, biodiversity, wildlife habitats, landscape and ecosystem diversity.

Schmid and Sinabell (2007) made a comparison of likely environmental consequences between a CAP policy with subsidies partly linked to production (A genda 2000) versus decoupled subsidies (2003 CA P reform). T he base-line scenario is a continuation of the A genda 2000 reform in A ustria until 2008. It is compared with two other scenarios: a. ‘A ustrian decoupling’: T his scenario is modelling the actual implementation of the reform – the introduction of the single farm payment – in A ustria, given that the ‘good agricultural and environmental condition’ of land is maintained. Within limits, the payments coupled to heads of livestock (suckler cows and heifers), and to the output of beef (40% of the slaughter premium) will not be abolished. b. ‘C omplete decoupling’: T his scenario is similar to a) but goes beyond the reform. T he single farm payment will be granted even if farmland is afforested. In this scenario it is possible to identify the implications of the conditionality of the single farm payment, which requires that land must be maintained in good agricultural condition. A ccording to these results, ‘cross compliance’ conditions (among them maximum numbers of livestock per hectare, and good agricultural practices) have no environmental consequence in this case study. T his is due to two factors: i) the requirements of the agri-environmental programme are stricter and ii) almost all land is managed according to the rules of this programme. T he requirement to maintain land not only in good environmental, but also in good agricultural condition, prevents farmland afforestation. If this condition was relaxed, the acreage of farmland, in particular arable land would shrink significantly (column ‘complete decoupling’ in T able 4.3). T he remaining farmland would be managed relatively more intensively (for example, on average more livestockunits per hectare). Environmental indicators measuring soil fertility (organic carbon), air pollution (methane emission), and water quality (surplus of nitrates and livestock density) are showing diminishing pressures on the environment. T his is mainly due to changing land uses (expansion of grassland while arable land is reduced) and a smaller cattle herd. T he acreage of arable land that is organically farmed decreases slightly, but to a lesser extent than conventionally managed arable land. T his can be explained by the assumption that support for organic farming in 2008 will be the same as before the reform. T his implies that the share of premiums for organic farming in crop revenues will get larger. S oil cover in wintertime is declining at the same pace as arable land but the relative share remains the same.

CAP Reforms: Effects on Agriculture and Environment

Table 4.3

39

Expected environmental effects of the 2003 CAP reform in Austria

economic, factor use and output indicators gross value added plus other subsidies variable cost livestock products variable cost crops arable land meadows and pastures output of beef output of pork farm management and environmental indicators organic farming on arable land organic farming subsidies soil cover during winter livestock units (total) average livestock units per hectare methane emission carbon storage in soil nitrate from manure nitrate from mineral fertilizers nitrogen surplus (O ECD method) Source: S chmid and S inabell, 2007

Austrian implementation

Complete decoupling

+0.7 +2.5 –0.8 –1.7 +3.1 –3.3 ±0.0

+1.4 –3.4 –5.6 –7.0 –2.6 –6.8 –2.1

–1.0 +1.0 –1.6 –0.3 –1.0 –0.5 +0.1 –0.1 –0.9 ±0.0

–2.7 –2.6 –7.3 –3.1 +1.9 –3.5 +1.1 –3.1 –7.2 –2.8

The environmental benefits of the 2003 CAP reform are primarily the consequence of changing land-uses (more grassland means more soil organic matter compared to arable land) and a smaller herd of bulls (less methane emission, fewer livestock units and less nitrogen surplus). According to the model results, declining outputs of crops and beef will not be compensated by a corresponding rise of pig or poultry production; therefore, the benefits of lower production levels will not be offset. T he fact that the conditions of the single farm payment do not allow afforestation is interpreted to be positive because summer tourists in A ustria have a preference for open agricultural landscapes (Hackl and Pruckner 1997). A fter the 2003 CA P reform, the opportunity costs of adopting farm practices, which are widely assumed to be environmentally friendly, are lower. T his view is supported by the findings of the model simulations. Given that arable land would shrink between 1.5 and 7%, whereas organically managed arable land would only decline between 1 and 2.7%, indicates that organic farming will become more attractive for farmers.

40

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Conclusions T he CA P reform 2003 was a consequent further step of the reform initiated by Commissionar McSharry in 1992. The market distorting effects of direct payments has been reduced by decoupling some of them. N ot all M ember S tates have implemented the reform as intended by C ommissionar F ischler in 2003. Therefore, the commission has taken the initiative in the current CAP reform evaluation (health check of the CAP reform 2003) debate to push forward reforms on the way for further decoupling. The results of the OECD show that market distorting interventions of the EU have been reduced. In the EU-27, the level of market price support in nominal terms is lower than it was 15 years ago. N egative spillovers to other commodity markets and to international markets of agricultural products have been reduced. Further steps in countries like France, Netherlands and Spain will be needed in order for the process of decoupling support from production to progress. It is too early to draw final conclusions on the effects of the 2003 CAP reform for the agricultural sector and the environment. M odel results from A ustria suggest that decoupling has positive effects on the environment because farming will become more extensive. H igh commodity prices as those observed in 2007 will counterbalance this effect but one of the claims of the 2003 reform – farming will become more sustainable – seems to be justified. Another claim – that farmers will be better off – has not yet materialized for all EU M ember S tates. References Buckwell, A. (1982) The Costs of the Common Agricultural Policy (London: C room H elm). Ackrill, R. (2000) The Common Agricultural Policy. Contemporary European Studies 9 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). C lay, J. (2004) World Agriculture and the Environment. A Commodity-byCommodity Guide to Impacts and Practices (W ashington DC : Island Press). Hackl, F. and G.J. Pruckner (1997) ‘Towards more efficient compensation programs for tourists’ benefits from agriculture in Europe’, Environmental & Resource Economics 10, 189–205. O ECD (2001) Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Volume 3 Methods and Results (Paris: O ECD ). O ECD (2002) Environmentally Harmful Subsidies. Policy Issues and Challenges (Paris: O ECD ). Portugal, L. (2002) Methodology for the Measurement of Support and Use in Policy Evaluation. O ECD D irectorate for F ood, A griculture and F isheries, Paris, available at: .

CAP Reforms: Effects on Agriculture and Environment

41

S chmid, E. and F . S inabell (2007) ‘O n the choice of farm management practices after the C ommon A gricultural Policy R eform 2003’, Journal of Environmental Management 82:3, 332–340. Steenblik, R. (2002) ‘Subsidy measurement and classification: developing a common framework’. Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Policy Issues and Challenges (Paris: O rganization for Economic C o-operation and D evelopment), 101–141. W ier, M .J., M . A ndersen, J.D . Jensen, and T h.C . Jensen (2002) ������������������������ ‘���������������� T he EU ’s A genda 2000 reform for the agricultural sector: environmental and economic effects in Denmark’, Ecological Economics 41:2, 345–359.

This page has been left blank intentionally

C hapter 5

T he Ethics of A nimal C loning Christian Gamborg, Mickey Gjerris and Peter Sandøe

Introduction T he cloning of D olly the sheep, more than ten years ago, was widely seen as a major achievement of the scientific community (Wilmut et al. 1997), and many potential beneficiaries of cloning, within both human biomedicine and food production, quickly came to entertain great hopes so far as applications of the technology were concerned. A t the same time, however, concerns were raised about ethical implications. Until Dolly, conventional scientific wisdom had been that the cloning of cells taken from the somatic tissue of adult individuals was impossible. The advent of S omatic C ell N uclear T ransfer (SCNT ) changed that. But with the removal of a major technical obstacle to this development in animal biotechnology, society was now faced with a question about ethical limits: what is it acceptable to do (Lassen et al. 2006)? As the technology has been refined, more species have been cloned, and applications have begun to emerge, albeit at a much slower pace than originally expected (Vajta & Gjerris 2006). F arm animal cloning has run into several technical/ biological problems that were not anticipated in the early days of development, such as low efficiency, a high incidence of malformations and reduced viability of the animals (Vajta & Gjerris 2006). U ntil very recently it has also been a matter of some debate whether food products derived from cloned animals are safe for humans to consume. In January 2008 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally released its risk assessment of the health of animal clones, their progeny and the food products derived from them (CVM 2008). The report, which took more than eight years to complete (Vermij 2007), states that there are no substantial differences between products derived from cloned pigs, swine and cattle or their progeny and  T he term ‘cloning’ here refers to asexual reproduction – or, more precisely, to the production of individuals with virtually identical genetic material by asexual reproduction. In recent debates, interest has centred on cloning by SCNT .  T he term ‘farm animal’ refers to farm animal species such as ruminants (for example, cows, sheep), pigs and poultry (chicken, turkey). However, here, the term does not imply that an animal is kept or used in an agricultural setting or for agricultural purposes. Thus potential applications of ‘farm animal cloning’ include those in medicine.

44

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

products derived from conventionally bred animals of the same species; and that there are no health risks related to human consumption of these products that are not also present in the conventional products. T he report also states that there are no problems concerning the health of the cloned animals that cannot also be found within other artificial reproductive technologies; the problems are just more abundant in cloned animals. M oreover, according to the report, in the future, cloning technology will probably increase success rates and thereby put less strain on animal health. A draft evaluation issued by the European F ood S afety A uthority (EFSA ) reaches conclusions very similar to those of the FDA , ���������������������� though the EFSA place greater emphasis on the adverse effects of the technology on animal welfare (EFSA 2007). H owever, as the volume of responses to the draft version of the FDA report shows, not everyone is satisfied with the conclusions of the FDA. It is important to note that the FDA report covers only ‘science-based concerns’ about human and animal health. W ider issues – for example, relating to animal welfare and integrity, ‘slippery slope concerns’ and general concerns about the increasing use of biotechnology in agriculture – are left unexamined. W e will return to this later. T his chapter examines a range of wider concerns about farm animal cloning. W ays of addressing these concerns through regulation and law, particularly in the European setting, will be discussed. Various possible developments of applications and ensuing regulatory options (involving, principally, existing regulation, new EU regulation and national regulation) are explored, and we also discuss the underlying ethical or value issues. We find (a) that there is a difference in the publicly perceived ethical acceptability of cloning for biomedical purposes and cloning for food production; and we argue (b) that the existing regulatory frameworks for these two kinds of application seem to differ in ways that are relevant to ethical discussion. For What Purpose is an Animal to be Cloned? What kinds of application is farm animal cloning most likely to involve? Discussions between scientists, legal scholars and ethicists at a series of expert workshops  T he EFSA recognizes that the issue of animal cloning raises ethical, moral and other societal issues beyond its remit (EFSA 2008) – issues that have been addressed by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE 2008). The EFSA’s final opinion is likely to be published in May 2008.  M ore than 30 000 responses were received by the FDA .  F or a critique of the separation of ‘science-based concerns’ and ‘ethical concerns’, see Gjerris et al., forthcoming.

The Ethics of Animal Cloning

45

– held as part of a recently completed EU project – demonstrated an absence of consensus, among participants, on this question. T here was disagreement about what applications will in the near future be technically feasible, what kinds of application will be economically worthwhile, and which, if any, of these is ethically acceptable. T hus predictions about how animal cloning will be used in a foreseeable future are highly uncertain. O ne major uncertainty is about whether the technology will, on any considerable scale, be of use in the production of meat and other animal products – or whether it will mainly be of use for basic research and for biomedical purposes (Gamborg et al. 2007). Basic research may be designed to improve our understanding of embryonic development, or to deepen our knowledge of epigenetic processes, or to provide a basis on which disease models can be developed. In biomedicine, reproductive cloning can be used as a tool enabling efficient production of transgenic animals that will mostly serve as disease models enhancing our understanding of human disease. In combination with transgenesis the technology can also be used to produce farm animals that produce pharmaceuticals – so-called ‘pharming’. A nd in agriculture, reproductive cloning could be used to propagate a desirable genotype that generates individual animals of greater than average genetic merit. Public Perceptions of Animal Cloning Applications in Europe Although our knowledge of European perceptions of farm animal cloning is somewhat limited, owing to a lack of qualitative and quantitative studies focusing on this specific issue, we can draw some conclusions from the Euro barometer studies conducted since 1991 on European public attitudes to animal biotechnology. A s Lassen (2005) notes, cloning always exists in a context. O nly at the basic research level, perhaps, can it be considered a stand-alone technique. O therwise, in each case, it must be viewed as part and parcel of its application. C loning is, in other words, to a large extent an enabling technology that is mainly used in connection with other technologies, especially those involved in genetic   In 2006 the project ‘Cloning in Public (CiP), a specific support action within the sixth framework programme, Priority 5, Food quality and safety’ (Contract no. 514059) was concluded. T he overall aims of C iP were to develop recommendations on possible European regulation of research on farm animal cloning and its subsequent applications (for example, in genetically modified animals for bio-reactors); and to stimulate informed public debate across Europe. T hese aims were accorded the same importance. C learly, they are also interrelated, because if regulations and guidelines are to serve their purpose they must take public concerns into account.  O ne of the EGE recommendations (EGE 2008, 5) is that ‘T he C ommission should launch a thematic Eurobarometer survey and qualitative studies on animal cloning for food supply, in order to collect indicators on public perception concerning the introduction of such products to the food market as is being done in other countries’.

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

46

modification. Moreover, when it comes to public perceptions, cloning is often regarded from within the context of other kinds of (animal) biotechnology. A t any rate, in our view it is possible to see a difference here between medical and agricultural applications, with the former being more positively received. Of course, public perception is difficult to gauge since it normally depends to a large extent on the existence of alternatives and on perceived usefulness. Lassen (2005, 17) interprets the public attitudes in the light of two scales: the type of organism involved (with higher mammals typically prompting more anxiety than, say, micro-organisms) and the type of application (with food-related applications provoking more anxiety than medical ones). On the first of these scales, cloning sits towards the controversial end, since its object is animals. O n the second scale the position depends on the purpose and application of the cloning being considered. Taking both scales into consideration, one would expect to find farm animal cloning in food production to be controversial in all respects.

O n this analysis of public attitudes, then, there will be a difference in the perceived ethical acceptability of cloning for biomedical purposes and cloning for food production. Before we go on to discuss the regulatory challenges presented by this distinction, we will pause to provide a brief, and more systematic, overview of the ethical concerns at play here. Ethical Concerns An often-used classification of concerns relating to animal biotechnology is the following: 1) concerns relating to animals, either animal welfare or animal integrity; 2) concerns relating to humans, mainly about risks to human health and the environment on which we depend; and 3) concerns about societal impact – for example, with regard to the role of animal biotechnology in the continued intensification of agriculture. The focus here will be on the first two groups of concern. T hese seem to have been most relevant, and therefore prominent, in discussions about animal cloning. Concerns relating to animals Concerns relating directly to animals reflect two perspectives on animal welfare, one narrow and the other broader. W ithin the narrow perspective a pair of positions can be identified: one focuses on negative psychological experiences that the technology might cause, and the other concentrates on the physical health of the animal. C loning often causes cloned animals pain, suffering and physical problems (EFSA 2007).

The Ethics of Animal Cloning

47

W ithin the broader perspective the focus turns, among other things, to the ability of the animal to live a natural life in which it fulfils its species-specific potentials. S uch potentials include having progeny that is a result of evolution and, in the case of the individual animal, being conceived by sexual reproduction. Going beyond animal welfare, a key concern is animal integrity. This concern views integrity as a concept that limits human use of animals through regard for the independence of animals from humans. Gjerris (2006) argues that all of these concerns rely on deep ethical convictions about what entities should be included in the ethical community and thus treated with respect. Concerns relating to humans The key concerns relating to humans relate primarily to potential impacts on human health and the spectre of the slippery slope – that is, the anticipated fear that animal cloning may pave the way for reproductive human cloning. Risk assessment research on negative consequences of cloning for human health has so far been unable to find any significant differences between products from cloned animals and their offspring and products from non-cloned animals (C VM 2008). Although risk assessment provides an important input to ethical evaluation, disagreements will undoubtedly arise as the result of more basic disagreement over when, or rather, at what point in fact gathering, we have sufficient knowledge to judge a certain product safe for human consumption. T he more basic disagreement here is to some extent grounded in different ethical perspectives, so it might be argued that our current knowledge of the potential environmental and socioeconomic impact of farm animal cloning is very hard to evaluate. T his is because there is considerable uncertainty over the future of the technology. A lthough it is estimated that socio-economic impact will be minor, the conflicts described above will probably surface in this area as well. European Regulation It must be granted that some of the concerns mentioned above are very real, in the sense that they actually are present in the minds of many people in Europe; and this sociological fact gives rise to certain challenges when we ask how cloning technology should be regulated in the European context. To date, no specific binding legal instrument explicitly concerning animal cloning has been passed in the EU. Hence, unlike the genetic modification of animals, cloning is not directly regulated at EU level. However, EU law defines a rather complex indirect regulatory framework. A ssociated with the T reaty Establishing the European C ommunity, there is food safety and consumer protection legislation, animal welfare and zoo technical legislation, and legislation relevant to GMO s and intellectual property rights.

48

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

A ll of this legislation affects the lawfulness of cloning – no less so, the potential arrival, on the market, of products from cloned animals or their progeny. Twenty-four of the 25 EU Member States have at present no specific legislation on the cloning of farm animals. And like their European counterparts, researchleading countries such as the US , C anada, A ustralia, C hina and Japan, also have no specific legislation on animal cloning. So far no country has officially allowed meat from cloned animals to enter the food chain. However, this seems likely to change. In January 2008, as mentioned above, the FDA released its 968-page risk assessment of products derived from cloned animals and their progeny (C VM 2008, 15–16). T his states: Extensive evaluation of the available data has not identified any subtle hazards that might indicate food consumption risks in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. T hus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals. T he uncertainties associated with this judgment are a function of the empirical observations and underlying biological processes contributing to the production of clones. T here is less uncertainty about the health of clones as they age and have more time to exhibit the full range of functionality expected of breeding stock. Edible products derived from the progeny of clones pose no additional food consumption risk(s) relative to corresponding products from other animals based on underlying biological assumptions, evidence from model systems, and consistent empirical observations.

T he practical outcome of this assessment is that in future the FDA will erect no obstacles to the use of cloning in food production (most probably, as part of the breeding of farm animals in the US ). W ith these developments in farm animal cloning in the US in mind, and the pending similar conclusions being reached by European public bodies such as EFSA (2007), it is prudent to consider whether farm animal cloning can be adequately regulated by the current EU legislation – and if not, how farm animal cloning might otherwise be regulated. Here key questions include the following. A t what level, and how, should the technology be regulated? On what kinds of concern should regulation be based? Future regulation of Animal Cloning in Europe If cloned animals or their progeny enter the food chain in US, they are also likely to do so in Europe – unless this is prevented by effective regulation. H owever, it is unclear as yet whether cloning for farm animal production will gain momentum. T here are three possible scenarios: 1. A nimal cloning is used in basic research and biomedicine applications only both in, and outside, the EU .

The Ethics of Animal Cloning

49

2. A nimal cloning is used in basic research and biomedicine in, and outside, the EU , but has agricultural applications only outside the EU . 3. A nimal cloning is used in basic research, biomedicine and agricultural applications both in, and outside, the EU . At present, the third scenario looks less likely than the first two (Gamborg et al. 2006), but all three options are worth considering. About the first option it can be said that as long as farm animal cloning, within the EU and globally, is primarily used for basic research purposes (for example, to enhance our understanding of the rudimentary biological processes involved in reproduction and cell formation or to develop disease models) and/or for biomedical purposes (where farm animals species are used as disease models or bioreactors), existing legislation will cater for a wide array of ethical concerns. T hus concerns about risks to humans and the environment, and about the deleterious impacts of research on animal welfare, will at least be addressed within the framework of legislation regulating biomedical research. O ther ethical concerns, however, such as those relating to the integrity or naturalness of the animals, are in general not addressed by existing legislation. If, to consider the second option, farm animal cloning is used for basic research and biomedicine applications in and outside the EU , and for agricultural applications only beyond the EU , the most urgent regulatory question will be whether the EU as a whole, or individual EU countries severally, will be able to restrict imports of cloned animals or their progeny (or products derived from them) and/or to require satisfactory kinds of labelling. O ffspring from cloned animals have already been imported from the US into Europe and their products are likely to enter the market. A recent example of this is the British born calf, D undee Paradise, that was created with material from a normal bull and the clone of a prize-winning dairy cow in the US and then imported as an embryo and implanted into a cow on a farm in the UK. A conflict not unlike the one about genetically modified crops in Europe in the 1990s may well arise again. T he third option, where farm animal cloning is used for general agricultural purposes both outside and within the EU, does not seem very likely in a foreseeable future; but if it were to occur existing regulation would exert little control on any connected animal cloning as such. Introducing legislation at EU level is another option. In practice, however, as the workshops in the project Cloning in Public testified, consensus on new EU legal and quasi-legal mechanisms governing animal cloning could be difficult to achieve. A last option would be to introduce national legislation, as has already happened in Denmark and Norway (the latter a non-EU Member State). In the eventuality that policy makers and legislators decide to rely on the present, indirect EU mechanisms together with some new, direct EU regulation, the risk aspect would feature prominently. Possible risks to human health and the environment are obviously central concerns, and these would have to be addressed

50

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

vis-à-vis animal cloning for agricultural purposes. In addition, uncertainty about the social acceptability of products from cloned animals ought to be considered. R eservations about such products may be connected with the basic values underpinning the European C ommunity (for example, sustainability, biodiversity and the precautionary principle) and, more specifically, to a number of other important concerns, such as animal welfare, animal integrity, and consumer rights. F rom a consumer rights perspective, the worry might be that a legal gap will open up if foodstuff from cloned animals is covered neither by the regulation of novel foods nor by the regulation of genetically modified food; hence it might be suggested that cloning requires us to introduce more specific labelling requirements. General food law (R egulation (EC ) N o 178/2002) explicitly mentions the consumer’s right to make informed choices, but it is questionable whether this provides the consumer with a right to receive specific information about food products derived from cloned animals or their progeny. In the area of risk assessment more comprehensive results are still pending (EFSA 2007). It is difficult to identify genuine gaps in the present legal framework until further information is available from risk assessments, and until subsequent discussions by the relevant experts to the Commission have taken place. If it is discovered that non-transgenic cloned animals and their products are substantially equivalent to animals already in commercial production, such animals and their products may readily fall under much of the existing food safety-related legislation (Gunning et al. 2006). T his legislation contains no special provisions relating to products from cloned animals: as long as the end product, the meat, is indistinguishable from meat from non-cloned animals the same legal provisions will apply. H owever, from a more process-oriented point of view the products could still be seen as ‘new’ in some sense. Limits to Regulation In principle, EU legislation leaves room for the application of EU rules within the framework of national ethical principles. It remains uncertain whether, in practice, this encourages opportunistic calls upon moral principles masking de facto interventions in trade (Gunning et al. 2006). N ational restrictions have to comply with the specific provisions in the Treaty of the European Community, and especially those covering quantitative restrictions between M ember S tates (A rticles 28–31), because the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital is an essential element of the internal market. F ollowing public consultation, individual countries may decide that animal cloning is a moral issue and prohibit such activity, or at any rate restrict it to certain applications. This has been done in Denmark. Similar action has been taken by N orway, a member of the European Economic A rea (EEA ). D anish law restricts animal cloning to research purposes. It is silent on imports of cloned animals or

The Ethics of Animal Cloning

51

products from cloned animals. H owever, a newly proposed legal amendment, if approved by the EU , should place a ban on such imports – unless the purpose is to do research. Consensus across the EU on aspects other than risks to human health and the environment does not seem likely. The powerful pharmaceutical sector is likely to support the recruitment of cloning in the production of therapeutic substances, and countries with an important livestock industry will presumably see advantages in the latest technological advances in livestock improvement. An example of use in the pharmaceutical sector is the pharmaceutical company Pharma. T his company uses nuclear transfer cloning techniques to create genetically modified goats that produce therapeutic proteins in their milk (ATryn®, or recombinant human antithrombin). In 2007 the product based on these proteins was, as the first of its kind in the world, approved by the European Commission. Conclusions A nimal cloning in farm animal production is viewed by large sectors of the European public as highly problematic. In its opinion on farm animal cloning for food, the European Group on Ethics in S cience and N ew T echnology ‘does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring’ (EGE 2008, 1). H owever, at EU level, and in all European countries apart from one, there is no direct legal regulation of the cloning of animals for agricultural purposes. T his is the basis of the following general conclusion of the C loning in Public project (Gamborg et al. 2006, 7): … the EU will be left with difficult processes of decision-making if the cloning of farm animals is put to use in agricultural production in countries outside (likely) or within (only likely at a low level) the EU. Whether it is decided to rely on existing regulation or to introduce new and specific legislation, concerns for free trade and concerns for social acceptability in a European context will have to be negotiated.

Animal cloning raises a multitude of concerns, some of them specifically connected with the context that cloning is to be used in. If the European regulation of cloning is to reflect these public concerns, it will be necessary to differentiate regulation according to each application. Especially when it comes to agriculture and food production, this could potentially generate a problem, since the product-based legislation favoured by the US will not meet the worries about the cloning process found among the European public. How to take these concerns seriously, while staying within the various trade agreements that bind the EU, is bound to be a key challenge in the coming years.

52

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

References C VM (C enter for Veterinary M edicine) (2008) Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment (Rockville, Center for Veterinary Medicine, US Food and Drug Administration, D epartment of H ealth and H uman S ervices). A vailable online at <����������� ������������ http://www. fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment_Final.htm>. European F ood S afety A uthority (2008) EFSA statement on the publication of the opinion of the European Group on Ethics and New Technologies on ethical aspects of animal cloning for the food supply. 17 January (2008). European F ood S afety A uthority (EFSA ), DRAFT Scientific Opinion on Food Safety, Animal Health and Welfare and Environmental Impact of Animals derived from Cloning by Somatic Cell Nucleus Transfer (SCNT) and their Offspring and Products Obtained from those Animals (EFSA 2007). Gamborg, C ., Gjerris, M ., Gunning, J., H artlev, M . and S andøe, P. (2007) ‘�������� C loning for meat or medicine?’, i��������������������������������������������������� n Zollitisch, W., Winckler, C., Waiblinger, S. and H aslberger, A . (eds) Sustainable Food production and Ethics (W ageningen: W ageningen A cademic Publishers), 466–471. Gamborg, C ., Gjerris, M ., Gunning, J., H artlev, M ., M eyer, G., S andøe, P. and T veit, G. (2006) ‘R egulating F arm A nimal C loning. R ecommendations from the Project C loning in Public’. Project R eport N o. 15. (C openhagen: D anish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment), 18 pp. Available online on . Gjerris M ., O lsson I.A .S ., Lassen J. and S andøe P. (F orthcoming) ‘Ethical perspectives on animal biotechnology’, in Atkinson, P., Glasner, P. and Lock, M . (eds) Handbook of Genetics and Society: Mapping the New Genomic Era. Genetics and Society Book Series (Abingdon: Routledge). Gjerris, M . and S andøe, P. (2007) ‘Ethical concerns related to cloning of animals for agricultural purposes’, in Zollitisch, W., Winckler, C., Waiblinger, S. and H aslberger, A . (eds) Sustainable Food Production and Ethics (W ageningen: W ageningen A cademic Publishers), 455–460. Gunning, J., H artlev, M . and Gamborg, C . (2006) ‘C hallenges in R egulating F arm A nimal C loning: A n A ssessment of R egulatory A pproaches and the Legal Framework within the EU’. Cloning in Public Project Report No. 6. (Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment) 52 pp. Available online on . Lassen, J. (2005) ‘Public Perceptions of F arm A nimal C loning in Europe’. Project Report No. 9. (Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment). Available online on . Lassen, J., Gjerris, M . and S andøe, P. (2006) ‘A fter D olly – Ethical Limits to the U se of Biotechnology on F arm A nimals’, Theriogenology 65, 992–1004. M eyer, G. (2005) ‘W hy C lone F arm A nimals? Goals, M otives, A ssumptions, Values and Concerns among European Scientists Working with Cloning of Farm Animals’. Project Report No. 8. Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk

The Ethics of Animal Cloning

53

A ssessment, C openhagen. 27 pp. A vailable online on . T he European Group on Ethics in S cience and N ew T echnologies to the European C ommission (2008) Ethical Aspects of Animal Cloning for Food Supply. Opinion No. 23. Vermij, P. (2007) ‘FDA ’s cloning report bypasses ethics, exposes European dilemma’, Nature Biotechnology 25, 7–8.

This page has been left blank intentionally

C hapter 6

European F ood R egulation and Accountability: The Interplay of Influences S haping the N ew R egulatory T errain Samarthia Thankappan

This chapter highlights key emergent themes of the complex model of food regulation in the UK that is evolving as a result of the private, institutional and consumer pressures on food regulation. The growing significance of incorporating consumer and public concerns and constructions in policy making, along with fostering a pivotal and globally competitive European food market is discussed. T he riding of these two ‘horses’ – one associated with the deepening spatial mobility of food, the other with continuously giving this mobility some degree of public legitimacy – defines the agenda for the new complex model of food regulation. A model, within a new publicly-defined set of parameters which has re-cast, private interest regulation, that is supposedly in the (European) public interest. In this chapter, the case of the fresh fruit and vegetable sector is used to explore the complex relationships between S tate, corporate and private interests, consumers and social interest groups that is developing in response to the need for accountability within the U K agri-food chain. T he chapter concentrates on the extent to which the food retailing industry is actively managing its supply chain by the introduction of private standards to ensure food quality and safety all along the chain. T he concluding section of the chapter highlights that in the FF V sector, more retailers have developed their own ‘codes of practice’ including good agricultural practice (GAP) and specifications related to intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. These private specifications are based on national and EU food safety and quality regulations and in most cases exceed these regulations. H owever, exercising extensive private standards is a way to prove they have exercised ‘due diligence’ based predominantly on third party certification, rather than a way to address sustainability issues and concerns of workers in the horticultural export industry. Introduction F ood regulation is now deep rooted and integrated into the European political project. T hough agricultural corporatism has declined in its political and economic power in European policy-making, it has laid a foundation for a more comprehensive

56

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

and commercially-led regulatory system – ‘a hybrid model’, that is more sensitive to the consumer and private sector concerns. It is increasingly universal, scientific and normative; global as well as local in reach as well as inter-sectoral. A nd, as observed in our earlier findings (see for example Marsden et al. 2000; S mith et al. 2004; Thankappan et al. 2004) it is being sustained by, the interaction of a larger diversity of actors and policy networks. This makes the development of public policy all the more complex. T he food and retailing industry is also increasingly paying more attention to food quality and safety issues by actively managing its supply chains of food products. A plethora of private safety control systems, standards, and certification programmes are responding to more demanding consumer requirements. M any leading retailers in Europe have developed programmes for integrated production; thus paving a way for both supply and demand, and playing a pivotal role in bringing about a change in the way crops are cultivated in a safe and sustainable manner. Our earlier research indicated that retailers are also becoming more influential, in food policy-making in the UK and EU, in the name of the consumer and public interest, partly as a result of their knowledge of and authority over the constructions of the consumer interest. D espite the increasing power of both manufacturers and retailers, it will be these constructions of consumers and those bodies most closely allied to them who drive the food supply chain in the future. The ‘new consumer’ is increasingly influencing the food system by selection or rejection of food considered healthy or hazardous; and large-scale retailers’ organizations acting as intermediaries between the production and consumption are both very sensitive to these pressures and attempt to shape consumers’ preferences. The importance of some key consumer trends can be evidenced in several important developments. First, the different links in the supply chain are increasingly attempting to communicate more directly with the end customer as they vie for consumers’ business. S econd, all the players want to have a greater impact on the shoppers’ buying behaviour. Retailers are trying to influence the consumer mindset by presenting themselves as a better brand. Indeed, brand competition is a key battleground between retailers themselves, and between them and the large food manufacturers. M arsden et al. (2000) noticed a pendulum movement during the 1990s in which the deregulation in food markets and the disappearance of representative (production-based) corporate organizations were gradually replaced by large-scale retailer’s organizations. A ccording to the authors, ‘retailers, given their pivotal position in supplying choices and enhanced degrees of freedom conferred on them by government, become acutely important for the legitimization of the state and more specifically for the management of the food system on behalf of the state and the consumer interest’ (p.193). W hile this power has been maintained and developed as they have sustained their market and regulatory power, the governance of food has now also, again become a territory for new state and consumer bodies as well as private-sector interests.

European Food Regulation and Accountability

57

It is against this background and with the recognition that compliance with European C ommission level decisions are beginning to have a strong impact on food safety policies within the U K, and given the recent trends in corporate behaviour, this chapter attempts to map through the fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain, the extent to which the retailing industry is actively managing its supply chain by the introduction of private standards to ensure food quality and safety all along the chain. T he chapter also attempts to chart the impacts these have on the governance system. Food Policy in the UK: Extent of Changing Governance In the period prior to the mid 1980s, strategies to manage food risk depended heavily upon science-based, technological approaches. U nder the regulatory regimes that were in place then, food and agricultural production systems were regarded as being safe unless proven otherwise by technical and quantitative analyses. In this way, the state had a rational and scientific basis on which to rest relevant public health and food quality assurance policies. T his time-honoured food regulatory approach, along with periodic on-site monitoring reinforced by a graduated scheme of penalties for breaches, allowed the state to play a key role in the food supply sector (Marsden et al. 2000). T his conventional food regulatory regime was, for an extended period, successful in addressing food safety and related public health concerns. M arsden et al. (2000) in Consuming Interests traced the transformation, since the mid-1980s, in how food risk is perceived and the new regulatory framework that has emerged to mediate the new concerns. In portraying the evolution that was taking place in food safety assurance strategies in the UK from the 1980s to the 1990s, they pointed to a transition from a traditional government-led corporatist regulatory and monitoring model, to a new phase dominated by supply chain management, and food standards strategies, designed and applied by the large multiple food retailers. T his phase in the evolution of food regulation in the U K is corporatist in nature, and driven primarily by the way food safety issues are perceived by large food retailers; leaving the S tate to act mainly as an auditor rather than as a standard-setter and an enforcer of the mainstream process. H owever, because the greater assurance of food quality that the above phase (private-public) of food regulation engenders, it does not encompass the entire food supply chain, and given the continuing diversity and intensity of food risks, the pressure for further changes became apparent. In response to these new sets of relationships – a newer phase in the evolution of food safety regulation started to take shape and saw major institutional changes across various countries in the EU and attempts made to introduce policy-making processes that are more open and consultative. A s, one retailer put it: …the whole regulation environment is done on a different premise … food law traditionally was all based on legislation, and in public legislation there wasn’t

58

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV anything… people weren’t expected to do anything on the basis of good will or arms research, yet on the environment side it’s been different from that in armtwisting packaging, waste regulation, and a whole plethora of other controls and climate-change levy or whatever. There’s been lots of quasi-soft law… (R etailer)

Taking a lead on the aftermath of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) saga, the U K Government, for example, set up the F ood S tandards A gency (FSA ) in 2000, and this was followed by the inception of D epartment of Environment, F isheries and R ural A ffairs (D EFRA ) in 2001. T he government believed that creation of the FSA would put an end to the climate of confusion and suspicion that had resulted from the way food safety and standards issues had been handled in the past. T his radical new approach distanced government from the problem, while attempting to ensure that activity relating to food would be subject to public scrutiny, and that the public’s voice would be heard in the decision-taking process. A s a result of this approach, responsibility has been devolved to a single agency, based outside government departments, whose essential aim is the protection of public health and with the right to make public its advice to ministers. The UK government hopes that the effectiveness of controls on food will not in the future be undermined by overlaps, conflicting objectives or incoherence. In creating the FSA, the government sought to remove the conflict of interest that lay at the heart of the old M inistry of A griculture, F ood and F isheries (MAFF ), which was seen as compromised by both promoting the food industry and protecting the consumer interest. T he creation of the FSA with an aim to promote food safety and food standards as a non-ministerial department focusing on the protection of consumers and their interests was marked as the emergence of a new phase of food regulation in the U K. O ne which complemented the private interest model set up by the corporate retailers. Our earlier research (see Thankappan et al. 2004 for more details) assesses some of the key conceptual parameters and dynamics of this new phase in the evolution of food safety regulation in the U K, and the powers responsible for shaping this current regulatory framework. Europeanization of UK food policy It is recognized that the EU is increasingly the main source of food law that needs to be formulated in the U K. D irectives covering food composition, food labelling, food marketing standards, additives, contaminants, nutrition, adulteration and food fraud provide a constant stream of new legislation. A clear example is the sentiment, expressed by the D epartment for Environment, F ood and R ural A ffairs (D EFRA ) and the FSA , that the U K Government did all that was possible to consult with key UK stakeholders on the implementation of UK food law, but that

European Food Regulation and Accountability

59

the decisions on standards were often made at a EU , rather than a national, level. This thinking was reflected in our interviews with retailers: …the vast majority of legislation now is definitely European. (U K R etailer)

S imilar views about decisions on standards being often made at EU , rather than national, level were also expressed by a consumer interest group. It argued: …legislation on all aspects of farm animal welfare has been European based. It has come from a directive that’s been agreed on a European level and has been taken by the UK and implemented directly into UK law with very few changes, very few additions. And now we have the situation where we know that any directive will be almost verbatim translated into U K legislation and that nothing else will be brought in and changed.

T he general pattern so far has been one of a gradually increasing set of rules on how to conduct European business. T hus there has been a proliferation of ‘guidance’, whether through the use of precedents or of codified rules. From the preceding interview extracts we can identify some of the key facets, and more specifically dynamics, of the gradual Europeanization of UK food policy. This new transition brings about challenges for the various interest groups and their inter-relationships. W e can see an increasingly wider diversity of organizations playing a European role and seeking to influence as well as to articulate different knowledge concerning foods, health and ethical issues. F or example, animal welfare groups and the consumer groups now have to tackle the intricacies of issues such as the precautionary principle, GM and traceability. Part of Europeanization now involves accommodating a wider and more disparate range of concerns and interests than those just associated with the quality of foods and safety baseline. Rising consumerist and institutionalization of policies It was clear from the interviews that most of the consumer interest groups now claimed to play a pivotal role in influencing policy-making. They seemed to be more vociferous and responsive to consumer advocacy. T he following excerpts from our interviews highlight this: …it’s (food safety) an important issue because it’s what consumers are very much concerned about, and we are aware that consumers tend to see these issues as a bit of a package, there is safety, there’s animal welfare, there is a natural form of production, there are these various values that consumers go for…

The views reflected by the private interest groups were similar to the consumer interest groups, in arguing that the consumers play a vital role in the policy making

60

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

process; and that the private interest groups in turn, value and communicate the consumers’ perceptions into the decision making process. One retailer argued: I’ve got personal views on consumer groups. A lot of the consumer groups do an awful lot of good, they are almost a kind of conscience of society and I think have a very important role to play in terms of ensuring that consumers perceptions are fed into the decision making process, but at the end of the day there has to be a balance at the various levels. I think they are knowledgeable, they are articulate.

Considering the importance of the consumers in the policy-making process, regulatory activity of the food control organization now establishes well-designed and well-publicized procedures for receiving and considering consumer and industry inputs at the policy-making level. A Defra representative stated: We have a division which is marketing and consumers and that provides us focus for consumer considerations.

Complex private interest model of food regulation The earlier phase of our research identified significant developments where the S tate, corporate and private interests, consumers and social interest groups build relationships in response to the need for accountability within the agri-food chain. T his represents the development of a more complex public/private set of relationships, which now embodies new public institutions like the European Food S afety A uthority (EFSA ) and the U K FSA and a greater competitiveness to react to consumer and media concerns. …I would say that this (food safety regulations) has been more commercially driven than government driven. I would say government is catching up with what the commercial side of the game has actually got into. I mean, I’m very pleased that it has because it then means everybody, by law, has got to conform to the same standard, and we are, as far as I’m concerned, I think right at the front of the game. O ne of our objectives here has always been to provide safe food for people to eat and I don’t have any problem in anybody, who ever wanted to, coming and asking us what we’re doing, or if they wanted a traceability or whatever I wouldn’t have any problem in providing that. I don’t have any problem with that whatsoever. (U K F resh Produce Grower)

The Food Standards Agency in the framework of the private interest mode W hile there were criticisms on the way the F ood S tandards A gency functioned, some suppliers/manufacturers were of the view that the A gency has done a commendable job; and that it is now more willing to consult the industry. T he

European Food Regulation and Accountability

61

transparent policy adopted by the A gency and the efforts made to dispel panic through its vast communication procedures among consumers were also appreciated. …things have changed now, for the better in the last few years, with the creation of the F ood S tandards A gency and D EFRA and they’re much more willing to consult with the industry. (U K F ood M anufacturer)

Views expressed by one of the private interest organizations reflect the fact that they appreciate the different mechanism of functioning of the FSA , as compared to the MAFF . The Food Standards Agency definitely thinks differently to what MAFF used to be, they are far more willing to discuss complicated issues in public and through that come to sensible certain decisions, where MAFF would have been absolutely petrified of having the discretion in the first place. So the FSA is dealing with is actually the most noticeable things, it’s done easy, its just that everything is open. W e don’t have secrets and their view is very clear that their view is to protect the customer. (U K R etailer)

The emergence of a hybrid model Private interest groups (particularly retailers) are increasingly playing a major role in (re)shaping the UK food policy; further, there is a more flexible and participatory relationship between the private interest, policy and regulatory interest and consumer and social interest groups. T he latter indicates that this is an amalgamation of a state-private sector model of food regulation; where there is a specific response from public and private sectors to the various pressures on food regulation (for example see S mith et al. 2004). T his complex model seems to emerge as a response to the (post BS E) food regulation pressures in ways which safeguard the broader macro-economic and political concepts of the European Internal Market (EIM) and increasingly integrated exchange of food goods within and beyond Europe, while also simultaneously enunciating new standardized and ‘non-competitive’ greater controls in the name of the European consumer and public interest. T he emerging model of food regulation has begun to lay a foundation for a more, all-inclusive and business-led regulatory system based on appeasing consumer and private sector apprehensions. A nd it appears (in the context of the U K at least) as though this trend will be maintained by the interaction of a larger number of actors and policy networks, which, in turn, makes the evolution process more complex and potentially contingent. In this chapter, the case of fresh fruit and vegetable sector is used to explore this hybrid model which is playing a pivotal role in reshaping the U K food policy.

62

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

The Operation of the New Hybrid Model: The Case of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable (FFV) Sector Globalization of FFV trade C onsumer spend in the convenience store sector is growing and fresh produce is set to play a key role in the battle for market share. A report on convenience retailing, 2005 by the Institute of Grocery D istribution (IGD ) states that 20p in every pound is spent on food and grocery in convenience stores in a market which is now worth £23.9 billion. A ccording to a survey of 6000 stores in the U K by the IGD , fruit and vegetables sales have almost doubled. Sales have grown from 2.3% in 2003 to 4.1% in 2005. FFV is growing significantly in terms of sales contribution. The forecourt area has also seen significant change. Many stores have seen strong growth, with 18.8% of forecourts now stocking fresh produce (IG 2005). F resh fruit and vegetables accounts for 61.3% of all sales, and this sector has grown by 1.2% at current prices in 2000, primarily as a result of increased sales of fresh fruit and fresh green vegetables (UK Food Market Review 2001). T rade liberalization and advances in post harvest technology and long distance chains demand for healthy foods and foods from market ‘niches’ often reflecting ethnic variety and traditions (Goodman & R edclift 1991). T o meet the increasing consumer demands for FF V in the W estern world; international trade of FF V is increasing in scale and variety. T his is a trend that has been encouraged by a liberalizing international and national regulatory framework associated with the General agreement on Tariff and Trade/ World T rade O rganization (GATT /WTO ), International M onetary F und (IMF ) and W orld Bank policies, and has been further facilitated by considerable improvements in communications and packaging technologies (Barrett et al. 1999). FF V exports from the developing world, has become a major growth sector in international trade (Friedland 1994; Jaffe 1995; Thrupp 1995). At the same time agricultural networks have become increasingly global (Bonnano et al. 1994; F riedland 1994). T his change in demand as also discussed in our earlier research is consumerled and is articulated in the U K by the powerful retailers, who are increasingly adopting a global sourcing policy to satisfy these new demands (Barrett et al. 1999). Shucksmith (1993), Ilbery and Bowler (1998) state this shift in consumer demand and subsequent changes in production methods in the D eveloped Market Economies (DMEs) as a part of the Post-Productivist T ransition (PPT ). A transition, that extends throughout the entire food chain, from production and processing to consumer choices and the marketing systems that have evolved to link them.  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ T he term Post-Productivism encompasses both micro and macro changes and pulls together a wide range of rural issues. It captures, within a single catchphrase, problems of land-use planning, rural development and both on farm and off-farm social and economic change (Evans et al., 2002).

European Food Regulation and Accountability

63

W ith the increasing emphasis given to consumption of fruit and vegetables as part of a healthy diet, and the importance of a varied and round-the-year supply of high quality fruit and vegetables for enhancing the image and competitiveness of supermarkets, demand for imported fruit and vegetables in Europe is substantial and likely to increase. Many non-EU exporting countries have responded to this demand due to the relatively high returns per volume for horticultural crops compared to other agricultural exports, seasonal and climatic advantages, lower labour costs, and promotion and support for export horticulture from international aid agencies. S ince horticultural production and processing is very labour intensive, many people are employed in the industry. A n estimated 45 million people depend on export horticulture for their livelihoods in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries (Eurostat 2003). T he growing emphasis on quality standards and public concern about food safety in the developed world have led both governments and retailers to set increasingly high standards on production and processing methods, and these are putting increasing pressures on suppliers. T he European U nion (EU ) pesticide legislation has contributed to this trend towards increasingly stringent standards, and has generated particular agony amongst those involved in the fresh produce industry. Implications of EU Legislation in the FFV Sector There are two interlinked EU legislative processes associated with pesticide use which are affecting growers exporting fruits and vegetables to the EU : the M aximum R esidue Level (MR L) H armonization Programme and the Pesticide A pprovals R eview Programme. MRL harmonization programme S ince 1993 the EU has been implementing a programme to establish harmonized maximum residue levels (MR Ls) which restrict levels of pesticide residues in foodstuffs sold in Europe. MR Ls for foodstuffs are established both nationally and internationally with the key objectives of: a. controlling the correct use of pesticides in terms of the registered use; b. permitting the free circulation of food commodities that have been treated with approved pesticides and comply with the established MR Ls; and c. minimizing the exposure of consumers to harmful or unnecessary. T he stated aims of the EU harmonization programme are to iron out current inconsistencies in national MR Ls in the different M ember S tates, by establishing common and obligatory MR Ls for all active ingredients approved for use within the EU, based on systematic and scientific procedures. The relevant EU Directives

64

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

establish obligatory MRLs for specific crop/active ingredient combinations where sufficient data is available, and also specify what data is required to establish an MRL where data are not currently available. Where there is insufficient data, the EU has left the MR L position as an ‘open position’ for a limited period of time. During this period, data collected and analyzed according to defined procedures can be submitted to the EU to defend the establishment of an MR L, which is usually done by agrochemical companies, but can also be done by other parties. If the period expires and no acceptable data has been received, then the MR L is set at the limit of determination (LOD ), that is, analytical zero. Pesticide approvals review programme T his programme aims to systematically review the registration of the 823 active ingredients approved for use within the EU prior to 25 July 1993. A s with the MR L harmonization programme, the continued registration of a pesticide depends on appropriate data being generated and submitted by interested parties, again usually agrochemical companies. T his is indicative of the fact that, in practice, only those active ingredients which are commercially important are likely to remain registered for use. Consequences of the regulation It is clear that the two programmes will together lead to: a. a withdrawal of approximately 350 of the 823 active ingredients from the approved list (although producers outside of the EU may be able to secure import tolerances for some of the 350); b. a substantial increase in the number of crop/active ingredient combinations for which MR Ls will be set at LOD . T hese programmes are causing and will continue to cause problems for EU growers; the impact on growers exporting from non-EU countries to the EU is likely to be particularly harsh. Growers of tropical, sub-tropical and out-of-season fruit and vegetables are being particularly hard hit by the legislation because a disproportionately high number of relevant MR Ls are set at LOD , and many of the most widely used active ingredients are likely to be phased out through the approvals review programme. This situation has arisen because, first, agrochemical companies are not likely to want to invest in generating and collating datasets to defend registration of, or set MR Ls for, older, out-of-patent pesticides; yet these pesticides also tend to be cheaper and more widely available, and hence widely used, in developing countries. S econd, agrochemical companies have in general only been interested in generating data for establishment of MR Ls for crops they classify as ‘major crops’, that is, crops of major economic significance, for example bananas and citrus fruits. In the UK,

European Food Regulation and Accountability

65

the fresh produce industry has worked with the government to generate data for establishment of MRLs for key crop/active ingredient combinations which were not being defended by agrochemical companies. While the two programmes could potentially benefit exporting countries through encouraging more rational use of pesticides, which in turn could lead to health, environmental and sometimes economic benefits; the current process of implementation is such that these benefits are not easily realized. The communication of the legislation and its implications has been poor, as a result of which exporting countries have not had time to respond by defending essential MRLs or by making alternative pest control measures available to their growers. European markets are currently not willing to lower cosmetic and other quality standards, so growers cannot risk anything but very low levels of pest and disease infestation. A s a result, growers and exporters especially from the developing countries are likely to face increased costs of production at least in the short run, due to the reduced options for pest control, making export production even more risky. Further, due to the increasing demand from importers for traceability systems, that is, systems which allow any irregularities to be traced to the ‘offending’ producer. These factors are likely to have a negative impact in the affected exporting countries, in particular. There is a risk that smaller and less well organized export industries may be abandoned by EU importers because they are not able to provide appropriate pest management/Integrated Pest M anagement (IPM ) training to growers, set up robust traceability systems, or to conduct their own trials on new pesticides to speed up the process of national registration of EU -approved pesticides. S mall-scale growers, especially independent smallholders, may be abandoned by exporters, because exporters may consider the costs of training and running traceability systems for a large number of dispersed, small production units, outweigh the benefits of sourcing from smallholders. Even if smallholders still have the opportunity to supply exporters, they may find it difficult to continue exporting due to the higher cost of EU -approved pesticides, extra costs passed down by the exporter, and/or unacceptable increases in labour requirements for implementing non-chemical pest control methods. Role of Retailers in FFV Supply Chain Retailer driven chains T he retailing industry continues its central position in the food system due to its capability to create and respond to the customers’ preferences. T he rapid spread of retailers in terms of market penetration and geographical reach has resulted in an important restructuring within the agri-food system in many countries around the world.

66

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Experts in the agri-food sector recognize that retailers influence the rest of the agricultural chain up to the farmers’ level. T his clearly indicates a power shift in the FF V distribution chain from suppliers and wholesalers towards retailers. This further weakens the bargaining power of farmers and food producers. For many producers and farmers, retailers have become their only possible outlet. F or fear of losing their business, many farmers and producers accept some of the low prices offered by large retailers and sell with low or no profit margins. In contrast, retailers often take very high margins on the fresh fruit and vegetable products they sell. Retailers are increasingly playing the role of ‘gatekeeper’ between farmers and consumers. T his has led to a wave of civil society and regulatory scrutiny of this sector in the recent years. T his is partly driven by the farm-retail price gap, and different levels of profitability between the farming and retail industries. In the UK, the total profit of all 230 000 farms has been roughly equivalent to the profit of just six supermarket chains in the recent years. The top five retailers have around 70% of the grocery market in the UK. The average return to capital in the UK is around 10–15% in the entire retailing sector compared to 0.5% in the U K agriculture (Qualmam 2001). T he retail sector has concentrated rapidly, with the top 30 retailers accounting for 33% of global sales in 2002 compared to 29% in 1999. The buying power of the retailers in a number of countries is threatening high ranking national supermarket players with extinction. European retailers also pool their buying power together into large buyer alliances such as European Marketing Distribution (EMD) and Associated Marketing Services (AMS), which raises buyer concentration to a higher level (D obson C onsulting 1999; D obson et al. 2003). In the FFV sector, in terms of industrial concentration, fresh produce market is not characterized by narrow bottlenecks in trading or processing. Governance of the chain resides at the retail end (International Institute for Environment and D evelopment (II ED ) 2003). In the FF V sector, uniformity and high quality are necessary for further processing, branding and large-scale buying by food service and retailers. T o ensure this, ways of preserving traceability and identity are needed, buyer-driven chains have therefore evolved in this sector (Gereffi 1994). These are more regulated and characterized by high levels of governance and long-term vertical co-ordination between the producers, supplier-integrators, processors and retailers. T he resulting chains have barriers to entry such as voluntary standards, codes and benchmarks. T he two main factors driving the restructuring of the FF V sector and the increasing role of supermarkets in explicit co-ordination of the chain can be  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ See for example: and .  ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� R eturn on equity is an appropriate method of comparing industries, than returns on gross sales. If farmers measure their return to equity as would a limited company subtracting a modest amount for labour, management and risk, they would show substantial losses.

European Food Regulation and Accountability

67

attributed first, to the competitive strategies of the supermarkets around product differentiation, and second, the need to control risk in the face of a more complex regulatory and consumer environment. For the UK supermarkets, FFV is a key item in the competition for market share as it is not only profitable (as it has some of the highest profit margins per square metre of shelf space of any product category in the store rivalled only by wine and chilled food (see, for example, Garcia and Poole 2002); but also one of the few products that influences consumer’s choice of stores (Burch and Goss 1999). H ence the FF V sector is an important element in retailers’ competitive strategies. R etailers are narrowing their fresh produce supply base, which is driving consolidation at all levels of the chain. Global sourcing of fresh produce by the trans-national retailers as implemented by W al-M art (see Box 6.1) with their purchase of bananas is just beginning in other fruit and vegetables. Preferred suppliers or ‘category managers’ are often integrators or growerpackers providing year round supply, through alliances with overseas suppliers. Box 6.1 In the year 2002, W al-M art, the world’s largest retailer, which owns A sda in the U K, renegotiated its banana buying. It had invited the biggest distributors to bid for a global contract to supply its stores in several countries. D el M onte, sourcing in Latin A merica, won a large chunk of the contract and because of the scale of it agreed a deal which enabled W al-M art to slash its prices. Bananas fell from £1.08p last A ugust to 81p per kilo at the end of March. Bananas are retailers’ largest selling and most lucrative item. They are known as ‘value items’, that is, shoppers know what they cost. Cutting prices on bananas would put intense pressure on the competition. O ther retailers have to follow suit and slash their prices. T he W indward Islands, which produce bananas on family farms with far fewer chemicals, could not compete. T heir fruit started to disappear from some of the shops, threatening the livelihoods of thousands of smallholders. T he episode neatly encapsulated some of the global forces that have transformed the food chain. By the end of the 1990s, three quarters of world banana trade was in the hands of just five companies: Chiquita (26%), Dole (25%), and Del Monte, Fyffe’s and Noboa (8% each). Between 1990 and 2000 the value of banana exports from the W indward Islands fell from $387m to $161m. T he foreign sales of the 100 largest trans-national companies are equivalent in value to one quarter of world trade. What is more, about two thirds of all trade takes place within companies. ‘T hat does not necessarily mean that there is no competition, but it does mean that in global markets small, fragmented producers are competing against a handful of corporate buyers’, O xfam’s report on global trade, R igged R ules and D ouble S tandards, points out. T hey nearly always lose, whether they are C aribbean tropical fruit growers or English apple farmers. Unfair Trade Winds, F elicity Lawrence, John Vidal and S teven M orris. The Guardian, S aturday 17 M ay 2003.

68

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Mack Multiples, for example, sells £270 million of fresh fruit and vegetables to U K retailers from over 60 countries. …the majority of whole fruits, specifically in the south, come through us…. T hey (retailers) will give us a spec. and they will say, you can use these three or four suppliers and that’s the product, these are the brands… (UK Fresh Produce S upplier).

T he level of private sector governance of the FF V sector is high especially by multiple retailers. A s the fresh produce chain is relatively short, primary producers get involved in standards and due diligence issues at an early stage. Price pressure is very important, however, and the brunt is felt by labour. U K horticulture is sustained by a casual labour force of migrant and often undocumented workers (II ED 2003). H alf of the 72 000 people employed for planting, harvesting and packing in the UK food industry are supplied by ‘gangmasters’. They provide the industry with a flexible workforce to meet the seasonal demands of planting, harvesting and packing crops and the market demands of fluctuating daily and seasonal retail requirements. …we employ a lot of East European labour and we also use labour providers. T hat’s the polite word for ‘gangmasters’. W e are trying to be a little bit more sophisticated about it, seeing as it is so much in the public eye…. I have no problem getting East European labour, and it is all legal. A s far as the labour providers, we’ve had problems there in trying to get them to be legal. A nd in actual fact, we are currently going through the process now. W e’ve actually weeded quite a lot out over the last year or two, because they seem to be getting more and more of the illegal people, and we are sorting that out… (UK Fresh Produce Grower)

A s competing interests from consumer lobbies and regulatory bodies have grown, retailers have been skilful in accommodating a wider range of the overall political shifts into their approach to promote their wellbeing. C orporate retailers at the EU level now operate both independently and jointly through organizations like Euro C ommerce (F lynn et al. 2004). In the U K, retailers have to position themselves continuously and carefully as custodians of the consumer, distinguishing themselves from both the producer and food manufacturing interests. A s the increasingly integrated European food market continues to show major food safety problems, the retailers have taken the opportunity to further embed retailer-led supply chain management. Retailers are a dominant force in the food chain, reflecting the level of consolidation in this sector. T hey in turn compete to meet the changing needs of consumers. T he processors, and ultimately farmers have to respond to the needs of consumers through the retailers. T his notion was emphasized by some of the interviewees in our research for example:

European Food Regulation and Accountability

69

W e have given them (retailers) the power. (Belgian Vegetable A uction body) …what you have to do in retail is to be as close as you possibly can to what your customers actually want. A t the end of the day we exist to meet the needs of our retail customers,…everything is largely governed by what the customer wants and what the sales of a particular line are… (UK Retailer)

As the direct link between the consumers and the food industry, retailers are likely to remain the main force in setting the agenda for the food supply chain. R etailers have the commercial power to force business process change further down the supply chain. …in terms of the products that we want and the standards that we want to meet, then obviously we have a fair degree of influence in what our supply base actually does, even for branded lines,…And for own label we can direct whatever standards we actually want. D own on the ethical trading front, which is more difficult, we can in theory…theoretically we can specify whatever we want wherever we want it… (UK Retailer)

H owever in reality they effect change with their suppliers which can then have dramatic changes further down the chain. T he degree of responsibility that they are prepared to take for those changes which are one or two steps removed varies with retailers. T he U K has a particularly highly concentrated and oligopolistic retail sector (Clarke et al. 2003). W ith the development of a model of supply chain management that is retailer led, power has shifted down the food chain from the farmers to the retailers. This definitely is not a new form of contractual relationship, but an important political, economic and market dimension. Marsden et al. (2002) argue that ‘the regulatory state has become critically dependent upon the continued economic dominance of the retailers in their role as the main provider of quality food goods’. T he regulatory state at least as far as food policy is concerned is also a retail state in which the large retailers act as proxies for the consumer. T his leads to the emergence of a model of retailer-led food governance. One example of this in work is the case of pesticides. Retailers are constantly seeking to reduce pesticide residues on the fruit and vegetable products sold in their stores and have required that the level of residues should be below what is required by regulatory standards. S ome retailers have a long-term objective of making all the produce they sell free from pesticide residues. It is not entirely clear how this will be reconciled with the demands for produce to be free of pest damage and to have a long shelf life.

70

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Trends affecting the retailers A mong the many tools available to retailers, private labels can be viewed as one of the most effective instruments for actively securing customer loyalty to a store, as labels help ensure the same product cannot be available in any other store in the local market. In implementing the private label strategy, retailers seek dual objectives: lowering retail price and enhancing product value. R etailer brands offer consumers products perceived to be of higher quality than the standard product at prices below recognized leading brand products of similar quality. R etailers across Europe have implemented private label strategies to cater to particular consumer demands, and there has been a trend to develop high-quality, differentiated private label products. T he retail share of private labels among food products is high in many European countries, as can be seen in T able 6.1. Demand influenced changes in retail strategy have implications for the way retailers choose suppliers. In deciding to implement a private label strategy, retailers consider a set of criteria when selecting suppliers and the type of product for branding. Research by Skytte and Blunch (2001) show, in addition to traditional factors like price, quality, and the ability to supply required volume, the ability to trace back products and the willingness of suppliers to engage in long-term relationships with retailers are important selection criteria. T he prominence of private labels has likely affected this shift. In response to increasing consumer demand for safety, quality, and convenience in food, retailers have adopted more proactive marketing strategies, where they try to achieve customer loyalty not only by improving service, location, and store layout but also by having more influence on the overall value creation process in the food chain. R etail changes implemented in Europe are primarily in response to consumer demands for process attributes in food. European consumers are more concerned about food safety and process attributes of food than A merican consumers. For example, over 60% of British consumers are concerned about BSE, over 50% are concerned about animal welfare and the use of hormones and antibiotics in livestock, and 50% are concerned about the use of biotechnology in Table 6.1

Private label penetration in Europe 1999

Country Volume share % U nited Kingdom 45.4 Belgium 34.7 Germany 33.2 F rance 22.1 N etherlands 20.6 S pain 20.5 Italy 17.1 Source: PLMA Yearbook 2000

Value share % 43.5 27.4 26.0 19.1 18.4 14.8 15.5

European Food Regulation and Accountability

71

food production (Henson 2001). In contrast, only 20% of Americans are concerned about BSE, about 40% are concerned about hormone use in livestock, and about 30% are concerned about animal welfare or the use of biotech in food production. In the FF V sector, retailer private label strategies are largely geared to provide assurances regarding sensory attributes and the levels of chemical residues in products. Private brands in this sector are less segmented in the types of branding visible on the retail shelves. R etailer brands for produce are generally associated with the integrated farming, which consumers have associated with a lower use of chemicals, and, to a lesser degree, better land stewardship. In addition, private labels are also required to meet the necessary grades specified by retailers with regard to sugar content, firmness, size, and other product characteristics. Sensory attributes, much valued by consumers, are difficult for retailers to guarantee and measure and the implementation of control and the monitoring of such characteristics can be costly. H owever, co-operation between suppliers and retailers can be mutually beneficial and tends to reduce the quality assurance costs for retailers (Brousseau and Codron 1998). Given the risks and uncertainties associated with growing and marketing produce, suppliers on the other hand, appreciate the guarantee of an outlet provided under the co-operation with retailers. T he retail branding scheme practiced in the FF V sector is mainly of the substitution type, where the retailer draws up production standards for suppliers. (Retailers) give specifications in terms of how they want the crop grown and then… well, our customer will give us the specification. (UK Fresh Produce Grower)

T he farming practices prescribed are not always precise, and sometimes it may be necessary to ascertain whether the suppliers meet the necessary standards. Production practices can be measured by maintaining a register of chemical treatments, planting dates and growth measurements, soil analysis results, and other practices. H owever, suppliers may be granted some leeway, for instance, if chemical treatments are employed when pest populations exceed a certain threshold. To avoid this contingency resulting in an erosion of consumer confidence, retailers may employ a set of clear standard operating rules and ensure that suppliers are knowledgeable about the procedures to be adopted. A good example of a similar case was highlighted by one of the U K growers interviewed in this research. …as far as we are concerned, the people who are supplying us, the stuff during the winter, are supplying to the same level and standard that we are. We know what they are entitled to use, we know where we get into problems is they are allowed to use certain chemicals and we are not. A nd there is not a lot you can do about that. We accept that there is a difference. They are not breaking the law. (U K F resh Produce grower)

A third party may be employed to ensure that suppliers adhere to the standard. T his produce scheme does not lead to the type of extensive co-operation that exists

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

72

when a retail brand product is produced. H owever, retailers may also employ more complex schemes where producers and retailers mutually set standards with the view of adopting measures to enhance environmental quality as well as the safety and sensory attributes of products, as is evident in the following case. …for own label we can direct whatever standards we actually want. Down on the ethical trading front, which is more difficult, we can in theory… theoretically we can specify whatever we want wherever we want it. N ot quite as easy when you are dealing mainland China or something like that. (UK Retailer) …we are not (audited by each customer), because… and this is where the game starts to get a bit interesting in that if you are an M&S supplier and people know you are, then they haven’t got to worry too much. (U K F resh Produce Grower)

Such arrangements require confidence and long-term relationships between the parties involved and may result in a well-differentiated product on the retail shelf (C odron et al. 2002). T he major retailers will continue to grow and therefore consolidate their share of the UK market through the opening of new store formats especially in the convenience sector. T his will further increase the pressure retailers put on the suppliers to increase efficiency. Retailers also seem to consolidate the number of suppliers they use. I think inevitably you will see consolidation in the supply bases as people pursue efficiencies in terms of costs. (UK Fresh Produce Retailer)

In the supply networks, globalization continues in terms of international retail networks. These are now often managed on a collaborative basis across both countries and continents. In search of greater efficiency, retailers are looking for stable and predictable supply chains as it enables them to drive cost out of the system. Marketing initiatives such as consistent everyday low pricing are also driving the need to have stability in the cost of goods. This drives different kinds of commercial relationships with suppliers. T he rate at which consumers’ needs are changing is accelerating and creating more flexibility and innovation in the supply chain. This means demand is becoming less homogenous and more segmented as a result of changing lifestyles, household structures and demographics. T his in turn creates the need for a wider range of product quality, price and food solutions. Literature states the existence of three models between the retailers and supplier relationship: •

A partially vertically integrated supply chain, where there is a level of retailer ownership of processors but not farms – Integration.

European Food Regulation and Accountability

• •

73

A close and long term commercial relationship with processor – Partnership. A short term arrangement, with the suppliers – T rading.

T here has been a growth in the partnership model. T his includes true collaborative partnership arrangements but also encompasses pragmatic partnerships which are not necessarily long term, but are a simple way to achieve short term needs. Both, however, are driven by the need for consistency, predictability and lower prices, all of which are easier to deliver within a partnership framework. Each retailer uses a combination of these models to varying degrees. Even where there is integration, this does not represent the totality of trade in a particular sector and partnerships are often loose groupings with relatively weak formal agreements. Growth in the partnership model is a key area of opportunity for those suppliers and producers capable of delivering the requisite goods. M ost retailers see further growth in this area as a route to a more efficient supply chain. R etailers’ rationalization of their supply base and foreign competition has led to food processors consolidating through merger or acquisition. R etailers are demanding higher technical standards from their producers and traceability of supply is gaining importance. F or example, W al-M art’s N orth A merican Pallet, Carton, and Case Initiative (NAPCCI), its Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tracking initiative seeks to supplant generic barcodes with supply chain identifiers that will result in a unique number on each pallet, carton, and case. T he initiative has put suppliers into a position, where they are attempting to understand it, and enable them to become compliant, to technologies that are largely new to their supply chains. T here has been an associated proliferation of private standards often as part of Corporate Social responsibility (CSR) or risk management initiatives. Voluntary standards and associated codes and certification schemes are emblematic of globalization, linked as they are to the growth of international supply chains, a reduced role for state organizations and recasting of regulatory systems and voluntary self-regulation (Jenkins 2001). O ne sign of the importance now being attached to sourcing is the 1999 establishment of the Euro Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP) guidelines for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP). The GAP protocol seems likely to become the industry standard against which national assurance schemes are benchmarked. W here there is no equivalent national scheme, producers will be inspected against GAP by a EUREP accredited verification body. Central to GAP is a commitment to adopt Integrated C rop M anagement (ICM ) practices.

 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� RFID tags are tiny microchips, which have been shrunk to half the size of a grain of sand. T hey listen for a radio query and respond by transmitting their unique ID code. M ost RFID tags have no batteries: T hey use the power from the initial radio signal to transmit their response.

74

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Development of EUREPGAP Programme for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables EUR EPGA P started in 1997 as an initiative of retailers belonging to the EuroRetailer Produce Working Group (EUREP). It has subsequently evolved into an equal partnership of agricultural producers and their retail customers. T he mission being to develop widely accepted standards and procedures for the global certification of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). T echnically EUR EPGA P is a set of normative documents suitable to be accredited to internationally recognized certification criteria such as ISO Guide 65. R epresentatives from around the globe and all stages of the food chain have been involved in the development of these documents. In addition the views from stakeholders outside the industry including consumer and environmental organizations and governments have helped shape the protocols. T his wide consultation has produced a robust and challenging but nonetheless achievable protocol which farmers around the world can use to demonstrate compliance with Good A gricultural Practices. It is possible for producer organizations to seek an independent and transparent recognition of equivalence with the EUR EPGA P standards and procedures through a benchmarking system thereby facilitating global trade and aiding the harmonization of technical criteria. EUR EPGA P members include retailers, producers/farmers and associate members from the input and service side of agriculture. Governance is by sector specific EUREPGAP Steering Committees which are chaired by an independent chairperson. Both the standard and the certification system is approved by the Technical and Standards Committees working in each product sector. These committees have 50% retailer and 50% producer representation creating an effective and efficient partnership in the supply chain. The work of the Committees is supported by FoodPLUS a non profit limited company based in Cologne, Germany. EUR EPGA P was driven by the desire to reassure consumers. F ollowing food safety scares such as BS E, pesticide concerns and the rapid introduction of GM foods consumers throughout the world are asking how food is produced; and they need re-assuring that it is both safe and sustainable. F ood safety is a global issue and transcends international boundaries. M any EUR EPGA P members are global players in the retail industry and obtain food products from around the world. F or these reasons a need has arisen for a commonly recognized and applied reference standard of Good A gricultural Practice which has at its centre a consumer focus. These factors sometimes known as ‘the triple bottom line: people, planet and profit’ recognize the importance major corporations and multinational supply bases place on ensuring agriculture is undertaken in a responsible way that respects food safety, the environment, workers welfare and the welfare of animals. Good A gricultural Practices, which are understood by producers the world over, deliver clearly defined outcomes in these areas. By adhering to good agricultural practices risks in agricultural production is reduced. EUR EPGA P provides the tools to objectively verify best practice in a

European Food Regulation and Accountability

75

systematic and consistent way throughout the world. T his is achieved through the protocol and compliance criteria. T here are about 214 control points divided into 49 major musts, 99 minor musts and 66 recommended, a diagrammatic representation is given in F igure 6.1. EUR EPGA P’s scope is concerned with practices on the farm, once the product leaves the farm they come under the control of other C odes of Conduct and certification schemes relevant to food packing and processing. That way the whole chain is assured right through to the final consumer. Another key goal is to provide a forum for continuous improvement. The technical and standards committees, consisting of producer and retail members, have a formal agenda to review emerging issues and carry-out risk assessments. S tages in Production of Produce C overed by EUR EPGA P C PCC

C rop

Produce

N /A A answers A llowed W hen N o Products H andled

3

4

5, 6 7, 8

9

10

S eed, N ursery

S ite S election

C rop Production

H arvest & T ransport

S torage, W ashing, T reatment

11 12 & 13

Environment, W aste & Pollution, O perator H ealth, S afety & W elfare

1, 2& 14

D ocumentation, T raceability & Quality S ystem R equirement

A dditional Quality M anagement S ystems R equired for F armer Groups

2 Product Process F low

Figure 6.1

N o EUR EPGA P C PCC S ections

A dditional EUR EPGA P R equirements

EUREPGAP’s control points and compliance criteria for fresh fruits and vegetables

Source: C ontrol points and compliance criteria, F ruit and vegetables version 2 2004 <www.eurep.org>

76

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

T his is a rigorous process, following the principles of H azard A nalysis and C ritical Control Points (HACCP), and involves experts in their field leading to revised versions of the protocol. Other competitive strategies adopted by retailers Several supermarkets are trying to generate competitive advantage through superior environmental performance. …the main thing with retailing, because selling products and anything can be copied, then the real bit of advantage is to do whatever it is first. Industry leadership are lead first to do the right thing, which means speed of action and second-guessing what your competitors are going to do on a whole range of different issues, making sure you don’t get wrong footed and certain of our competitors where we used to just get on and trade in our own way and do our best… (UK Retailer)

A s well as being a part of EUR EPGA P, T esco, for example runs its own assurance scheme, N ature’s C hoice, which, according to the company’s strategic technical development manager, is ‘significantly broader and deeper than EUREP’. This food labelling scheme, developed by T esco is essentially a code of practice and T esco has adopted a policy that they would only accept produce accredited with the N ature’s C hoice label. T hrough this scheme, accredited growers are audited against seven criteria, one of which is that growers have to demonstrate that they are maintaining and enhancing the nature conservation and landscape values of their properties. N ature’s C hoice is underpinned by a ‘green’ philosophy of stewardship and essentially aims to combine production efficiency and conservation values through the C ode of Practice. T o achieve accreditation under N ature’s C hoice, a policy statement (effectively an action plan) needs to be developed for each of the seven elements. Grower adoption of the C ode of Practice must be demonstrated beyond a six-month period before Nature’s Choice certificates are issued. The code of practice includes guidelines on the use of chemical inputs, energy and water efficiency, worker health and safety, and wildlife and landscape conservation. At least 95% of Tesco’s fresh produce sourced in the UK is now certified under the scheme and the standards are being introduced to suppliers worldwide. S ainsbury’s, has developed a policy on the sourcing of wild products, which seeks to ensure that threatened species and habitats are not harmed, for example, shells, moss, crocodile meat, plant bulbs and sea food (based on the  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ T his policy recognizes that the uncontrolled harvesting of animal and plant species from the wild can have serious effects on wild populations which are under increasing pressure from both trade and land development. A ll S ainsbury’s suppliers have been provided on guidance on how to address and prevent these effects.

European Food Regulation and Accountability

77

CIT ES  Convention and consumer concerns). It is also working with suppliers on an initiative that encourages farm-level biodiversity action plans. S imilar views were expressed by various actors in the supply chain, as is evident from the following excerpts: …we have these games that go on, so. It’s a fiercely competitive market at the present time and that can get a little bit excited… (UK Retailer) …in terms of the salt-reduction program, Tesco’s already announced they’re doing this traffic light system on products, and that’s obviously jumping ahead of what the FSA are wanting to do. T hey (FSA ) want to develop it in conjunction with everybody so everybody’s singing off the hymn sheet. (U K F resh Produce R etailer) …that’s (self-regulation) something that we are seeing an advantage to, to our competitors. Everybody has got the same produce so in some ways we have to, it has to be competitive with the competitors, and also because it’s always important to look a little bit ahead so… (Belgian Vegetable Auction body)

Even if higher environmental standards can enhance brand reputation, retailers face another challenge getting the message across to consumers. A s one of the major retailer states: The key, is to … develop tangible, quantifiable measures that assure customers that we are taking responsible decisions with our suppliers to protect and enhance the environment. T his needs to be done in a way that customers can relate to easily. (U K R etailer)

In a culture of harsh price competition, fuelled by over supply and governed by the power imbalances of market concentration at the retail level and fragmentation at the farmer level, retailers will inevitably pass on the added costs to the weakest link in the supply chain-and that is the farmers. The following quote highlights the issue: …When they (retailers) have a problem, instead of trying to find a fundamental solution for their problem, they try to find a solution which should be placed, or the effort should come always from the grower. (Belgian Vegetable auction body)

S ome producers are calling for mechanisms to allow more transparent reciprocal auditing. This would enable them to check how their produce is being labelled and marketed. Such measures would help reassure farmers that food assurance schemes are legitimate commitments.  �������������������������������������������������� For more details see .

78

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV …why should we risk taking the freedom of a supplier to contract with other people if there’s no need for us to do that. In a way, it would look improper to do that …. So we don’t put any restrictions on any of our suppliers as to who else they trade with. W e wouldn’t do that. Philosophically it’s not something we would do… (UK Retailer)

Consumer involvement: A vital ingredient A race to reach the top rung on the environmental performance ladder, requires not only a more equitable sharing of the costs along the supply chain, but also customers who are well informed about the food they eat. T he danger of proliferating schemes by individual supermarkets, on top of the existing national assurance programmes and umbrella initiatives such as EUR EP, is that the consumer will be left more confused than ever. Research undertaken by the National Consumer Council, shows that consumers are completely baffled by the range of schemes, logos and claims that surround the food industry. Consequently, they are just as likely to see such schemes as purely marketing hype, with nothing substantial behind it. Further, to the proliferation of such private schemes, some key definitions and legislations vary across Europe. F or example one of the Belgian fruit and vegetable auctioneers stated: It would be better if there would be one standard, one European standard. T hat would be a combination of most of the systems, because that is a problem that there are so many systems that you need so many paperwork and then so much work also for the producer… (Belgian FFV auctioneer)

Y et another Belgian fruit and vegetable auctioneer stated: …For example, the non-uniformization in Europe of food safety residue harmonization, in Europe started in 1991 to uniformise the pesticide regulations. They have not even achieved 15% of it, so there’s the problem. And that’s not only a problem for the farmers, there’s a problem for the co-ops, and there’s a problem for the retailers, too. The big discussion with the retailers now is… should there be compliance with country of production or country of destination? A nd then farmers will say, we can’t comply with country of destination because we don’t know where it will be heading to… (Belgian FFV Auctioneer)

Impact of Retail Governance on FFV Production in the Developing Countries O ver the recent years, sizeable FF V export-oriented horticulture industries have developed in some of the African countries for the European market. A similar niche is filled by Guatemala, Costa Rica, Columbia and Mexico for exports to the US (T hrupp 1995). T his is an area where the developing countries have been able

European Food Regulation and Accountability

79

to engage in global markets in the export of tropical crops to meet supermarkets’ demand for consistent year round supplies of fresh produce. R eturns however are highly concentrated at the end of the chain in the importing countries. D olan et al. (1999) found that for mangetouts imports from Zimbabwe, 45% of retail value is retained by supermarkets to cover costs such as wastage and to ensure a profit margin while the producer share was only 12%. The team found very similar figures for fresh vegetable exports from Kenya, with producer and supermarket shares of 14% and 46% respectively. Supermarkets’ standards focus on food quality and management of risk (safety and traceability). Pack-houses are required to have increasingly sophisticated equipment for tracing and labelling produce which increases the scale and cost of operations. T here are also standards for environmental protection and welfare of workers even specifying the brand of fire extinguisher used in packing houses, but suppliers report that these are secondary requirements of supermarket buyers. But the high capital requirements associated with meeting standards for due diligence may be a major barrier to market entry and driver of differentiation. Quality standards may improve pesticide management and also indirectly drive quality competition in domestic markets. But as Freidberg (2003) states, ‘Efforts to impose such standards on A frican horticultural exports thus respond more to the particular anxieties of corporate retail management rather than to the concerns of workers in the horticultural export industry themselves’. Based on observations in the S an F rancisco valley of post-liberalization Brazil, C avalcanti and M arsden (2004) echo this perception of retailer imposed quality protocols as a ‘R e-regulation of agriculture along private lines, around a particular construction of consumer interests which is having severe implications for farm structure’. Private and Public Systems of Regulation in the FFV Sector A wide array of both public and private safety control systems has evolved for any food product being offered for sale to consumers in retail stores or food service operations as detailed in F igure 6.2 (H enson 1997; C aswell 1997; C aswell & Johnson 1991). Public quality control systems involve direct regulation in the form of standards, inspection, product testing, and other programmes attempt to ensure the quality of the product by specifying how it is produced and/or its final quality. Product liability involves punishing companies that produce goods of insufficient quality through damage awards to those harmed by their actions. D irect regulation and product liability may complement or substitute for each other (or even conflict) in establishing incentives for companies to engage in effective quality control. Private systems include self-regulation and various forms of certification by other parties. S elf-regulation includes internal control systems that assure product quality, where the company sets, monitors, and self-certifies the control  ������������������������ U npublished II ED report.

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

80

Public Safety Control System

Private Safety Control System

D irect R egulation

Product Liability

S elfR egulation

S tandards, inspection, product testing and specifications on how a product has to be produced

Punishing companies that produce products of insufficient quality

Internal control systems that assure product quality

Figure 6.2

Certification

S etting of product quality standard and their monitoring and certification by third parties

Food quality control systems

Source: A dapted from H enson, 1997; C aswell, 1997

parameters. It can take place at the level of the individual firm or be instituted by trade organizations that cover the predominance of market supply. Certification involves the setting of product quality standards and their monitoring and certification by parties outside the firm, for example customers, industry trade associations, or bodies such as the International O rganization for S tandardization (ISO). Such certification may be voluntarily sought by the company or required by those with whom it does business. T he relative importance of these public and private modes of food safety control will reflect, amongst other things, the nature of public regulation and the structure of the food supply chain. T he product liability system for food products in the U K has hinged on the concept of ‘due diligence’. Evidence that a company took all reasonable precautions and exercised all ‘due diligence’ to avoid commission of an offence provides a defence against liability. T his public provision has motivated extensive private quality control activity amongst food companies that want to be able to prove they have exercised ‘due diligence’, based predominantly on third party certification (Henson and Northen 1998; Bredahl and Holleran 1997; Zaibet and Bredahl 1997). T he state as a regulator in food safety is far from new; while at the same time it is known that food safety has been a concern for both public and private interests, and that the distribution of responsibility among public institutions, manufacturers, distributors and individual consumers in securing safe food has changed historically. S hifts associated with the more recent development of ‘the regulatory state’ necessitates a change in governmental control, where traditional mechanisms of government tends to be replaced by newer mechanisms, for example, privatization, contracting out and various means of standard setting linked to more or less independent agencies for monitoring and enforcement. T hese are examples of

European Food Regulation and Accountability

81

governing at-a-distance, often involving the ‘self-regulation’ or ‘quasi-regulation’ of businesses and consumers (M oran 2002). T he regulatory state model has been widely criticized for its centrist conception of state power (Black 2000, 2002). Private actors, like firms, industries, private associations and N GO s, regulate their own members, suppliers, costumers and internal affairs (Teubner 1998; Black 1996). The significance of this private governance will increase with ongoing organizational growth, mergers and acquisitions. T his emerging tendency is often done by means of private contracts stating the proper expectations and responsibilities of the parties involved (S hearing 1997). T he way these contracts are formulated will depend largely on the international and commercially available voluntary standards. S uch standards offer procedural norms based on ‘best practice’, third-party-based monitoring and auditing systems and procedures for the managing of deviations from norms (Brunsson and Jacobsson 2000; Power 1997; S cott 2003). It has been noted that the balance has shifted from one set of private actors (producers) to another set (retailers). T his phenomenon has been very obvious in the UK, where the big retailers have more or less taken over from farmers and manufacturers in taking the lead, both in terms of initiatives towards public authorities, in private regulatory efforts, and related to consumer trust (M arsden et al. 2000). H owever, in N orway there has not been a parallel shift (Jacobsen & Kjærnes 2003). H ence it could be assumed that these shifts are strongly country and context specific. Stigler (1971) noted that public regulations often reflect or have been ‘captured’ by private interests. Based on this perspective, according to M ajone (1994): ‘regulation is not instituted in the interest of the public at large or some sub-class of the public, but is acquired by an industry and designed and operated primarily for its benefit’. O ne of the retailers interviewed in this research had the following view: I think the driving force has to be two things. A. is product safety and the fact that obviously we have to show due diligence and B. obviously to protect the brand image, which is probably even more important nowadays. (U K F resh Produce R etailer)

Co-ordination based on an understanding of stakeholders blurs the distinction between public and private regulations. C orporative, consensus oriented processes of decision making have been very significant in Europe. The more recent stakeholder versions, including the state and usually also consumers, seem important in food safety policies both at the national and the EU levels (H éritier 2003). …we want to have it as uniform, and then our lawmakers have to provide the law for that. S o we have that for two things. W e have it for the integrated fruit production, on the one hand, and we have it also for the leafy vegetables under glass house. (Belgian FF V auctioneer)

82

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV …by law it is required to have a pre-harvest residue analysis. So we have a preharvest residue analysis. Because 80% of the lettuce is sold through producers’ organizations and is controlled, and was controlled on voluntary basis, but 20% was not controlled and there we were afraid. People who were not in order for selling through the organised markets went to the non-organised markets, with product which is poor in quality or which had too high a residue content. If in Germany they write in the paper that the Belgian salad or Belgian lettuce has a high content in the residue our sales drop, so we want to make sure that everybody is following the same standards and that’s why we want the government to step in and to make it a governmental regulation, a regulation for everybody. (Belgian FF V auctioneer)

T he increased reliance on the part of the S tate on more indicative instruments of regulation, ‘like guidance, circulars deployed with the intention of shaping the behaviour of those to whom they are directed’ (S cott 2002), without having to use laws and direct commands means that this allows for a reduction or an escape for some of the procedural costs involved. T his points to a process whereby norms and standards are (still) decided in a public setting, but where the responsibility of market actors has become more emphasized, more visible and cost effective. S ome of the private sector respondents agreed that: …the whole regulation environment is done on a different premise than…food law traditionally was all based on legislation, and in public legislation there wasn’t anything….people weren’t expected to do anything on the basis of good will or arms research, yet on the environment side it’s been different from that in arm-twisting packaging, waste regulation, and a whole plethora of other controls and climate-change levy or whatever. There’s been lots of quasi-soft law… (UK R etailer) …we see different interpretations, you know, you can have two stores in two bordering counties and see two interpretations on a piece of legislation. (U K F resh Produce R etailer) O ne of the biggest issues I have is, is where we do transgress is trying to convince the enforcers to actually go down the route of using the enforcement concordat. (U K F resh Produce R etailer) A nd dealing with the issue through the enforcement concordat rather than the more formal route. A nd whilst everybody has signed up with the vast majority of enforcement agencies have trading standards and environmental, health labels, have signed up to enforcement concordat. It’s given lip service. T hey say that they’ve signed up to it, but in the end it still gets pushed to one side… (UK Fresh Produce R etailer)

European Food Regulation and Accountability

83

I mean, I would say that in that area, this has been more commercially driven than government driven. I would say government is catching up with what the commercial side of the game has actually got into. I mean, I’m very pleased that it has because it then means everybody’s, by law, has got to conform to the same standard, and we are, as far as I’m concerned, I think right at the front of the game. O ne of our objectives here has always been to provide safe food for people to eat and I don’t have any problem in anybody, who ever wanted to, coming and asking us what we’re doing, or if they wanted a traceability or whatever I wouldn’t have any problem in providing that. I don’t have any problem with that whatsoever. (U K F resh Produce grower)

F ood manufacturers and food retail outlets have a great deal of capital invested in their brand images. Legal liability and loss of consumer confidence can have devastating effects on a company’s market share and long-term survival prospects in a highly competitive market. This creates a clear incentive for firms to move towards closer strategic partnering relationships with suppliers. The current food safety legislative environment is encouraging firms to follow an organizational strategy aimed at building closer supply chain relationships. T his is occurring in a number of countries despite the differences in legislation between these countries. T he reasons for these similar strategic developments given the differences in regulation is perhaps due to the core problem at the heart of food safety, that it creates information asymmetries along the supply chain. C loser supply chain relationships are one way in which to reduce these information asymmetries and the resulting transaction costs. Conclusions T he quality and safety of FF V produce are controlled by different public and private entities at different points in the supply chain. F igure 6.3 maps the various stages of the fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain in the U K and the EU and the corresponding stages where public and private standards operate in the chain. It is very clear that in the FF V sector, more retailers have developed their own ‘codes of practice’ including good agricultural practice (GAP) and specifications related to intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. These private specifications are based on national and EU food safety and quality regulations and in most cases exceed these regulations. O ur earlier research (S mith et al. 2004 and Thankappan et al. 2004) indicated that retailers are becoming more influential in food policy-making in the UK and EU , in the name of the consumer and public interest. C onsumers are increasingly influencing the food system by selection or rejection of food considered healthy or hazardous; and large-scale retailer’s organizations acting as intermediaries between the production and consumption are both very sensitive to these and attempt to shape consumers’ preferences. T his represents the development of a

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

84

EUR EPGA P Farming

O verseas Growers

UK Growers

Private Interest Groups

NATUR E’S CHOIC E S QF 1000

O verseas Producer C o-operatives

U K Producer C o-operatives Agricultural Logistics

PRI VAT E STANDARDS

Food Logistics

BRC C atering S uppliers

F resh Produce W holesaler

C aterers

Figure 6.3

Government/ Policy and R egulatory Groups Private Certification Bodies

W holesale Market

Consumer

S QF 2000

Vegetable Packers/ Marketers

Manufacturing

Retail/ Catering

HACC P

F arm Gate and F arm S hop S ales

FSA

IFS

HACC P Supermarkets

S QF 3000

Independent R etailers

C onsumers

RIS K COMMUNICATION

Fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain and its regulation

more complex public/private set of relationships, which now embodies new public institutions (like the EFSA and the UK FSA) and a greater competitiveness to react to consumer and media concerns. In this chapter, the case of the fresh fruit and vegetable sector is used to explore this hybrid model which is playing a pivotal role in reshaping the U K food policy.

European Food Regulation and Accountability

85

T his chapter has sought to provide an overview of the fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain. It has concentrated on the extent to which the retailing industry is actively managing its supply chain by the introduction of private standards to ensure food quality and safety all along the chain. O ver recent years, the U K consumers are giving more emphasis to aspects of quality and convenience than to price and quantity. F urther, there is an increasing demand for healthy foods and foods from market ‘niches’ often reflecting ethnic variety and traditions. T his change in demand is consumer-led and is articulated in the U K by the powerful retailers, who are increasingly adopting a global sourcing policy to satisfy the new demands of the consumers. Governance of the chain resides at the retail end. One example of this at work is the case of pesticides. Retailers are constantly seeking to reduce pesticide residues on the fruit and vegetable products sold in their stores and have required that the level of residues should be below what is required by regulatory standards. T he reigning position of the retailers is made possible in the FF V sector because: In the FF V sector, uniformity and high quality are necessary for further processing, branding and large-scale buying by food service and retailers. For the UK supermarkets, FFV is a key item in the competition for market share as it is not only profitable (it has some of the highest profit margins per square metre of shelf space of any product category in the store rivalled only by wine and chilled products) but is also one of the few products that influence consumer’s choice of stores. Buyer-driven chains have therefore evolved in this sector. T hese chains are more regulated and characterized by high levels of governance and long-term vertical co-ordination between the producers, supplier-integrators, processors and retailers. T he resulting chains have barriers to entry such as voluntary standards, codes and benchmarks. The growing emphasis on quality standards and public concern about food safety have led both governments and retailers to set increasingly high standards on production and processing methods. T here has been an associated proliferation of private standards often as part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or risk management initiatives. Some of the key private standards operating in the fresh fruit and vegetable sector are: EUR EPGA P, T he Global F ood S afety Initiative (GFSI ), International F ederation of O rganic A griculture M ovement (IFOAM ) and so on. T he retailers have developed their own quality assurance systems to demonstrate due diligence as a defence against any food safety breakdown. A logical sequence therefore, is to explore their integrating supplier activities and demand that they develop systems to meet retailers’ due diligence position. R etailers use private standards to standardize product requirements over suppliers. T he private quality and safety standards imposed by the retailers relate to the physical aspects of the products, as well as to cost, delivery and volume requirements, thereby enhancing supply chain efficiency and lowering transaction costs. Private standards of a given chain are also designed to ensure (at a minimum) that public standards are met in all the markets in which the retail chain operates.

86

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

O ften, retailers design private standards as substitutes for missing or inadequate public standards (R eardon & F arina 2002). In this respect, private standards can function as a means of competition against other retail outlets by supporting claims of superior product quality attributes. It is evident from this chapter that large scale retailers are restructuring the agri-food chains from which they buy their products, in several crucial ways. T his form of ‘T op-up’ regulations by private interest groups in the name of consumer interests will have serious implications for the farm sector. T his perception of retailer imposed quality protocols is echoed by M arsden and his Brazilian colleagues based on observations from their work in Brazil, which formed an important strand of this research. A ll this boils down to the fact that sustainability as a set of quality standards may provide leverage for large enterprises to control markets and raise barriers to competition. T herefore, when a retailer develops a strategy for sourcing more sustainable products, they, as governors of the supply chain, can push all compliance costs and risks down to the suppliers. Standards and codes of practice therefore favour the well-capitalized farmers. T he efforts to catalyze a public-private response that packages sustainability into technical, regulatory and managerial frameworks has shown that supply chains respond with another drive of marginalization of small farmers (Vorley 2001). A debate therefore needs to open as to what the effects are of these private standards, and how public policy should take them into account, such as harmonizing with them. References Barrett, H ., Ilbery, B., Browne, A . and Binns, T . (1999) ‘Globalization and the changing networks of food supply: The importation of fresh horticultural produce from Kenya into the U K’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24:2, 159–174. Black, J. (1996) ‘Constitutionalising self-regulation’. Modern Law Review 59, 24–56. Black, J. (2000) ‘Proceduralising regulation: Part I’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20, 597–614. Black, J. (2002) ‘Regulatory conversations’. Journal of Law and Society 29, 163– 196. Bonnano, A ., Busch, L., F riedland, W ., Gouveia, L. and M ingione, E. (eds) (1994) From Columbus to ConAgra: The Globalization of Agriculture and Food (Lawrence, KS : U niversity Press of Kansas). Bredahl, M .E. and H olleran, E. (1997) ‘T echnical R egulations and F ood S afety in NAFTA’ in R. Loyns, Knutson, R., Meilke, K. and Sumner, D. (eds) Harmonization/Convergence/Compatibility in Agriculture and Agri-Food Policy: Canada, United States and Mexico (W innipeg: U niversity of M anitoba), 71–85.

European Food Regulation and Accountability

87

Brousseau, E. and C odron, J. (1998) ‘La complémentarité entre formes de gouvernance: le cas de l’approvisionnement des grandes surfaces en fruits de contre-saison’. Economie Rurale 245–246:M ai-A out 1998, 75–83. Brunsson, N . and Jacobsson, B. (2000) A World of Standards (O xford: O xford U university Press). Burch, D . and Goss, J. (1999) ‘Global sourcing and retail chains: shifting relationships of production in A ustralian agri-foods’. Rural Sociology 64, 334–350. C aswell, J. (1997) Uses of Food Labelling Regulation (Paris: O rganization for Economic Co-operation and Development) . C aswell, J. and Johnson, V. (1991) ‘F arm strategic response to food safety and nutrition regulation’ in J.A . C aswell (ed.) Economics of Food Safety (N ew York: Elsevier), 273–297. C avalcanti, B. and M arsden, T . (2004) ‘T he globalised fruiti-culture system: N ew structures and agency in the north/south relationships’. Paper presented at the C onference on R esistance and A gency in C ontemporary A griculture and F ood: Empirical C ases and N ew T heories, A ustin, USA , 13–14 June 2004. Clarke, M., Godfrey S. and Theron, J. (2003) ‘Globalization, democratization and regulation of the South African labour market’. Paper prepared for the Globalization, Production and Poverty R esearch Project. Labour and Enterprise Project, Institute of D evelopment and Labour Law/S ociology D epartment. U niversity of C ape T own. C odron, J., S terns, J. and Vernin, X. (2002) ‘Grande distribution et agriculture raisonnée dans la filière fruits et légumes frais’. Document INRA-CTIFL, Paris, 26. Cook, R. (1998) ‘Production agriculture in transition: The fresh fruit and vegetable sector’. Food System of the Future Conference Proceedings, Purdue U niversity, September 28, 1998, 1–6. Paper posted on web site . D obson C onsulting (1999) Buyer Power and its Impact on Competition in the Food Retail Distribution Sector of the European Union. . D obson, P., W aterson, M . and D avies, S . (2003) ‘T he patterns and implications of increasing concentration in European food retailing’. Journal of Agricultural Economics 54:1, 111–126. D olan, C ., H umphrey, J. and H arris-Pascal, C . (1999) ‘H orticulture commodity chains: The impact of the UK market on the African fresh vegetable industry’. Working Paper 96, Inst. Developmental Studies, University of Sussex, UK. Evans, N ., M orris, C . and W inter, M . (2002) ‘C onceptualising agriculture: A critique of post productivism as the new orthodoxy’. Progress in Human Geography 26:3, 313–332. Flynn, A., Marsden, T., Carson, L., Lee, R., Smith, E., Thankappan, S. and Yakovleva, N. (2004) ‘The Food Standards Agency: making a difference?’ C ommunicated to the Journal of Public Administration.

88

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Freidberg, S. (2003) ‘Cleaning up down south: Supermarkets, ethical trade and A frican horticulture’. Social and Cultural Geography 4:1, 27–43. F riedland, W . (1994) ‘T he new globalization: T he case of fresh produce’ in A . Bonanno, B. Lawrence, W . F riedland, L. Gouveia, E. M ingione and K. Lawrence (eds) Columbus to ConAgra: The Globalization of Agriculture and Food (Lawrence,KS : U niversity of Kansas), 210–231. Garcia, M . and Poole, N . (2002) The Impact of Private Safety and Quality Standards for Fresh Produce Exports from Mediterranean Countries (London: F ood M anagement U nit, D epartment of A gricultural S ciences. Imperial C ollege, U niversity of London) (mimeo). Gereffi, G. (1994) ‘The organization of buyer-driven global commodity chains: How US retailers shape overseas production networks’ in G. Gereffi and M. Korzeniewicz (eds) Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism (W estport CT : Praeger), 95–122. Goodman, D . and R edclift, M . (1991) Refashioning Nature: Food, Ecology and Culture (London: R outledge). H enson, S . (2001) ‘A ppropriate level of protection: A European perspective’ in K. A nderson, C . M cR ae and D . W ilson (eds) The Economics of Quarantine and the SPS Agreement (A delaide: C entre for International T rade S tudies, U niversity of A delaide). H enson, S . (1997) ‘T he impact of regulations on consumers and the food chain industries’ in B. M arshall and F .A . M iller (eds) Management of Regulation in the Food Chain: Balancing Costs, Benefits and Effects (C entre for A gricultural S trategy, T he U niversity of R eading), 62–73. H enson, S . and N orthen, J. (1998) ‘Economic determinants of food safety control in the supply of retailer own brand products in the U K’. Agribusiness 14:2, 113–126. H éritier, A . (2003) ‘Elements of democratic legitimation in Europe: A n alternative perspective’. Journal of European Public Policy 6:2, 269–282. Ilbery, B. and Bowler, I. (1998) ‘F rom agricultural productivism to postproductivism’ in B. Ibery (ed.) The Geography of Rural Change (London: Longman), 57–84. Jacobsen, E. and Kjærnes, U. (2003) ‘Sikker mat til forbrukerne: et privat eller offentlig ansvar?’ in E. Jacobsen, R . A lmås and J. Johnsen (eds) Den politiserte maten (Oslo: Absrtakt Forlag), 245–274. Jaffee, S . (1995) ‘T he many faces of success: T he development of Kenyan horticultural efforts’ in S . Jaffee and J. M orton (eds) Marketing Africa’s High Value Foods (Washington, DC: World Bank), 319–374. Jenkins, R. (2001) ‘Corporate codes of conduct: Self-regulation in a global economy’. T echnology, Business and S ociety Programme Paper N o. 2, A pril, U nited (Geneva: N ations R esearch Institute for S ocial D evelopment). M ajone, G. (1994) ‘T he rise of the regulatory state in Europe’. West European Politics 17, 77–101.

European Food Regulation and Accountability

89

Marsden, T.K., Banks, J. and Bristow, G. (2002) ‘The social management of rural nature: U nderstanding agrarian-based rural development’. Environment and Planning A 34: 809–825. M arsden, T ., F lynn, A . and H arrison, M . (2000) Consuming Interests: The Social Provision of Foods (London: UC L Press), 220. M oran, M . (2002) ‘U nderstanding the regulatory state’. British Journal of Political Science 32, 391–413. Power, M . (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification (O xford: O xford U niversity Press). Qualman, D . (2001) The Farm Crisis and Corporate Power. N ational F armers U nion of C anada R eport A pril 2001. <www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/ farm-crisis.pdf>. R eardon, T . and F arina, E.M .M .Q. (2002) ‘T he rise of private food quality and safety standards: Illustrations from Brazil’. International Food and Agricultural Management Review 4, 413–421. S cott, C . (2002) ‘Private regulation of the public sector: A neglected facet of contemporary governance’ Journal of Law and Society, 29:1, 56–76. S cott, C . (2003) ‘R egulation in the age of governance: T he rise of the postregulatory state’ in J. Jordana and D . Levi-F aur (eds) The Politics of Regulation (C heltenham: Edward Elgar), 145–174. Shearing, C. (1997) ‘Unrecognized origins of the new policing: Linkage between private and public policing’ in M. Felson and R. Clarke (eds) Business and Crime Prevention (Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press), 219–230. Shucksmith, M. (1993) ‘Farm household behaviour and the transition to post productivism’. Journal of Agricultural Economics 44, 466–478. Skytte, H. and Blunch, N. (2001) ‘Food retailers’ buying behaviour: An analysis in 16 European countries’. Journal on Chain and Network Science 1, 133–145. Smith, E., Marsden, T., Flynn, A. and Percival, A. (2004) ‘Regulating food risks: Rebuilding confidence in Europe’s food?’ Environment and Planning C 22:4, 543–567. S tigler, G. (1971) ‘T he theory of economic regulation’. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2, 3–21. T eubner, G. (1998) ‘A fter privatization: T he many autonomies of private law’ in M . F reeman (ed.) Current Legal Problems (O xford: O xford U niversity Press), 398–424. Thankappan, S., Marsden, T., Flynn, A. and Lee, R. (2004) ‘The battle for the consumers: Building relationships in a new phase of contested accountability in the U K food chain’. BRASS Working paper no. 17. Thrupp, A. (1995) ‘Bittersweet harvests for global supermarkets: Challenges in Latin A merica’s agricultural export boom’ (W ashington DC : W orld R esources Institute). UK Food Market Review, 2001 . Van der Gripp, N ., C ampins Eritja, M ., Gupata, J., Brander, L., F ernadez Pons, X., de Boer, J., Gradoni, L. and M ontanari, J. (2004) ‘A ddressing controversies

90

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

in sustainability labelling and certification’ in M. Campins Eritja (ed.) Sustainability Labelling and Certification (M adrid: M arcial Pons), 387–404. Vorley, B. (2001) ‘Farming that works: Reforms for sustainable agriculture and rural development in the EU and US’. Background paper for the NTA Multidialogue Workshop on ‘Sharing Responsibility for Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: The Role of EU and US Stakeholders’, Lisbon, 24–26 January 2001. Zaibet, L. and Bredahl, M.E. (1997) ‘Gains from ISO certification in the UK meat sector’. Agribusiness: An International Journal 13:4, 375–384.

C hapter 7

Globalization and S ustainability in A griculture: R ole of Law and Ethics John H odges

Overview: Agriculture and Food are Unique A sustainable food supply is a unique, foundational human need. A mong the natural biological drivers for the preservation of life, food exceeds even reproduction. In times of starvation and limited food intake, reproduction is reduced and eventually shuts down to be revived only if a regular food supply again becomes available. T he individual body and the community instinctively recognize that in times of famine there is no merit in diverting nutrients to new babies. In affluent Western society with its highly organized food chain and abundant variety of cheap food, nations and leaders can easily forget that starvation inevitably leads to death – quite quickly. T his chapter addresses the tragic consequences of treating food as only another commodity in an economic system where public and political decisions are dominated by profit and shareholder value and where the agenda of society is shortterm material prosperity. T he new methods used for these ends by global business in the food chain that often receive the active support or passive indifference of governments, are described. In general, W estern society has lost its balance by allowing, or encouraging, the business and economic component of society to dominate the whole of life and to shape human community. Business and economics are valid parts, but only two parts of a complete civilization. Elevating them to the level of supreme arbiters of all public decisions puts community on an unsteady course into a future that already shows signs of collapse. T his chapter addresses the sustainability of agriculture and food in this new economic format for living because farming provided the launch pad for civilization and remains essential for survival today. Life can continue, though at a lower quality, without the obsessive consumption of manufactured goods characterizing life in the W est today. Life cannot continue if agriculture and food are despoiled by the ideology of globalization. In many ways agriculture and food are stormwarning indicators.  ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� The material for this chapter is taken from the manuscript of a book by the author currently being prepared for publication.

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

92

Globalized business aims to colonize the global food chain in the same way that a few multinational businesses possess the lucrative, guaranteed market for oil. The attack on agriculture and food uses two principal weapons to gain control: • •

T he mandatory laws of the W orld T rade O rganization (WTO ) that require member countries to open their agriculture and food to a world market already greatly influenced by subsidized, intensively produced Western food. T he new legal procedure of patenting life that is now being used by a small business elite to take ownership of the agro-bioresources of the world.

T hese new powerful weapons abuse two foundation principles and practices of civilized society: • •

T he rule of law upholding a stable society and providing for the orderly conduct of life for everyone. Ethical behaviour based upon positive values for sustaining community life.

Western society has chosen a dangerous route in seeking to globalize agriculture and food and intends to take the whole world into this high risk venture. This route is at variance with the positive experiences deriving from agriculture and food in the past and risks returning society to a hierarchical socio-economic model of enforced control by an elite, long rejected by enlightened society. In this chapter we seek to understand how this situation has come about, to assess the dangers realistically and to offer alternatives for a sane approach for ensuring a sustainable food supply for the whole world. T he chapter follows this sequence: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A griculture and F ood at the O rigin of C ivilization R ise of Globalization as an Ideology O rigins of the R ule of Law and M orality The Enlightenment and its Backlash A Better A lternative for the F uture

Agriculture and Food at the Origin of Civilization The long march of humanity and food T o understand the present position of the food chain in modern society a brief look at the past is essential. A review of where humanity has come from reveals the threat of return to a more primitive life if we fail to ensure a sustainable food supply system – a great risk that we are now taking. This overview starts about 12 000 years ago at the beginning of human civilization when the N eolithic or

Globalization and Sustainability in Agriculture: Role of Law and Ethics

93

Cultural Revolution broke the hunter-gatherer model with the invention of settled agriculture and civilization as we know it was launched. This civilized period is relatively short compared to the aeons of pre-history. Prior to this remarkable change, our early ancestors, the hunter-gatherers, had a very simple economic system which was labour intensive with no land ownership; and traditional knowledge was their only capital. Collecting food was their major activity. Even today, small isolated tribes of hunter-gatherers devote most of their energy to ensuring adequate food. Anyone taking the time to watch domestic or wild animals soon notices what animal behaviour studies confirm; namely, that searching for and ingesting food occupies 80% of waking time. Life is ensured only by the continuous, diligent search for food. By the wit and skill of humanity it has become possible in the West for 90% of the population to spend their energy on activities other than producing food. By contrast, depending upon the stage of development, people in poorer countries still devote 35 to 90% of their time to food production. Settled agriculture and the first domestication of plants and animals in M esopotamia, now Iraq, was a critical hinge point that was later repeated elsewhere in copycat centres of domestication. In those early days, agriculture was the focus of all socio-economic and community activity. F arming directed choice of location to settle; diets were determined by local agro-bioresources. F armers began to claim ownership of land to protect their cultivated crops, to own domestic animals and tools; and thus the socio-economic pattern of land, labour and capital was born. S ettled agriculture needs co-operation and so the human experience of community on a scale larger than close family was initiated. C ommunity became a central feature of life. R outines revolved around the seasons, religious events centred on farming activities such as harvest, and wealth was counted in animals. C ommunity became even more important as peoples migrated in different directions around the earth. Life was shaped by the cycles of nature. S ettled agriculture soon revealed the advantages of division of labour, thus liberating energy and time for an amazing burst of human creativity. A rchaeological and anthropological evidence show that these settled communities developed into a new type of society featuring art, complex language, jewellery, music, implements, trade, storage of wealth, hygiene, technology, engineering, architecture, heating, plus intellectual, artistic, economic and other social activities including religion – all evidences of a higher quality of life than Homo sapiens had previously known when living as an animal. A s humanity no longer survived in small family or extended family groups, but in larger structured communities, the emergence of moral standards and laws to guide acceptable behaviour was extremely important to sustain society, as discussed later. S ome people moved away from the land and established urban communities. A mbitious rulers realized that cities could hold power over settled farming  ������������������������������ W .J.A . Payne and John H odges, Tropical Cattle: Origins, Breeds and Breeding Problems (Blackwell Science, 1997).

94

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

communities, controlling and taxing the flow of goods and people to and from the farming hinterland including the use of slaves and soldiers. C ities became gateways to land and food supplies and thereby grew more prosperous. F ood has always been a weapon of power and control. Take a city in war and you control the wealth from the surrounding land and population. U rban centres and especially the rulers became richer with servants, more education, resources to travel and time to engage in other activities including conquest of more territory and peoples leading to kingdoms and eventually to sovereign states. C ities began to accumulate different forms of capital: financial, intellectual, social and humans as slaves. Religious power with its roots in rural areas was also centralized in cities. R ural and urban societies grew apart while class, education and economic distinctions grew. In the flow of subsequent millennia from those early farmers to the present twenty-first century, this separation of people on the land from a powerful urban ruling class can be traced through the wide variety of socio-economic systems which humans have developed: tribal, slave, feudal, mercantile, military, fascist, communist and market economy. In the last two centuries, the West has attained the most liberal democratic system based upon equality and the rule of law. Y et, during the last decade of the twentieth century the W est introduced the most extreme and unbalanced form of market economy, itself a product of the globalization of capital, that I call ‘Elite C apitalism’. T his system increasingly permits an urban minority to direct economic development. T he W estern urban minority in the world holds power over farmers, the food chain and the poor. C ontrol is exercised through merchant banks, investment houses, stock exchanges, commodity exchanges, food futures, derivatives, advertising agencies, farm loans and credit, and so on, plus the near monopoly powers of the huge up-and down-stream companies that, by contract, dictate the management practices of the modern farm in W estern society. The movers and shakers in the boardrooms of these institutions are anonymous, largely appointed and not elected, trained not in agriculture or biology but in business schools where their skills are sharpened to seek only profit. As already mentioned, further levers of power are being added through WTO and patent laws. F or 12 000 years civilized life has been a long, slow climb upwards but reverse free-fall could be swift.  ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� By Elite Capitalism I mean an unbalanced market economy in which financial capital has become the only arbiter of decision making. Financial capital under globalization has become highly mobile and all new and existing business opportunities are evaluated solely on the basis of return on investments. O ther resources including land, labour and other forms of capital are brought into the enterprise only as they support the single goal. T his system places major decision-making in the hands of a small elite group of executives in the business world who have power to make huge capital investments which they administer on the behalf of both large and small owners of financial capital whose only requirement of the executives is increasing profit and shareholder value. Considerations of the interests of workers, customers and citizens are not taken into the decision-making process except as they affect return on investment.

Globalization and Sustainability in Agriculture: Role of Law and Ethics

95

The Rise of Globalization as an Ideology What is globalization? Globalization is a very new concept. A lthough latent in economic theory for several centuries, only since the last decade of the twentieth century has it become both an ideology and a realistic possibility. A lthough idealists may visualize a globalized world without national borders, patriotism, wars, ethnic tensions, equality and global politics together with recognition of universal human rights, in practice economic globalization is the only possibility. T he forum of the U nited N ations reveals the deep commitment that national and political leaders retain for their own power base and self-interest. UN agreements often tend to the lowest common interest and override even the ethical way forward that seems most obvious to the common man. T he European U nion started in 1948 with economic union that has gradually expanded, but extension to other areas of life remains slow and controversial. S imilarly, because globalization crosses national interests and, if applied comprehensively, would involve surrender of national power, to date it has been able to focus only upon economics and trade. T his goal suits countries whose global economic reach is already well established through several centuries of colonization, military intervention, bi-lateral trade, industrialization and support of intensive agriculture. T o consolidate and extend trade globally, W estern countries were the prime movers in 1995 in shaping previous trade and tariff agreements into one global body, the W orld T rade O rganization (WTO ), to which all countries are invited as members. Business interests with the support of W estern governments have formulated the WTO agenda upon free trade, meaning the absence of any protective measures, taxes, tariffs, subsidies, and so on, and country membership is conditional upon removal of these barriers. T he WTO mandate to exercise such vast authority on world affairs that affects far more than cheap food has not been submitted to the people; and WTO executives and counsellors, including those who impose sanctions for default, are not elected democratically but appointed by an in-house caucus. The organization lacks democratic status. U ndoubtedly, free trade based upon A dam S mith’s D ivision of Labour and D avid R icardo’s C omparative A dvantage creates more wealth and lowers consumer prices in industrial commodities and manufactured goods, although equity remains an issue as the greatest share often goes to those owning most capital. T he proponents of free trade insist on including agriculture and food on the grounds that it will produce the cheapest possible world food supply. But, as we have seen, agriculture and food are unique in social as well as economic affairs and cannot be swept into the global free trade ideology without dire societal consequences affecting the quality of life of the poor and a sustainable world food supply. Deep issues of justice must be considered when seeking to feed the world, needing a special global policy that takes account of more than simple economic growth.

96

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

N evertheless W estern governments pressure the developing world to open their markets and drop protection of agriculture and food, while the EU and the USA take a hypocritical stance by continuing protection and support of their own domestic farmers. W ithin the WTO agriculture and food have become the most contentious issues with developed and most developing countries ranged on opposing sides. T his confrontation is a continuation of the historic divide between rich urban and poor rural societies in which the former always hold considerable power over the latter. In this case 20% of the world population in capital rich countries faces off 80% of the world population in developing economies. The gap in their standards of living is huge. Leaders of capital rich countries seek the moral high ground by arguing that the ideology of globalization is the panacea for solving world hunger. In fact most of the three billion people living in rural areas close to the land are not hungry but poor. T hose who are hungry or malnourished are mostly fed by food aid from the U nited N ations W orld F ood Programme and other aid programmes. M any are refugees and their sad condition mainly results from international or civil war, natural disasters, or corrupt political leadership, none of which will be rectified by free trade in food. T he greatest need of the three billion rural poor is empowerment, meaning they need the opportunity to produce and sell their excess food in their domestic markets. But Western business wants those markets for their subsidized, intensively produced food. O ne has to be blind not to suspect that the motives of global food businesses are colonization of the world food chain, and they see free trade as a means to that end. A ctually free trade is a formula for an unsustainable world food supply that will place consumers at risk in both developed and developing countries. W hy? Because business being business, international trade in cheap food will be dropped in the pursuit of greater profit opportunities. A sudden change of this type is already seen by the diversion of W estern food acres to biofuels. C ountries following WTO free trade laws that allow their domestic agriculture to decline in the interests of importing cheaper food are thus left hungry. T he U K was in this position in 1939 having practised free trade for 100 years by importing cheap food from the British Empire. But suddenly under war conditions it could no longer be imported. T he U K had allowed domestic agriculture to decline and was able to produce only 60% of needed food at home; rationing was introduced that lasted for 15 years while farming capacity was slowly rebuilt at considerable cost. Abuse of rule of law and violation of ethics in globalization of the food chain T wo highly important components of civilized society are being abused in the new rush to force agriculture and food into global free trade. T hey are the rule of law and standards of ethical behaviour that ensure justice and equity in economic development. It would be nonsense to pretend that the rule of law and good ethical behaviour have consistently characterized human society until now. A mbitious leaders have always threatened, sometimes ignored and occasionally deprived society of orderliness and respect for others. N evertheless history records, and we

Globalization and Sustainability in Agriculture: Role of Law and Ethics

97

know from experience, that European culture has gradually moved, with hesitancy and much brokenness en route, from a primitive society based upon instinctive selfinterest to one that by the 20th century was built upon the rule of law and embraced values that recognized human rights for all and care of the disadvantaged. But, the fragility of this advanced civilization was well displayed by the gross violation of these principles in the 20th century by two European states under H itler and S talin producing periods of darkness worse than survival of the fittest in the wilderness. A s the W est now enters the 21st century supported on the luxurious litter of material prosperity that owes almost everything to previous generations, the rule of law and ethical values are being washed away, thereby eroding the twin bedrock foundations on which W estern civilized life has been built. F ree trade in food permits the abuse of the rule of law and ethical values by two mechanisms. F irst, the mandatory rules of the WTO expose the poor to exploitation instead of empowerment; second, patent law on agro-bioresources gives ownership of the world’s agro-bioresources to an elite group remote from the land. F armers are required to pay a royalty to obtain seed for crops. A pplications for patents for domestic animals are also now in the law courts. Y et from the beginning of time these resources have been held in common ownership by all humanity. T o understand better the new threat to the rule of law and ethical behaviour we next review their origins which are rooted in rural agricultural societies. Origins of Rule of Law and Morality Living in community requires laws to sustain life A s noted earlier, the advent of settled agriculture moved humans from small tribal families where life was based upon competition over largely unpopulated territory into larger rural communities where survival mode needed co-operation. T his dramatic change called for a major adjustment in the ways that people related to each other and to the natural environment. T he instinctive, self-centred law of the jungle proved to be destructive when community settled on cultivated land with boundaries. T he new communities, even at the simplest level, needed group activity to capture, domesticate and care for animals, to cultivate crops and to keep the former from grazing the latter. T he advantages of settled communities could easily be lost by selfish behaviour. The process of living together and sharing harvests not only raised the standard of living with explosive creativity, but it also raised expectations of ethical behaviour with sanctions upon anti-social actions. Inevitably these expectations were codified into laws enabling society and its resources to continue into successive seasons, years and generations without being wrecked by the selfish behaviour of a few individuals.  ������������������������������������ M ax F . R othschild and S cott N ewman, Intellectual Property Rights in Animal Breeding and Genetics, CA BI Publishing, W allingford, U K, 2002.

98

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

Law and ethical behaviour Laws against abuse of land and natural resources are rarely needed in agrarian societies because people living close to the land know instinctively that next year’s harvest is dependent on not abusing the land this year. F or example, dairy farmers accept that they cannot milk a cow endlessly and also expect sustainable performance. A cow must have a rest period between one lactation and the next if she is to continue yielding high quantities of milk over her lifetime. The rest period is not lost time but investment in the sustainability of milk production. A s people moved into cities away from the land where the need for sustainability was so obvious, self-interest and neglect of community values became easier. A n urban society needs education in the meaning of sustainability. Intelligent leaders and law makers in all communities give top priority to sustainability of society and pass laws against anti-social behaviour. By seeking to limit selfish behaviour good laws sustain human society. T he ten commandments of M oses that have formed the moral basis of Judeo and Christian societies are also reflected in expectations of most major religions. T hese commands are prohibitions against bad behaviour. But, in recent decades in the W est, greed and self-interest have necessitated laws against overuse of the environment to limit industrial operations from spoiling natural resources. S uch laws are framed to prevent bad practices by a minority in the interests of sustainability for the whole community. T he fact that there is opposition to such laws in modern society shows how far modern W estern man has departed from his roots and reveals his abject failure to grasp the biological nature of the community of life. H istorically, laws have generally aimed to prevent bad behaviour. Legislating to enforce good behaviour is usually impossible. A law against abuse of wife or children is enforceable; but a law requiring a man to love wife and children has no teeth and cannot be enforced. F ollowing the recent spate of corrupt behaviour by business executives, new laws do not mandate ethical behaviour; rather, they require verifiable practices against lack of transparency, accountability and money laundering, etc. C ivilized societies over the centuries have used law to prevent wrong-doing defined as actions not in the best interests of society as a whole. There are many examples from the 19th century: prison reform laws to prevent violence against prisoners, abolition of the slave trade, use of the Plimsol line on ships to prevent overloading, limits on the length of the working week, safety laws in factories, children not sent to work in mines, etc. Good laws prohibit anti-social behaviour, thereby providing a stability for the whole of society rich and poor, educated and non-educated and the disadvantaged. Two views on why humans are morally responsible T oday there are two views on the origins of ethical behaviour and moral choice by H omo sapiens. O ne view is that in pre-history H omo sapiens had developed a

Globalization and Sustainability in Agriculture: Role of Law and Ethics

99

genetic pre-disposition favouring group co-operation over competition that, under the new conditions of settled agriculture, caused people instinctively to co-operate and later to codify good and bad behaviour into laws. T he other view, held by the major world monotheistic religions – Judaism, C hristianity and Islam – is that God facilitated the change from animal behaviour to human community by shaping H omo sapiens into his own image. T his image includes several important traits not evident in animals, two of which are moral understanding and the ability to make decisions against the instinct of self-interest – details of which are portrayed powerfully as allegory in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. This second (theistic) view also holds that the moral law was not the result of human genetic pre-disposition but was revealed by God to humanity as guidance on how to live sustainably and peacefully in community. Those following the first view, while discarding the idea of God intervening in human affairs, nevertheless propose that the leaders of mankind quickly realised that their people were more likely to conform to the moral law if it were linked to an imaginary deity with power to reward or to punish either here and now or later. T his view requires acceptance that humanity has an awareness of the transcendent that is lacking in animals. Those on the rejection-of-God track are still searching for a rational explanation of the universal religious tendency in humanity, while those on the belief-in-God track find their explanation of religious behaviour in the image relationship of humanity and God. W hatever the view of origins, it is accepted by all as self-evident today that individuals and institutions can choose to live unselfishly and thereby promote sustainability and quality of life for all; or alternatively can choose to live selfishly and degrade the environment and life for others. As Isaak Singer pithily put it: ‘We have to believe in free will, we have no choice’. C ommonly we describe these alternatives as ethical choices between doing Good or doing Evil. T he way Europe has understood Good and Evil for nearly two thousand years has been based upon the teaching of Jesus; namely, that Good ethical behaviour means doing to your neighbour what you would like your neighbour to do to you; while Evil ethical behaviour is doing to your neighbour what you would not like your neighbour to do to you. T hus, in the best periods of European history, the rule of law has been used to prevent and punish anti-social behaviour while individuals and society have been expected to behave ethically by voluntarily choosing to do Good to others. In simple terms all public decisions should take account of sustaining the community as a whole; generally known as: ‘Doing the decent thing’ or ‘The Golden Rule’. O ver the long periods of human history until today, some societies and leaders have chosen Good and guided communities into increasing prosperity and quality of life. O ther leaders have chosen Evil and have created societies in which people and resources have been abused, enslaved, and degraded. In either case, leaders usually make laws defining what is Right and what is Wrong. Progressive societies have generally made laws that in the longer term equate R ight with Good and W rong with Evil. A s society advances, new legislation is passed to change abuses. H owever, the 20th century saw several regimes that reversed this equation; for

100

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

example, H itler’s N azis and S talin’s C ommunism. T hose autocrats made laws in which R ight was equated with Evil and W rong with Good. W hen the W estern democracies, that historically were based upon JudeoC hristian values, defeated N azism in 1945 and then saw the collapse of S oviet C ommunism in 1989, many assumed that the W est had created the permanent socioeconomic system defined by Right and Good. Those cries of triumph frighteningly echoed the earlier proclamations that communism was the ultimate endpoint of humanity. But some in the W est saw the defeat of Karl M arx by A dam S mith and the 50-year period of prosperity in the W est as proof of the ultimate superiority and sustainability of Western democracy and capitalism. Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History in this vein. Regrettably, in the last two decades, this remarkable combination of capitalism and democracy is showing increasing evidence of unsustainability. W hile this crumbling is fearsome in many areas, including climate change, nowhere is it more critical than the risk to agriculture and food which, from early days of civilization has been at the root of human survival and well-being. T he eyes of W estern leaders are now blinded. M ost of them have lived their whole lives in an urban environment always provided with a plentiful supply of cheap food at the local supermarket. Such isolation insulates policy leaders from the proper understanding of agriculture and food. 4. The Enlightenment and its Backlash What is the nature of the abuse? T he tragedy of the present state of W estern society, especially as revealed by its attitude to agriculture and food, is found in the willingness of leaders, legislators and the law courts to abuse two foundational principles of sustainability, namely the rule of law and ethical behaviour in the public sphere. A s discussed earlier, historically good laws have been designed to prevent and punish selfish behaviour and thus to sustain positive community values, equality and improvements in the quality of life for all. Good ethical behaviour has been expected as normal on the basis of moral choice because everyone knew the importance of sustaining community. W estern society now faces a paradigm shift in the rule of law and ethical behaviour. C rucial laws are now being put into place that reverse the long-standing principles of civilized society. T he WTO laws require the dismantling of protection of domestic agriculture and the exposure of food markets to global free trade. T hese laws do not oppose anti-social behaviour – they use legal power to provide trade and business advantages to a minority, the strong W est that wants access to the markets of the huge populations of the developing world. These WTO laws are discriminatory in favouring the rich and powerful while putting the poor at further disadvantage.

Globalization and Sustainability in Agriculture: Role of Law and Ethics

101

T he patent laws, that were originally designed to protect the rights of inventors who made something novel, are now being used by multinational businesses in agriculture and food to claim ownership of agro-bioresources. T his move is a second example of the use of law to protect the interest of an elite rich group while taking away ownership from the poor whose livelihood for millennia has depended upon being able to use seed and livestock that have been domesticated by their ancestors. If anyone alive today can claim ownership of the world’s domesticated crops and animals, it is the living descendents of those early farmers who brought those species into farm use from wild varieties. In terms of ethical behaviour that has traditionally supported community, the emerging Western business model places priority on profit alone and therefore sees others people, called ‘neighbours’ in ethical terms, as competitors whose interests are antithetical to the self-interest of the successful business model. We now seek an understanding of how this reversal in the rule of law and of normal ethical behaviour in the public square has come about. The enlightenment European civilization went through a number of stages in the move from early settled agriculture to the present advanced socio-economic and political system. Probably, the most transforming and remarkable period in European history started about 700 years ago with the R enaissance, the R eformation and the Enlightenment. W hile all three had monumental effects upon the development of European society and its cultural colonies in the N ew W orld, the Enlightenment starting in the 18th century was the major hinge point with effects that lasted into the 20th century. Just as settled agriculture ended Pre-H istory enabling humanity to metamorphose into the Pre-M odern Era, so the Enlightenment ushered civilization into the M odern Era that has shaped W estern life and spilled into the rest of the world. T he Pre-M odern Era was characterized by stable infrastructures including the hierarchy of God as the S upreme Being, secular rulers with divine right, the church, limited understanding of the earth that fostered superstition, inherited class-based power and political subjection. T hat society was relatively stable reinforced by the limitations on education, travel and communications since the fastest that a man could travel was by horse. T he Enlightenment undermined those structures and started a slow cascade of innovation in society that deeply changed human perceptions about the nature of the universe and man’s place in it. Emerging consequences included social-economic and political revolution, literacy, the start of modern science, replacement of superstition by rationality, diminished authority for the church, the death of God, democracy, human rights, and many applications of technology improving the material quality of life. R elevant to the discussion here, the rule of law and independence of the judiciary were significant features to emerge together with the societal values based upon Judeo-C hristian teaching that for a thousand years had provided Europe with moral and ethical standards of behaviour. In retrospect from the 21st century, the Pre-M odern Era

102

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

seems unattractive and needed to be replaced. Fortunately the change took place in Europe, whereas in some other parts of the world the Pre-M odern Era persists. But there are positive aspects of the Pre-M odern Era that we now despise, as now discussed. How did the West arrive at this state? The restructuring of Western society due to Enlightenment influences is very relevant to the present discussion of sustainability within a global economy. Reductionism, which breaks a system into its constituent parts, is a product of the Enlightenment and is a potent influence today permeating both world view and behaviour. Reductionism is central to the scientific method and underlies economics and capitalism as practised today, enabling both to be more efficient and effective. R egrettably our habit of seeing everything in reductionist terms has had a negative effect upon our view of community. M odern man, living in an anonymous urban society, typically owes and gives nothing to his neighbours and is unaware of the sterility of such a life. In that worldview, community does not exist independently of the personal interests of each individual; other individuals are seen mainly as competitors seeking possession of limited resources. They are therefore not seen as friends and merit no positive actions. Quality of life is measured only in financial terms which the self-sufficient, autonomous individual takes as the main factor in every decision and in any encounter with others. Ethical behaviour, born of community and for theists a moral choice given by God, finds no place in this world view. T he isolation of urban based individuals from their ancestral communities and nuclear families reinforces interest only in value now, thus removing interest in past or future generations. A nd, the condition of the majority poor in the world is irrelevant to an individual life seeking only personal gain. This individualistic worldview and these behaviours are the backlash of the Enlightenment. T he W est is a secular, self-centred society, a condition recognized in Europe; whereas even the large religious component of the USA supports a culture and practises a self-centred lifestyle better described as secular. If our forebears in Pre-M odern Europe could see us and our behaviour they would recognize instantly that our lifestyle is unsustainable. Under Enlightenment influences, Western society rightly rejected the inhumanity of man to man so evident in Pre-M odern European society; but we foolishly reject the wisdom of living in sustainable community that was built up over thousands of years of civilization. Pre-M odern society, despite all its faults, was sustainable; our way of living is not. F urther, our ambition to globalize our economic system and insist upon it being used in other nations, most of whom have not yet been through the Enlightenment experience, is a folly unworthy of enlightened humanity. In relation to the issues of sustaining agriculture and food, it is valid to ask how W estern society, at the start of the 21st century now accepts laws and ethical

Globalization and Sustainability in Agriculture: Role of Law and Ethics

103

behaviour that are discriminatory by establishing rights for the strong and powerful over the poor and weak. 20% of the world uses 80% of the natural resources polluting the environment and changing the climate in the process, while 80% of the world uses 20% of the resources and half the world population lives on $2 per day. Approaching the cliff edge W estern society is poised between moral choices – powerfully presented by the allegory of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the book of Genesis. Selfinterest blinds individuals, leaders and societies to the reality that we are walking to the edge of the cliff. Earlier agricultural communities knew by instinct or discovered by selfishness that a society ignores the moral imperatives at its own peril. They knew that survival was precarious. We rightly threw out institutional religion that had become a vehicle for selfish power, but we have foolishly thrown out the moral codes and ethical behaviour without which human community is destroyed. Looking back even a short time confirms that the last few decades have seen W estern society embrace a self-centred, individualistic, narrow-minded worldview interested only in personal prosperity. Even today, the older generation recalls the spirit of community that brought Europe and the USA through two W orld W ars and the severe economic depression of the 1930s. D uring those times of challenge people realized the importance of community, of empowering everyone, and of preserving a domestic food supply. T he great tragedy and blindness of W estern society is to forget the liberation brought by the Enlightenment to the extent of now allowing an elite minority to abuse the rule of law and by unethical behaviour take control of agriculture and food. 5. A Better Alternative for the Future T he world enters the 21st century with gross inequality and injustice. T he existence of billions of poor and disadvantaged people cries out for remedy. T he means, facilities and wealth needed for actions are available on a global scale never seen before in human history. The West has power to take successful initiatives that cover the whole earth; for example, communication, travel, tourism, military, education, trade, fishing, energy, space exploration and travel, etc. But the acceptance of billions of poor in an age when civilization has never been richer is a blot on the moral responsibility of humanity. T he abuse of the rule of law to protect the interest of the rich and the abrogation of the ethical responsibility by leaders who have power to act in positive ways is a mark of shame on our advanced civilization. Thinking people are calling for an alternative way. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to propose detailed designs for action. N evertheless, serious proposals are given for action. Positive change will not be easy because of powerful vested interests. W e need to recall the words of Edmund Burke: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do

Ethics, Law and Society: Volume IV

104

nothing’. W e should be encouraged by the fact that great global changes affecting the poor like the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1807 and later the Abolition of S lavery in the British Empire in 1833 were brought about by the persistent and courageous actions of W illiam W ilberforce and colleagues in the U K parliament. T he impact spread beyond the British Empire, setting a precedent for the abolition of slaves 32 years later in the USA and the end of serfdom in 1861 in R ussia. Because many leaders of large businesses can no longer be trusted to do the ethical thing voluntarily, legislation is the only positive way forward. H ere is a list of areas that would begin to empower the poor and to ensure the sustainability of agriculture and food globally. • •

•

• • • •

R emove A griculture and F ood from the free trade mandate of the W orld T rade O rganization. C reate through the WTO a levy on international trade that is used to empower poor farmers in the developing world by building infrastructures such as marketing, quality, hygiene improvements, etc. and to develop new employment in rural areas such as up-stream and down-stream services to the agricultural community. R ecognize that the agro-resources in W estern countries are also a national heritage that must not be left to market forces alone. This means continuing financial support from governments and the EU to farmers to promote the production of high quality food using sustainable methods and conserving the environment. Legislate and give financial support to encourage locally produced food on the market. R emove all life forms from the patenting process. T his means allowing patents only for new methods and for the non-living products obtained from living organisms. Introduce required courses on sustainability and community along with the existing courses on ethics in business schools. Make laws that regulate the activities of near-monopoly companies in the food chain to prevent unjust exploitation of farmers and customers.

C hapter 8

Production Economics, Markets and A ssurance Programmes for F arm A nimal W elfare M ichael C . A ppleby

Introduction Every year, around 60 billion mammals and birds are reared for food on farms worldwide; this number does not include farmed fish and invertebrates. This huge business is subject to similar financial pressures to many other businesses, and in the livestock agriculture of developed countries a predominant tendency over the last 50 years has been a drive for efficiency – for cutting the cost of producing each egg or unit of meat or milk. However, the livestock business is unusual in dealing with sentient animals, so it is a matter of concern that one result of this drive for efficiency has been the development of intensive farming and other practices causing problems for animal welfare, a pattern now also occurring in many developing countries. In parallel with and partly as a result of this intensification there has been increasing consideration in many countries for the welfare of farm animals. T his has resulted in the restriction of some practices deleterious to welfare, or conversely, has led to the introduction of standards for the protection or promotion of welfare, albeit very unevenly. T his chapter will briefly outline the economic basis and implications of such standards. It will then consider the question of whether such standards are compatible with the increase in international trade and competition between countries, which tends to increase the pressure for cheap food production. Economics and Ethics Economic theory has long been based on ethics, an issue discussed at length by A martya S en (1987). Bennett (1997, 235) explains that: Economics is not concerned with money per se, although it often finds money a useful measuring rod. Economics is concerned with how we in society make decisions about using resources to achieve the things that we want. The central problem for eco