Post Brexit Farming: Interweaving animal welfare, the environment and public health

Peter StevensonCompassion in World Farming

All references are in notes below slides

Brexit should not lead to dilution of UK animal welfare standards

Core objective 1

EU legislation on farm animal welfare

• Laying Hens Directive: 1999/74• Meat Chickens Directive:2007/43• Calves Directive: 2008/119• Pigs Directive: 2008/120• General Farm Animals Directive: 98/58• Transport Regulation: 1/2005• Slaughter Regulation: 1099/2009

Good welfare should be seen as part of UK’s post-Brexit international brand

Our USP, both at home and abroad, should be the highest standards of animal welfare and the highest standards of food traceability: Andrea Leadsom, Defra Secretary of State (1)

Core objective 2: Improving animal welfare

Two factors more than anything will determine post Brexit levels of animal welfare

• Trade issues• Post CAP subsidy arrangements

Trade issues - will these (i) drive pressure to dilute welfare standards & (ii) undermine attempts

to improve welfare?• UK farmers must be protected from being undermined by lower

welfare imports – UK must insist on inclusion in new trade agreements of a clause permitting it to require imports to meet UK animal welfare standards

• But will UK be willing to do this given their desire to build a large portfolio of new trade agreements?

• Where UK does not conclude a trade agreement, trade will be governed by WTO rules

• Will UK have the courage to argue that WTO rules enable it to require imports to meet animal welfare standards equivalent to those of UK? (1)

Designing post CAP farming support• Need to rethink the purpose of public funding for agriculture• We should define what kind of food & farming system we want & then

determine how public funding can help to deliver & maintain that system• Farmers should be rewarded by the market for outputs, with taxpayers’

principal role being to provide funding for public goods that the market cannot – or can only partially - deliver such as high environmental & animal welfare standards

• Farmers willing to improve welfare would be incentivised under a new UK system of farm support payments

• Public funding could be granted for e.g. membership of RSPCA Assured, or for keeping pigs outdoors or on straw indoors. Payments to individual farmers could be tiered, depending on which level of high welfare they choose

Defra should ban live exports for slaughter & fattening

• Once UK is no longer bound by EU rules, it will be free to ban live exports - provided that in any new trade agreement with EU it insists on inclusion of clause permitting it to do so

Many UK sows are kept in farrowing crates for several days before giving birth & for 3-4 weeks after the piglets are born

These are so narrow the sow cannot even turn round.

Farrowing crates should be replaced by free farrowing systems

Several alternatives to farrowing crates are available – some designed by British farmers & scientists (3) & (4)

© 360º Freedom Farrower™

Piglet mortalities in loose farrowing systems can as low as or lower than in crates (1) & (2)

SRUC indoor free farrowing system

Government should support move to free farrowing systems

• Through post CAP farm support payments

• Through public procurement

• Ultimately ban farrowing crates

Government should support the move away from enriched cages for laying hens

• All UK’s major supermarket chains have now either stopped using eggs from hens kept in enriched cages or have pledged to do so by 2025 (1)

• McDonald’s, Pret, Subway are cage-free - indeed free range - in UK• Compass Group & Sodexo, two of the world’s largest food service

companies, committed to using only cage-free eggs (shell & liquid) worldwide by 2025 (2) & (3)

• UK public sector should no longer use enriched cage eggs• UK should emulate Germany which has banned enriched cages from 2025,

with some exceptions allowing use till 2028 (4)

Public procurement: taking the lead, setting the standard

• Public sector spends about £2.4bn per annum procuring food and catering services (1)

• Defra public procurement policy only requires meat, milk & eggs to reach legislative minimum standards

• Public sector bodies should, when buying meat, dairy products & eggs, use their buying power to augment the market for food produced to high nutritional, environmental & animal welfare standards

Public procurement: cost implications of adopting higher standards

• Some US hospitals use meat produced more sustainably & to higher animal welfare standards but reduce the quantity of meat used in their meals (1) & (2)

• Savings made by using less meat can cover the extra cost of buying higher quality meat

• Two ‘wins’: (i) support for sustainable, high welfare farming, (ii) healthier diets for patients

• Copenhagen House of Food: Its goal is to increase the quality of the meals which the municipality offers its citizens & to create a healthy eating culture

• 75% of public meals served in Copenhagen are organic (3)• By carefully balancing the contents of meals, they have been able to

achieve a high organic level without increasing costs

UK dairy sector is industrialising – cows are being taken off the fields & confined indoors all year round in ‘zero-grazing’ systems

Post CAP subsidies should only be available for pasture-based farmersPublic sector bodies should only use milk & dairy products from pasture-based herds

We need to reverse this trend(1) & (2)

Do these products

Come from her? Or her?

You have no way of knowing

Milk & dairy productsmust be labelled as to farming methodso that consumers can play their part in

supporting pasture-based dairying

Mandatory labelling as to farming method would stimulate the market for higher welfare products

Meat too must be labelled as to farming methodso that consumers can help drive enhanced welfare standards

Extensiveindoors

Intensiveindoors

Free range

A more ambitious approach is emerging as to what is meant by good welfare

Preventing poor welfare is not sufficient – we need to promote positively good outcomes

© istockphoto

New paper by David Mellor (1)

• Necessary not only to minimise negative experiences but also “to provide the animals with opportunities to have positive experiences”

• These “can arise when animals are kept with congenial others in spacious, stimulus-rich and safe environments which provide opportunities for them to engage in behaviours they find rewarding.”

• “These behaviours may include environment-focused exploration and food acquisition activities as well as animal-to-animal interactive activities, all of which can generate various forms of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control.”

 

St Basil of Caesaria (329-379 AD)

“May we realize that they live not for us alone, but for themselves and for Thee and that they love the sweetness of life even as we, and serve Thee better in their place than we in ours”

Industrial livestock production is not just damaging to animal welfare but is a key driver of - or contributes to - many problems affecting: • the environment • food security • public health

A key factor in farming’s detrimental impact on natural resources is the dependence of industrial livestock production on feeding human-edible cereals to animals who then convert them very inefficiently into meat & milk

UK (i) production & (ii) use as animal feed of wheat, barley & oats (1)

Thousand tonnes

46% of wheat, barley & oats produced in UK are used as animal feed

Proportion of cereals used as animal feed (1), (2) & (3)

Dairy Eggs Chicken Pork BeefCalorie

conversion efficiency

(%)40 22 12 10 3

Protein conversion efficiency

(%)43 35 40 10 5

What happens to crop calories used as animal feed?

For every 100 calories of human-edible cereals fed to animals, just 17-30 calories enter the human food chain as meat or milk: (1) & (2)

Some studies indicate the conversion rate is even lower for meat (3)

Source: Cassidy et al, 2013 (3)

Many recognise that feeding cereals to animals is wasteful

Chatham House: “staggeringly inefficient” (1)

International Institute for Environment and Development: “colossally inefficient” (2)

FAO: “potential to threaten food security” (4)

Bajželj et al, 2014

“a very inefficient use of land to produce food” (3)

In the UK 10.2 million tonnes of wheat, barley & oats are used annually as animal feed. Of this 7.6 million tonnes are wasted due to the poor conversion rate of cereals to meat & milk (1), (2) & (3)

Average annual use of wheat, barley & oats in UK as animal feed

10.2 million tonnes

Proportion of cereals used as feed converted into meat & milk

17-30% - mid-point = 25%

Proportion of cereals used as feed that do not produce food for people

75%

75% of the 10.2 million tonnes of wheat, barley & oats used annually in UK as animal feed produce no food for people

7.6 million tonnes of wheat, barley & oats are wasted annually in UK by being used as animal feed

Food thrown away from UK homes compared with food wasted by being used as animal feed (1)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Food thrown away from homes annually in UK

Food wasted annually in UK by being used as animal feed

Million tonnes

Note The right hand column does not refer to the total cereals fed to animals; it is the amount that is wasted due to animals’ low efficiency in converting cereals to meat & milk.

Soil Degradation

Biodiversity Loss

Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals, has led to:

Overuse & Pollution of Ground- and Surface-Water

Air pollution

Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals,

has led to: SOIL DEGRADATION

• “modern agriculture, in seeking to maximize yields ... has caused loss of soil organic carbon and compaction” (1)

• Depletion of soil organic carbon “in conventional agricultural fields is now thought to be an important factor constraining productivity” (1)

• Intensive agriculture has reduced soil biodiversity in southern UK. “Given that the loss of soil biodiversity is ultimately linked to a loss of soil functions that underpin ecosystem services, we propose that future agricultural policies need to consider how to halt and/or reverse this loss of soil biodiversity”. (2)

• Some of the most productive agricultural land in England is at risk of becoming unprofitable within a generation due to soil erosion and the loss of organic carbon.” “Agricultural soils are being degraded by intensive farming practices in some areas”. (3)

Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals,

has led to: BIODIVERSITY LOSS

• By 2013, the UK breeding farmland bird index had fallen by 55% compared with 1970. Statistically significant on-going decline of 10% between 2007 and 2012: (1)

• Many of the declines in farmland birds “have been caused by land management changes and the intensification of farming”: (1)

• Marked decline in pollinating insects including bees in the UK.. Intensive farming has resulted in a significant loss of habitats with the resultant loss of food and nesting resources for pollinators –and the use of pesticides and monocultures – being a leading driver in pollinator declines: (2)

Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals,

has led to: OVERUSE & POLLUTION OF GROUND- & SURFACE- WATER

• “Animal products from industrial systems generally consume and pollute more ground- and surface-water resources than animal products from grazing or mixed systems.” (1)

• Because of the larger dependence on concentrate feed in industrial systems, further intensification of animal production systems will result in increasing use & pollution of ground- and surface-water per unit of animal product. (1)

Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals,

has led to: AIR POLLUTION

• A study analysed the health costs arising in Europe from Denmark’s air pollution. The study found that the main Danish sector that contributes to health costs arising from air pollution is agriculture; its contribution (43%) outweighs those of road traffic (18%) and major power plants (10%). (1)

• Report by the French Senate concludes that air pollution is mainly caused by four sectors: agriculture, transport, industry and residential (2)

• A study reports that in the UK agriculture contributes up to 48% of the air pollution associated with premature mortality. This largely results from livestock and fertilisers; a substantial proportion of these are used to grow crops for animal feed. (3)

Health: Antibiotics• Industrial livestock production tends to rely on routine use of

antibiotics to prevent the diseases that are inevitable when animals are confined in overcrowded, stressful conditions: O’Neill Review on antimicrobial resistance, 2015 (1)

• Overuse of antibiotics in industrial animal production contributes significantly to antibiotics resistance in humans (2)

• Animals account for about 40% of antibiotic use in the UK (3)• 83% of UK farm antibiotics use is in pigs and poultry, the two most

intensively farmed species: (4)

Health: Non-Communicable Diseases

• The high consumption levels of red and processed meat made possible by industrial livestock production contribute to: – Heart disease: (1)– Type-2 Diabetes: (2)– Certain cancers – WHO has classified red and processed meat

as ‘probably carcinogenic’ and ‘carcinogenic’ respectively: (3)

Well below 2°CWe can’t hit the Paris climate targets

without a reduction in meat & dairy

consumption

By 2050 our diets alone likely to have taken us above the ‘well below 2°C’ target: (1), (2) & (3)

Ideally 1.5°C

IndustrialLivestock

Production

Terrible animal welfare

Industrial Livestock

Production

IndustrialLivestock

Production

Demand for cereals as feed has

fuelled intensification of crop production

Animal convert cereals very inefficiently into meat &

milk. This undermines food security by reducing cereals

available for people

Soil degradation, biodiversity loss,

water & air pollution

Food SecurityNatural Resources

Need for soy as feed leads to

deforestation in South America

Regular preventive

antibiotic use

Resistance to antibiotics used in human medicine

Antibiotics

Enables excessive meat

& dairy consumption

Heart disease, certain cancers,

obesity

Health

GHG emissions – impossible to reach

‘well below 2°C target’

Climate

Animal Welfare

Animals in cages & barren

overcrowded sheds & selection for

fast growth

Transforming the role of livestock1

The proper function of livestock in farming is to convert materials we cannot consume - grass, by-products & food waste - into food that we can eat: (1) & (2)

The UK should reduce the use of cereals as animal feed & instead put its emphasis on:• raising animals on extensive pastures• integrated, rotational crop-livestock production

Encouraging a reduction in meat & dairy consumption

2

• Would reduce incidence of heart disease & certain cancers in case of lower consumption of red & processed meat

• Would contribute to meeting the Paris climate targets• Would allow animals to be farmed extensively to high welfare

standards• Would enable some land formerly used to grow feed crops to

be used for horticulture so reducing UK’s massive imports of fruit & vegetables. We devote 1.4 million hectares to growing cereals for animal feed while just 168,000 hectares are used to grow fruit and vegetables. (1)

• Would allow cropland to be farmed less intensively so enabling biodiversity and soil, water & air quality to be restored

Factor affected by reduction in meat consumption

% reduction from current levels

Soybean use as animal feed 75%

Use and pollution of surface- and ground-water * 20%

Cropland use 23%

Nitrogen emissions 37-42%

Greenhouse Gas emissions 19–42%

Positive environmental impacts of a 50% reduction in EU consumption of meat, dairy and eggs

Sources:  Westhoek et al 2014 & 2015.; Vanham et al 2013: (1), (2) & (3)

* In this case the figure in column 2 refers to a 45% reduction in meat consumption

Defra should ban routine preventive use of antibiotics – no longer needs to wait for EU

• A ban would necessitate moving away from industrial production; this would allow reduced antibiotic use & improved animal welfare

• Need to “develop health-orientated systems for rearing of animals”: The Lancet Infectious Diseases Commission, 2013 (1)

3

Avoid overcrowding

Reduce stress

Enable natural behaviours

No early weaning in

pigs

Avoid excessive group size

Reduce selection for

high production

Health-Orientated Systems for Rearing Animals

Health-Orientated

Systems

© Eastbrook Farm See below in notes for references

Need to correct market failures

• Foresight Report: “There needs to be much greater realisation that market failures exist in the food system that, if not corrected, will lead to irreversible environmental damage and long term threats to the viability of the food system. Moves to internalise the costs of these negative environmental externalities are critical to provide incentives for their reduction.” (1)

• FAO report: “In many countries there is a worrying disconnect between the retail price of food and the true cost of its production. As a consequence, food produced at great environmental cost in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, air pollution, and habitat destruction, can appear to be cheaper than more sustainably produced alternatives” (2)

• Prof Dieter Helm, Chair, Natural Capital Committee: “.The challenge then is to internalise these external costs, so farmers make their profit maximising decisions in the context of their full costs of production. .. Policy should ensure that they face these full costs.” (3)

 

4

Mending Our Price System

• Olivier De Schutter, former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food: “any society where a healthy diet is more expensive than an unhealthy diet is a society that must mend its price system” (1)

• Applies equally to a society where environmentally damaging, low animal welfare food is cheaper than food that respects natural resources & animals’ well-being

• Our report Cheap Food Costs Dear examines wide range of studies that calculate the cost of farming’s negative externalities (2)

Taxation

Use tax breaks to encourage desired

outcomes

Levy tax to reflect negative

externalities

For farmers: generous capital allowances & extra tax-free income

for quality farming

For consumers: use tax levied to subsidise

quality food. If VAT on food, zero-rate quality

food

Two intertwined approaches

Lyall Watson in The Whole Hog “ I know of no other animals that are more consistently curious, more willing to explore new experiences, more ready to meet the world with open-mouthed enthusiasm.  Pigs are incurable optimists and get a big kick out of just being.”