Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:23:49.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How animal welfare standards create and justify realities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

L Busch
L Busch*
Affiliation:
429A Berkey Hall, Center for the Study of Standards in Society, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YD, UK
*
email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot tell us that we live in a plural world in which actions are justified in multiple ways. Moreover, Anne Marie Mol argues that things, certainly including animals, are always multiple, their very existence dependent on the particular practices in which they are implicated. Thus, animal welfare policies must be understood in light of both the ways in which animals are ‘practiced’ and the particular justifications provided for these practices. Such policies make claims based on the practices involved in animal-human interactions and are justified based on appeals to the scientific (industrial), civic, market, and domestic worlds, among others. Thus, animal welfare policies must necessarily involve compromises among both the multiple ways in which animals are ‘practiced’ and the multiple ways in which those policies may be justified.

Keywords

animal welfareanthropomorphismjustificationpoliciespracticesstandards
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 21 - 27
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Apple, MW 2006 Educating The ‘Right’ Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. Routledge: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Barnard, CJ and Hurst, JL 1996 Welfare by design: the natural selection of welfare criteria. Animal Welfare 5: 405–433Google Scholar
Berger, J 1979 Pig Earth. Pantheon Books: New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Bingen, J and Busch, L 2005 Agricultural Standards: The Shape of the Global Food and Fiber System. Springer: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Boltanski, L and Thévenot, L 2006 [1991] On Justification: Economies Of Worth. Princeton University Press: Princeton, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S and Getz, C 2008 Privatizing farm worker justice: regulating labor through voluntary certification and labeling. Geoforum 39: 1184–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownell, WC 1917 Standards. Charles Scribner's Sons: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunsson, N and Jacobsson, B 2000 A World Of Standards. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Busch, L 2000 The moral economy of grades and standards. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, L 2011 Standards: Recipes for Reality. MIT Press: Cambridge, USA, in pressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronon, W 1991 Nature's Metropolis: Chicago And The Great West. WW Norton and Co: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1993 Assessing animal well-being: common sense, uncommon science. In: Food Animal Well-Being: Conference Proceedings and Deliberations pp 37–54. Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USAGoogle Scholar
Giedion, S 1975 [1948] Mechanization Takes Command. WW Norton: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E 1971 Relations In Public. Basic Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E 1974 Frame Analysis. Harper and Row: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Huizinga, J 1950 Homo ludens. Beacon Press: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Lafaye, C and Thévenot, L 1993 Une justification écologique?: Conflits dans l'aménagement de la nature. Revue Française de Sociologie 34: 495–524. [Title translation: An ecological justification? Conflicts in the development of nature]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M and Kettlewell, P 1998 Physiological stress and welfare of broiler chickens in transit: solutions not problems! Poultry Science 77: 1803–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, A 2002 The Body Multiple. Duke University Press: Durham, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody, M and Thévenot, L 2000 Comparing models of strategy, interests, and the public good in french and american environmental disputes. In: Lamont, M and Thévenot, L (eds) Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States pp 273–306. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Standards and Technology 2007 Standard Reference Materials® Catalog. US Government Printing Office: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Norton, BG 1987 Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton University Press: Princeton, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 1998 The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, And Science. Expanded Edition. Iowa State University Press: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 2004 The ethical imperative to control pain and suffering in farm animals. In: Benson, GJ and Rollin, BE (eds) The Well-being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions pp 3–19. Blackwell: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 2003 Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, G 1971 The Agribusiness Poultry Industry. Exposition Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Schutz, A 1970 On Phenomenology And Social Relations. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Schutz, A and Luckmann, T 1973 The Structures Of The Life-World. Northwestern University Press: Evanston, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Star, SL and Lampland, M 2009 Reckoning with standards. In: Lampland, M and Star, SL (eds) Standards and Their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life pp 3–24. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Boissy, A, Désiré, L and Greiveldinger, L 2009 Animals’ emotions: studies in sheep using appraisal theories. Animal Welfare 18: 347–354Google Scholar
Voogd, EL 2009 Does animal welfare affect food safety? Food Safety Magazine February/March: 42–43, 46, 48-53Google Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009a Welfare Quality® Assessment Standards For Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009b Welfare Quality® Assessment Standards For Pigs (Sows And Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009c Welfare Quality® Assessment Standards for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar