Scottish Animal Welfare Commission: Good Food Nation animal welfare indicators

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

We suggest that there are several indicators that could be implemented in the next iteration of the Good Food Nation plan which will provide a more detailed oversight of the state of animal welfare for animals produced in Scotland than those that are currently part of the plan (a summary Table is provided in Appendix x). Although most of these do not provide robust assessments of animal experience as animal-based measures, they do give some ability to assess improvements in animal welfare that arise as a result of implementing the GFN plan as they can give a good indicator of current baselines. We have also suggested that there are other indicators that could be readily assessed without significant extra research and development, but they may require additional data curation and agreements with data owners. Access to data, navigating issues of data ownership and merging data formats, and the integration of different sources of information from disparate sources, will be a significant challenge. However, we firmly believe that improved data collection and curation is fundamental to making improvements in animal welfare, and to allowing a more robust understanding of the state of animal welfare in Scotland. It is clear that data are being collected by many different sources, sometimes a similar trait but by different measures, and the data landscape is fragmented and challenging to understand and utilise. However, this is likely to be an area that receives a lot of attention in the near future as utilising disparate data sources to allow data-driven innovation and decision-making becomes more and more important. Consideration of methods that can make this effective, and not overly burdensome on any one sector, is likely to be very important in future versions of the Good Food Nation plan.

We have also suggested several indicators which can provide a more holistic and deeper insight into animal welfare as experienced by animals on Scottish farms. Although not yet ready to be immediately implemented, we suggest that further research into how these can be used would allow measures that are included in future iterations of the plan to be closer to consumer perspectives on good animal welfare. There is evidence that consumers and citizens wish to see higher standards of animal welfare, and thus this aligns with societal expectations for the production of animals, although whether this truly translates to a willingness to pay for higher welfare is the subject of much research and debate. It is also noteworthy that those people who choose not to eat meat or animal-sourced food products still have a voice in decisions made about the welfare management of animals destined for food production, which cannot be expressed in their purchasing behaviour.

In suggesting indicators, we have been largely restricted to those indicators that can be effective in assessing the welfare of animals produced in Scotland or the UK. However, foods consumed in Scotland will come from other countries where the standards of welfare may diverge from those in Scotland. Effective food labelling with method of production and country of origin may go some way to allowing consumers to express choices but this does rely on shoppers understanding the welfare implications of their buying behaviour. This is particularly problematic for processed foods and ready-meals, where animal-sourced foods may come from more than one country and the welfare of animals involved may not be evident. Creative methods to make the welfare of animals contributing to food products more apparent would be very valuable in ensuring that consumers are aware of the implications of their buying behaviour.

Based on our report we make the following recommendations:

• Recommendation 1: future iterations of the Good Food Nation plan should include at least some of our ‘Level 1’ indicators. These will provide a more robust, evidence-based oversight of the welfare of animals on Scottish farms than is currently suggested. Over time we would recommend that Level 2 and 3 indicators also form part of future Good Food Nation plans.
• Recommendation 2: efforts should be made to develop a plan to integrate data from variable sources by working with current data owners. Consideration of methods to curate, integrate and interrogate and make available diverse sources of data will be important to allow maximum benefit to be derived from existing data sources. We believe there are some good examples of how this can be done, both in the UK (e.g. Scottish pigs) and elsewhere, which could be used as case examples and implemented more widely. To allow improvements to be made in animal welfare, and other areas, reliable and robust data sources are vital and becoming increasingly important if the method of production of animal-sourced food is to be transparent and understandable.
• Recommendation 3: future research into implementation of the level 3 indicators should be supported. These indicators provide a more in-depth view of the state of farmed animal welfare in Scotland and can provide the evidence for claims about the quality of food produced in Scotland. A platform for integrating different sources of data which can provide a more complete view of animal welfare should be a goal. This will provide a more comprehensive and reliable assessment of animal welfare.
• Recommendation 4: food labelling which accurately conveys important information on animal welfare should be investigated and implemented. Although this does not directly assess animal welfare, this does allow consumers’ preferences to be communicated to food producers through purchasing behaviour and can act as a lever to implement higher welfare standards. Further, this helps to understand the welfare state of animals consumed in Scotland, in addition to those animals reared in Scotland.
• Recommendation 5: education on farming practices, and the wider animal welfare costs of cheap foods, as well as training in higher welfare practices should be developed. Many consumers have a poor understanding of where animal-sourced food comes from, the conditions under which animals are raised, and what higher welfare standards mean to the animals involved. For consumers to be able to link their preferences and expectations of high animal welfare with the foods they consume, they need to be provided with the education to understand what is involved. Animal welfare science is moving rapidly, and there is also a need for a mechanism by which farmers and those who interact with animals on a daily basis can be kept updated on new developments.

SAWC recognises that the GFN plan covers many different policy areas and that not all animal welfare indicators could necessarily be implemented. Future developments may require a prioritisation of the most robust and useful indicators, as well as further work to determine access to data sources and integration approaches.