FARM ANIMAL WELFARE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND TRADITIONAL PRACTICES: A CASE STUDY OF WELANIMAL PARTNER COUNTRIES

Authors

  • ZEHRA BOZKURT Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Faculty of Vetarinary Medicine, Department of Animal Science
  • EVANGELIA N. SOSSIDOU National Agricultural Research Foundation, Veterinary Research Institute, Ionia, Thessaloniki, Greece
  • L. T. CZISZTER Banat University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Timişoara, Romania
  • MARYA PENEVA University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria
  • SZ. KONRÁD Szent István University Faculty for Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Gödöllő, Hungary
  • J. VENGLOVSKY University of Veterinary Medicine, Košice, Slovakia
  • E. SZÜCS University of WestHungary, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary

Keywords:

animal welfare, Central and South-Eastern Europe, WELANIMAL project

Abstract

According to the Amsterdam Treaty, animals are sentient creatures and animal
welfare requirements should be precisely met while preparing and implementing the
Commission laws. Accomplishing this, cultural, religious and regional
characteristics should be considered. However, more and more regulations and
laws are continuously introduced in Europe and worldwide. Ongoing WELANIMAL
Project was financed by EU Commission adapting of vocational training products
and results of training tools of WELFOOD related to the animal welfareenvironment-food quality interactions is being enriched with consideration of
cultural, socio-economic and religious approaches in order to determine a common
work definition for all sectorial workers having different moral and social values on
the subject of animal welfare and food safety Central and South-eastern Europe
region. Although there is slight differences, national legislation in partner countries
of EU in Project were harmonious with legal framework in EU regarding for all
farm species. It is expected that three draft regulations in compliance with legal
requirements animal protection in farms and during transportation and slaughtering
and killing in Turkey, as a candidate country to membership into EU, in 2009. Also,
due to in participating countries to the Project have ethnicity, history, tradition and
religious structure show a great diversity it has been guessed that welfare concept
which is a moral issue can be effected by people’s cultural, religious and social
composition. In the WELANIMAL Project, the effects of socio-cultural, religious and
regional historical differences of workers and consumers within animal production
chain on understanding of animal welfare concepts are being analysed.
Furthermore in the light of obtained data a common vocational animal welfare
definition and animal welfare, food quality and environment interaction will be evaluated. Through the Project web page (www.welanimal.aku.edu.tr) interactive
training and certification will be accomplished. This paper intents to provide an
overview of legal framework including Council Directives and National legislation
laying down minimum welfare standards and traditional practices in Central and
Sought eastern Europe in which WELANIMAL Project is ongoing. 

References

Anonymous, 2007. FAOSTAT, Agricultural Statistical Database

http://faostat.fao.org

Appleby MC (2003) The European Union ban on conventional cages for laying

hens: History and prospects. Journal of Applied animal Welfare Science 6: 103–121

Blokhuis HJ 2004. Recent developments in European and international welfare

regulations. World Poult. Sci. J., 60:469-477.

Boogard BK, Oosting SJ, Bock, BB 2006. Elements of societal perception of

farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in the Netherlands. Livestock Science,

: 13-22.

Bozkurt Z, Mishev, Sossidou E, Szücs E, Cziszter L, Konrád Sz, Venglovsky

J, 2008. Report of the WELANIMAL Project on current situation (knowledge)

analysis of local conditions and comparison with the WELFOOD project’s

products and adaptation in partnership region, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.

Brambell FWR (1965) Report of the Technical Committee of Enquire into the

Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. HMSO,

London.

Caporale V, Alessandrini B, Dalla Villa P, Del Papa S 2005. Global

perspectives on animal welfare: Europe. Rev.sci.tech.off.int.Epiz., 24:567-577.

Carlsson F 2007. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile

abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural

Economics Advance Access published online on September 19, 2007 (European

Review of Agricultural Economics, doi:10.1093/erae/jbm025).

Dawkins, M.S. (1993) Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal

Consciousness. New York: W. H. Freeman.

European Union (EU) 1997. Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on

European Union, The Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain

related acts-Protocol annexed to the Treaty of the European Community-Protocol on

protection and welfare of animals. Off.J.Eur.Communities, C340, 10/11/1997, 110.

European Union (EU) 2004. Treaty establishing Constitution for Europe. Part

III: The Policies and Functioning of the Union. Title I: Provisions of General

Application, Article 111-121. Off. J. Eur. Union. C 310, 16/12/2004, 55-56.

European Commission, DG SANCO (June 2005): special Eurobarometer 229-

Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Available at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdf).

Fraser D 2001. Farm animal production: changing agriculture in a changing

culture. Journal of applied Animal Science, 4:175-190.

Fraser D, Mench J, Millman S 2001. Farm animals and their welfare in 2000.

In: Salem D J & Rowan A N (Eds.), The State of the Animals 2001. (pp:87-99).

Washington DC: Humane Society Pres.

Fraser D 2005. Animal Welfare and the Intensification of Animal Production:

an Alternative Interpretation.FAO Reading in Ethics no. 2.Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Fraser D 2008. Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Applied

animal Behaviour Science, 113:330-339.

Harper GC, Henson SJ 2001. Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the

impact on food choice: the final reports. EU FAIR CT98-3678. Centre for Food

Economics Research, The University of Reading.

Matheny G, Leahy, C 2007. Farm-animal welfare, legislation, and trade. Volume

:325

(https://admissions.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?70+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+325+(

winter+2007)+pdf ).

Mench JA 2008. Farm animal welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming practices,

researches, education, regulation, and assurance programs. Applied animal

Behaviour Science, 113:298-312.

ORGANIC-market-info, 2009. UK: Sainsbury’s will ban battery eggs.

http://www.organicmarket.info/web/News_in_brief/Regional_Marketing/UK/176/194/0/4987.html,

04.2009

Sossidou E, Szücs E 2007. Farm Animal Welfare, Environment & Food

Quality Interaction Studies. ISBN 978-960-89849-0-5, Gainnitsa, Greece.

Thaindian News, 2008. Brit supermarkets to ban eggs from battery hens.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/brit-supermarkets-to-ban-eggsfrom-battery-hens_10011515.html, 18.04.2009

Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bock B, Roe E 2008. European approaches to ensure

good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113:279-297.

Downloads

Published

2023-10-03