Skip to main content

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

4. Voluntary Standards and Their Impact on National Laws and International Initiatives

verfasst von : Dena Jones, Michelle Pawlinger

Erschienen in: International Farm Animal, Wildlife and Food Safety Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Numerous private entities—both national and international in scope—have developed or are in the process of developing nonregulatory standards to assure consumers that animals and natural resources used in agricultural production are properly treated. This chapter describes the differing approaches of three countries: one that uses voluntary standards to supplement legal standards (United Kingdom), one that uses voluntary standards as a substitute for legal standards (United States), and a third that uses voluntary standards to assist in interpreting and enforcing legal standards (Canada). The impact of these voluntary standards on international animal welfare initiatives is also discussed.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Statistics Division (2015). This number is an approximation and does not include animals killed for indigenous meats.
 
2
See US Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (2015a), p. 5; USDA, NASS (2015c), p. 5; See Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2014); see Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2008). The slaughter numbers are approximations calculated using these slaughter reports and statistics.
 
3
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (no date), Standards.
 
4
This chapter will focus on animal welfare, but will provide a review of environmental stewardship voluntary standards.
 
5
World Organization for Animal Health (“OIE”) (2015a), About us.
 
6
OIE (2015b), OIE’s achievements in animal welfare.
 
7
See ISO (no date), ISO 14000-environmental management.
 
8
GLOBALG.A.P. (no date), GLOBALG.A.P. animal welfare add-on.
 
9
Organic production could also be discussed under trade associations, as in certain countries organic production is certified by organic industry associations, such as in the UK where the leading organic certifier is the United Kingdom’s Soil Association.
 
10
Pastore (2013), p. 109.
 
11
Pastore (2013), p. 109.
 
12
According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Corporate Social Responsibility is “the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large.” Watts and Holme (1999), p. 3.
 
13
Pastore (2013), p. 109.
 
14
Thorpe (2013).
 
15
Portney (2005), p. 112.
 
16
Davis et al. (2006), p. 8.
 
17
See Portney (2006), p. 108 (maintaining that environmental responsibility is part of CSR).
 
18
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 4.
 
19
Amos and Sullivan (2014). This report assessed businesses in three core areas: (1) management commitment and policy, (2) governance and management, and (3) leadership and innovation.
 
20
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 7.
 
21
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 8.
 
22
Rondinelli and Berry (2000), p. 1.
 
23
See Singer (1998), Ch. 5 (explaining how McDonald’s became the first fast food company to make small improvements in its supply chain).
 
24
See Singer (1998), Ch. 5 (showing McDonald’s general statement on animal welfare before it implemented basic, but specific standards).
 
25
See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (no date).
 
26
See Singer (1998), Ch. 5.
 
27
Grandin (2005), pp. 370–373 (explaining that slaughterhouses able to properly stun animals 95 % of the time increased from 3 out of 10 to 9 out of 10).
 
28
Aramark (2015).
 
29
Smithfield (2007); Smithfield (no date), Housing of pregnant sows. As another example of the main trends in corporate policies, in 1999, McDonald’s created slaughterhouse standards. In 2012, it announced that by 2017 it would source pork from producers committed to going crate free, and by 2022 would only source pork from supply chains free of gestation crates. The company also plans to develop a “verification system to assess compliance” with its standards. McDonald’s (2014), p. 21.
 
30
For example, while a number of US food companies have prohibited their suppliers from using gestation crates, they have not provided alternative welfare requirements, such as the type of space, flooring, bedding, and feeding systems. As a result, it is unclear to what degree new policies will improve animal welfare for sows.
 
31
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 9 (concluding that “reporting on farm animal welfare remain[s] underdeveloped across…Management Commitment and Policy, Governance and Management, Innovation, and Performance.”).
 
32
Kroger (2012).
 
33
See Starbucks Coffee (no date), Animal welfare-friendly practices statement.
 
34
Smithfield (no date), Housing of pregnant sows; Wendy’s (2014); Jack in the Box (2014).
 
35
Berry and Rondinelli (1998), p. 39.
 
36
Berry and Rondinelli (1998), pp. 39–40.
 
37
Starbucks (2014), p. 7. At the end of 2014 Starbucks had reached 23 %.
 
38
LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
 
39
See Ramus and Montiel (2005).
 
40
Ramus and Montiel (2005), p. 394.
 
41
Ramus and Montiel (2005), p. 394.
 
42
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (“CFHS”) (no date), Putting an end to gestation stalls in Canada.
 
43
CFHS (no date), Putting an end to gestation stalls in Canada.
 
44
CFHS (no date), Putting an end to gestation stalls in Canada.
 
45
Loblaw (no date).
 
46
Tim Hortons (no date).
 
47
Post (2013).
 
48
Maple Leaf (no date).
 
49
Olymel (no date).
 
50
Manitoba Pork Council (2011), p. 39.
 
51
The Poultry Site (2013).
 
52
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 30. Average overall score for UK-based was 47 %, compared with 25 % for European companies, 30 % for US companies, and 30 % for all 80 companies included in the survey.
 
53
Amos and Sullivan (2014), pp. 85–86.
 
54
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 9.
 
55
Amos and Sullivan (2014), pp. 39–45.
 
56
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 37.
 
57
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 43.
 
58
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 46.
 
59
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 50.
 
60
Marks and Spencer (no date), p. 2.
 
61
Marks and Spencer no date, p. 6.
 
62
Compass Group (no date), p. 8.
 
63
Compass Group (no date), p. 6.
 
64
Amos and Sullivan (2014), pp. 7, 33. This is a notable increase from the 71 % in the 2012 and 2013 Benchmark reports.
 
65
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 14.
 
66
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 48.
 
67
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 35.
 
68
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 35.
 
69
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 36.
 
70
Sodexo (2013), pp. 1–5.
 
71
Sodexo (2013), p. 4.
 
72
Sodexo (2013), p. 4.
 
73
Amos and Sullivan (2014), p. 37.
 
74
GLOBALG.A.P. (no date), History.
 
75
GLOBALG.A.P. (no date), Animal welfare add-on.
 
76
GLOBALG.A.P. (no date), Membership.
 
77
Perry et al. (2012), p. 3.
 
78
Reimund et al. (1981), p. 4; Also see Perry et al. (2012).
 
79
See National Chicken Council (NCC) (2012e).
 
80
Macdonald (2014), p. 7; Perry et al. (2012), p. 3. See NCC (2012c).
 
81
See LaBarbera (1983), pp. 58–59.
 
82
See LaBarbera (1983), pp. 58–59.
 
83
See LaBarbera (1983), p. 58.
 
84
NCC (2012d); United Egg Producers (UEP) (2004a). In 2014 the egg industry produced approximately 99 billion eggs, while the chicken industry slaughtered 9 billion chickens for consumption. USDA, NASS (2015b), pp. 7, 12.
 
85
NAMI (2015a). In 2014 the cattle industry slaughtered approximately 31 million cattle and the turkey industry slaughter 236 million turkeys. USDA, NASS (2015b), p. 5; USDA, NASS (2015a), p. 5.
 
86
NAMI (2015a); National Pork Producers Council (no date). In 2014 the pork industry slaughtered 106 million pigs. USDA, NASS (2015a), p. 5.
 
87
See Kosar (2011).
 
88
Kosar (2011), p. 12.
 
89
Kosar (2011), p. 13; See the Pork Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. § 4801) as an example of quasi-governmental bodies mirroring trade associations. The purpose of the law is to create “an effective and coordinated program of promotion, research, and consumer information designed to strengthen the position of the pork industry in the marketplace; and maintain, develop, and expand markets for pork and pork products.”
 
90
7 U.S.C. §§4801–4819.
 
91
See generally National Pork Board (no date), Pork quality assurance plus, site assessment guide 2.0; See also National Pork Board (NPB) (2003).
 
92
Dunn (2006), p. 2 (showing the relationship between the National Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA)). See generally, Beef Quality Assurance (no date).
 
93
UEP (2014), pp. 9, 21–22, 32.
 
94
National Pork Board (no date), Pork quality assurance plus, pp. 24, 28–29; NPB (2003), p. 10.
 
95
“Dead on arrival” is a term used by the industry and the USDA to describe birds that have died prior to arrival at the place of slaughter.
 
96
NCC (2014), pp. 11–12.
 
97
See generally Beef Quality Assurance (no date), Master cattle transport guide; See also National Turkey Federation (“NTF”) (2012b), Animal care best management practices for the production of turkeys; and AMI (2013).
 
98
See Sect. 4.4.2 below for examples of high-welfare animal care standards.
 
99
NCC (2012a); NTF (2012a), p. 3.
 
100
The Swine Care Handbook is used as a reference.
 
101
UEP (2004b).
 
102
UEP (2004b); USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) (2014).
 
103
UEP (2014), pp. 6, 8.
 
104
See NCC (2012b).
 
105
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, an “Environmental Management System is a set of processes and practices that enable an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and increase its operating efficiency.” Environmental Protection Agency (2015).
 
106
NAMI (2015b); NCBA (2015).
 
107
33 U.S.C. § 1362.
 
108
National Farm Animal Care Council (“NFACC”) (no date), About NFACC.
 
109
NFACC (no date), About NFACC.
 
110
NFACC (no date), About NFACC.
 
111
CFHS (no date), Codes of practice and the National Farm Animal Care Council.
 
112
NFACC (no date), About NFACC. See also NFACC (2015), NFACC code of practice development process.
 
113
NFACC (no date), Codes of practice for the care and handling of farm animals.
 
114
CFHS (no date), Codes of practice and the National Farm Animal Care Council.
 
115
CFHS (no date), Codes of practice and the National Farm Animal Care Council.
 
116
NFACC (no date), About NFACC.
 
117
CFHS (no date), Codes of practice and the National Farm Animal Care Council.
 
118
NFACC (no date), Animal care assessment framework.
 
119
NFACC (no date), Animal care assessment framework.
 
120
CFHS (no date), Codes of practice and the National Farm Animal Care Council. Industry groups that have developed auditable animal care programs include Chicken Farmers of Canada, Egg Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Turkey Marketing Association.
 
121
Compassion in World Farming & OneKind (2012), p. 3.
 
122
Compassion in World Farming & OneKind (2012), p. 3.
 
123
Assured Food Standards (Red Tractor) (no date).
 
124
Assured Food Standards (Red Tractor) (no date).
 
125
Lion Egg Farms (no date).
 
126
Quality British Turkey (no date).
 
127
Quality Meat Scotland (no date).
 
128
Compassion in World Farming & OneKind (2012), p. 58. While the UK farm assurance standards, such as those of the “Red Tractor” program, may only reflect minimum legal standards, they are considerably higher than US trade association guidelines.
 
129
Compassion in World Farming & OneKind (2012), pp. 6–7.
 
130
Compassion in World Farming & OneKind (2012), p. 58.
 
131
Santacoloma (2013), p. 11. For instance in order to sell certain meat products at Whole Foods one must be certified by Global Animal Partnership (GAP) (discussed below).
 
132
Anders et al. (2007), pp. 650–651.
 
133
For example GAP and Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) (discussed below) maintain manuals explaining the procedures necessary to become certified. GAP (2014); AWA (no date), Animal welfare policy manual.
 
134
See and compare GAP (2014), AWA (no date), Animal welfare policy manual, and Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) (2014c).
 
135
For example American Humane Certified (AHC) (no date) (a program of American Humane Association (AHA)) has lower standards than AWA, but covers over 1 billion animals, while AWA covers significantly fewer.
 
136
For example in a survey commissioned by Consumer Reports 66 % of participants thought the claim “humane” meant that animals had access to the outdoors, and nearly 80 % believed the claim should mean animals have outdoor access. Consumer Reports (2014), p. 10.
 
137
See Bergman et al. (2014), Main et al. (2003), Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (2014), Napolitano et al. (2009), and Ruegg (2009).
 
138
HFAC administers the Certified Humane program.
 
139
AHA (no date); AWA (2013); Certified Humane (2015a); GAP (2015b) About (GAP is a step-level program with unique standards ranging from Step 1 to Step 5+).
 
140
As of the writing of this chapter USDA organic regulations mention animal welfare, but do not provide detailed standards. See 7 C.F.R. § 205.239.
 
141
7 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6523 (organic enabling statute); Food Alliance (no date), About Food Alliance; Certified Naturally Grown (CNG) (2015a). Both Food Alliance and CNG have animal welfare requirements incorporated into their standards, but they are not the main focus of either program.
 
142
Sullivan (2013), p. 391.
 
143
Animal Welfare Institute (2015).
 
144
Animal Welfare Institute (2015).
 
145
In 2014, AWA became a program of the Trust for Conservation Innovation’s “A Greener World” project. The Animal Welfare Institute remains associated with the AWA, but no longer administers the program.
 
146
AHA (2013b).
 
147
GAP (2015c), History (explaining the program started in 2008, but the organization did not set out standards until a few years later).
 
148
There are 9 billion animals slaughtered for food in the United States each year. See USDA, NASS (2015a), p. 5; USDA, NASS (2015c), p. 5.
 
149
AHA (2015).
 
150
GAP (2015d); HFAC (2014a), Annual report, p. 1.
 
151
See Certified Humane (2015b); GAP (2015a), 5-step standards (GAP is in the process of writing standards for several additional species); AWA (no date), Standards; AHA (no date), Science-based standards.
 
152
See Certified Humane (2015b); GAP (2015a), 5-step standards (GAP is in the process of writing standards for several additional species); AWA (no date), Standards; AHA (no date), Science-based standards.
 
153
HFAC (2014b), p. 10; AHA (2013a), p. 19; GAP (2009), p. 15.
 
154
GAP (2015d); AWA (2013).
 
155
Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education (2012).
 
156
7 C.F.R. §§205.500- 205.510; USDA (2014).
 
157
CNG (2015b).
 
158
Food Alliance (no date), History of Food Alliance.
 
159
USDA, Economic Research Service (2013).
 
160
Food Alliance (no date), About Food Alliance; See CNG (2015c).
 
161
They also maintain animal welfare standards, but these are not as comprehensive as those of certification programs dedicated solely to animal welfare; FAC goes even further and maintains worker safety standards.
 
162
See generally §§ 7 C.F.R. 205.1- 205.690; 7 C.F.R. § 205.203.
 
163
CNG (2015d).
 
164
Food Alliance (no date), Sustainability standards for livestock operations.
 
165
See Grimshaw et al. (2014), pp. 443–444 (demonstrating that nearly 70 % of participants in a survey conducted by Texas A&M University believed that animal welfare is important). The number of animals covered by AHC soared over 1000 % in 4 years, and organic production increased over 11 % from 2013 to 2014.
 
166
The concept of Five Freedoms originated in the United Kingdom in 1965 with issuance of the Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems, also referred to as “the Brambell Report.” This stated that farm animals should have freedom “to stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs.” As a result of the Brambell Report, the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee was established, which disbanded when the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) was formed in 1979. FAWC eventually developed what is currently known as the list of Five Freedoms for farm animals. They are: (1) freedom from hunger and thirst, (2) freedom from discomfort, (3) freedom from pain, injury or disease, (4) freedom to express normal behavior, and (5) freedom from fear and distress. See Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) (no date).
 
167
CFHS (no date), Farm animal welfare certification in Canada.
 
168
British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“BC SPCA”) (no date).
 
169
CFHS (no date), Farm animal welfare certification in Canada.
 
170
CFHS (no date), Farm animal welfare certification in Canada.
 
171
Winnipeg Humane Society (no date).
 
172
Land Food People Foundation (no date), About.
 
173
Land Food People Foundation (no date), Projects.
 
174
In June 2009 the governments of Canada and the United States entered into an agreement on the trade of organic products. The two countries’ systems were recognized as equivalent with four exceptions, one of which is space allowances for animals. Products from animals raised in the United States may not be sold as organic in Canada unless the stocking densities set out in Canadian organic regulations are met. See Canadian Food Inspection Agency (no date).
 
175
See Organic production systems and general principles and management standards, CAN/CGSB-32.310-2006. See also Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (no date), Farm animal welfare certification in Canada.
 
176
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (no date).
 
177
Freedom Food (no date), Our history.
 
178
Freedom Food (no date), Our history.
 
179
Freedom Food (no date), Facts and figures.
 
180
Freedom Food (no date), Impact report 2013.
 
181
Freedom Food (no date), Our history.
 
182
Since the launch of the welfare certification programs in the US in the early 2000s, RSPCA has continually revised and upgraded its standards, while the standards of the Certified Humane program have remained relatively unchanged, and the American Humane standards have been lowered significantly (examples include a shorter weaning period for pigs, less light and space for meat chickens, and allowing confinement to cages for egg-laying hens).
 
183
Compassion in World Farming & OneKind (2012), pp. 16–53.
 
184
Soil Association (no date), Who we are.
 
185
Soil Association (no date), Our work 2014.
 
186
Compassion in World Farming & OneKind (2012), pp. 16–53. For example, for pigs, the Soil Association scored 81 out of 100 possible points, compared with 71 for the Scottish organic program, 58 for Freedom Food, 29 for Quality Meat Scotland, and 27 for Assured Food Standards (“Red Tractor”).
 
187
Soil Association (no date), Organic standards. The United States and the European Union have signed an organic equivalency agreement despite the two sets of respective standards differing significantly, particularly in the area of animal welfare.
 
188
OIE (2015a), About us.
 
189
OIE (no date), The 180 member countries.
 
190
OIE (2015b), OIE achievements in animal welfare.
 
191
OIE (no date), Implications of private standards in international trade of animals and animal products. An executive summary of a report on the questionnaire’s findings may be accessed at: http://​www.​oie.​int/​fileadmin/​Home/​eng/​Internationa_​Standard_​Setting/​docs/​pdf/​en_​executive_​20summary.​pdf.
 
192
Global Food Safety Initiative (no date), What is GFSI? The scope of GFSI is limited to food safety and does not extend to issues related to animal welfare, the environment, or ethical sourcing.
 
193
Codex Alimentarius is a collection of international food standards set out by the Codex Alimentarius Commissions, which the FAO established in 1961. Codex Alimentaruis (2015).
 
194
OIE (no date), Implications of private standards in international trade of animals and animal products.
 
195
OIE (2010).
 
196
ISO (no date), ISO/WD TS 34700.
 
197
ISO (2014).
 
198
7 U.S.C. §§ 1901–1907.
 
199
49 U.S.C. 80502.
 
200
The Twenty-eight Hour Law does not specifically exempt birds from its purview; however the USDA has interpreted the law to exclude birds. 7 U.S.C. §1902.
 
201
Farm Animal Council Network (2013). See also CFHS (no date), Realities of farming in Canada.
 
202
Government of Canada, Criminal Code, Section 446—Cruelty to Animals.
 
203
Government of Manitoba, Animal Care Regulation 126/98 of the Animal Care Act (C.C.S.M. c. A84).
 
204
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Regulation 36/12, Animal Protection Standards Regulation under the Animal Health and Protection Act, 2012.
 
205
Government of Prince Edward Island, Animal Health and Protection Act Chapter A-11.1, Animal Protection Regulations, PEI Reg EC 71/90.
 
206
Government of Saskatchewan, The Animal Protection Act, 2000, Chapter A-21.1 Reg 1, as amended by Saskatchewan Regulations 32/2015.
 
207
See Farm Animal Council Network (2013).
 
208
Humane Society of the United States (2012), p. 2.
 
209
Bakke and American Veal (2007).
 
210
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2910.07; Cal. Health and Safety Code §25990; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §35-50.5-102; Me. Rev. Stat. tit.7 § 4020; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 287.746; Ohio Admin. Code § 901:12-4, 901:12-5-03; R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. §4-1.1-3; 302 KAR 21:030. Most state’s veal confinement laws have vague language, allowing farmers to use crates so long as they provide space to turn around, lie down, and stand up.
 
211
Smithfield (2013).
 
212
Maple Leaf (no date).
 
213
Cal. Health and Safety Code § 25990; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 35-50.5-102; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 4020; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 287.746; Ohio Admin. Code § 901:12-8; Or. Rev. Stat. § 600.150; R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. §4-1.1-3. Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2910.07) and Florida (Fla. Const. art. X, § 21) did however outlaw crates before Smithfield made its decision.
 
214
NFACC (2014), p. 11.
 
215
The Poultry Site (2013).
 
216
ORS 632.840. There are several incremental changes that producers must meet before 2026 to comply with the Oregon law. AHC has separate standards for enriched cages and cage-free production.
 
217
Wash. Rev. Code §69.25.065, §69.25.107.
 
218
OIE (2014).
 
219
NFACC (2013), p. 25.
 
220
For example, the tail docking section states: “Tail docking has been performed in beef cattle to prevent tail tip necrosis in confinement operations. Research shows that increasing space per animal and proper bedding are effective means in preventing tail tip necrosis. Therefore it is not recommended for producers to dock the tails of beef cattle.” Beef Quality Assurance (“BQA”) (2014), p. 2.
 
221
See BQA (no date), The cattle industry’s guidelines for the care and handling of cattle, p. 7. See also OIE.
 
222
7 U.S.C. § 6501.
 
223
7 U.S.C. § 6509(2).
 
224
7 CFR §205.239.
 
225
USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2013), p. 11.
 
226
See National Organic Standards Board (2001).
 
227
Martin (2008).
 
228
See USDA, AMS (2015a).
 
229
AMS (2015b).
 
230
AMS (2015b), pp. 2–3.
 
231
AMI (2013), pp. 45–53; USDA, AMS (2015b).
 
232
21 U.S.C. §§ 451–472.
 
233
21 U.S.C. § 452.
 
234
21 U.S.C. § 463.
 
235
9 C.F.R. § 381.65.
 
236
70 Fed. Reg. 56624–56626.
 
237
Memorandums of Interview record non-regulatory deficiencies at slaughter plants, while Noncompliance Records document a failure to meet a regulatory requirement. In a recent FSIS notice the agency prohibited inspectors from quoting NCC in Noncompliance Records.
 
238
Food Safety and Inspection Services (2015).
 
239
AMS (no date), Official listing of approved USDA process verified programs, p. 20.
 
240
AMS (2015c).
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat 302 Kentucky Administrative Regulations 21:030 302 Kentucky Administrative Regulations 21:030
Zurück zum Zitat American Humane Association (2013a) Animal welfare standards for beef cattle American Humane Association (2013a) Animal welfare standards for beef cattle
Zurück zum Zitat Anders S, Souza Monteiro DM, Rouviere E (2007) Objectiveness in the market for third-party certification: does market structure matter? Paper presented at the 105th EAAE seminar, Bologna, Italy 8–10 March 2007 Anders S, Souza Monteiro DM, Rouviere E (2007) Objectiveness in the market for third-party certification: does market structure matter? Paper presented at the 105th EAAE seminar, Bologna, Italy 8–10 March 2007
Zurück zum Zitat Arizona Revised Statute Annotated § 13–2910.07 Arizona Revised Statute Annotated § 13–2910.07
Zurück zum Zitat Beef Quality Assurance (no date) Master cattle transport guide Beef Quality Assurance (no date) Master cattle transport guide
Zurück zum Zitat Bergman MA, Richert RM, Cicconi-Hogan KM et al (2014) Comparison of selected animal observations and management practices used to assess welfare of calves and adult dairy cows on organic and conventional dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 97:4269–4280CrossRef Bergman MA, Richert RM, Cicconi-Hogan KM et al (2014) Comparison of selected animal observations and management practices used to assess welfare of calves and adult dairy cows on organic and conventional dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 97:4269–4280CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Berry MA, Rondinelli DA (1998) Proactive corporate environmental management: new industrial revolution. Acad Manag Exec 12:38–50 Berry MA, Rondinelli DA (1998) Proactive corporate environmental management: new industrial revolution. Acad Manag Exec 12:38–50
Zurück zum Zitat California Health and Safety Code §25990 California Health and Safety Code §25990
Zurück zum Zitat Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (no date) Putting an end to gestation stalls in Canada Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (no date) Putting an end to gestation stalls in Canada
Zurück zum Zitat Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated §35-50.5-102 Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated §35-50.5-102
Zurück zum Zitat Davis GF, Whitman MN, Zald MN (2006) The responsibility paradox: multinational firms and global corporate social responsibility. Ross School of Business Paper No. 1031 Davis GF, Whitman MN, Zald MN (2006) The responsibility paradox: multinational firms and global corporate social responsibility. Ross School of Business Paper No. 1031
Zurück zum Zitat Dunn BH (2006) Beef Quality Assurance: present and future in a review of the beef quality assurance program for the joint evaluation advisory committee, Reno, Nevada July 10, 2006 Dunn BH (2006) Beef Quality Assurance: present and future in a review of the beef quality assurance program for the joint evaluation advisory committee, Reno, Nevada July 10, 2006
Zurück zum Zitat Farm Animal Council Network (2013) A summary report on farm animal welfare law in Canada Farm Animal Council Network (2013) A summary report on farm animal welfare law in Canada
Zurück zum Zitat Florida Constitution article X, § 21 Florida Constitution article X, § 21
Zurück zum Zitat Government of Canada Criminal Code, Section 446 – cruelty to animals Government of Canada Criminal Code, Section 446 – cruelty to animals
Zurück zum Zitat Government of Manitoba, Animal Care Regulation 126/98 of the Animal Care Act (C.C.S.M. c. A84) Government of Manitoba, Animal Care Regulation 126/98 of the Animal Care Act (C.C.S.M. c. A84)
Zurück zum Zitat Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Regulation 36/12, Animal Protection Standards Regulation under the Animal Health and Protection Act, 2012 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Regulation 36/12, Animal Protection Standards Regulation under the Animal Health and Protection Act, 2012
Zurück zum Zitat Government of Prince Edward Island, Animal Health and Protection Act Chapter A-11.1, Animal Protection Regulations, PEI Reg EC 71/90 Government of Prince Edward Island, Animal Health and Protection Act Chapter A-11.1, Animal Protection Regulations, PEI Reg EC 71/90
Zurück zum Zitat Government of Saskatchewan, The Animal Protection Act, 2000, Chapter A-21.1 Reg 1, as amended by Saskatchewan Regulations 32/2015 Government of Saskatchewan, The Animal Protection Act, 2000, Chapter A-21.1 Reg 1, as amended by Saskatchewan Regulations 32/2015
Zurück zum Zitat Grandin T (2005) Special report: maintenance of good animal welfare standards in beef slaughter plants by use of auditing programs. J Am Vet med Assoc 226:370–373CrossRef Grandin T (2005) Special report: maintenance of good animal welfare standards in beef slaughter plants by use of auditing programs. J Am Vet med Assoc 226:370–373CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Grimshaw K et al (2014) Consumer perception of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and fish. Meat Sci 96:443–444CrossRef Grimshaw K et al (2014) Consumer perception of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and fish. Meat Sci 96:443–444CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat International Organization for Standardization (2014) WG 16 consultation on the outline of the TS on animal welfare proposed by the drafting group International Organization for Standardization (2014) WG 16 consultation on the outline of the TS on animal welfare proposed by the drafting group
Zurück zum Zitat LaBarbera PA (1983) The diffusion of trade association advertising self-regulation. J Mark 47(1):58–67CrossRef LaBarbera PA (1983) The diffusion of trade association advertising self-regulation. J Mark 47(1):58–67CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Main DC, Whay HR, Green LE et al (2003) Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. Vet Rec 153:227–231CrossRef Main DC, Whay HR, Green LE et al (2003) Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. Vet Rec 153:227–231CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Maine Revised Statute title 7 § 4020 Maine Revised Statute title 7 § 4020
Zurück zum Zitat Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated § 287.746 Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated § 287.746
Zurück zum Zitat Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Ferrante V et al (2009) Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method. Small Rumin Res 83:49–57CrossRef Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Ferrante V et al (2009) Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method. Small Rumin Res 83:49–57CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat National Farm Animal Care Council (2015) NFACC code of practice development process National Farm Animal Care Council (2015) NFACC code of practice development process
Zurück zum Zitat Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (2014) Comparison of organic and conventional food and food production, Part II: animal health and welfare in Norway. Doc. No.: 11-007-2 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (2014) Comparison of organic and conventional food and food production, Part II: animal health and welfare in Norway. Doc. No.: 11-007-2
Zurück zum Zitat Ohio Administrative Code § 901:12–4, 12–8, 12-5-03 Ohio Administrative Code § 901:12–4, 12–8, 12-5-03
Zurück zum Zitat Organic production systems general principles and management standards. CAN/CGSB-32.310-2006, amended Oct. 2008, Dec. 2009 and June 2011 Organic production systems general principles and management standards. CAN/CGSB-32.310-2006, amended Oct. 2008, Dec. 2009 and June 2011
Zurück zum Zitat Pastore A (2013) FAO’s strategic vision to engage with the private sector. In Maybeck A, Redfern S (eds) Voluntary standards for sustainable food systems: challenges and opportunities. Rome, p 109 Pastore A (2013) FAO’s strategic vision to engage with the private sector. In Maybeck A, Redfern S (eds) Voluntary standards for sustainable food systems: challenges and opportunities. Rome, p 109
Zurück zum Zitat Portney P (2005) Corporate social responsibility an economic and public policy perspective. In: Hay BL, Stavins RN, Vietor RHK (eds) Environmental protection and the social responsibility of firms perspectives from law, economics and business. RFF Press, Washington Portney P (2005) Corporate social responsibility an economic and public policy perspective. In: Hay BL, Stavins RN, Vietor RHK (eds) Environmental protection and the social responsibility of firms perspectives from law, economics and business. RFF Press, Washington
Zurück zum Zitat Ramus CA, Montiel I (2005) When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Bus Soc 44:377–414CrossRef Ramus CA, Montiel I (2005) When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Bus Soc 44:377–414CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Reimund D et al (1981) Structural change in agriculture: the experience for broilers, fed cattle, and processing vegetables. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics Service, p 4 Reimund D et al (1981) Structural change in agriculture: the experience for broilers, fed cattle, and processing vegetables. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics Service, p 4
Zurück zum Zitat Revised Code of Washington §69.25.150 Revised Code of Washington §69.25.150
Zurück zum Zitat Rhode Island General Laws Annotated §4-1.1-3 Rhode Island General Laws Annotated §4-1.1-3
Zurück zum Zitat Rondinelli DA, Berry MA (2000) Corporate environmental management and public policy bridging the gap. Am Behav Sci 44:168–187CrossRef Rondinelli DA, Berry MA (2000) Corporate environmental management and public policy bridging the gap. Am Behav Sci 44:168–187CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2008) The slaughter of food animals Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2008) The slaughter of food animals
Zurück zum Zitat Ruegg PL (2009) Management of mastitis on organic and conventional dairy farms. J Anim Sci 87:43–55CrossRef Ruegg PL (2009) Management of mastitis on organic and conventional dairy farms. J Anim Sci 87:43–55CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Santacoloma P (2013) Nexus between public and private food standards: main issues and perspectives. In: Maybeck A, Redfern S (eds) Voluntary standards for sustainable food systems: challenges and opportunities. Rome Santacoloma P (2013) Nexus between public and private food standards: main issues and perspectives. In: Maybeck A, Redfern S (eds) Voluntary standards for sustainable food systems: challenges and opportunities. Rome
Zurück zum Zitat Singer P (1998) Ethics into action. Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham Singer P (1998) Ethics into action. Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham
Zurück zum Zitat Sullivan S (2013) Empowering market regulation of agricultural animal welfare through product labeling. Anim Law 19:391–422 Sullivan S (2013) Empowering market regulation of agricultural animal welfare through product labeling. Anim Law 19:391–422
Zurück zum Zitat United Egg Producers (2014) Animal husbandry guidelines for U.S. egg laying flocks. United Egg Producers (2014) Animal husbandry guidelines for U.S. egg laying flocks.
Zurück zum Zitat US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2013) Table 3: certified organic and total U.S. acreage, selected crop and livestock, 1995–2011. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2013) Table 3: certified organic and total U.S. acreage, selected crop and livestock, 1995–2011.
Zurück zum Zitat US Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Services (2015), FOIA response 2014–0092, Good commercial practices Aug 2012-Nov 2013 final response (on file with the Animal Welfare Institute) US Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Services (2015), FOIA response 2014–0092, Good commercial practices Aug 2012-Nov 2013 final response (on file with the Animal Welfare Institute)
Zurück zum Zitat Washington Revised Code §69.25.065, §69.25.107 Washington Revised Code §69.25.065, §69.25.107
Zurück zum Zitat Watts P, Holme L (1999) Corporate social responsibility. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva Watts P, Holme L (1999) Corporate social responsibility. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva
Zurück zum Zitat World Organization for Animal Health (2014) Animal welfare and beef cattle production systems. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Chapter 7.9 World Organization for Animal Health (2014) Animal welfare and beef cattle production systems. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Chapter 7.9
Metadaten
Titel
Voluntary Standards and Their Impact on National Laws and International Initiatives
verfasst von
Dena Jones
Michelle Pawlinger
Copyright-Jahr
2017
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18002-1_4