A short personal retrospective from an activist<\/p>\n\n\n\n
downloads are French only<\/p>\n\n\n\n
My experience began with the development of “Thierry Schweitzer pork”<\/strong>, inspired by Swiss animal welfare models. At the beginning of the process (and of the millennium), I even organised events in supermarkets to promote these products. Not every campaigner can boast of having come face to face with the issue of sales. This just goes to show the involvement of civil society. In fact, it was the associations that raised the profile of this fledgling brand, which could have become France’s first structured ‘animal welfare’ label, had its advertising not become commonplace.all donloa<\/p>\n\n\n\n I was hoping that a few well-intentioned individuals in the supermarket sector would be able to promote greater animal welfare, but this was not confirmed. There are a few interesting products improving the “image”, but for the bulk of the volumes the commercial method discourages ambition and prevents the emergence of agriculture with a human face. In the meantime, however, the “animal welfare label” (\u00e9tiquette bien-\u00eatre animal)<\/strong><\/a> (English available), a private partnership for credible evaluation and labelling, has come into being and is showing the way. The Planet Score<\/strong> is also moving in the right direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the Animal and Society Meetings<\/strong> organised by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2008<\/strong>, I was able to contribute a brochure on behalf of France Nature Environnement entitled “Raising animals: a culture of respect”<\/strong><\/a>. My recollections of those meetings are as follows: a DGAL that was very tense because of the fear of animal welfare claims (something that was totally foreign to them); a plethora of reports that served no purpose; the ‘consensus’ rule that validated all the vetoes from the farming and hunting worlds. The only positive outcome was that INRA was commissioned to write a report on pain in farm animals, with a view to possible future progress, which will take more than 10 years to emerge very slowly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I’ve always been attentive to the economic question<\/strong>. As farmers say: “You can do anything if there’s a price to pay for it”<\/em><\/strong>. In 2012, Alsace Nature and I published a leaflet entitled “Des prix justes pour le respect du vivant”<\/strong><\/a> (fair prices for the respect of the living), which was circulated for a long time. The idea didn’t catch on, to say the least.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the Alsace Region, I had written in 2012 “Local Initiativ<\/a><\/strong>es to Promote the Protection of Nature and the Welfare of Animals: Respect en Plus”<\/strong><\/a>. This approach led to four small booklets:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respect en plus: Animal welfare<\/strong><\/a> Respect en plus: Milk<\/strong><\/a> Respe<\/strong><\/a>ct en Plus: Pigs<\/strong><\/a> Respect Plus: Laying hens<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/a><\/strong>This PLUS = MORE of respect<\/strong> is always presented as being threefold<\/strong>: fairness and MORE added value for the producer, MORE animal welfare and MORE biodiversity.<\/strong> In short, all of this would be perfectly feasible\u2026. provided that we share a sensitivity and a political will to set up particularly virtuous sectors in a concerted and coherent manner. Which, as you can imagine, is far from being the case. There has been no support for such attempts, except to a certain extent for organic farming. The CAP funds the agriculture of big tractors and other agro-suppliers, and the Water Agencies have the right to fund meadows, which amounts to making them do social work so that cattle farms don’t totally collapse because we can’t let that happen (thanks to the environment). For the moment, there is no cross-cutting, decompartmentalised construction of virtuous and coherent sectors, encompassing all categories of animals and going beyond restricted zoning; however, developments could move in this direction. The Rhine-Meuse Water Agency has commissioned a study into the production of organic grass-fed steer in the Ardennes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, the major political objectives have always been competitiveness and performance (even if this is environmental), and the objectives of farm advisory services are to reduce production costs and improve animal health issues. My experience of the past is that the demand for animal welfare has always been met with a vigorous (and virile) NO<\/strong>, except for the claim that farmers are concerned about animal welfare for productivity reasons anyway. “There will be no ethology in the Chambers of Agriculture”.<\/em> Why so much refusal? My search for understanding resulted in “L’empathie racont\u00e9e au monde de l’\u00e9levage”<\/strong><\/a> (empathy told to the world of livestock).<\/p>\n\n\n\n But times are changing<\/strong>, public opinion is stirring, Europe is funding research into animal welfare, Germany is moving on the issue, and observation of the animals is being promoted. All sectors are introducing animal welfare assessment software. This software enables progress to be made. However, they are calibrated in such a way that conventional, industrial livestock farming can obtain scores that are not excellent but sufficient, even if it means correcting a few major faults (morbidity and lesions) while remaining within the same system. When, to be honest and to speak the truth, these systems are by their very nature incompatible with animal welfare. Even INRAE researchers have written this*.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The desire to obtain ‘fair prices’ for a production model that does not respect living creatures is contradictory in essence; cynicism breeds cynicism. One day, ethics will have to be taken seriously. Fair prices that respect the living world are the dream of a better world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But farmers demand better prices first<\/strong>, and after that<\/strong>, with fewer economic worries, they might consider changing their practices. That’s understandable; they have to bear the risks. However, it is better to link the two from the start, in order to be sure of the result (and to be insured). This is called ‘paying for a service’, and animal welfare is one of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why is it so complicated? <\/strong>Because society is rotten with profiteers, with the temptation to increase volumes (it would be up to Europe to develop export markets… and to pay in the event of overproduction and crisis! ), the appeal of “as bad as permitted”, the exploitation of all the holes in the racket, regulations and specifications riddled with derogations, non-compliance, distortion of competition everywhere, cheating and deception, unfair and unsustainable commercial practices, attempts to control all this, disappointment and discouragement, not to mention climate and sanitary hazards\u2026 As for Europe, it is the Member States that make the final decisions, not the European Commission; common rules are always negotiated allowing for flexibility, and France has distinguished itself by its braking of environmental, social and animal protection progress. But doing nothing is still the worst solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A final word. I’ve been very involved in opposing factory farms<\/strong>. But the conflicts surrounding new farms are not necessarily black and white. I mean, the farmer is not necessarily the bad guy and the neighbour the good guy. It can be the other way round. I still have one vivid memory: I attended a public meeting organised against a project to raise free-range laying hens in a maize field. I was the only one to defend the project, along with the representative of the Chamber of Agriculture, in a very angry hall, amidst boos (which seemed nasty to me) towards a family of conscientious and sympathetic farmers. My experience is that the more modest and qualitative a project is for the animals and the environment, the more fragile it is in the face of ill-informed opposition (out of legitimate but sometimes disproportionate concern). The really big mass production projects have powerful support\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n A short personal retrospective from an activist<\/p>\n\n\n\n downloads are French only<\/p>\n\n\n\n My experience began with the development of \"Thierry Schweitzer pork\"<\/strong>, inspired by Swiss animal welfare models. At the beginning of the process (and of the millennium), I even organised events in supermarkets to promote these products. Not every campaigner can boast of having come face to face with the issue of sales. This just goes to show the involvement of civil society. In fact, it was the associations that raised the profile of this fledgling brand, which could have become France's first structured 'animal welfare' label, had its advertising not become commonplace.all donloa<\/p>\n\n\n\n I was hoping that a few well-intentioned individuals in the supermarket sector would be able to promote greater animal welfare, but this was not confirmed. There are a few interesting products improving the \"image\", but for the bulk of the volumes the commercial method discourages ambition and prevents the emergence of agriculture with a human face. In the meantime, however, the \"animal welfare label\" (\u00e9tiquette bien-\u00eatre animal)<\/strong><\/a> (English available), a private partnership for credible evaluation and labelling, has come into being and is showing the way. The Planet Score<\/strong> is also moving in the right direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the Animal and Society Meetings<\/strong> organised by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2008<\/strong>, I was able to contribute a brochure on behalf of France Nature Environnement entitled \"Raising animals: a culture of respect\"<\/strong><\/a>. My recollections of those meetings are as follows: a DGAL that was very tense because of the fear of animal welfare claims (something that was totally foreign to them); a plethora of reports that served no purpose; the 'consensus' rule that validated all the vetoes from the farming and hunting worlds. The only positive outcome was that INRA was commissioned to write a report on pain in farm animals, with a view to possible future progress, which will take more than 10 years to emerge very slowly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I've always been attentive to the economic question<\/strong>. As farmers say: \"You can do anything if there's a price to pay for it\"<\/em><\/strong>. In 2012, Alsace Nature and I published a leaflet entitled \"Des prix justes pour le respect du vivant\"<\/strong><\/a> (fair prices for the respect of the living), which was circulated for a long time. The idea didn't catch on, to say the least.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the Alsace Region, I had written in 2012 \"Local Initiativ<\/a><\/strong>es to Promote the Protection of Nature and the Welfare of Animals: Respect en Plus\"<\/strong><\/a>. This approach led to four small booklets:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respect en plus: Animal welfare<\/strong><\/a> Respect en plus: Milk<\/strong><\/a> Respe<\/strong><\/a>ct en Plus: Pigs<\/strong><\/a> Respect Plus: Laying hens<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/a><\/strong>This PLUS = MORE of respect<\/strong> is always presented as being threefold<\/strong>: fairness and MORE added value for the producer, MORE animal welfare and MORE biodiversity.<\/strong> In short, all of this would be perfectly feasible\u2026. provided that we share a sensitivity and a political will to set up particularly virtuous sectors in a concerted and coherent manner. Which, as you can imagine, is far from being the case. There has been no support for such attempts, except to a certain extent for organic farming. The CAP funds the agriculture of big tractors and other agro-suppliers, and the Water Agencies have the right to fund meadows, which amounts to making them do social work so that cattle farms don't totally collapse because we can't let that happen (thanks to the environment). For the moment, there is no cross-cutting, decompartmentalised construction of virtuous and coherent sectors, encompassing all categories of animals and going beyond restricted zoning; however, developments could move in this direction. The Rhine-Meuse Water Agency has commissioned a study into the production of organic grass-fed steer in the Ardennes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, the major political objectives have always been competitiveness and performance (even if this is environmental), and the objectives of farm advisory services are to reduce production costs and improve animal health issues. My experience of the past is that the demand for animal welfare has always been met with a vigorous (and virile) NO<\/strong>, except for the claim that farmers are concerned about animal welfare for productivity reasons anyway. \"There will be no ethology in the Chambers of Agriculture\".<\/em> Why so much refusal? My search for understanding resulted in \"L'empathie racont\u00e9e au monde de l'\u00e9levage\"<\/strong><\/a> (empathy told to the world of livestock).<\/p>\n\n\n\n But times are changing<\/strong>, public opinion is stirring, Europe is funding research into animal welfare, Germany is moving on the issue, and observation of the animals is being promoted. All sectors are introducing animal welfare assessment software. This software enables progress to be made. However, they are calibrated in such a way that conventional, industrial livestock farming can obtain scores that are not excellent but sufficient, even if it means correcting a few major faults (morbidity and lesions) while remaining within the same system. When, to be honest and to speak the truth, these systems are by their very nature incompatible with animal welfare. Even INRAE researchers have written this*.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The desire to obtain 'fair prices' for a production model that does not respect living creatures is contradictory in essence; cynicism breeds cynicism. One day, ethics will have to be taken seriously. Fair prices that respect the living world are the dream of a better world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But farmers demand better prices first<\/strong>, and after that<\/strong>, with fewer economic worries, they might consider changing their practices. That's understandable; they have to bear the risks. However, it is better to link the two from the start, in order to be sure of the result (and to be insured). This is called 'paying for a service', and animal welfare is one of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why is it so complicated? <\/strong>Because society is rotten with profiteers, with the temptation to increase volumes (it would be up to Europe to develop export markets... and to pay in the event of overproduction and crisis! ), the appeal of \"as bad as permitted\", the exploitation of all the holes in the racket, regulations and specifications riddled with derogations, non-compliance, distortion of competition everywhere, cheating and deception, unfair and unsustainable commercial practices, attempts to control all this, disappointment and discouragement, not to mention climate and sanitary hazards\u2026 As for Europe, it is the Member States that make the final decisions, not the European Commission; common rules are always negotiated allowing for flexibility, and France has distinguished itself by its braking of environmental, social and animal protection progress. But doing nothing is still the worst solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A final word. I've been very involved in opposing factory farms<\/strong>. But the conflicts surrounding new farms are not necessarily black and white. I mean, the farmer is not necessarily the bad guy and the neighbour the good guy. It can be the other way round. I still have one vivid memory: I attended a public meeting organised against a project to raise free-range laying hens in a maize field. I was the only one to defend the project, along with the representative of the Chamber of Agriculture, in a very angry hall, amidst boos (which seemed nasty to me) towards a family of conscientious and sympathetic farmers. My experience is that the more modest and qualitative a project is for the animals and the environment, the more fragile it is in the face of ill-informed opposition (out of legitimate but sometimes disproportionate concern). The really big mass production projects have powerful support\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Petite r\u00e9trospective personnelle d'une militante <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mon exp\u00e9rience s\u2019est construite avec le d\u00e9veloppement du \u00ab porc Thierry Schweitzer<\/strong> \u00bb<\/strong>, inspir\u00e9 de mod\u00e8les suisses de labels 'bien-\u00eatre'. Au d\u00e9but de la d\u00e9marche (et du mill\u00e9naire) j\u2019ai m\u00eame fait des animations en grande surface pour promouvoir ces produits. Tout militant ne peut pas se vanter d\u2019avoir ainsi affront\u00e9 en direct la question des ventes. Ceci pour bien d\u00e9montrer l\u2019implication de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile. Ce sont en effet les associations qui ont fait la notori\u00e9t\u00e9 de cette fili\u00e8re naissante, qui aurait pu devenir le premier label structur\u00e9 \u00ab bien-\u00eatre animal \u00bb de France, si sa publicit\u00e9 ne s\u2019\u00e9tait pas banalis\u00e9e.<\/p>\n\n\n\n De mon c\u00f4t\u00e9, l\u2019espoir que quelques individus de bonne volont\u00e9 dans la grande distribution puissent faire \u00e9merger davantage de bien-\u00eatre animal a \u00e9t\u00e9 peu confort\u00e9. Il y a certes des produits int\u00e9ressants qui travaillent l\u2019 \u00ab image \u00bb, mais pour le gros des volumes la m\u00e9thode commerciale d\u00e9courage les ambitions et emp\u00eache l\u2019\u00e9mergence d\u2019une agriculture \u00e0 visage humain. Toutefois, entretemps, l'\"\u00e9tiquette bien-\u00eatre animal\"<\/strong>, une d\u00e9marche priv\u00e9e, est n\u00e9e et montre la voie. Le Planet Score<\/strong> va aussi dans la bonne direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A l\u2019occasion des Rencontres Animal et Soci\u00e9t\u00e9<\/strong> organis\u00e9es par le Minist\u00e8re de l\u2019Agriculture en 2008<\/strong>, j\u2019ai pu contribuer au nom de France Nature Environnement avec une brochure \u00ab Elever les animaux : une culture du respect \u00bb<\/a><\/strong>. Quelques souvenirs de ces Rencontres : une DGAL tr\u00e8s crisp\u00e9e par la peur des revendications de bien-\u00eatre animal (quelque chose qui lui \u00e9tait totalement \u00e9tranger) ; une pl\u00e9thore de rapports qui n'ont servi \u00e0 rien ; la r\u00e8gle du \u2018consensus\u2019 validant tous les v\u00e9tos des mondes agricoles et de la chasse. Seul r\u00e9sultat positif : la mission pour l\u2019INRA de r\u00e9diger un ouvrage sur la douleur des animaux d\u2019\u00e9levage, pour un \u00e9ventuel progr\u00e8s futur qui mettra plus de 10 ans \u00e0 \u00e9merger tr\u00e8s lentement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n J\u2019ai toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 attentive \u00e0 la question \u00e9conomique<\/strong>. En effet, comme le disent les agriculteurs : \u00ab On peut tout faire, s\u2019il y a un prix derri\u00e8re \u00bb<\/strong><\/em>.<\/strong> Avec Alsace Nature, nous avons publi\u00e9 en 2012, et longtemps diffus\u00e9, le tract \u00ab Des prix justes pour le respect du vivant \u00bb<\/a>. <\/strong>L\u2019id\u00e9e n\u2019a pas perc\u00e9, c\u2019est le moins qu\u2019on puisse dire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A l\u2019attention de la R\u00e9gion Alsace j\u2019avais r\u00e9dig\u00e9 en 2012 \u00ab Des Initiatives Locales pour Valoriser la Protection de la Nature et le Bien-Etre des Animaux : Respect en Plus\u00bb<\/a>.<\/strong> Cette approche a conduit \u00e0 quatre petites plaquettes :<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ce PLUS de respect y est toujours pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 comme \u00e9tant triple<\/strong> : Equit\u00e9 et plus<\/em>-value pour le producteur<\/u><\/strong>, plus <\/u><\/em>de bien-\u00eatre animal<\/u><\/strong> et plus<\/u><\/em> de biodiversit\u00e9<\/u><\/strong>. En somme, tout cela serait parfaitement faisable\u2026. \u00e0 condition de partager une sensibilit\u00e9 et une volont\u00e9 politique pour mettre en place des fili\u00e8res particuli\u00e8rement vertueuses de mani\u00e8re concert\u00e9e entre acteurs et coh\u00e9rente. Ce qui, on s\u2019en doute, est loin d\u2019\u00eatre le cas. De telles tentatives n\u2019ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 soutenues, sauf dans une certaine mesure l\u2019agriculture biologique. La PAC finance l\u2019agriculture des gros tracteurs et autres agrofournisseurs, et les Agences de l\u2019Eau ont le droit de financer les prairies, ce qui revient \u00e0 leur faire faire du social pour que les \u00e9levages de bovins ne cr\u00e8vent pas totalement parce qu'on ne peut quand m\u00eame pas laisser arriver cela (merci l'environnement). Il n\u2019y a, pour le moment, pas de construction transversale, d\u00e9cloisonn\u00e9e, de fili\u00e8res vertueuses et coh\u00e9rentes, englobant toutes les cat\u00e9gories d'animaux et d\u00e9passant les zonages restreints ; toutefois, l'\u00e9volution pourrait aller dans ce sens. Ainsi l'Agence de l'Eau Rhin-Meuse a fait r\u00e9aliser une \u00e9tude pour la production de boeuf \u00e0 l'herbe bio dans les Ardennes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Les grands objectifs politiques ont toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 la comp\u00e9titivit\u00e9 et la performance f\u00fbt-elle environnementale, et les objectifs du conseil agricole sont la r\u00e9duction des co\u00fbts de production et la qualit\u00e9 sanitaire. Mon v\u00e9cu du pass\u00e9 est que la demande de bien-\u00eatre animal s\u2019est toujours heurt\u00e9e \u00e0 un NON vigoureux (et viril), sauf \u00e0 affirmer que de toute fa\u00e7on les \u00e9leveurs se pr\u00e9occupent du bien-\u00eatre animal pour des raisons de productivit\u00e9. \"Il n\u2019y aura pas d\u2019\u00e9thologie dans les Chambres d\u2019agriculture<\/em>\" . Pourquoi tant de refus ? Ma recherche pour comprendre a donn\u00e9 \u00ab L\u2019empathie racont\u00e9e au monde de l\u2019\u00e9levage \u00bb<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Les temps changent quand m\u00eame<\/strong>, l\u2019opinion publique remue, l\u2019Europe finance de la recherche sur le bien-\u00eatre animal, l'Allemagne bouge sur la question, l'observation des animaux est promue. Toutes les fili\u00e8res mettent en place des logiciels d\u2019\u00e9valuation du bien-\u00eatre animal. Ces logiciels permettent des d\u00e9marches de progr\u00e8s. Toutefois, ils sont calibr\u00e9s de mani\u00e8re \u00e0 ce que l\u2019\u00e9levage conventionnel, industriel, puisse obtenir des notes non pas excellentes mais suffisantes, quitte \u00e0 corriger utilement quelques gros d\u00e9fauts (morbidit\u00e9s et l\u00e9sions) tout en restant dans le m\u00eame syst\u00e8me. Alors que, pour \u00eatre honn\u00eate et parler vrai, ces syst\u00e8mes sont par essence incompatibles avec le bien-\u00eatre des animaux. Il y a m\u00eame des chercheurs de l\u2019INRAE qui l'\u00e9crivent*.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vouloir obtenir des 'prix justes' pour un mod\u00e8le de production non respectueux du vivant est contradictoire par essence ; le cynisme engendre le cynisme. Il faudra bien, un jour, prendre l'\u00e9thique au s\u00e9rieux. Les prix justes pour le respect du vivant sont le r\u00eave d'un monde meilleur. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mais pour les agriculteurs il faut d'abord<\/strong> de meilleurs prix, et ensuite<\/strong>, avec moins de soucis \u00e9conomiques, on pourra envisager des changements de pratiques. Cela peut se comprendre ; il faut supporter des risques. Toutefois, il vaut mieux relier les deux an amont pour s'assurer du r\u00e9sultat (et \u00eatre assur\u00e9). Cela s'appelle 'r\u00e9mun\u00e9rer un service', et le bien-\u00eatre animal en est un. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Pourquoi est-ce si compliqu\u00e9 ? Parce que la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 est pourrie par les profiteurs, avec la tentation d'augmenter les volumes (ce serait \u00e0 l'Europe de d\u00e9velopper les march\u00e9s \u00e0 l'export mais aussi \u00e0 payer en cas de surproduction et de crise !), l'attrait du \"aussi mauvais que permis\", l'exploitation de tous les trous dans la raquette, les r\u00e9glementations et cahiers des charges truff\u00e9s de d\u00e9rogations, les non-conformit\u00e9s, tricheries et tromperies, la distorsion de concurrence partout, les pratiques commerciales insoutenables, des tentatives de contr\u00f4ler tout cela, les d\u00e9ceptions et d\u00e9couragements, sans oublier les al\u00e9as climatiques et sanitaires... Quant \u00e0 l'EUROPE, ce sont les Etats membres qui d\u00e9cident en dernier lieu et pas la Commission europ\u00e9enne ; les r\u00e8gles communes sont toujours n\u00e9goci\u00e9es au prix de flexibilit\u00e9s, et la France s'est distingu\u00e9e par son freinage en mati\u00e8re de progr\u00e8s environnemental, social et de protection animale. Mais ne rien tenter reste la plus mauvaise des solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Un dernier mot. J'ai \u00e9t\u00e9 tr\u00e8s impliqu\u00e9e dans les oppositions aux \u00e9levages industriels<\/strong>. Mais les conflits autour des \u00e9levages qui s'installent ne rel\u00e8vent pas forc\u00e9ment du noir contre blanc. Je veux dire que l'agriculteur n'est pas forc\u00e9ment le m\u00e9chant et le riverain le gentil. Cela peut \u00eatre l'inverse. Il me reste un souvenir marquant : j'ai assist\u00e9 \u00e0 une r\u00e9union publique organis\u00e9e contre un projet d'\u00e9levage de poules pondeuses en plein air dans un champs de ma\u00efs. Dans une salle remont\u00e9e, au milieu des hu\u00e9es (qui me semblaient m\u00e9chantes) envers une famille d'agriculteurs consciencieux et sympathiques, j'ai \u00e9t\u00e9 la seule \u00e0 d\u00e9fendre le projet, avec le repr\u00e9sentant de la Chambre d'agriculture. Mon exp\u00e9rience est que plus un projet est modeste et qualitatif pour les animaux et l'environnement, plus il est fragile face \u00e0 une opposition 'mal inspir\u00e9e' (dans une inqui\u00e9tude l\u00e9gitime mais parfois disproportionn\u00e9e). Les vrais gros projets de production de masse disposent de soutiens puissants...<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n *Am\u00e9liorer le bien-\u00eatre des animaux d\u2019\u00e9levage : est-ce toujours possible ? <\/a><\/strong> par Christine Leterrier, Genevi\u00e8ve Aubin-Houzelstein, Alain Boissy, V\u00e9ronique Deiss, Val\u00e9rie Fillon, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric L\u00e9vy, Elodie Merlot (INRAE) et Odile Petit (CNRS), Sesame, 28 juin 2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","_fr_post_name":"historique-des-prix-justes-pour-le-respect-du-vivant","_fr_post_excerpt":"","_fr_post_title":"Des prix justes pour le respect du vivant","_en_post_content":"\n A short personal retrospective from an activist<\/p>\n\n\n\n downloads are French only<\/p>\n\n\n\n My experience began with the development of \"Thierry Schweitzer pork\"<\/strong>, inspired by Swiss animal welfare models. At the beginning of the process (and of the millennium), I even organised events in supermarkets to promote these products. Not every campaigner can boast of having come face to face with the issue of sales. This just goes to show the involvement of civil society. In fact, it was the associations that raised the profile of this fledgling brand, which could have become France's first structured 'animal welfare' label, had its advertising not become commonplace.all donloa<\/p>\n\n\n\n I was hoping that a few well-intentioned individuals in the supermarket sector would be able to promote greater animal welfare, but this was not confirmed. There are a few interesting products improving the \"image\", but for the bulk of the volumes the commercial method discourages ambition and prevents the emergence of agriculture with a human face. In the meantime, however, the \"animal welfare label\" (\u00e9tiquette bien-\u00eatre animal)<\/strong><\/a> (English available), a private partnership for credible evaluation and labelling, has come into being and is showing the way. The Planet Score<\/strong> is also moving in the right direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the Animal and Society Meetings<\/strong> organised by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2008<\/strong>, I was able to contribute a brochure on behalf of France Nature Environnement entitled \"Raising animals: a culture of respect\"<\/strong><\/a>. My recollections of those meetings are as follows: a DGAL that was very tense because of the fear of animal welfare claims (something that was totally foreign to them); a plethora of reports that served no purpose; the 'consensus' rule that validated all the vetoes from the farming and hunting worlds. The only positive outcome was that INRA was commissioned to write a report on pain in farm animals, with a view to possible future progress, which will take more than 10 years to emerge very slowly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I've always been attentive to the economic question<\/strong>. As farmers say: \"You can do anything if there's a price to pay for it\"<\/em><\/strong>. In 2012, Alsace Nature and I published a leaflet entitled \"Des prix justes pour le respect du vivant\"<\/strong><\/a> (fair prices for the respect of the living), which was circulated for a long time. The idea didn't catch on, to say the least.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the Alsace Region, I had written in 2012 \"Local Initiativ<\/a><\/strong>es to Promote the Protection of Nature and the Welfare of Animals: Respect en Plus\"<\/strong><\/a>. This approach led to four small booklets:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respect en plus: Animal welfare<\/strong><\/a> Respect en plus: Milk<\/strong><\/a> Respe<\/strong><\/a>ct en Plus: Pigs<\/strong><\/a> Respect Plus: Laying hens<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/a><\/strong>This PLUS = MORE of respect<\/strong> is always presented as being threefold<\/strong>: fairness and MORE added value for the producer, MORE animal welfare and MORE biodiversity.<\/strong> In short, all of this would be perfectly feasible\u2026. provided that we share a sensitivity and a political will to set up particularly virtuous sectors in a concerted and coherent manner. Which, as you can imagine, is far from being the case. There has been no support for such attempts, except to a certain extent for organic farming. The CAP funds the agriculture of big tractors and other agro-suppliers, and the Water Agencies have the right to fund meadows, which amounts to making them do social work so that cattle farms don't totally collapse because we can't let that happen (thanks to the environment). For the moment, there is no cross-cutting, decompartmentalised construction of virtuous and coherent sectors, encompassing all categories of animals and going beyond restricted zoning; however, developments could move in this direction. The Rhine-Meuse Water Agency has commissioned a study into the production of organic grass-fed steer in the Ardennes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, the major political objectives have always been competitiveness and performance (even if this is environmental), and the objectives of farm advisory services are to reduce production costs and improve animal health issues. My experience of the past is that the demand for animal welfare has always been met with a vigorous (and virile) NO<\/strong>, except for the claim that farmers are concerned about animal welfare for productivity reasons anyway. \"There will be no ethology in the Chambers of Agriculture\".<\/em> Why so much refusal? My search for understanding resulted in \"L'empathie racont\u00e9e au monde de l'\u00e9levage\"<\/strong><\/a> (empathy told to the world of livestock).<\/p>\n\n\n\n But times are changing<\/strong>, public opinion is stirring, Europe is funding research into animal welfare, Germany is moving on the issue, and observation of the animals is being promoted. All sectors are introducing animal welfare assessment software. This software enables progress to be made. However, they are calibrated in such a way that conventional, industrial livestock farming can obtain scores that are not excellent but sufficient, even if it means correcting a few major faults (morbidity and lesions) while remaining within the same system. When, to be honest and to speak the truth, these systems are by their very nature incompatible with animal welfare. Even INRAE researchers have written this*.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The desire to obtain 'fair prices' for a production model that does not respect living creatures is contradictory in essence; cynicism breeds cynicism. One day, ethics will have to be taken seriously. Fair prices that respect the living world are the dream of a better world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But farmers demand better prices first<\/strong>, and after that<\/strong>, with fewer economic worries, they might consider changing their practices. That's understandable; they have to bear the risks. However, it is better to link the two from the start, in order to be sure of the result (and to be insured). This is called 'paying for a service', and animal welfare is one of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why is it so complicated? <\/strong>Because society is rotten with profiteers, with the temptation to increase volumes (it would be up to Europe to develop export markets... and to pay in the event of overproduction and crisis! ), the appeal of \"as bad as permitted\", the exploitation of all the holes in the racket, regulations and specifications riddled with derogations, non-compliance, distortion of competition everywhere, cheating and deception, unfair and unsustainable commercial practices, attempts to control all this, disappointment and discouragement, not to mention climate and sanitary hazards\u2026 As for Europe, it is the Member States that make the final decisions, not the European Commission; common rules are always negotiated allowing for flexibility, and France has distinguished itself by its braking of environmental, social and animal protection progress. But doing nothing is still the worst solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A final word. I've been very involved in opposing factory farms<\/strong>. But the conflicts surrounding new farms are not necessarily black and white. I mean, the farmer is not necessarily the bad guy and the neighbour the good guy. It can be the other way round. I still have one vivid memory: I attended a public meeting organised against a project to raise free-range laying hens in a maize field. I was the only one to defend the project, along with the representative of the Chamber of Agriculture, in a very angry hall, amidst boos (which seemed nasty to me) towards a family of conscientious and sympathetic farmers. My experience is that the more modest and qualitative a project is for the animals and the environment, the more fragile it is in the face of ill-informed opposition (out of legitimate but sometimes disproportionate concern). The really big mass production projects have powerful support\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
*Improving the welfare of farm animals: is it always possible?<\/a> by Christine Leterrier, Genevi\u00e8ve Aubin-Houzelstein, Alain Boissy, V\u00e9ronique Deiss, Val\u00e9rie Fillon, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric L\u00e9vy, Elodie Merlot (INRAE) et Odile Petit (CNRS), Sesame, 28 juin 2022<\/p>\n","protected":false,"raw":"\n
*Improving the welfare of farm animals: is it always possible?<\/a> by Christine Leterrier, Genevi\u00e8ve Aubin-Houzelstein, Alain Boissy, V\u00e9ronique Deiss, Val\u00e9rie Fillon, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric L\u00e9vy, Elodie Merlot (INRAE) et Odile Petit (CNRS), Sesame, 28 juin 2022<\/p>\n"},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false,"raw":""},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":144,"menu_order":-5,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_fr_post_content":"\n\n