People concerned with animal welfare are being increasingly heard, to the point where in some cases they have been accompanied by demonstrations and militant action. There are many facets of this subject, ranging from the implied cruelties of so-called factory farming and animal experimentation, to the transport of farm animals for slaughter and the conservation of endangered species.
These interests have been taken up by a bewildering variety of national and international committees and associations, so that it is not obvious who is compaigning for what.
The whole issue is made more complicated by a common assumption of the more extreme agitators that only they are concerned with the real welfare of animals. Farmers who keep livestock intensively, however, and scientists who perform animal experiments, are aware of the welfare components of these problems, but they start with the view that food must be produced cheaply and efficiently (and that many people will continue to eat meat) and that experiments with animals are essential, both to advance basic knowledge (the fruits of which are often surprisingly unpredictable) and to protect not only man but animals themselves.
Diseases of animals cannot be studied and understood, nor can drugs and vaccines be developed against them, without some degree of experimentation.
This side of the case is less often heard, however, and when it is, the presentation can sound dull and judicial. A recent Home Office report (on the LD50 test, which is widely used to screen toxic substances) coolly argues that cruelty arises "when the pain is not compensated by the consequential good" and continues: "In applying this criterion, there must be assumed a presumption in favour of humans over animals. We believe that while it is not legitimate to use one human being, without his consent, as a means to another's end it is, within limits, legitimate to use animals for human ends.
"This assumption lies behind our use of animals and their products as food, our exclusion of animals from their natural environment for the benefit of humans, our treatment of certain animals as pests or vermin, our preferential treatment of humans in the competition for scarce resources. If there were not some such general assumption, all infliction of pain on animals (except for their own good) would be cruelty."
Perhaps the two main welfare areas where matters are coming to the boil are intensive livestock practices and experiments. The most criticized features of modern farming are the confinement of sows in tethers or stalls, the housing of poultry layers in cages (along with debeaking) and some aspects of intensive veal production.
Many farmers are concerned about these trends, and veterinarians working in the pig and poultry industries are sometimes uneasy at what they see. It is urgent, therefore, to study these matters with an open mind, bringing together those with differing views. The Government has recently established the Farm Animal Welfare Council (which will be important in shaping future legislation) for this purpose but it has already run into trouble with the refusal of the RSPCA council to allow its chief veterinary officer and executive director to accept invitations to serve on it.
Legislation to cover animal experiments is now in the unusual position of being under discussion in both Houses of Parliament. Lord Halsbury's Laboratory Animals Protection Bill received its second reading on October 25, and Mr Peter Fry's Protection of Animals (Scientific Purposes) Bill followed on November 16. The Council of Europe is debating the same subject and moving towards a European Convention.
It is likely that the Government would prefer to see the nature of the final European recommendations before settling for new regulations at home to replace the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, which has stood the test of time remarkably well.
Of the two Bills, the one in the Commons seems to be causing the greater worry, especially to the Royal Society and other societies, the Agricultural and Medical Research Councils, the veterinary profession and the chemical industry.
This is because, as it stands, the critics maintain that it is excessively restrictive: it could become more difficult, for example, to collect information on animal disease in the field or to carry out field trials of new drugs on farms. The provisions requiring experiments to be justified could also raise problems of definition and administration, due to the scale of the overseeing involved.
Many have gained the impression that this Bill has paid attention to the views of some pet owners at the expense of the wider requirements of research and the protection of industrial workers and consumers. There are also fears among scientists that they will be conspicuously exposed to prosecution.
Some veterinarians believe that whatever evolves in the way of new legislation for both livestock production and animal experiments, all animals should have access to veterinary cover. They would like to see some provision for greater veterinary care and supervision.
While few would dispute that the attitude and training of the veterinarian is the best for this particular purpose, the veterinary profession is likely to meet opposition if it tries to expand its role beyond what others believe to be its qualifications. In the field of ethics, and on questions relating to the justification and execution of experiments, there is a greater body of experienced non-veterinary opinion.
