It’s often said that the goal of animal welfare is to ensure an animal has only one bad day. Most people would agree, if that final day is for our benefit, we owe the animal good days leading up to it. It’s not just humane; it’s fair and just.
Animal welfare benefits animals and people alike. But that raises a deeper question: if doing good is the goal, shouldn’t we strive to do more of it? These may sound like philosophical musings, but they reflect the mindset of much of today’s voting public. They are people who support policies that visibly do good, and even better, proactively seek more of it.
Want to increase pen space? Sure. It means better days for pigs, and we are good for supporting it. Open-air pens? Same logic. Public support tends to follow what appears to promote progress. That’s why any strategy focused on just maintaining the status quo is risky; it doesn’t look like progress towards more good, and therefore may not inspire public trust.
Otherwise, definitions of “welfare” may be shaped by those with less knowledge of production realities, leading to unintended consequences. An example would be higher costs and reduced access due to higher prices and reduced supply, all for the sake of changes that may not actually improve animal wellbeing.
One powerful way to proactively demonstrate progress is by highlighting the connection between multiple issues relevant to the voting public and how improvements in one area can spill over in others. Animal welfare and food waste is just such an opportunity. Because what’s the point of good days if the animal never reaches that one bad day? And what’s the value of that final day if the pork ends up in the trash?
Reducing waste not only honors the animal, but it improves economic and environmental outcomes. Waste represents sunk costs and lost income throughout the supply chain. Less waste means more pork in the market, lower prices for consumers, and better access for those in need. It also means we’re making more efficient use of resources such as feed, water, energy, etc., without increasing emissions, runoff, or trash. Decreasing the environmental impact per pound of pork consumed.
This is the kind of multifaceted good the public supports. It’s where animal welfare and true sustainability align, and where agriculture can lead, not follow, the discussion on animal welfare policy.
