"An ethical code for use of animals needs more than public opinion"

Whilst recognising that social attitudes are changing towards use of animals and that people are increasingly questioning how animals are treated, leading academics from Finland, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US warn that society should not jump to conclusions in setting new farming policies.

The academics - from political sociology, cultural anthropology, philosophy and social and religious ethics disciplines- acknowledge in a report that criteria must be established for making judgements on when humans can make use of animals as part of the evolving moral view on the animal/human relationship.

Now, after the slaughter of thousands of animals in the wake of Britain's foot and mouth disease and its knock-on effects across Europe, there is growing debate on bioethics, the legitimacy of intensive farming practices and the use of animals in research.

The report Animal Ethics & Morality 2000 just published maintains that government policies should be made after weighing both the animal interest - best defined as its good welfare and 'an animal-worthy life'" - and human interest as "a mix of tradition, social factors, economic and scientific significance". A further consideration the academics believe is the existence of any suitable alternatives to the use of animals, but which are not of themselves in conflict with a moral code.

The Panel of academics recognised that public opinion is an important factor in the setting of any moral or ethical code. "Whilst such research may be important as base material, it needs also to be carefully and critically scrutinised to ensure that tolerance is observed before proceeding to any policy decision", the report notes.

The role of scientific and philosophical thought needed to be stronger to assist politicians in complex decision making, whereas reliance principally on public opinion "could seriously harm the quality of democracy", say the academics.

A broad consensus reached by the academics on the five elements that should play a role in public policy making - animal welfare, human needs, public morality and opinion critically examined, environmental considerations and a foil to market forces - represented a useful starting point to the debate on establishing ethical criteria for use of animals.

The weighing of animal and human interests - a type of risk/benefit standard - will give moral justification for the keeping of many animals on farms, the academics feel, but there still needs to be a minimum set of conditions whatever the human/animal relationship

The Animal Ethics and Morality 2000 report was an initiative of the European Fur Breeders Association (EFBA) and International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF), to encourage debate on the future relationship humans will have with all animals entrusted to us.

As the respected Ratheanu Institute noted in a February 2000 report for the Dutch government: "There is a clear, growing attention for the moral position of animals. Sooner or later this will inflict on our basic principles of a liberal democratic society."

- ends -

Issued for and on behalf of the European Fur Breeders' Association and the International Fur Trade Federation May, 2001