Peter Stevenson Brexit Food Thinkers: "Post Brexit Farming: Interweaving animal welfare, the environment and public health."

1. Post Brexit Farming: Interweaving animal
welfare, the environment and public health
Peter Stevenson
Compassion in World Farming

2. All references are in notes below slides

3. Brexit should not lead to dilution of UK animal
welfare standards
Core objective 1

4. EU legislation on farm animal welfare
• Laying Hens Directive: 1999/74
• Meat Chickens Directive:2007/43
• Calves Directive: 2008/119
• Pigs Directive: 2008/120
• General Farm Animals Directive: 98/58
• Transport Regulation: 1/2005
• Slaughter Regulation: 1099/2009

5. Good welfare should be seen as part of UK’s
post-Brexit international brand
Our USP, both at home and abroad, should be
the highest standards of animal welfare and the
highest standards of food traceability: Andrea
Leadsom, Defra Secretary of State (1)
Core objective 2: Improving animal welfare

6. Two factors more than anything will determine
post Brexit levels of animal welfare
• Trade issues
• Post CAP subsidy arrangements

7. Trade issues - will these (i) drive pressure to
dilute welfare standards & (ii) undermine attempts
to improve welfare?
• UK farmers must be protected from being undermined by lower
welfare imports – UK must insist on inclusion in new trade
agreements of a clause permitting it to require imports to meet UK
animal welfare standards
• But will UK be willing to do this given their desire to build a large
portfolio of new trade agreements?
• Where UK does not conclude a trade agreement, trade will be
governed by WTO rules
• Will UK have the courage to argue that WTO rules enable it to
require imports to meet animal welfare standards equivalent to
those of UK? (1)

8. Designing post CAP farming support
• Need to rethink the purpose of public funding for agriculture
• We should define what kind of food & farming system we want & then
determine how public funding can help to deliver & maintain that system
• Farmers should be rewarded by the market for outputs, with taxpayers’
principal role being to provide funding for public goods that the market
cannot – or can only partially - deliver such as high environmental &
animal welfare standards
• Farmers willing to improve welfare would be incentivised under a new
UK system of farm support payments
• Public funding could be granted for e.g. membership of RSPCA
Assured, or for keeping pigs outdoors or on straw indoors. Payments to
individual farmers could be tiered, depending on which level of high
welfare they choose

9. Defra should ban live exports for
slaughter & fattening
• Once UK is no longer bound by EU rules, it will be free to ban live
exports - provided that in any new trade agreement with EU it insists
on inclusion of clause permitting it to do so

10. Many UK sows are kept in farrowing crates for several days
before giving birth & for 3-4 weeks after the piglets are born
These are so narrow the sow
cannot even turn round.

11. Farrowing crates should be replaced by free farrowing
systems
Several alternatives to farrowing
crates are available – some
designed by British farmers &
scientists (3) & (4)
© 360º Freedom Farrower™
Piglet mortalities in loose farrowing
systems can as low as or lower
than in crates (1) & (2)

12. SRUC indoor free farrowing system
Government should support move to free
farrowing systems
• Through post CAP farm
support payments
• Through public
procurement
• Ultimately ban farrowing
crates

13. Government should support the move away from
enriched cages for laying hens
• All UK’s major supermarket chains have now either stopped using eggs
from hens kept in enriched cages or have pledged to do so by 2025 (1)
• McDonald’s, Pret, Subway are cage-free - indeed free range - in UK
• Compass Group & Sodexo, two of the world’s largest food service
companies, committed to using only cage-free eggs (shell & liquid)
worldwide by 2025 (2) & (3)
• UK public sector should no longer use enriched cage eggs
• UK should emulate Germany which has banned enriched cages from 2025,
with some exceptions allowing use till 2028 (4)

14. Public procurement:
taking the lead, setting the standard
• Public sector spends about £2.4bn per annum procuring food and
catering services (1)
• Defra public procurement policy only requires meat, milk & eggs to
reach legislative minimum standards
• Public sector bodies should, when buying meat, dairy products &
eggs, use their buying power to augment the market for food
produced to high nutritional, environmental & animal welfare
standards

15. Public procurement: cost implications of
adopting higher standards
• Some US hospitals use meat produced more sustainably & to
higher animal welfare standards but reduce the quantity of meat
used in their meals (1) & (2)
• Savings made by using less meat can cover the extra cost of
buying higher quality meat
• Two ‘wins’: (i) support for sustainable, high welfare farming, (ii)
healthier diets for patients
• Copenhagen House of Food: Its goal is to increase the quality of
the meals which the municipality offers its citizens & to create a
healthy eating culture
• 75% of public meals served in Copenhagen are organic (3)
• By carefully balancing the contents of meals, they have been able to
achieve a high organic level without increasing costs

16. UK dairy sector is industrialising – cows are being taken off the
fields & confined indoors all year round in ‘zero-grazing’ systems
Post CAP subsidies should only be available for pasture-based farmers
Public sector bodies should only use milk & dairy products
from pasture-based herds
We need to reverse this trend
(1) & (2)

17. Do these
products
Come from her? Or her?
You have no way of knowing

18. Milk & dairy products
must be labelled as to farming method
so that consumers can play their part in
supporting pasture-based dairying

19. Mandatory labelling as to farming method
would stimulate the market for
higher welfare products
Meat too must be labelled as to farming method
so that consumers can help drive enhanced welfare standards
Extensivei
ndoors
Intensive
indoors
Free
range

20. A more ambitious approach is emerging as to what is
meant by good welfare
Preventing poor welfare is not sufficient – we need to promote
positively good outcomes
© istockphoto

21. New paper by David Mellor (1)
• Necessary not only to minimise negative experiences but also “to
provide the animals with opportunities to have positive experiences”
• These “can arise when animals are kept with congenial others in
spacious, stimulus-rich and safe environments which provide
opportunities for them to engage in behaviours they find rewarding.”
• “These behaviours may include environment-focused exploration
and food acquisition activities as well as animal-to-animal interactive
activities, all of which can generate various forms of comfort,
pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control.”

22. St Basil of Caesaria (329-379 AD)
“May we realize that they live not for us alone, but for
themselves and for Thee and that they love the sweetness
of life even as we, and serve Thee better in their place
than we in ours”

23. Industrial livestock production is not just damaging
to animal welfare but is a key driver of - or
contributes to - many problems affecting:
• the environment
• food security
• public health

24. A key factor in farming’s detrimental impact on
natural resources is the dependence of
industrial livestock production on feeding
human-edible cereals to animals who then
convert them very inefficiently into meat & milk

25. UK (i) production & (ii) use as animal feed of wheat,
barley & oats (1)
Thousand
tonnes
46% of wheat, barley &
oats produced in UK are
used as animal feed

26. Proportion of cereals used as animal feed
(1), (2) & (3)

27. Dairy Eggs Chicken Pork Beef
Calorie
conversion
efficiency
(%)
40 22 12 10 3
Protein
conversion
efficiency
(%)
43 35 40 10 5
What happens to crop calories used as animal feed?
For every 100 calories of human-edible cereals fed to animals, just 17-
30 calories enter the human food chain as meat or milk: (1) & (2)
Some studies indicate the conversion rate is even lower for meat (3)
Source: Cassidy et al, 2013 (3)

28. Many recognise that feeding cereals to animals is wasteful
Chatham House: “staggeringly inefficient” (1)
International Institute for
Environment and Development: “colossally inefficient” (2)
FAO: “potential to threaten food security” (4)
Bajželj et al, 2014
“a very inefficient use of land to produce food” (3)

29. In the UK 10.2 million tonnes of wheat, barley & oats are used
annually as animal feed. Of this 7.6 million tonnes are wasted due
to the poor conversion rate of cereals to meat & milk (1), (2) & (3)
Average annual use of wheat,
barley & oats in UK as animal feed
10.2 million tonnes
Proportion of cereals used as feed
converted into meat & milk
17-30% - mid-point = 25%
Proportion of cereals used as feed
that do not produce food for people
75%
75% of the 10.2 million tonnes of
wheat, barley & oats used annually
in UK as animal feed produce no
food for people
7.6 million tonnes of wheat,
barley & oats are wasted
annually in UK by being used as
animal feed

30. Food thrown away from UK homes compared with food
wasted by being used as animal feed (1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Foodthrown away from homes
annuallyinUK
Foodwasted annuallyin UK by being
used as animalfeed
Million
tonnes
Note The right hand column does not refer to the total cereals
fed to animals; it is the amount that is wasted due to animals’
low efficiency in converting cereals to meat & milk.

31. Soil Degradation
Biodiversity Loss
Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification
of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals,
has led to:
Overuse & Pollution of
Ground- and Surface-Water
Air pollution

32. Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification
of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals,
has led to:
SOIL DEGRADATION
• “modern agriculture, in seeking to maximize yields ... has caused loss of
soil organic carbon and compaction” (1)
• Depletion of soil organic carbon “in conventional agricultural fields is now
thought to be an important factor constraining productivity” (1)
• Intensive agriculture has reduced soil biodiversity in southern UK. “Given
that the loss of soil biodiversity is ultimately linked to a loss of soil
functions that underpin ecosystem services, we propose that future
agricultural policies need to consider how to halt and/or reverse this loss
of soil biodiversity”. (2)
• Some of the most productive agricultural land in England is at risk of
becoming unprofitable within a generation due to soil erosion and the
loss of organic carbon.” “Agricultural soils are being degraded by
intensive farming practices in some areas”. (3)

33. Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification
of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals,
has led to:
BIODIVERSITY LOSS
• By 2013, the UK breeding farmland bird index had fallen by 55%
compared with 1970. Statistically significant on-going decline of 10%
between 2007 and 2012: (1)
• Many of the declines in farmland birds “have been caused by land
management changes and the intensification of farming”: (1)
• Marked decline in pollinating insects including bees in the UK.. Intensive
farming has resulted in a significant loss of habitats with the resultant
loss of food and nesting resources for pollinators –and the use of
pesticides and monocultures – being a leading driver in pollinator
declines: (2)

34. Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification
of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals,
has led to:
OVERUSE & POLLUTION OF GROUND- & SURFACE- WATER
• “Animal products from industrial systems generally consume and pollute
more ground- and surface-water resources than animal products from
grazing or mixed systems.” (1)
• Because of the larger dependence on concentrate feed in industrial
systems, further intensification of animal production systems will result in
increasing use & pollution of ground- and surface-water per unit of animal
product. (1)

35. Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals has fuelled the intensification
of crop production. This, with its use of monocultures & agro-chemicals,
has led to:
AIR POLLUTION
• A study analysed the health costs arising in Europe from Denmark’s air
pollution. The study found that the main Danish sector that contributes to
health costs arising from air pollution is agriculture; its contribution (43%)
outweighs those of road traffic (18%) and major power plants (10%). (1)
• Report by the French Senate concludes that air pollution is mainly
caused by four sectors: agriculture, transport, industry and residential (2)
• A study reports that in the UK agriculture contributes up to 48% of the air
pollution associated with premature mortality. This largely results from
livestock and fertilisers; a substantial proportion of these are used to
grow crops for animal feed. (3)

36. Health: Antibiotics
• Industrial livestock production tends to rely on routine use of
antibiotics to prevent the diseases that are inevitable when animals
are confined in overcrowded, stressful conditions: O’Neill Review on
antimicrobial resistance, 2015 (1)
• Overuse of antibiotics in industrial animal production contributes
significantly to antibiotics resistance in humans (2)
• Animals account for about 40% of antibiotic use in the UK (3)
• 83% of UK farm antibiotics use is in pigs and poultry, the two most
intensively farmed species: (4)

37. Health: Non-Communicable Diseases
• The high consumption levels of red and processed meat made
possible by industrial livestock production contribute to:
– Heart disease: (1)
– Type-2 Diabetes: (2)
– Certain cancers – WHO has classified red and processed meat
as ‘probably carcinogenic’ and ‘carcinogenic’ respectively: (3)

38. Well below 2°CWe can’t hit the Paris climate targets
without a reduction in meat & dairy
consumption
By 2050 our diets alone likely to have taken us
above the ‘well below 2°C’ target: (1), (2) & (3)
Ideally 1.5°C

39. Industrial
Livestock
Production
Terrible animal welfare

40. Industrial
Livestock
Production
Industrial
Livestock
Production
Demand for
cereals as feed has
fuelled
intensification of
crop production
Animal convert cereals very
inefficiently into meat &
milk. This undermines food
security by reducing cereals
available for people
Soil degradation,
biodiversity loss,
water & air
pollution
Food Security
Natural Resources
Need for soy as
feed leads to
deforestation in
South America
Regular
preventive
antibiotic use
Resistance to
antibiotics used in
human medicine
Antibiotics
Enables
excessive meat
& dairy
consumption
Heart disease,
certain cancers,
obesity
Health
GHG emissions –
impossible to reach
‘well below 2°C
target’
Climate
Animal Welfare
Animals in cages &
barren
overcrowded sheds
& selection for
fast growth

42. Transforming the role of livestock1
The proper function of livestock in farming is to
convert materials we cannot consume - grass,
by-products & food waste - into food that we can
eat: (1) & (2)
The UK should reduce the use of cereals as
animal feed & instead put its emphasis on:
• raising animals on extensive pastures
• integrated, rotational crop-livestock production

43. Encouraging a reduction in
meat & dairy consumption
2
• Would reduce incidence of heart disease & certain cancers in
case of lower consumption of red & processed meat
• Would contribute to meeting the Paris climate targets
• Would allow animals to be farmed extensively to high welfare
standards
• Would enable some land formerly used to grow feed crops to
be used for horticulture so reducing UK’s massive imports of
fruit & vegetables. We devote 1.4 million hectares to growing
cereals for animal feed while just 168,000 hectares are used to grow
fruit and vegetables. (1)
• Would allow cropland to be farmed less intensively so enabling
biodiversity and soil, water & air quality to be restored

44. Factor affected by
reduction in meat
consumption
% reduction from current
levels
Soybean use as animal feed 75%
Use and pollution of surface-
and ground-water *
20%
Cropland use 23%
Nitrogen emissions 37-42%
Greenhouse Gas emissions 19–42%
Positive environmental impacts of a 50% reduction
in EU consumption of meat, dairy and eggs
Sources: Westhoek et al 2014 & 2015.; Vanham et al 2013: (1), (2) & (3)
* In this case the figure in column 2 refers to a 45% reduction in
meat consumption

45. Defra should ban routine preventive
use of antibiotics – no longer needs to
wait for EU
• A ban would necessitate moving away from industrial production;
this would allow reduced antibiotic use & improved animal welfare
• Need to “develop health-orientated systems for rearing of animals”:
The Lancet Infectious Diseases Commission, 2013 (1)
3

46. Avoid
overcrowding
Reduce stress
Enable natural
behaviours
No early
weaning in
pigs
Avoid
excessive
group size
Reduce
selection for
high
production
Health-OrientatedSystems forRearing
Animals
Health-
Orientated
Systems
© Eastbrook Farm See below in notes for references

47. Need to correct market failures
• Foresight Report: “There needs to be much greater realisation that market
failures exist in the food system that, if not corrected, will lead to irreversible
environmental damage and long term threats to the viability of the food
system. Moves to internalise the costs of these negative environmental
externalities are critical to provide incentives for their reduction.” (1)
• FAO report: “In many countries there is a worrying disconnect between the
retail price of food and the true cost of its production. As a consequence,
food produced at great environmental cost in the form of greenhouse gas
emissions, water pollution, air pollution, and habitat destruction, can appear
to be cheaper than more sustainably produced alternatives” (2)
• Prof Dieter Helm, Chair, Natural Capital Committee: “.The challenge then is
to internalise these external costs, so farmers make their profit maximising
decisions in the context of their full costs of production. .. Policy should
ensure that they face these full costs.” (3)
4

48. Mending Our Price System
• Olivier De Schutter, former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to
food: “any society where a healthy diet is more expensive than an
unhealthy diet is a society that must mend its price system” (1)
• Applies equally to a society where environmentally damaging, low
animal welfare food is cheaper than food that respects natural
resources & animals’ well-being
• Our report Cheap Food Costs Dear examines wide range of studies
that calculate the cost of farming’s negative externalities (2)

49. Taxation
Use tax breaks to
encourage desired
outcomes
Levy tax to reflect
negative
externalities
For farmers: generous
capital allowances &
extra tax-free income
for quality farming
For consumers: use tax
levied to subsidise
quality food. If VAT on
food, zero-rate quality
food
Two
intertwined
approaches

50. Lyall Watson in The Whole Hog
“ I know of no other animals that are more consistently curious,
more willing to explore new experiences, more ready to meet the
world with open-mouthed enthusiasm. Pigs are incurable optimists
and get a big kick out of just being.”