Good animal welfare in a sustainable food system
In: EurSafe2024 ProceedingsSearch for other papers by H. Bjørkhaug in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by M. Thorseth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Debates on animal welfare have increased in quantity and intensity. This applies particularly to animal welfare issues in food production, positively and negatively. Polarization is a diagnosis that describes an increased distance between what can be understood as ecocentric and anthropocentric extremes and viewpoints on what good animal welfare is. It is not only those who are in direct relation to animals who are engaged, actors and activists who are not connected to, for example, livestock production, are also involved. In this paper, we explore what animal welfare means in a sustainable food system and ask if animals can be integrated into communication on how good animal welfare can be achieved. What is best for animals? Research on animal welfare started with ethical concerns about the quality of life of animals (Fraser et al., 1997, Tolo and Kittelsen, unpublished data). But how can ethics be integrated into human-animal communication? While acknowledging Habermas’ (1995) divide between human and non-human agents in communicative action, we are inspired by Hendlin and Otts’ (2016) and Nowak et al.’s (2022) revision of Habermas’ anthropocentric theoretical foundation and practical discourse and add Nussbaum’s (2022) capability approach, to allow for the inclusion of a discussion of the moral importance, wellbeing, and functioning as ascribed to animals. With this, we are extending the discourse community beyond human communication. Through the inclusion of both non-human and human agency, we discuss how we can achieve good animal welfare in a sustainable food system.