Gıdalarda Hayvan Refahı Etiketlemesi

Year 2017, Volume: 10 Issue: 4, 337 - 349, 01.12.2017

Zehra Bozkurt , Serdar Koçak

Abstract

Bir gıda etiketi, ürünün özelliklerini ve diğer gıdalara göre kalite farklılıklarını yansıtır. Gıda endüstrisi için ise etiketleme sadece bilgi vermekle kalmaz, ürünlerinin piyasadaki diğer ürünlere göre avantajlarının vurgulanmasına ve bu avantajlar oluşturulurken meydana gelen ek maliyetler nedeniyle yükselen ürün fiyatını ödemesi için tüketiciyi ikna etmede etkili ve güçlü bir araçtır. Ayrıca bu etiket, toplumun ve tüketicilerin çiftlik hayvanı refahı konusundaki endişelerine ve etik satın alma isteğine yanıt vermektedir. Böylece tüketiciler hayvan refahı etiketli ürünleri gönüllü olarak satın aldıklarında çiftlik hayvanlarında refahın arttırılmasına katkı sağladıklarını düşünmektedirler. Ulusal hayvan koruma mevzuatında tanımlanmış çiftlik hayvanları için minimum refah standartları temel zorunlu etiketlemeyi oluştururken, piyasa aktörleri de hızla özel hayvan refahı kalite güvence programlarını geliştirmektedir. Hayvan refahı standartları ve çalışma prensipleri bakımından pek çok farklılık taşıyan hayvan refahı etiketleri ulusal ve uluslararası gıda ticaretinde uyum ve akreditasyon sorunlarını da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu derlemede, hayvan refahı için gıda ürünlerinin etiketlenmesinde kamu zorunlu ve özel etikleme ile sertifikasyon ele alınmış, hayvan dostu gıda ürünleri için etiketlemenin tüketici, pazar ve uluslarası ticaret açısından önemi tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

Hayvan Refahı Etiketlemesi, Kalite Güvence Programları, Pazarlama, Tüketici Tabebi

Labeling of Foods for Animal Welfare

Abstract

A food label gives information about the characteristics of the food product and reflects its quality differences relative to other foods. For the food industry, labeling does not just provide information, it is also an effective tool for highlighting the advantages of labeled products compared to other products on the market and to convince consumers to pay higher prices due to the additional costs required to bring the advantages to the market. In addition, the animal welfare label responds to the concerns of the community and consumer's request for ethical food purchase. Thus, consumers think that they willing to purchase animal welfare labeled products, contributing to the welfare of farm animals. While the minimum legal welfare requirements for farm animals described in national animal welfare legislation form the basis of mandatory labeling, the market actors are also rapidly developing special animal welfare quality assurance programs. Animal welfare labels with many differences in terms of animal welfare standards and sertidication processes they contain also generated serious compliance and accreditation problems in domestic and international food trade.

Keywords

Animal Welfare Labelling, Quality Assurance Scheme, Marketing, Consomer Demand

References

• Anonim. Directorate-General for Helath and Consumer Protection. Labelling: competitiveness, consumer information and better regulation for the EU. A DG SANCO Consultative Document. 2006a; Brussels.
• Anonim. Community Action Plan on the protection and welfare of animals 2006- 2010. From the Commission to the European Parliament and Council. Commission of the European Communities, 2006b; Brussels.
• Anonim. Labelling and hygiene guidelines for producers of small quantities of hen eggs. Food Safety Authority of Ireland. 2010; Issue no:1.
• Anonim. Animal welfare protection in the EU.Library Briefing. Library of the European Parliament, 2013a; (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData /bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130438/LD M_BRI(2013)130438_REV1_EN.pdf; Erişim:10.05.2017).
• Anonim. Landmark consumer research reveals overwhelming support for method of production labelling of meat and dairy products. Research. Report For Labelling Matters, 2013b; UK (https://labellingmatters.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2017/10/LM-Exec- Summary-of-2013-Landmark-study.pdf; Erişim: 27.07.2017)
• Anonim. USDA Depaartment of Agriculture. USDA Organic, 2017a;(https://www.usda.gov/topics/orga nic; Erişim: 05.04.2017).
• Anonim. Certification USDA. United States Mission to the European Union Foreign Agricultural Sercive, 2017b; (http://www.usda-eu.org/trade-with-theeu/ trade-agreements/us-eu-organicarrangement/; Erişim:05.04.2017).
• Anonim. Labelling related to animal welfare. European Union web site, 2017c; (https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfa re/other_aspects/labelling_en; Erişim: 11.07.2017). AWI. A consumer’s guide to food babels and animal welfare, 2012;(https://awionline.org/foodlabelguid e; Erişim:24.07.2017).
• Bayvel ACD, Mellor DJ. Concluding comments: OIE leadership,significant trends and future developments. Rev.sci.tech.Off.int.Epiz. 2014; 33:323– 326.
• Blaha T. The importance of quality assurance and food safety in modern food production systems. 2000;(In: Sustainable Animal Production: Conference, Workshops, and Discussion. Workshop on Quality and Safety. 2001;Research Consortium Sustainable Animal Production (http://www.agriculture.de).
• Blokhuis HJ. Animal welfare’s impact on the food chain. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2008; 19:79-87.
• Bonafos L, Simonin D, Gavinelli A. Animal welfare: European legislation and future perspectives. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. 2010; 37:26–29.
• Botreau R, Perny P, Capdeville J, Veissier I. Construction of product information from animal welfare assessment. Proceedings of the Second Welfare Quality Stakeholder. 2007a; Conference pp:33–36.
• Botreau R, Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bracke MBM, Keeling LJ. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 2007b; 16:225–228.
• Bowles D, Wrathall J, Robinson C, Moran J. RSPCA Food labelling and animal welfare 2017;(http://politicalanimal.org.uk/wpcontent/ uploads/2017/06/Labelling- 1.pdf.; Erişim: 11.07.2017).
• Bozkurt Z. Çiftlik Düzeyinde Hayvan Refahı Değerlendirmesi için Bilimsel Yaklaşımlar. Kocatepe Vet J. 2016; 9(3):236-246.
• Caswell JA. How labelling of safety and process attributes affects markets for food. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 1998; 27:151–158.
• Commission Communication. EU best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. (2010/C341/04). Official Journal of the European Union. 2010; C 341/5.
• CWF. Farm assurance schemes & animal welfare. How the standarts compare. 2012; (https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/5231246 /standards_analysis_exec_summary.pdf; Erişim:22.08.2017).
• EFSA. The use of animal-based measures to assess animal welfare in EU - state of the art of 10 years of activities and analysis of gaps. European Food Safety Authority Technical Report. EFSA Supporting publication. 2015; EN-884.
• European Commission. Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer (Wave 63.2– TNS Opinion & Social). 2005; 229:45-46.
• European Commission. Feasibility study on animal welfare labelling and establishing a community reference centre for animal protection and welfare Part 1: Animal Welfare Labelling. DG SANCO Evaluation Framework. Contract Lot 3, (Food Chain). 2009a; No 2004/S243- 208899.
• European Commission. Report from The Commission to The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The Regions. Options for animal welfare labelling and the establishment of a European Network of Reference Centres for the protection and welfare of animals. 2009b; COM (2009) 584 Final.
• European Commission. Animal welfare labelling. Commission report launches in-depth political debate. Brussels.2009c; IP/09/1610(http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP-09-1610_en.htm; Erişim:02.08.2018). European Commission. Laying hens by way of keeping. CIRCABC. The Grocer, 09/01/14. BEIC calls for origin labels on egg products. 2013 (In: Labelling Matters Recommendations-EU poultry meat labelling reciew. 2015,UK (http://bfghfgtjfgth.weebly.com/uploads/ 6/9/8/0/6980054/_poultrymeat_review_ briefing_2015.pdf; Erişim:01.08.2017).
• Farmer M, Swales V, Jongeneel R, Karaczun Z, Müssner R, Leipprand A, Schlegel S, Poux X, Ramain B, De Roest K, Varela Ortega C, Simó A. Exploring the synergies between cross compliance and certification schemes. The Hague, LEI, 2007; Report 6.07.20; ISBN/EAN: 978-90- 8615-181-3.
• FAWC. Report on welfare labelling. Farm Animal Welfare Council. SW1P 4PQ, 2006.( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads /system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32 5184/FAWC_report_on_welfare_labelling. pdf; Erişim: 14.08.2017).
• Franz A, von Meyer M, Spiller A. Prospects for a European animal welfare label from the German perspective: Supply chain barriers. International Journal on Food System Dynamics. 2010; 4:318‐329.
• Fraser, D. Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2008; 113:330-339.
• Fuchs D, Kalfagianni A. The causes and consequences of private food governance. Business and Politics. 2010; 12:5. Halliday J. Animal welfare labelling schemes up for discusion in Europe. 2009; (https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/ 2009/10/30/Animal-welfare-labellingschemes- up-for-discussion-in-Europe; Erişim:07.06.2017).
• Harper G, Henson S. Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice.Final Report (EU.FAIR.CT98- 3678), 2001; Centre for Food Economics Research(CeFER),(http://ec.europa.eu/fo od/animal/welfare/eu_fair_project_en.pdf .Erişim:19.04.2017).
• Harper GC, Makatouni, A. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal. 2002; 104(3/4/5):287-299.
• Harvey D, Hubbard C. The supply chain’s role in improving animal welfare. Animals (Basel). 2013; 3(3):767–785.
• Havinga T. Private food safety standards in the EU. Nijmegen Sociology of Law Working Papers Series. 2017; no:2017/01.
• Henson S, Humphrey J. Understanding the complexities of private standards in global agri-food chains as they impact developing countries. Journal of Development Studies. 2010; 46(9):1628–1646.
• ISO. International Standards. ISO/TS.34700:2017. Animal welfare management. General requirement and guidance for organizations in the food supply chain.
• Geneva,2016;(www.iso.org/iso/private_sta ndards.pdf; Erişim 16.07.2017).
• Jahn G, Schramm M, Spiller A. The reliability of certification: Quality labels as a consumer policy tool. Journal of Consumer Policy. 2005; 28(1):53-73.
• Katsarova I. Animal welfare protection in the EU. Library Briefing. Library of the European Parliament. 2013, 130438 REV1.
• Kehlbacher A, Bennett R, Balcombe K. Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy. 2012; 37(6):627-633.
• Kilchsperger R, Schmid O, Hecht J. Animal welfare initiatives in Europe. Technical Report on Grouping Method for Animal Welfare Standards and Initiatives. Project Report no.1.1 of EconWelfare Project, 2010; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FIBL), Frick, Switzerland.
• Kirk-Wilson R. Review of Food Assurance Schemes for the Food Standards Agency.2002;(www.teagasc.ie/faol/NR/rd onlyres/CDCCE03B-3C84-4A05-8A59- D5423DACB4F5/57/UKreviewoffarmass urance.pdf; 2002 (In: More SJ, Hanlon A,
• Marchewka J, Boyle L. Private animal health and welfare standards in quality assurance programmes: a review and proposed framework for critical evaluation Veterinary Record, 2017, 180 (25):612).
• Lymbery P. Farm assurance schemes & animal welfare. Can we trust them?. An animal welfare analysis of major UK farm assurance schemes. Prepared For Compassion in World Farming Trust. Animal Welfare Consultant. 2002; ISBN 1 900156 22 9.
• Main DCJ, Mullan S, Atkinson C, Cooper M, Wrathall JHM, Blokhuis HJ. Best practice framework for animal welfare Certification schemes. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2014; 37:127-136.
• Martiskainen KM. The possibilities and challenges of animal welfare labelling in Finland.University of Eastern Finland, Environmental Policy and Law. Natural Resources Governance Master’s thesis.2016;(http://epublications.uef.fi/pu b/urn_nbn_fi_uef- 20160684/urn_nbn_fi_uef-20160684.pdf; Erişim: 24.08.2017).
• Mench J. Farm animal welfare in the USA: Farming practices, research, education, regulation, and assurance programs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2008; 113:298-312.
• Meuwissen MPM, Velthuis AGJ, Hogeveen H, Huirne RBM. Traceability and certification in meat supply chains.Journal of Agribusiness. 2003; 21(2):167-182.
• More SJ, Hanlon A, Marchewka J, Boyle L. Private animal health and welfare standards in quality assurance programmes: a review and proposed framework for critical evaluation. Veterinary Record. 2017; 180(25):612.
• Mulder M, Zomer S. Dutch consumers' willingness to pay for broiler welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2017; 20(2):137-154.
• Nocella G, Hubbard L, Scarpa R. Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: Results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 2010; 32:275–297.
• OIE. Animal welfare. World Organisation for Animal Health, Paris, 2015;(http://oldrpawe.oie.int/fileadmin/d oc/eng/Resolutions/78_GS_2010_Resolu tion_26.pdf; Erişim:17.08.2017).
• OIE. Resolution No. 26, Roles of public and private standards in animal health and animal welfare. Paris: World Organisation for Animal Health., 2010; (www.oie.int/ fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standa rd_Setting/docs/pdf/A_RESO_2010PS.p df. Erişim: 26.08.2017).
• Poncibo C. Private Certification schemes as consumer protection: A viablesupplement to regulation in Europe? International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2007; 31(6):656-661.
• Schmid O, Kilchsperger R. Overview of animal welfare standards and initiatives in selected EU and third countries. Project Report No. 1.2 of EconWelfare Project. 2010. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland.
• Thomson GR, Leyland TJ, Donaldson AI. Deboned beef - An example of a commodity for which specific standards could be developed to ensure an appropriate level of protection for international trade. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2009; 56:9–17.
• Thorstensen VH, Weissinger R, Sun X. Private standards implications for trade, development, and governance. The E15 Initiative. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum,
• Geneva,2015;(http://e15initiative.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2015/07/E15- Regulatory-Thorstensen-et-al.-final.pdf; Erişim Tarihi: 06.08.2017).
• Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bock B, Roe E. European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal. Behaviour Science. 2008; 113:279-297.
• Wieck C, Annen DN. Participation, compliance and synergies at the farm level between the single payments scheme and farm certification labels. Discussion Paper (3).Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, 2012.
• Wolff C, Scannell M. Implications of Private Standards in international trade of animals and animal products. 76th General Session International Committee, World Organisation for Animal Health, Paris, 25-30 May, 2008.
• WTO. The WTO Agreements Series. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.2010; World Trade Organization,Geneva(www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/agrmntseries4_sps_e.pdf;Erişim:05.07.2018).
• WTO. The WTO Agreements Series. Technical Barriers to Trade. 2014; World Trade Organization, Geneva(www.wto.org/ english/res_e/publications_e/tbttotrade_e.pdf; Erişim: 19.08.2017).
• Zepeda C, Salman M, Ruppanner R. International trade, animal health and veterinary epidemiology: challenges and opportunities. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2001; 48(4):261–271.