Robyn Kippenberger: Real pig of a welfare code needs substantial changes

A visit to a piggery by the Sunday programme exposed the conditions many pigs are forced to live in. Photo / NZ Open Rescue

Opinion

It isn't often that a television programme creates quite as much furore as the recent Sunday pig farming expose. The scenes of highly stressed pigs, tightly confined in sow stalls and farrowing crates, clearly struck a nerve among New Zealanders, generating an unprecedented level of concern over how our pork is produced.

The pig farm at the centre of the controversy has now been investigated and found not to be in breach of the law. Frankly, no one working in the field of animal welfare expected any other result.

The issue has not been the legal culpability of any individual farmer but that conditions such as those filmed are quite normal in our pork industry and fully sanctioned by the Animal Welfare Code for Pigs, the body of regulations governing treatment of this intelligent and sensitive species.

It is unacceptable that a code intended by Parliament to give effect to the humane principles of the 1999 Animal Welfare Act should allow pigs, or any other animals, to be constrained in such narrow and barren environments for months at a time.

The situation is all the more appalling, given the rapid succession of enforced pregnancies imposed on sows, as a result of which they can spend almost all their lives imprisoned in these stalls or farrowing crates, unable to turn around, let alone exhibit their instinctive behaviours of pregnancy and mothering.

The absurd state of the law on this issue is the result of, in effect, allowing the pork industry itself to write the Welfare Code for Pigs, in the face of doubts and criticisms from the SPCA and other groups.

Given the obvious public disgust and disbelief that resulted from the TVNZ Sunday programme, it is hoped that Agriculture Minister David Carter opts for substantial changes to the code when its scheduled review takes place later this year.

We trust the minister will avoid being swayed by claims that sow stalls and farrowing crates are essential to our pork industry's viability. These extreme forms of confinement have been banned in Britain and elsewhere in the European Union, where local pig-rearing industries have reverted to more traditional and humane husbandry.

Even if the minister takes the sensible and humane step of banning stalls and crates, there will still be an inevitable lapse of time before we are rid of them. In the meantime, the pork industry needs to make considerable efforts to regain the public's confidence.

Consumers deserve some assurance that the pork or bacon they purchase has not been produced by sows in inhumane conditions.

Unfortunately, labelling is beset with absurdities. In most cases there is no attempt to differentiate between pigs reared with the use of sow stalls and farrowing crates and those raised more humanely. As a result, it's impossible to know the origins of the meat.

The pork industry talks a lot about "consumer choice", but an essential corollary of this principle is "truth in labelling". To live up to its rhetoric, the industry needs to use its undoubted influence to ensure that humanely produced meat is identified and labelled.

To merely label the meat as "New Zealand Pork" is to make a ridiculous and inadequate claim, in the light of the unacceptable welfare standards now known to exist in local pig farms.

One clear way of making sure you are purchasing humanely produced pork or bacon is to look for an "SPCA Approved" logo. This is awarded to producers willing to undergo regular and detailed auditing of their operations and who have met our animal welfare standards.

This includes our assurance, as an independent animal welfare organisation, that no sow stalls or farrowing crates have been used.

The simple humanity written into our 1999 Animal Welfare Act provides the best reason for banning sow stalls and farrowing crates at the earliest possible opportunity. But there is also a strong economic argument in favour of a ban.

Food exports are vital to our economy and depend, in no small measure, upon our standing as a humane and responsible producer. By falling behind international best practice in any specific area of production, we place the reputation of all our food exports in jeopardy.

The last thing we want is to be typecast by the global media as a bastion of cruel farming methods. We owe it to ourselves as New Zealanders, to our global reputation and to the animals, to do much better.

* Robyn Kippenberger is the national chief executive of the Royal New Zealand SPCA.