Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33922738›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Animal Harms and Food Production: Informing Ethical Choices.

Jordan O Hampton, Timothy H Hyndman, Benjamin L Allen, Bob Fischer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Mitigating Human Impacts on Wild Animal Welfare.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jordan O HamptonFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0472-3241
Timothy H HyndmanSchool of Veterinary Medicine, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4083-562X
Benjamin L AllenInstitute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1533-0163
Bob FischerDepartment of Philosophy, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA.
Murdoch University · AUTexas State University · USThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Southern Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethical food choices have become an important societal theme in post-industrial countries. Many consumers are particularly interested in the animal welfare implications of the various foods they may choose to consume. However, concepts in animal welfare are rapidly evolving towards consideration of all animals (including wildlife) in contemporary approaches such as "One Welfare". This approach requires recognition that negative impacts (harms) may be intentional and obvious (e.g., slaughter of livestock) but also include the under-appreciated indirect or unintentional harms that often impact wildlife (e.g., land clearing). This is especially true in the Anthropocene, where impacts on non-human life are almost ubiquitous across all human activities. We applied the "harms" model of animal welfare assessment to several common food production systems and provide a framework for assessing the breadth (not intensity) of harms imposed. We considered all harms caused to wild as well as domestic animals, both direct effects and indirect effects. We described 21 forms of harm and considered how they applied to 16 forms of food production. Our analysis suggests that all food production systems harm animals to some degree and that the majority of these harms affect wildlife, not livestock. We conclude that the food production systems likely to impose the greatest overall breadth of harms to animals are intensive animal agriculture industries (e.g., dairy) that rely on a secondary food production system (e.g., cropping), while harvesting of locally available wild plants, mushrooms or seaweed is likely to impose the least harms. We present this conceptual analysis as a resource for those who want to begin considering the complex animal welfare trade-offs involved in their food choices.

Indexed as

agricultureanimal welfareethicsharmsharvestinghuntingrankingwildlife

Identifiers

PMID33922738
PMCPMC8146968
OpenAlexW3157702576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.