Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  	  	  THE HUMANE TOUCH
FARM ANIMAL WELLBEING CERTIFICATIONBY AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATIONBY IVA KOSTOVA

CSR WINTER 2011

This	   paper	   was	   prepared	   for	   the	   course	   Corporate	   Social	   Responsibility	   taught	   by	  Professor	  Peter	  Gourevitch	  in	  the	  winter	  quarter	  2011	  at	  the	  School	  of	  International	  Relations	   and	   Pacific	   Studies	   of	   the	   University	   of	   California	   San	   Diego	   (UCSD).	   The	  papers	   have	   not	   been	   edited	   after	   having	   been	   submitted	   to	   the	   course.	   They	   are	  posted	  here	  to	  provided	  others	  with	  information	  and	  ideas	  about	  CSR,	  NGO's	  and	  the	  private	  sector.	  	  The	  papers	  are	  COPYWRITE	  	  protected.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  Table of Contents

I.
The Meaning of the Humane Certified
II. AHA & The Humane Touch
III. Audit and Certification
IV. Monitoring, Transparency and Strength of AHA
V. Types of Programs and Other Certifiers
VI. ConclusionVII. Discussion Questions
VIII. References	  Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  “Personally, I would not give a fig for any man's religion whose horse, cat and dog do not
feel its benefits. Life in any form is our perpetual responsibility.” ~S. Parkes CadmanI.

The Humane Certified Label

What exactly stands behind a Humane Certified label? By definition food safety is a scientificdiscipline that encompasses handling, preparation and storage of food in ways that preventfoodborne illness. Seldom mentioned in this description, however, is the way in which animals
are raised and treated, prior to joining the food chain. So, growing in importance and visibility inthe arena of food safety is the humane treatment of farm animals. The whole concept is relatively
new worldwide. It started in the 90s in the UK. At that time the USDA granted Texas Tech agrant to research a national animal welfare certification program. Texas Tech enlisted theAmerican Humane Association in its efforts to study and create a certification program together.
The research they completed became the basis of one of the certification methods used today in
the US that stems from the 5 Freedoms – the basis for animal welfare in the UK. Founded by theUnited Kingdom’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in 1994 the5 Freedoms program was the first agricultural assurance scheme to set standards for animalwelfare according to “science based” criteria. Since its inception, it has grown to include morethan 2,000 producers and more than 40 million animals being reared under the program. Theprogram sets specific standards for eight species of farm animals and covers welfare on the farm,in transit and at slaughter. It has served as the model for animal welfare certification programs inthe U.S.
It is based on the concept, articulated by the U.K.’s Farm Animal Welfare Council, that humans
have a moral obligation to afford farm animals “Five Freedoms.” These freedoms imply certain

Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  husbandry requirements for the provision of basic farm animal welfare and are viewed asnecessary to avoid welfare-related problems.
1. Freedom from hunger and thirst – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full
health and vigor.
2. Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and acomfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to express normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, andcompany of the animal’s own species.
5. Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mentalsuffering.
These five propositions, which provide a framework for meeting an animal’s basic needs, havebeen incorporated into the welfare codes of AHA. The standards based on them culminate in a
200 point detailed system for evaluation reviewed and updated annually by the Scientific
Advisory Committee of the American Humane Certified Program. The updates are based on thelatest research, technology and practices.
II.

AHA & The Humane Touch

The American Humane Association is a non-profit organization founded in 1877. Its mission isto create a more humane world without the abuse of children and animals. In this respect it hasseveral programs under its auspices: Child Protection and Well-Being, Animal Protection andWell-Being and Human-Animal Interaction. Each of these comprises a number of projects andCopyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  program. I focus on the Farm Animal Program\American Humane Certified or the Humane
Touch – one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing humane-farming training and auditing
and certification program.
The American Humane Association’s Farm Animal Program, also known as the Humane Touch,is a voluntary, fee based third party certification service available to producers of animals raisedfor food.
Through audits conducted by an independent third party, American Humane issues certification
to producers who meet their science-based standards, strictly specified and unique for each farmanimal species.
III.

Audit and Certification
The Audit Process

Producers interested in the certification are encouraged to review the species-specific animal
welfare standards. After a certification application is received on behalf of a producer by AHA,
AHA reviews it and submits a contract for a certification audit. AHA arranges for an auditor toconduct the onsite inspection. The auditor conducts over 100 observations through interviews
with management and employees; observes the operation process; reviews written standard
operation procedures and supporting documentation.
Standards are then scored. The producers that meet all the expected levels of compliance receive
immediate certification. If any areas are found to be out of the compliance a non-compliancereport is issued, signed and witnessed by the auditor and the producer at the exit interview.
Within seven days of the audit, the prospective producer must send in a signed corrective action

Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  report showing the corrective actions have taken place. At that time, all documentation isreviewed to determine the corrective action has taken place. A new audit may be conducted andwhen all corrective action has taken place the producer receives the certification.
The producer who meets all the requirements as referenced in the AH certification standards isissued a “certificate of approval” valid for one year from the date of the approval letter. The
approval notification includes a license agreement, which must be signed and returned to AHA
before the participant can use the American Humane Certified label. The Cost of theCertification is a $1795 fee for a 10 hour audit plus a $600 administration fee. A total of $2395
per year, per farm.
Certification
The certification itself is based on a 3 tier process also known as the Humane Tracking.
Tier on, the annual independent audit, is conducted by one of the 30 auditors American Humane
uses for the purpose. The auditors are ISO 9001 certified independent private companies,
Validus and Facta, located in 2 different states.
Tier two is the online compliance resources. These are regular mandatory audit updates thatprovide monitoring throughout the year.
Tier 3 is the state-of-the art, web-based independent video monitoring that provides 24/7 realtime monitoring and instant alerts of potential problems to the producer and American Humane.

Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  

IV.

Monitoring, Transparency and Strength of AHA

For this particular program AHA does not perform the monitoring itself. It has independentauditors who go onsite and monitor the certified parties. Monitoring is conducted once a year at
the field with unexpected visits and 3d party video monitoring 24/7. All the farms of a certain
producer are being inspected prior to certification. Interaction with the certified producers isdone through 3d party independent auditors. Permission for unexpected visits is a clause in thecontract that the producers sign prior to being certified. It is a voluntary based program which is
not imposed by the government. The pressure comes from the consumers. Only basic guidelines
for husbandry and human treatment of animals are being provided by USDA.
The standards are set by the Scientific Committee of AHA. The monitor that is the 3d party
independent auditor is separate from the standard setter. The monitors themselves are subject tothe ISO 9001 standards – quality management systems as well as certification by theProfessional Animal Audit and Certification Organization (PAACO).
Transparency
As far as transparency is concerned the Better Business Bureau, the private non-profit, says AHA
complies with its 20 standards for charity accountability. Link to those standards is provided inReferences.
The main sources of revenue, according to the latest 2010 financials, are 41% from governmentand other grants, 22% from contributions and sponsorships, 17% from service fees and royalties,
16% investment income, 3% from training and seminars. Their main expenses are on the projects
they run: animal and children welfare.

Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  Strength
AHA has 162 paid employees on staff. When it comes to monitoring the certification process
discussed here, they have the 3d party auditors: 30 of them monitoring 1000 farms all over theUS (or 50 certified producers.) The 3rd party auditors do not set the standards. Standards set by
the certifier by its Scientific Committee. The 3rd party monitors are ISO 9001 certified andcompliant with the set of quality management systems. They are also certified by theProfessional Animal Audit and Certification Organization (PAACO).
V.

Types of programs and other certifiers

Product marketing claims are often referred to as “first-party,” “second-party” or “third-party.”
These terms can be used to refer to product standards programs as well.
First-Party Claims
These are claims made by producers without independent review or verification. First-partyclaims refer to producer food labeling or marketing claims such as “free range” or “no antibiotics
used.” A third party – the USDA – sets the standards for these claims, but compliance with thestandards is not verified.
Second-Party Claims
These are claims made by industry or trade associations. The standards are developed by theindustry and may be unverified, verified by the industry, or verified by an independentCopyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  organization. For this report, second-party claims refer to animal agriculture quality assurance
programs. Guidelines verified by the retail food industry, such as the Food Marketing Instituteand the National Council of Chain Restaurants, are considered second-party and not third-party
programs due to the business and financial connections between the animal agriculture and retailfood industries.
Third-Party Claims
These are claims made by an independent third party. The certifying body, including
administrators and members of the board of directors, must not have any direct financial ties tothe industry. Although the purpose of third-party certification is to allow for independent,
unbiased verification of claims, since producers typically pay fees to participate in third-party
programs, the certifying organization still maintains a financial stake in the relationship. Thirdparty claims refer to those made by the USDA’s “National Organic Program,” the Humane Farm
Animal Care’s “Certified Humane” program, the American Humane Association’s “HumaneCertified” program, the Animal Welfare Institute’s “Animal Welfare Approved” program, andthe recently constitutes Global Animal Partnership Program.
As one can see Americans face a dizzying array of food labels and certifiers standing behindthem. There's organic, all-natural, sustainable, cage-free, humane, whole grain, and hearthealthy, to name a few.
The question we should ask ourselves is: which of these is backed by legally enforceable
guidelines? And the answer is: Only organic. Even that one has loopholes, such as the practice ofgiving chickens access to outdoor spaces but not requiring that the birds actually spend any timeoutside.

Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  The rest of these labels can be interpreted by food producers in many different ways. That's also
true for "humane.”So, how does one avoid "humane-washing"? First, we have to remember that there are both
independent and industry-produced quality assurance programs in circulation under the label of"humane." The latter were put in place with very little public input and use experts of animalproduction, rather than welfare, according to a report put out by Farm Sanctuary each tradeorganization for producers, representing different farm animals, has its own set of regulations.
For example: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) has guidelines for the care ofbeef cattle that does not include any sort of audit. According to these guidelines, access topasture is not required and castration without anesthesia is allowed, among other practices.
Guidelines put out by the American Sheep Industry Association have no scoring tools forcompliance or internal or external auditing. Under these guidelines, sheep farmers don't need toprovide access to grazing pasture and early weaning is acceptable. The National Pork Board's
Quality Assurance Plus (PQA Plus) program does not include a third-party audit. Practices
allowed include confining sows to gestation crates, no access to the outdoors, and castration
without anesthetics.
The closest any of the industry groups has to a third-party audit is the United Egg Producers'
program UEP Certified. Following UEP Certified, audits need to be conducted on eachcompany's facilities, but this may go down to 50 percent on subsequent audits. What's more
unsettling is that even within these guidelines, practices like debeaking (in which the sharp tip ofa chicken's beak is clipped by machine) and confinement in small cages is allowed.

Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  The various third-party auditing systems that have sprung up in recent years for farms thatwelcome higher standards in addition to the one I discuss in the current paper are:Global Animal Partnership is an independent international foundation that grew out of Whole
Foods' Animal Compassion Foundation. Based on a five-step rating system, the program wasdesigned by animal welfare advocates, animal welfare scientists, and farmers. The ratings range
from Step One, "no crates, no cages and no crowding" to Step Five, "animal centered -- animals
spend their entire life on the same farm."
Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) is another independent label managed by the Animal Welfare
Institute, and includes some of the highest standards in weaning, outdoor access, pasture, andphysical alterations. What is unique about AWA is that the Institute doesn't charge producers forcertification, which evens out the playing field for small family farms. Unfortunately, thisprogram is currently overseeing less than .001 percent of all U.S. animals raised for slaughter.
Certified Humane has developed a number of standards that exceed those put out by the industry,
such as banning the use of gestation crates for pregnant sows. However, the program allows
feedlot confinement of beef cattle, among other practices that many would not deem humane.
VI.

Conclusion

Various humane certification and labeling programs have been developed in response to growing
popular concerns about the cruel treatment of farm animals, but their impact at improving animal
welfare has been minimal. Food labeling and marketing claims, like “free range” and “pastureraised,” are generally subjective and not verified. Humane certification standards disallow someCopyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  cruel practices, but significant deficiencies exist in these as well. Specialty markets, like organicand “humane” foods, may help lessen animal suffering, but they affect only a very small percent,less than 2 percent, of the billions of animals exploited for food each year in the U.S, and evenanimal-derived foods produced according to a “humane” program are not likely to meet
consumer expectations. Based on the “humane” label certifiers I checked, I can conclude thateach of them is consistent with its own standards. The standards however vary widely among allof them. This presents a significant challenge for the validity of their certification as a whole.
The certifiers do not seem very good at being able to monitor their own standards since they relyon the monitors that in turn are certified as being capable of doing impartial audits by otherorganizations. It is a monitoring chain that does not inspire great trustworthiness. The producers
certified in two of the certification programs I was able to look at more closely, i.e. The
American Humane Certified and the American Wellness Approved, are small family owned
farms. In the American Wellness Approved programs farmers are not required to pay fees while
American Humane Association charges a nominal fee.
None of these certifiers are subject to inspections by USDA. According to the Farm Sanctuary
Report USDA utilizes informal working definitions for animal care labeling claims. Some terms
like “humane” and “cage free” currently have no strict regulatory definition. USDA-FSIS
approves product labels like “cage free” and “grass fed” based on producer testimonials only,including a signed affidavit. The agency does not check on-farm compliance with meat andpoultry claims. Thus, the third-party certification programs serve as the only verifiers.

Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  VII.

Discussion questions

1. What do AHA and Animal Welfare Institute do that the US Animal Welfare Act of1966 has not addressed so far?
2. Of all the people surveyed 57% say that they are ready to pay from 1% to 10%
more for products that are certified humane. What can be that motivates some to doso while others opt out?
3. How good are the various reporting structures at monitoring their own standards?
4. Why is it so difficult for the different certifiers to set uniform certification
standards?
5. How big are the companies that pay for the audit? Does this affect the independentand impartial status of the certifiers?

Copyright	  2011.	  No	  quotation	  or	  citation	  without	  attribution.	  	  VIII. References
The Truth Behind the Labels: Farm Animal Welfare Standards and Labeling Practices – A Farm Sanctuary Report
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/assets/Farm%20Animal%20Welfare%20Standards%20Report.pdf
American Humane Association – Financial Information
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/who-we-are/effectiveness-results/financial-information.html
Animal Welfare Institute website
http://www.awionline.org/
Animal Welfare Approved website
http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/
BBB’s Wise Giving Report for the American Humane Association
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/animal-protection/american-humane-association-in-englewood-co-105
Parsing the new “humane” food labels by Michelle Venetucci Harvey
http://www.grist.org/article/food-2011-01-21-parsing-the-new-humane-food-labels
Deconstructing the myth of humane animal agriculture
http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1152.htm
Animal Welfare Information Center of USDA
http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&topic_id=1782&tax_level=2&tax_subject=170