Johnston Charlotte H, Errington Amanda J, Hutchinson Mark R, Whittaker Alexandra L
School of Biomedicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
EthiQualia, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
Animals (Basel). 2024 Oct 8;14(19):2890. doi: 10.3390/ani14192890.
This commentary provides an update and clarification on the legislative landscape surrounding mulesing in Australia since the publication of the 2023 study, "How Well Does Australian Animal Welfare Policy Reflect Scientific Evidence: A Case Study Approach Based on Lamb Marking". The article explores legislative changes mandating the use of pain relief for mulesing in various states, emphasising Victoria's original role, and highlighting the fragmented state-based legislative approach to animal welfare. It discusses the impact of these legislative changes on industry practices and animal welfare outcomes. The commentary highlights the complexities of policy development in this area, due in part to the diverse and often conflicting interests of stakeholders and the public. It underscores the importance of transparency, stakeholder collaboration, and scientifically informed policymaking to effectively enhance animal welfare standards.
本评论对自2023年研究报告《澳大利亚动物福利政策在多大程度上反映科学证据：基于羔羊标记的案例研究方法》发表以来，澳大利亚围绕剪尾皱襞手术的立法情况进行了更新和澄清。文章探讨了各州强制要求在剪尾皱襞手术中使用止痛措施的立法变化，强调了维多利亚州最初的作用，并突出了以州为基础的动物福利立法方法的分散性。它讨论了这些立法变化对行业实践和动物福利成果的影响。该评论强调了这一领域政策制定的复杂性，部分原因是利益相关者和公众的利益多样且往往相互冲突。它强调了透明度、利益相关者合作以及基于科学的决策对于有效提高动物福利标准的重要性。
