Next up on the list coming from the people who get paid to worry about looming “consumer trends” and how they might affect your bottom line: pain. Three out of four consumers tell surveyors “animal welfare” (including the pain caused by common practices like castration and dehorning) is more important to them when buying meat, milk and eggs than the price of the product (although we may want to withhold judgment until you study what consumers actually pay vs. what they tell a surveyor they’ll pay, but that’s a topic for another day.) Self-appointed overseers of animal care, like the Animal Welfare Approved labeling scheme, require pain medication on calves castrated or dehorned at more than two months old. A European Commission directive now requires all castration of pigs be done only under anesthesia or long-acting pain medication.
That apparent concern is spurring more research into how cattle producers could put anesthetic to use, like this recent one from the February Journal of Animal Science. It showed giving calves a local anesethetic and pain medication in the same class as aspirin and ibuprofen did, in fact, reduce both the behavioral and physiological response to these procedures that could be interpreted as pain.
So what’s holding back the U.S. beef industry from wider use of pain management? The latest issue of Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice devoted its entire issue to the topic. The journal included a comprehensive review of the economics of pain management, which identified at least two good reasons the average cattle producer doesn’t consider pain management worth considering, yet.
One important factor, according to authors Heather Newton and Annette O’Connor, from Iowa State, is a peculiar regulatory Catch 22 in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval process. FDA requires all medications it approves for veterinary use to be demonstrated by the manufacturer to be effective for the condition they’re labeled for. However, because we have no meaningful tools to, first, measure whether animals are suffering in statistically measurable terms and, second, demonstrate that any product consistently and reliably reduces that suffering, FDA’s left with little choice but to deny any approval on a product claiming to do so. That leaves pain management up to the discretion of individual veterinarians, using drugs they think through experience and human use ought to relieve pain (and also leaving them personally responsible for any drug residues that could result in the absence of specific ones defined by FDA for an approved product.)
View All Expert Columns »