Authored By: Natalie Searle
University of Lincoln
Key terminology: Animal welfare act 2006, slaughterhouse, Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, RSCPA, Code of Practice
Abstract
Farm animals in the UK and globally are the driving force behind the food and agricultural industry. In this article, the position on animal welfare both in the UK and globally are discussed. With sufficient arguments from journal articles and supporting case law and legal authorities used, showcase the progression throughout the years in the ongoing development of animal law, and legal complications that still arise when concerning farm animal welfare standards. With focus on the use of certain methods of farm animal slaughter, which are largely becoming a higher concern and priority due to public awareness and concern over the suffering farm animals endure, this can lead to pivotal impacts on animal law with involvement from investigative bodies and veterinary professionals.
Introduction
Animal welfare is a subject that is rather controversial, when it comes to the fair treatment of animals, whether domestic or animal husbandry and the use of slaughterhouses. Roughly 80 billion animals are slaughtered every year on a global scale, for the food industries. Moreover, over a billion farm animals are reared in the UK per year. There is the idea that certain animals, specifically farm animals deserve stricter legal protection. For instance, they are subject to legal killings on the grounds of animal husbandry, but there is the question of whether their killings are humane or inhumane as well as the ethics of these animals receiving a fair treatment. These are focal points, I will be discussing in this article. I will examine and give an overview of what the animal welfare act actually is. The legal implications and complexities of certain killing methods of farm animals in the UK and then examine the state of UK farm animal welfare in comparison to the global position on the subject.
What is the Animal welfare Act 2006?
Before the animal welfare Act a number of animals protection laws were introduced. In 1822, the introduction of the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act was passed by Parliament. In 1911, The Protection of Animals Act was introduced, as an aim to criminalize animal cruelty, with support from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Eventually, this was incorporated and altered to becoming the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Animal welfare Act was passed in 2006, designed to protect all vertebrate animals. Owners and keepers have a duty of care to the animals to uphold and meet their needs. A protected animal is defined as a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands or under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis[1]. This implies that farmed animals are protected under the AWA. However, the degree to which they are protected is becoming largely criticized. In section 4, subsection 3, titled unnecessary suffering, it states that the relevance of this section is determined by, whether the suffering could have been avoided or reduced.[2]
There are many legal complexities when it comes to standards of animal welfare in the UK. Fish, for example, are included under the animal welfare act 2006[3] as they are vertebrates, and it has been acknowledged that they do feel pain, according to the RSPCA. However, the length that regulations and animal law in the UK stretch, has been enforced to only a small extent as in the EU Council Regulation 1009/2009[4], the provisions on slaughter methods for animal species do not relate to fish this coincides with The Welfare of Animals at The Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015[5], that there is a lack of clarity on the specific requirements for killing methods of fish. Furthermore, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006[6], it states that fish (vertebrates) are protected animals[7] and must be spared avoidable pain and distress during killing operations, nevertheless, it is not specific to traditional fishing practices. This suggests that there is a significant lack of enforcement and law protection surrounding fish welfare. Crustaceans and Cephalopods, however, are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as they are invertebrates, but are interpreted in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022[8], under the definition of animals. This reinforces that there are limitations to their protection under animal welfare laws in the UK.
What are the legal complexities and the implications of killing farm animals with specific methods?
In recent research, per the RSCPA, it was found that 90% of pigs in the UK are killed through exposure to high concentrations of carbon dioxide. Where this may be a common procedure, it can be objectively seen as “unnecessary suffering”[9], as the pigs are subjected to pain and distress.[10] This method is legal notwithstanding the under Article 3 (1) of the EU Council Regulations on the general requirements for killing animals and related operations, that it states that animals shall be spared avoidable pain or suffering, during their killing. The Code of Practice for the welfare of pigs[11] establishes that a good keeper should have a compassionate and humane attitude. The practices such as pig stunning, tail docking and nose ringing, bring discomfort and stress to the pigs. Although common procedures, it does go to say whether these procedures, due to the high distress and pain pigs have to endure, whether this is proportionate to the code of welfare of pigs’ provisions, under section 1.
Over a billion chickens are killed every year in the UK. Broiler chickens, which are chickens raised for meat are bred at a fast rate which affects their weight and health, they are put at risk of suffering from heart attacks. Furthermore, some birds are shackled along a conveyor belt at which they are then electrically stunned, but according to the RSPCA, shacking of conscious birds can cause them to suffer from stress and pain, which puts into perspective that although these birds are killed quickly in the process of electrical stunning, it goes without saying that they are still subjected to pain and suffering at the time of the killing. This could suggest that contrary to section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006[12], that animals’ basic needs even during the time they are killed should be met, to prevent suffering. In terms of sheep slaughter, they are subject to being stunned before being killed subject to the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015[13]. However, there are exemptions in regard to religious slaughter for Halal and Shechita practices. In 2024, 35,000 Cattle were slaughtered without pre-stunning. It has been evident that animals are still conscious for up to a few minutes and can feel the pain of their neck being cut, if not pre-stunned prior to slaughter. While certain religious methods are exempt from the law on stunning animals prior to slaughter[14], there are farms which still illegally slaughter animals without pre-stunning them. This shows that there is a need for stronger law enforcement and investigations into farm practices.
Respective case law and legal authorities
There has been numerous case law that shows the progression of protection and animal welfare throughout the years, in the UK, in the animal agricultural industry. A number of these cases have demonstrated that the suffering of farm animals can lead to convictions. For instance, in R (on the application of Gray) v Aylesbury Crown Court (2013) EWHC 500 (Admin)[15], both the defendants were charged of animal welfare offenses under the Animal welfare Act 2006 under section 4[16] for negligence and proof of unnecessary suffering. In addition, the court held that section 9(1)[17] sets the objective standard of care that should be required of a person responsible for an animal. Furthermore, in the case of R v Woodward (2017) EWHC 1008 (Admin)[18], a group of slaughtermen were charged with causing unnecessary suffering to numerous sheep after being recorded in an undercover investigation, under section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006[19]. This case set a precedent in animal law over the time limit for prosecutions as laid out under section 31 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006[20], meaning that courts would hold strict compliance within statutory limits and meeting its criteria. It also set forth limits to investigative bodies and their influence on prosecution and whether the evidence is enough to justify prosecution. The decision in this case was reaffirmed in a number of animal law cases further showing its significance. In the case of Downes v Royal Society for The Protection of Animals (2017)[21], through an investigation conducted by the RSPCA, it was found that numerous diseased animals either living, dead or dying, were being kept in poor conditions. The appellants were charged under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, on eight counts. The conclusiveness of section 31 of the Animal Welfare Act was reaffirmed by the decision in R v Woodward (2017)[22]. And also noted that the in this case, the defence must make it clear there is a prima facie case for undermining the section 31 certificate.[23] In Highbury poultry Farm Produce Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service (2018)[24], the defendant operated a poultry slaughterhouse, which processed about 75,000 chickens a day. On three different occasions a chicken was put into a scalding tank whilst still alive, leading to Highbury being charged with two offences, relating to the breach of Article 3 (1) and Article 15 (1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009[25] and the welfare of animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015[26]. The company was held liable for the breaches. This case holds significance. Not only does it highlight the impact and developments on the law for animal welfare, but also the impact of EU law and its interpretation of domestic laws and the way it shapes regulatory measures for animal welfare. In another case that took place more recently, The Humane League UK v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2024)[27], the appellant’s claimed for a judicial review, for the declaration that the Secretary of State’s policy permitting the keeping of fast- growing breeds of chicken and the system for monitoring their welfare, is unlawful. However all though the appeal was rejected, in the Court of Appeal’s judgment their interpretation of paragraph 29 of Schedule 1[28] meant farmers within the UK could find lawful restrictions if they decide to keep fast- growing breeds of chickens. This shows that the law’s interpretation on animal welfare is steadily taking into account the efforts of public policy and ethical considerations of the animal at the hand of suffering.
How does the standards of farm animal welfare in the UK compare to other countries on a global scale?
The Animal Welfare Act, a primary federal animal protection law, was introduced in the United States in 1966[29]. This legislation while aims to prevent cruelty and ensure humane treatment of animals, it excludes the inclusion for the protection of farm animals, mice and birds. The US has amongst the weakest farm animal welfare standards in the developed world.[30] This is largely due to the means to be “economically efficient”, through use of factory farms[31]. Factory farms are also known as concentrated animal feeding operations. These farms are typically designed to maximize profits through saving in resources therefore, they are usually confined which causes the animals to suffer in unethical and inhuman conditions. For example, according to The Humane League, animals like pigs, cows and sheep have been subjected to tail-docking. This procedure is known to be carried out without any anaesthetics, essentially meaning the animals are forced to endure immense pain. “When animal welfare competes with economics, economics usually wins”.[32] This argumentative statement indicates that the status of farm animal welfare in the United States is at the expense of businesses in the agricultural industry are primarily focused on profitability at the expense of animal cruelty. Under EU regulations and UK law the welfare of farm animals is maintained to higher standards which cover transportation and slaughter. With the welfare standards of the UK, this results in higher production costs, therefore, the UK’s standards overall are protected against cheaper imports produced at lower standards, as according to the RSPCA[33]. Although since Brexit, trade deals and agreements have been more highly impacted, since it opens a risk of lower animal welfare standards. Switzerland is subjectively considered as one of the leading countries on the basis of animal welfare. They introduced the Animal Welfare Act (LPA) in 1981[34], in addition to The statute on the protection of animals (OPAn)[35]. Both of which include vertebrates, birds and fish as well as invertebrates. The statute provides specific information about the practices that are allowed, in order to prioritise the welfare of the animals. Asia holds over 75% of farmed animals, in the world. In 2008, the Regional Animal Welfare Strategy for Asia, Far East and Oceania was created with the aim to improve the conditions of animals and their welfare, an impactful move towards creating better conditions for animal trade. Although this implementation of this organisation was put in place, there are still parts of Asia that lack resources to implement their own countries’ policies in place for improving farm animal welfare standards. The difference in standards across Asia for animal welfare vary from animal abuse and cultural and perceived religious practices.[36] For example, in Thailand the introduction of The Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act[37] meant that animals were recognised for being able to suffer if not treated in the right way, however the act has a lot of loopholes and lacks clarity over specific species, and how they are supposed to be treated. In China, there is no current nationwide legislation to prohibit the mistreatment of animals, but there is rising support for animal protection laws to be enacted and still much more advancement to be done in the legal protection of animals. However, China is part of the Regional Animal Welfare Strategy for Asia, Far East and Oceania, so this demonstrates that they are moving towards a fairer treatment for animals and their basic welfare. Through the Regional Animal Welfare strategy, it allows for a strong approach to the World Organisation for Animal Health standards and increase awareness of the issue at hand, across Asia.
Conclusion
Overall, it is clear that there is an anomaly in the protective laws on animal welfare measures for farm animals. In the past, animal law was practically non-existent. However, in recent case law, it is proven that there is more of a move to interpret and prioritise ethical standards for farm animals and their well-being. And the focus on the specific time limits on which the prosecution can use sufficient evidence, has proven so far to be rather difficult for upholding convictions. In addition, although the global stance on farm animal welfare standards and reducing animal suffering has become positively endorsed by public awareness and policy over the years, there is still a lack of sufficient law enforcement, as many farm animals are still forced to endure cruel treatment and living conditions. Therefore, to answer the question whether farm animals, are given fair treatment. Yes, it is now legally enforced to ensure this, however there are loopholes, that still need improving and legally reinforcing.
Bibliography
Table of Cases
Downes v Royal Society for the Protection of Animals [2017] EWHC 3622
Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service [2018] EWHC 3122 (Admin)
The Humane League UK v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2024] EWCA Civ 1560
R (on the application of Gray) v Aylesbury Crown Court [2013] EWHC 500 (Admin)
R v Woodward (Robert) [2017] EWHC 1008
Table of legislation
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009
Animal Welfare Act 2006
Animal welfare Act (LPA) (Switzerland)1981
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022
Animal Welfare Act (United States) (1966)
The Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act (Thailand) 2014
The Statutes on the protection of Animals (OPAn) (Switzerland) 1981
Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015
Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations (2007)
Journal Articles
Gardiner J, One Billion Crimes? ‘Farm Animal Welfare Law in the United Kingdom’. UK Journal of Animal Law, Vol. 7, Issue 2, (2023).
Matheny, G., & Leahy, C. (2007). Farm-Animal Welfare, Legislation, and Trade. Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 70, No.1, Animal Law and Policy (Winter, 2007).
Nizam, Q.N.H. & Tahman S.A., « Animal welfare in Asia: specific flaws and strengths, future trends and objectives, In: Hild S. & Schweitzer L. (Eds), Animal Welfare: From Science to Law, 2019, pp.109-118.
Websites
RSPCA, Written Evidence Submitted by the RSPCA on UK-US trade relations https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/78338/pdf/ accessed July 10th, 2025
RSPCA, ‘RSPCA Position: the use of high concentration Carbon Dioxide in the stunning/ killing of pigs’ <https://science.rspca.org.uk/documents/d/science/rspca-position-on-the-use-of-high-concentration-carbon-dioxide-in-the-killing_stunning-of-pigs> accessed 10th July 2025.
[1] Animal Welfare Act 2006, s.2 (a)(b)
[2] AWA 2006, s.4 (3)(a)
[3] Animal Welfare Act 2006
[4] EU Council Regulation 1009/2009
[5] The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015
[6] Animal Welfare Act 2006
[7] ibid
[8] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, s.5 (1)
[9] Gardiner J, One Billion Crimes? ‘Farm Animal Welfare Law in the United Kingdom’. UK Journal of Animal Law, Vol. 7, Issue 2, (2023), p. 34
[10] RSPCA, ‘RSPCA Position: the use of high concentration Carbon Dioxide in the stunning/ killing of pigs’ <https://science.rspca.org.uk/documents/d/science/rspca-position-on-the-use-of-high-concentration-carbon-dioxide-in-the-killing_stunning-of-pigs> accessed 10th July 2025.
[11] Welfare of farmed animals (England) Regulations 2007
[12] Animal Welfare Act 2006
[13] Welfare of Farmed animals (England) Regulations 2007
[14] ibid
[15] R (on the application of Gray) v Aylesbury Crown Court [2013] EWHC 500 (Admin)
[16] AWA 2006
[17] ibid
[18] R v Woodward (Robert) [2017] EWHC 1008
[19] Animal Welfare Act 2006
[20] Animal Welfare Act 2006, s.31 (1)(a)
[21] Downes v Royal Society for the Protection of Animals [2017] EWHC 3622
[22] R v Woodward (Robert) [2017] EWHC 1008
[23] Animal Welfare Act 2006, s.31
[24] Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service [2018] EWHC 3122 (Admin)
[25] Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009
[26] Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015
[27] The Humane League UK v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2024] EWCA Civ 1560
[28] Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations (2007)
[29] Animal Welfare Act (United States) (1966)
[30] Matheny, G., & Leahy, C. (2007). Farm-Animal Welfare, Legislation, and Trade. Law and Contemporary Problems, 70(1), 325–358. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27592172
[31] ibid
[32] ibid
[33] RSPCA, Written Evidence Submitted by the RSPCA on UK-US trade relations https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/78338/pdf/ accessed July 10th, 2025
[34] Animal welfare Act (LPA) (Switzerland)1981
[35] The Statutes on the protection of Animals (OPAn) 1981
[36] Nizam, Q.N.H. & Tahman S.A., « Animal welfare in Asia: specific flaws and strengths, future trends and objectives » [PDF file], In: Hild S. & Schweitzer L. (Eds), Animal Welfare: From Science to Law, 2019, pp.109-118.
[37] The Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act (Thailand) 2014
