WAYANAD, Kerala—A pioneering emergency evacuation shelter designed to evacuate animals prior to disasters like floods and landslides, is set to be established in Kottathara panchayat in Wayanad district, Kerala. Situated in a region prone to multiple hazards including annual floods, cyclones and landslides, this commitment marks a significant step forward in disaster preparedness for animals in India. The collaborative project will bring together the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, the Wayanad District Disaster Management Authority, Kottathara Grama Panchayat and Humane World for Animals India (formerly called Humane Society International India) to make India’s first such shelter for animals.
The shelter, set to begin operating in 2026, will have the capacity to accommodate up to 150 animals such as goats, cows, pigs, dogs and cats. The single-story structure is expected to include dedicated space for a veterinary clinic and a quarantine area, along with storage and equipment rooms. The shelter is intended to serve as a model for similar facilities across the country.
Praveen Suresh, disaster preparedness and response team manager at Humane World for Animals India, said: “This is an historic moment for Kerala and India from both an animal welfare and disaster preparedness point of view. It is especially significant for Wayanad district with its growing need for a dedicated facility to evacuate and care for animals during disasters like floods and landslides. While the shelter will provide immediate medical care and relief, it will also serve as a long-term resource to support animal welfare in the community. We are grateful to the Government of Kerala and the State Disaster Management Department for approving this important initiative. This animal shelter highlights the power of collaboration between multiple agencies to safeguard animals and their communities and to strengthen disaster management efforts in India.”
Over the last seven years, Humane World for Animals India has gained a notable presence in Kerala through its disaster preparedness, response and relief efforts. During the 2024 Wayanad landslides, the organization’s rescue team aided over 180 animals. Along with partner organizations, Humane World for Animals India is working to make Wayanad a disaster-resilient district for both humans and animals. Among other activities, the organization is conducting capacity building programs for the community through outreach to schools and self-help groups like Kudumbashree. Once constructed, the shelter will serve as a hub for efforts to safeguard animals and the families who depend on them during disasters and a catalyst for continued commitment to build community resilience in the face of future emergencies that put humans and animals at risk.
Sometimes, it feels like we’ll never learn. That our mistakes of the past are just waiting to resurface, to be repeated all over again. That our promises to do better are just window-dressing for a harsher reality. It seems particularly pertinent when anniversaries come round to remind us that something as wrong as exporting live animals over long distances, simply to be slaughtered at the other end, just aren’t necessary. And haven’t been for a long time.
And so, it was with a big sigh of disbelief that we heard the news earlier this year that Brittany Ferries was resuming live animal exports from Ireland to France. Dame Joanna Lumley and Pauline McLynn joined forces with over 120 high-profile individuals, experts and civil society organisations to condemn the decision.
Out of kilter
It seemed to particularly go against the grain as Britain had just banned live exports from Scotland, England and Wales to the continent only a year before. The ban from Britain in May 2024 finally enshrined in law the will of the people, many of whom had come out to protests around ports and docklands around the country for decades.
Finally, the voice of reason had been heard. Action had been taken to condemn a redundant and cruel trade to the history books where it belongs. Scientific evidence shows that when live animals are exported or transported long distances, they often suffer extremes of temperature and are deprived of rest, food or water.
It doesn’t take a scientist to know that putting sentient beings into lorries and taking them on journeys that can last days, causes them fear and distress.
While Great Britain introduced a ban on the live export of farmed animals last year, and Australia has announced the end of the live export of sheep by sea from 2028, the trade continues in the EU. It is a matter of shame that the EU’s current revision of its animal transport rules is appallingly weak. Journeys can last several days or even weeks, exposing animals to exhaustion, dehydration, injury, disease, and even death. Some 44 million farm animals annually have been found to be transported between EU member states and exported internationally, many of them on long distance journeys lasting eight hours or more.
The trade is flourishing owing to the rising demand for meat in some parts of the world: European companies are cashing in on the need to stock farms in countries such as Libya and Vietnam with breeding and fattening animals. For some countries – including Spain, Denmark, Ireland and Romania – livestock export is still seen as a key part of the farming economy.
Yet it is not only cruel, but also totally unnecessary.
Redundant for a Century
This year is the 100th anniversary of the invention of the first refrigerated truck. Made for the ice cream industry in 1925 by American inventor, Frederick McKinley Jones, it meant that chilled desserts, or carcases for that matter, could be transported over long distances and arrive in great condition.
From that day on, loading cattle, sheep and pigs into lorries to ship them abroad for slaughter was no longer needed. Instead, they could be slaughtered at a local abattoir and the carcases transported to wherever they are required. Refrigerated sea transport has an even longer history. In 1877, the French steamer Paraguay completed the first successful travel with its shipment of 5,500 frozen sheep carcases from Argentina arriving to France in reportedly excellent condition despite a collision that delayed the delivery for several months, thus proving the concept of refrigerated ships.
From that day on, we’ve never needed to subject live animals, often young animals just weeks old, to long distance sea journeys for slaughter or fattening again.
Blind persistence
Yet, we carry on despite clear evidence that doing so causes profound harm. Recommendations published recently by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), identified multiple welfare concerns in the transportation of live animals including “group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation”.
The EU is believed to be the world’s biggest live animal exporter. What fuels this outdated trade? Not need. Not compassion. Just cold, hard cash. A backward pursuit of an outdated economic model whereby animals are treated as inanimate objects and where farm specialisation has fuelled a trend towards fewer, but larger farms and slaughterhouses. Against this backdrop, meat producers aim to minimise production and slaughter costs, maximise revenues and optimise economies of scale by exploiting cost differences between member states.
spirit, innocence and blamelessness renders them defenceless in the face of unyielding, uncaring and backward-looking practices.
To throw another pertinent anniversary into the mix, this June sees the tenth International Ban Live Exports Day raising awareness of the scale and impact of these cruel journeys by land and by sea and sending a clear message to the companies that profit from this misery that it is totally unacceptable. Brittany Ferries, are you listening?
Philip Lymbery is Global CEO of Compassion in World Farming International, President of EuroGroup for Animals, a Board Member of the UN Food Systems Advisory Board, a former United Nations Food Systems Champion, an animal advocate and award-winning author. His latest book is Sixty Harvests Left: How to Reach a Nature-Friendly Future.
In 2023, UC Berkeley student and activist Zoe Rosenberg removed four severely ill chickens from a slaughterhouse truck in Petaluma, California, and brought them to an animal sanctuary. Now, she’s facing over five years in prison. Rosenberg’s trial is scheduled for later this year, and her allegations tell a story of horrific conditions at ostensibly “free-range” chicken farms, as well as the steep uphill battle activists face in convincing law enforcement to even investigate allegations of animal cruelty on factory farms.
Rosenberg is an activist with Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), a Bay Area-based animal rights organization. In addition to supporting ballot propositions and hosting conferences, DxE carries out undercover investigations of slaughterhouses and factory farms. In some cases, its activists rescue ill and imperiled animals from such facilities; this is what’s known as “open rescue,” a popular tactic among some animal rights activists.
The prospect of risking prison time for saving a few chickens, who are routinely sold for less than $20 apiece, may seem outlandish. But DxE activists like Rosenberg see it as a necessary risk to accomplish their ultimate goal: the complete abolition of slaughterhouses and factory farms.
“I think that if people don’t take action and don’t risk their freedom to create change, nothing will ever change,” Rosenberg, who’s currently wearing an ankle monitor while out on bail, tells Sentient. “We’ve seen time and time throughout history that it has been the sacrifices of the very few that have changed the world.”
Petaluma Poultry did not respond to Sentient’s request for comment on this story, but a company spokesperson denied DxE’s claims to the San Francisco Chronicle, characterizing the group as “extremist” and its efforts as “theft.”
What Is Open Rescue?
In essence, open rescue is the act of removing animals from dangerous or harmful environments without permission from the person, company or facility that oversees said animals. Those who carry out open rescues don’t hide what they are doing, and often publicize their actions. Animals that are removed via open rescue are typically provided with medical care and/or taken to animal sanctuaries.
The goal of open rescues, which date back to at least the early 1980s, is not only to provide relief for the animals in question, but also to highlight the conditions in which farm animals are held, and to normalize the act of rescuing them. But it’s a controversial practice, even among activists, and law enforcement officials generally treat open rescues as acts of theft, trespassing or other crimes.
This often leads to prosecution, but in the eyes of open rescue advocates, this isn’t entirely a bad thing. Prosecutions often bring media attention and publicity to both the topic in question and the relevant laws surrounding that topic. Rosenberg’s case, for instance, draws attention not only to the conditions of factory farms, but also to the fact that removing a few sick animals from a slaughterhouse can get you a half a decade in prison.
That said, Hsiung did recently spend 38 days in Sonoma County jail for an open rescue in which he participated, so it’s not unheard of for activists like Rosenberg to serve time for carrying out open rescues.
he Incident in Question
On June 13, 2023, Rosenberg entered a Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse partially disguised as an employee. A truck delivering chickens to the facility was parked outside, and Rosenberg spotted four chickens in the back of the truck who she says were “covered in scratches and bruises.” She took them from the truck, left the slaughterhouse and both she and DxE publicized her actions on social media.
Rosenberg says that she intentionally took the chickens that “seemed like they most needed medical attention.” Subsequent examinations found that all four birds were infected with Coccidia parasites; one of them also had a respiratory infection and an injured toe, while a third had a foot infection.
Five months later, Rosenberg was arrested and charged with five felonies relating to the June 13 rescue. These charges were later reduced, and as of this writing, she faces one felony conspiracy charge, two forms of misdemeanor trespassing charges, one misdemeanor theft charge and one misdemeanor charge of tampering with a vehicle. Her trial is scheduled for September 15, 2025.
The chickens she rescued were all treated for their illnesses, and are now living at an animal sanctuary.
A History of Animal Neglect At Petaluma Poultry
Petaluma Poultry, a subsidiary of the chicken giant Perdue, presents itself as a humane operation where, in the words of its website, “chickens are free to be chickens.”
“Our houses are spacious, with room for birds to move about and exhibit normal behaviors in a low-stress environment open to fresh air,” the company’s website says. “Our outdoor spaces are at least half the size of the poultry house, and typically as big as the barn itself.”
But Petaluma Poultry’s advertising is a classic example of humane-washing, when companies try to appeal to animal welfare-minded consumers by depicting their products as more humanely produced than they actually are.
Petaluma Poultry and its contractors have been accused of criminal animal cruelty on a number of occasions, and footage filmed by undercover investigators in the company’s farms and slaughterhouse paints a much different picture than the company’s marketing.
In 2018, a whistleblower provided DxE with footage from McCoy’s Poultry, a factory farm contracted by Petaluma Poultry, that showed chickens collapsed on the ground, unable to stand or walk and surrounded by the corpses of other chickens. Shortly thereafter, Sonoma County Animal Services seized 15 chickens from McCoy’s Poultry; six were already dead, while the other nine were injured, malnourished, unable to stand and exhibited signs of distress, according to a subsequent medical report. The facility was later shut down.
In 2023, another activist who infiltrated Petaluma Poultry’s slaughterhouse said that she saw workers cutting into chickens while they were still alive, as well as evidence that chickens had been abused, tortured and boiled alive during the slaughter process. They also obtained documents showing that, on a single day in April, over 1,000 chickens were deemed unfit for human consumption after they were slaughtered due to suspicion that they had blood poisoning.
Prior to her arrest for the June incident, Rosenberg herself was involved in a separate DxE investigation of a Petaluma Poultry facility in 2023, where she recorded footage of more chickens suffering in the facility.
“I documented chickens who were collapsed on the floor of their factory farms, too weak to stand, unable to get to food and water, and slowly dying of starvation and dehydration,” Rosenberg says. She ended up rescuing two of those chickens as well, both of whom required extensive medical care.
It remains unclear whether authorities prosecuting or investigating these allegations of criminal animal cruelty? And if not, how come?
Rosenberg Raised Allegations of Animal Welfare Abuses
Poultry is the most widely consumed meat in the U.S. and the world, yet there are no federal laws that protect livestock chickens from mistreatment on the farm. The Humane Slaughter Act establishes some baseline requirements for the treatment of livestock, but it specifically exempts chickens from these protections.
In California, however, livestock chickens are protected under a number of different laws. In addition to Proposition 12, which requires poultry producers to give egg-laying hens a specific amount of living space, Section 597(b) of California’s penal code makes it a felony to subject an animal to “needless suffering” or deprive them of access to sufficient food or water, among other things.
This law would appear to be relevant in the context of Petaluma Poultry. If a chicken at a factory farm is physically unable to stand (let alone walk), they will be unable to reach the feeding trays and water, and will eventually die of thirst or starvation. If a chicken is boiled alive because they were improperly stunned beforehand, it has suffered needlessly.
The aforementioned investigations uncovered evidence of both of these things happening at Petaluma Poultry and its contracted facilities. Both DxE and Rosenberg claim they’ve presented multiple law enforcement agencies with this evidence, only to be rebuffed or ignored.
“The most common thing we’ve had is agencies directing us to another agency, directing us to another agency, directing us back to the place where we started, and just kind of sending us around in circles,” Rosenberg says. “We didn’t get any helpful response. No one took action.”
It was this inaction that led Rosenberg to take the four chickens from the back of the truck in June, she says. After doing so, she again presented her findings to law enforcement, specifically the Petaluma Police Department. This time, she got a response.
“They said they had a detective who wanted to have a call with me, and so I had like a 15-minute call with a detective from the Petaluma Police Department,” Rosenberg says. “She very much approached the call from an angle of, you know, ‘I’m concerned about the reports you are making.’ And so I told her about the animal cruelty that has been documented there.”
But Officer Corie Joerger, the detective in question, didn’t follow up with her after their call, Rosenberg claims, and ignored her subsequent attempts at communication. A couple of weeks later, Joerger handed Rosenberg a warrant for her arrest regarding the June rescue.
In the preliminary hearing for Rosenberg’s case, Joerger acknowledged that Rosenberg had made allegations of animal cruelty, but stated that she did not investigate the matter.
This inaction by law enforcement wasn’t an isolated incident. When the investigation at McCoy’s Poultry facility uncovered dead birds on the farm floor and others that were unable to move, Sonoma County Animal Services referred the matter to the county sheriff’s office for potential prosecution. But no prosecution followed then, either.
Sentient has reached out to the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, the Petaluma Police Department and Joerger for clarification on these reports, but as of this writing, none have offered any comments.
Petaluma Poultry Is More the Rule Than the Exception
The allegations against Petaluma Poultry might sound extreme. But in fact, many are par for the course on factory farms, and chicken farms in particular.
For instance, the USDA estimates that every year, around 825,000 chickens are boiled alive at slaughterhouses. This is not standard protocol, but rather, the result of standard protocol gone wrong.
At poultry slaughterhouses, chickens are typically hung upside down by their feet and pulled through an electrified pool of water, which is meant to stun them. After that, workers slit the chickens’ throats, and after they’ve bled out, they’re placed into boiling water. This is to soften the skin and make it easier to defeather them.
That’s how it’s supposed to work, at least. In actuality, though, one or both of those first two steps often fail; chickens are either inadequately stunned before their throats are cut, or their throats aren’t fully slit, or both. When both of these processes fail, the chicken is inadvertently boiled alive, and feels every bit of pain associated with this.
Similarly, the fact that those chickens at Petaluma Poultry couldn’t stand up or walk isn’t an accident. Over the decades, farmers have selectively bred chickens to be as fat as possible, as this maximizes the amount of meat they can sell. According to the National Chicken Council, farmed chickens now grow to be over twice as large as they were 100 years ago in less than half the time.
This unnatural rate of growth has wrought havoc on their internal biology, however, and farm chickens now routinely suffer from a number of illnesses and adverse health conditions as a result, including bone deformities, heart attacks, chronic hunger, ruptured tendons and, most relevantly to Petaluma Poultry, difficulty standing up or walking.
Finally, Petaluma Poultry is far from the only chicken producer to make questionable use of the “free-range” label, which is ostensibly regulated by the USDA. In 2023, undercover footage taken from a Tyson Foods-contracted chicken farm in Virginia depicted employees of both the factory and Tyson freely acknowledging that the “free range” label doesn’t actually mean anything, and that “free range” birds often “don’t go outside.”
Why Wasn’t Petaluma Poultry Investigated by Law Enforcement?
Though it’s unclear why local law enforcement hasn’t pursued any investigations into the allegations against Petaluma Poultry, DxE’s director of communications has some ideas.
“It would be a massive undertaking for any government agency, no matter how well-staffed they actually might be, to suddenly address the systemic animal cruelty that we know is happening in factory farms,” Cassie King, director of communications at DxE tells Sentient. “If they put their foot in the door and acknowledge that it’s their responsibility to address these crimes, then there’s a landslide of new cases they need to take on, and it’s just a huge amount of work.”
Although the city isn’t quite the egg powerhouse it once was, chickens are still big business in Petaluma. Though official estimates are difficult to come by, the city is home to at least seven chicken farms large enough to qualify as factory farms, and those facilities collectively house around 1.8 million chickens at any given time, according to a 2024 analysis by an activist group that opposes factory farms.
To be clear, there’s no evidence that the poultry industry’s strong presence in Petaluma has played any role in law enforcement’s response to allegations of cruelty at the city’s chicken farms. But the fact that the Petaluma Police Department publicly celebrates the city’s poultry industry, and participates in the annual Butter and Eggs Day festival in a non-law enforcement capacity, is not lost on DxE activists.
Rosenberg Awaiting Trial
For her part, Rosenberg maintains that her actions were legal. She cites the doctrine of necessity, a legal theory holding that it’s sometimes permissible to break a law if doing so prevents even greater harm from occurring.
“For example, if a kid is drowning in your neighbor’s pool and no one is helping that kid, you have the right to trespass into your neighbor’s yard to rescue the kid,” Rosenberg says.
“A few years of my freedom is worth significantly less than even one animal’s entire life, and certainly less than four animals’ entire lives,” Rosenberg says. “And so it’s absolutely worth it to me on that level.”
*************
An Animal Rights Activist Rescued Four Sick Chickens From a Slaughterhouse. Now She’s Facing Five Years in Prison.
The debate will take place after a petition won widespread support from the public.
Ps will hold a major debate today on banning halal and kosher slaughter of animals, after thousands of Britons signed a petition demanding better animal welfare. The debate will be held in Westminster Hall at 4.30pm, meaning that while there won’t be a vote it will be the first debate of the religious practice in parliament for years.
The showdown was forced as a result of a public petition on the parliamentary website, entitled: “Ban non-stun slaughter in the UK”, which garnered 109,018 signatures. It read: “In modern society, we believe more consideration needs to be given to animal welfare and how livestock is treated and culled. We believe non-stun slaughter is barbaric and doesn’t fit in with our culture and modern-day values and should be banned, as some EU nations have done.”
In a landmark case, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a ban on the ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning does not violate the ECHR.
“The Court considered that the protection of public morals, to which Article 9 of the Convention referred was not indifferent to the living environment of individuals covered by its protection and including animals.”
A Government response on January 10 defended the practice, arguing that while it would “prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter… we respect the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs.”
Ahead of today’s debate, Rupert Lowe MP said: “Big debate in Parliament today on non-stun/halal slaughter.”
“I’ll be speaking in favour of a full ban.”
Three days ago Mr Lowe tabled an Early Day Motion in Parliament also calling for a ban on nun-stun slaughter, arguing that there is a “substantial body of veterinary evidence indicating that pre-stunning significantly reduces animal suffering at the point of slaughter”.
He called on the government to “urgently review the legislative framework around non-stun slaughter, consider restricting or banning the practice, and introduce mandatory, clear labelling of meat products by method of slaughter so that consumers can make informed choices.”
It was also signed by Conservative MPs Thomas Bradley and Andrew Rosindell.
A 2019 poll suggested 83% of British adults believe the law should be changed to ensure animals killed for food production are stunned before being killed.
In addition 86% want all meat sold in the UK to be clearly labelled so they know how the animal died.
Around 114 million animals are killed using the halal method each year in Britain, and a further 2.1 million using the kosher method.
The RSPC backs a ban on non-stun killing, with head of public affairs David Bowles saying: “Non-stun slaughter can cause considerable suffering and as a result the organisation believes this practice should be banned once and for all.”
“While we believe religious beliefs and practices should be respected, we also feel strongly animals must be slaughtered under the most humane conditions possible.”
Environmentalist Zac Goldsmith has raised concerns about a “troubling commitment” in the Prime Minister’s deal with the EU.
Zac Goldsmith has slammed Keir Starmer (Image: Getty)
ac Goldsmith has slammed Keir Starmer’s UK-EU reset for risking the Tories hard-fought Brexit wins on animal welfare. The environmentalist warned that a “troubling commitment” in the agreement means any UK deviation from EU food standards must not “negatively affect European Union animals and goods being placed on the market” in the UK.
The former MP said: “This seemingly technical clause has profound implications for animal welfare and our ability to raise our own standards, something that we fought so hard to achieve with Brexit. “Among other things it likely means the UK cannot restrict imports of animal products that fail to meet our welfare standards – even when we’ve banned those same practices domestically.
He said around 50% of UK pork imports come from EU countries still using sow stalls – narrow metal cages Britain banned in the 90s because they were considered to be cruel.
A new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal was agreed last month to reduce red tape currently needed to import and export food and drink between the UK and the EU.
ut campaigners want the Government to clarify whether animal welfare measures fall outside the SPS agreement’s scope, or to negotiate explicit exceptions for welfare-based restrictions.
here were concerns before the deal was struck that Britain could weaken its post-Brexit animal protection laws to get a reset deal with Brussels.
But following the concerns, the Prime Minister said: “We are not involved in, nor will we be involved in, a sort of race to the bottom on standards.
“I think that British people are proud of the high standards that we have, and we want to maintain those standards.”
Sir Keir has pledged to strengthen ties with the EU since coming into office on July 4 last year.
As part of the agreement he signed, there will be more targeted checks on the movement of animals, animal products, plants and other products.
This will stop animals being held for excessive periods at the borders and lower any detrimental impact on animal health and welfare, and reduce the burden on the veterinary workforce.
There was also a commitment made on shared disease surveillance and data sharing, which will secure UK biosecurity and risk of imported diseases.
Animal welfare groups also welcomed the introduction of pet passports to replace Animal Health Certificates (AHCs), which increased burden on the veterinary workforce and hiked costs for animal owners since they came into force.
A Government spokesman said: “This government will always act in the national interest to protect Britain’s farmers and secure our food security. We have said we will uphold the highest agricultural standards and that is exactly what this deal does.”
By Lord Zac Goldsmith
Brexit undoubtedly delivered meaningful wins for animals, enabling policy changes that were previously impossible. We were able for example to ban the cruel live export of animals for slaughter and even more far reaching, we could change the way we subsidised farming to incentivise higher animal welfare and environmental stewardship. Neither of these changes could have happened without Brexit, which is one of the reasons I supported our EU exit in 2016.
And although of course I wish we had done more, the last Conservative Government did deliver a wide range of animal welfare measures, from an expanded ivory ban and banning glue traps, to much bigger sentences for animal cruelty and recognising sentience in law. Now in Opposition the Party is calling for among other things raising zoo standards.
Last month’s UK-EU Summit produced a ‘Common Understanding’ agreement which has been hailed by the Prime Minister as a significant step towards mending post-Brexit relations, generating economic benefits and streamlining trade. However, buried in the details lies a troubling commitment: any UK deviation from EU food standards must not “negatively affect European Union animals and goods being placed on the market in the United Kingdom”.
This seemingly technical clause has profound implications for animal welfare and our ability to raise our own standards, something that we fought so hard to achieve with Brexit. Among other things it likely means the UK cannot restrict imports of animal products that fail to meet our welfare standards – even when we’ve banned those same practices domestically.
Consider the immediate threats. Around 50% of UK pork imports come from EU countries still using sow stalls – narrow metal cages we banned in the 90s because they were considered to be cruel. The last Labour government prohibited fur farming in the UK, yet we continue importing it from the EU. Under the new agreement, banning such imports may be impossible, despite the stated wishes of the Government to deliver the biggest boost to animal welfare in a generation.
The agreement links UK standards to EU animal welfare rules with opt outs limited to public health and biosecurity – assessed case by case basis. So while we might still be able to ban puppy imports, as these present a public health risk, the agreement could block us from banning EU fur or even foie gras on welfare grounds alone.
This not only undermines domestic animal welfare standards but also places British farmers, who adhere to stricter regulations, at a competitive disadvantage. The problem is more acute with EU imports, our largest trading partner for food imports, not just the usual suspects like the USA or Australia.
Brexit gave us the chance to lead the world on animal welfare – to show that an independent Britain could set gold standards that others would follow. This is also about democratic sovereignty; British voters consistently support higher animal welfare standards, with 84% backing restrictions on low-welfare imports.
There’s still time to put this right, but it will require government to clarify that animal welfare measures fall outside the SPS Agreement’s scope, or to negotiate explicit exceptions for welfare-based restrictions.
While its proponents say the UK-EU reset agreement offers economic and diplomatic benefits, it’s imperative that animal welfare remains a priority. By addressing these concerns proactively, the UK can position itself as a global leader in animal welfare and ensure that progress is not achieved at the expense of the most vulnerable and the voiceless.
The annual status report of the JRC’s EU reference laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL ECVAM) highlights recent EU statistics on animals used for scientific purposes, which show an overall reduction of 5% of animal procedures in the EU and Norway from 2018 to 2022.
In parallel, the biotechnology sector has experienced rapid growth, with cutting edge technologies and innovation transforming many domains including biomedical research, development of medicines and in vitro testing. Data show that in 2021, the global biotechnology market was worth €720 billion with an annual growth rate higher than 18%.
Establishing standards for in vitro biotech innovation
Standards are needed to foster a robust biotech ecosystem and facilitate technology transfer from research to industry.
ECVAM’s work has been instrumental in driving standardisation efforts in the in vitro biotech sector, including contributing to the CEN-CENELEC Focus Group on Organ on Chip. The group delivered a roadmap identifying priorities for standardisation of this disruptive technology, which underpins a new generation of sophisticated non-animal models and methods set to transform research and regulatory testing.
Validation is essential for the development of standard tests using non-animal methods. To ensure an internationally recognised and harmonised approach, ECVAM is co-leading the project to revise the OECD Guidance Document (no. 34) on the validation and international acceptance of new or updated test methods for hazard assessment.
Better protection of workers and consumers from mutagenic chemicals
The UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) was created by the United Nations to classify chemicals by the hazards they might pose to humans or the environment, such as being corrosive or acutely toxic. The GHS is used worldwide to facilitate trade, and to ensure safe packaging, transport and use.
ECVAM is leading an informal working group to update GHS classification criteria for identifying chemicals that can mutate the DNA of germ cells, which develop into ova in women and sperm in men, and thus can carry over health effects into future generations. This work is also considering options for adapting criteria to make better use of non-animal data and to provide more protection from cancer-causing chemicals.
Supporting EU’s open science policy
Through PRO-MaP, an initiative Promoting Reusable and Open Methods and Protocols, ECVAM has been driving improvements in methodological reporting and transparency in scientific publications, capitalising on innovation and improving health outcomes.
This work has been recently highlighted in an editorial of the journal Nature Methods, recognising the ECVAM Pro Map initiative as very valuable to the field.
Upcoming roadmap on phasing out animal testing
ECVAM is supporting the preparation of the European Commission “Roadmap towards phasing out animal testing for chemical safety assessments”, to be published in 2026. It will serve as an actionable plan for accelerating the path towards replacing animal testing in the safety assessments of chemicals, including pharmaceuticals.
Alternatives in research and education
Finally, ECVAM has also made significant advances in promoting non-animal approaches in research and education, including the launch of its brand new Virtual Reality laboratory.
Other key initiatives include the development of the BioMedical Models Hub (BimmoH), an automated database that collects and organises information on non-animal models used in biomedical research, and the Student Ambassador Project, a self-sustaining movement to spread knowledge across European universities.
RSPCA rescue animal, Spotty, is one of hundreds of pets under the Darwin shelter’s care. (ABC News: Jayden O’Neill)
Bernadette Relos and husband, Nathan Calverley, are self-described animal lovers who live in a bustling house in Darwin’s outskirts suburb of Berrimah.
They have two cats and a one-year-old puppy, which they recently adopted from a shelter.
The South Australian couple who moved to the Top End for work said their “fur babies” brought chaos and destruction, but much-needed colour to their lives.
“They bring life to the household … you can be lonely, and one of the cats will jump on you, and then you’re not lonely anymore,” Mr Calverley said.
“You could walk in the front door, and everyone doesn’t say a word, but the dog will come running … and start licking you and saying hello.”
Ms Relos said they decided to adopt because they wanted pets that would grow up with their young family.
But as some are choosing to bring furry friends into their forever homes, animal shelters are seeing the opposite.
Shelters being pushed to breaking point
Charles Giliam, the Northern Territory’s RSPCA operations manager, said there had been an increasing number of surrendered pets due to people experiencing financial difficulties.
He said most pets being dropped on shelter doorsteps were mixed breeds, weighing around 20 to 30 kilograms, with backyard breeding worsening the situation.
“[People] bring pets to us that are often in need of veterinary treatment … and say, ‘We just don’t have the money’,” he said.
The RSPCA estimates most dog owners spend an average of $25,000 on their pet during its lifetime, while cat owners spend $21,000 on average.
The charity says that within the first year of cat ownership, people could face up to $3,500 of expenses on food, desexing, grooming, bedding, toys and treats.
Mr Giliam said the influx of surrendered pets was creating significant challenges for shelters.
“We probably got about 15 to 20 people on our waiting list who are wanting to surrender … but we are chock-a-block full,” he said.
RSPCA national data showed around 81,000 pets were surrendered in the 2023/2024 financial year, with only 27,000 finding new homes.
David Neilson, a volunteer at the Darwin RSPCA shelter, said the increasing demand was leaving some volunteers “overwhelmed”.
“There are so many volunteers that are here through the week to walk the dogs and sit with the cats and we are not getting through everything … it makes it difficult,” he said.
Industry voices want to see change
While many in the rescue sector are worried about the growing crisis, there are also concerns the NT’s animal rights laws are ineffective.
Unlike most other Australian jurisdictions, the NT does not have a formal dog breeder licensing scheme, however breeders are still expected to meet standards of care under the Animal Protection Act.
Melissa Purick, a licensed dachshund breeder, said it was “frustrating” to see people buy pets from unlicensed backyard breeders without considering the animal’s welfare.
“I would like to see that stopped to start with, where you can’t sell puppies at the markets or the side of the road,” she said.
Hannah Bohlin, an animal advocate, believes growing use of social media is glamorising pet ownership without highlighting its challenges.
She said if people adopted pets that were incompatible with their lifestyle, cost of living could become a “scapegoat” to surrender animals that were no longer valued.
She wants the NT to look at what other states and countries are doing to manage pet breeding and ownership.
“I would like to see a discussion around the possibility of introducing some kind of licence system [to own a pet],” she said.
“Some European countries do operate this kind of system to get a dog in the first place.”
The NT’s Agriculture and Fisheries Department, which oversees animal welfare, said a review of the Animal Protection Act was currently underway.
“The NT government takes animal welfare seriously and is committed to strengthening animal welfare laws,” a department spokesperson said.
World Animals Voice 