Coalition (AWC) has raised concerns over the outdated legal framework governing animal cruelty offences in Sri Lanka, calling for swift legislative reforms to better protect animals.
According to Charuka Wickremesekera, an executive member of the AWC, the country’s current penalties for animal cruelty offences remain based on the Animal Cruelty Act of 1907, enforced through the Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. Under this ordinance, individuals found guilty of most animal cruelty offences can be fined up to 100 rupees, imprisoned for up to three months, or both. In cases involving the killing of an animal in an unnecessarily cruel manner, the maximum imprisonment term extends to six months.
Wickremesekera said that while the Sri Lanka Police continue to make efforts to tackle animal cruelty cases, the absence of robust, modern laws hinders their ability to impose adequate punishments and raise public awareness through legal action.
“It’s time to improve the legal system and protect animals better,” Wickremesekera said.
He also highlighted the growing role of social media in raising public consciousness about animal welfare issues. The sharing of videos exposing acts of animal abuse has not only discouraged such behaviour but also empowered the public to report incidents more readily.
“People now think several times before harming animals after seeing these videos online,” he said. “In the past, there may have been many cases of animal cruelty, but there were no proper organizations where people could complain. Now, many animal welfare groups receive a large number of complaints from the public.”
The AWC believes that alongside stronger laws, public engagement and awareness will play a critical role in eradicating animal cruelty in the country.
European consumers quite rightly, are a fairy switched on bunch when it comes to knowing what goes into the food that they eat. Yes or no ?
But, as animal campaigners; we question what we consider to be ‘adequate’ information relating to certain issues re animals and the food chain.
Lets take the humble egg as an example. There are more than 350 million laying hens in the EU. All these hens combined produce close to 6.7 MILLION TONNES of eggs each and every year.
The EU is rather good when it comes to standards and labelling for eggs purchased withing the EU (and still including the UK even after Brexit); of course; the UK was once an EU member state; so labelling was a regulatory requirement.
With EU / UK egg labelling; there is a Regulation – https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008R0589 which defines the regulations for standards in egg production. Organic production methods; Free Range; Barn or Cage – the labelling system clearly provides the consumer at the supermarket with full details of their eggs – what system was used in their production – so that THE CONSUMER IS FULLY INFORMED AND CAN MAKE A CLEAR CHOICE of whet they are purchasing.
There is no confusion; to the point that every single egg is stamp marked as shown below to include the production method used; the country of origin; and a unique ‘farm ID’ in case of any specific issues relating to the production farm.
Pretty good well monitored and consumer informed system throughout the EU; which we as animal welfare campaigners fully support. The consumer is informed and they make their individual purchases accordingly.
Above – Caged Hens – NO
Below – Free Range – YES.
As welfare campaigners we say there is only one way for consumers to purchase their eggs – if they want to eat eggs – GO FREE RANGE. Compare the free range hens plumage above to that of battery hens below – is that image simply not enough alone to make egg eaters buy NON CAGED eggs.
So ok; there you basically have it – Consumer clear labelling relating to egg production, which allows them to make their independent clear choices.
So for this post; the heading basically says ‘when it comes to meat products, is the EU really telling the consumer what they would like to know?’. We don’t think so; if the labelling system is good for eggs; why the shortfalls for meat products in labelling ?
Cards on the table; I [Mark] have been a non-meat eater for 35+ years. Anything ‘that ever had a face’ is not part of my diet; but I accept there are still lots of carnivores out there. One question though I would ask them is simply; if EU legislation attempts to provide you with accurate labelling on your eggs, and how they were produced; then why not clear and precise labelling on how your meat was reared; AND ESPECIALLY HOW IT WAS KILLED !
Many EU and British citizens; when asked, simply abhor the thought of live animals being ritually slaughtered. But, unlike the ‘egg labelling system’; are EU consumers being led up the garden path when it comes to specific meat labelling?. There are two main methods of ritual slaughter which does not involve pre-stunning an animal before its death; – Shechita (Kosher) – the Jewish method; and Halal which is the Muslim method. Here is more reading from the UK Government about this:
EU law requires that all animals being slaughters for the food chain are stunned and made unconscious prior to killing so that death should be ‘painless’; – hmm; ‘painless’ ? – we say ask the animals going through the process !
But within the EU there are exceptions for religious slaughter as detailed above. Jews and Muslims represent around 6% of the EU population.
Data from Ireland; an EU Member State (MS) showed that around 2010, showed that with just a 1% Muslim population; 6% of cattle, and 34% of sheep were slaughter without stunning. In a 2006/7 survey, it was seen that in France, another MS; 40% of Calves; 25% of Bovine cattle; and no less than 54% of Sheep were slaughtered without stunning.
The EU market for Kosher meat was worth around 5 Billion Euros in 2008.
THE REAL EU MEAT LABELLING ISSUE.
The following is very informative reading for reasons why there is NO standard legislation throughout the entire EU member states when it comes to meat produced by pre-stunning or religious specific methods. We especially suggest looking at the the data on ANNEX 7 – The Practice of Religious Slaughter In Every EU Member State.
Then we can unfortunately understand the EU reluctance, or refusal, to publish concise EU consumer – wide labelling about meat and meat products. When you enter an EU supermarket and are opposed to ritual animal slaughter; does the ‘EU labelling system’ express YOUR animal welfare concerns as a consumer ? – WE WOULD SUGGEST A BIG ‘NO’ !!
But then after all; religion never caused any wars; did it ?
And who in their right mind would want the EU to end up with Egg on its face ?
Exclusive: World-first footage exposed of birds past their egg-laying days being suffocated for supermarket meat
Monday 09 June 2025 17:26 BST
Secretly recorded footage reveals hens apparently writhing in distress and desperately trying to escape as they are suffocated to death to provide meat for supermarkets including Tesco.
In what’s thought to be the first-ever video of its kind, the birds are seen twisting their necks as they are killed with carbon dioxide. They are also heard gasping for breath and emitting high-pitched shrieks.
The recording – which activists say was made at an abattoir endorsed by RSPCA Assured – shows hens being lowered into the gas chamber and dying over the course of several minutes.
Hens were filmed apparently trying to escape from the crates before flopping back in; at times their eyes were open and they were calling (Joey Carbstrong)
Critics said the scenes laid bare the “horrors” behind egg production in the UK, including the fate of even free-range and organic hens.Hens whose egg production has declined are dubbed “spent”, before they are killed and their carcasses are packaged for meat.
Animal-lovers have for years objected to the gassing of pigs with carbon dioxide, warning the animals “burn from the inside out” and suffer immensely in the last minutes of their lives.
Last year 99 per cent of “spent” hens were stunned and slaughtered with CO2; and 77 per cent of meat chickens were killed this way, according to government figures.
In recent years carbon dioxide as a slaughter method has gradually replaced electrical water bath stunning, which raised concerns over the inconsistency of stuns.
Activist Joey Carbstrong said the footage highlighted the discrepancy between images of egg production and the reality (Joey Carbstrong)
The footage, taken with hidden cameras, shows hens – female chickens used for laying eggs – twisting in distress as they die, and some birds apparently trying to escape.
The floor of the gas chamber was littered with dead birds that had jumped out of the crates, according to activist, filmmaker and vegan advocate Joey Carbstrong, who installed the cameras.
Mr Carbstrong and other activists say they shot the video at an abattoir in West Yorkshire run by HCF Poultry. The company denies it was shot at its premises.
HCF supplies Cranswick Foods, one of the UK’s largest meat producers, which processes the hens into chicken-meat products widely sold in Britain.
There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by either Cranswick or the abattoir as using CO2 is an entirely lawful way to slaughter chickens. However, Mr Carbstrong said the video exposed “the callous treatment of free-range hens when they are no longer profitable”.
“This footage dismantles the industry’s carefully curated image of ‘happy hens’ and reveals the horrifying truth of how these sensitive birds are discarded,” he said.
The footage included a paper label with HCF’s name and address on it (Joey Carbstrong)
“The public are being misled by labelling and have a right to know the reality behind what they are buying.”
Mr Carbstrong added: “Egg-laying hens have been genetically manipulated to produce around 300 eggs per year – far beyond the 10 to 15 eggs naturally laid by their ancestor, the red junglefowl.
“This excessive egg production takes a severe toll on their bodies in multiple ways. Regardless of whether they are free-range, barn-kept or caged, most hens are crammed by the tens of thousands into filthy sheds, where disease runs rampant and cannibalism of dead and dying birds is widespread.
“After just 18 months of relentless exploitation, they are forced to experience a terrifying and agonising death, before being processed into food products.”
Around 35 million “spent” hens a year are killed for their meat, figures show. HCF can process 10,500 birds per hour, according to a document from 2018, the latest available.
Even free-range hens are put into gas chambers, activists say (Getty/iStock)
Jenny L Mace, an associate lecturer in animal welfare at the University of Winchester, wrote in a report on the footage that the most concerning findings were the high-pitched shrieks, gasping, collisions with equipment, and chickens falling against one another and out of the crates.
“Without use of a significantly less aversive gas or gas mixture, it is difficult to see how this method equates to a viable (high-welfare) replacement to the former slaughter method of shackling chickens upside down and stunning in a water bath, and a humane death,” she wrote.
She said CO2 caused respiratory distress, adding that describing it as an anaesthetic “may be misleading” because of the distress inhaling it causes.
“There is no suggestion of this case being a ‘bad apple’; this is standard practice and in accordance with legislation,” she wrote.
Egg-laying hens have been genetically manipulated to produce around 300 eggs a year, Joey Carbstrong said (Getty/iStock)
Andrew Opie, of the British Retail Consortium, said on behalf of Tesco and other supermarkets:“Our members know how important animal welfare is to their customers and take their responsibilities to animal welfare very seriously to ensure that expected standards are being met.”
RSPCA Assured said the birds in the footage were already unconscious and were not in pain.
A spokesperson said the footage was deeply upsetting but that carbon dioxide was permitted under RSPCA welfare standards, adding: “However, RSPCA standards set requirements that go above the law to ensure a more humane process.
“Due to their physiology, when birds lose consciousness their brains no longer have control over their bodies, which can cause involuntary movements as seen in the footage. This can be incredibly difficult to watch but the birds are actually unconscious when this happens, and are not experiencing pain.”
Cranswick Foods did not respond to a request to comment.
This course provides an introduction to the problem of wild animal suffering. It covers the situation of animals in the wild as individuals, including the many harms they suffer, and ways of improving their situation, including some of the ways this is already being done.
This is the opening video for the course. It gives an overview of the topics that will be addressed in the videos of the course.
Wild animal suffering: an overview of the course
Concern about the suffering of wild animals and the ways we can help them has increased a lot in the past decade. A growing number of people are now aware that the lives of animals in the wild are not idyllic, and that they face threats that dramatically impair their wellbeing. There is more awareness now that this affects not just a few animals, but large numbers of them. While in the past, concern for wild animals was mostly focused on their ecological roles or their conservation status, many people now are concerned about what happens to them as individuals, as sentient beings.
Some people may think that it is unfortunate that wild animal suffering occurs, but be unsure about how widespread or how serious it is. Others may think this is an important issue, but not know how tractable it is, or what we can do to address it.
This course sheds some light on these questions and helps give a more clear understanding of the reality of wild animal suffering and, what is more important, of what can be done about it. It is intended to provide an introduction to this question for anyone interested in it, and to be especially useful to those involved in animal advocacy who want to know what can be done to help wild animals. The course will also benefit people working in natural sciences with an interest in learning how their work can help animals.
The course will include three parts.
Part I has been completely published already. It explains the ways that wild animals suffer and how we can help them. Part II details the arguments about the moral consideration of animals, and Part III explores the scientific study of the situation of animals from the point of view of their wellbeing. This new field of study has been called welfare biology.
Each part will consist of a set of videos, around 10 minutes each, focused on some specific problems. The entire course contains 28 videos including this one, which you’ll see listed in the course table of contents.
The first part begins with a general presentation summarizing the question of wild animal suffering. Following this, we will clarify in more detail what the concept of “wild animal suffering” entails. The following videos will then explain the different ways in which animals suffer in the wild. We will see the impacts of harmful weather conditions, natural disasters, diseases, parasitism, hunger, psychological stress, conflicts between animals, and accidents. We will also see how the prevalent reproductive strategies significantly increase the proportion of suffering among wild animals. Then, we will see some of the ways to provide help to these animals, including rescues and vaccination programs. Finally, we will see the kinds of things that each of us can do to make a difference for wild animals.
Some people think that we shouldn’t worry about wild animals because we shouldn’t be concerned about what happens to animals at all. We will believe this if we think, for instance, that only humans matter. In order to asess this concern, and to understand better how we can argue for the moral consideration of animals, the second part of the course presents an overview of contemporary debates about ethics and animals. The part will begin by explaining the concepts of speciesism, as well as related concepts like moral consideration. We will next examine the main defenses of the idea that human interests matter more than equally strong interests of other animals. We will then see the main arguments against this view. After that, we’ll cover how the moral consideration of animals relates to different ethical theories. We will then examine the differences between the views defending the moral consideration of animals and those defending other criteria, such as the ones held by some positions in environmental ethics. In the last part of this part, we will see what sentience is, and consider some indicators of its presence in different animals, especially invertebrates.
Finally, the third part of the course will examine the ways to promote research in academia about how to best help wild animals. In the videos of this part, we will examine the concepts of wellbeing, animal welfare, and wild animal welfare. We will also discuss welfare biology, the study of the situation of animals with regard to their wellbeing. We will see how it is different from other fields that currently exist. We will then see reasons to promote academic research in welfare biology, and what some promising lines of research for this field are. We will see how welfare biology can benefit from work in other cross-disciplinary fields. In light of the work welfare biology could carry out, we will see responses to objections to helping wild animals.. Finally, we will share some ideas concerning the advance of this new field of research, and its importance, especially in the long term.
We hope this course will be interesting to you. Our intention is to help you become familiar with the issues discussed in it, and to share some tools that enable you to do further research on them. We provide information about how to take action in defense of wild animals and to help you make informed decisions about which efforts to support or promote.
If you want to learn more, you can visit our website, where you’ll find much more detailed information about many of the issues addressed in the course.
28 environmental charities have served a spoof planning notice to MPs, warning that the Planning & Infrastructure Bill is an application to demolish wildlife
The coalition is calling on Government to urgently fix the Bill with amendments to uphold wildlife protections and help nature recover at the same time as supporting sustainable development—to make the planning system ‘Wilder By Design’.
Writing to charities a year ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said the Government “will not legislate” to amend key nature laws if it would weaken them. In the opinion of the Government’s own nature watchdog, the current bill breaks that promise.
Nature loss in the constituencies of Ministers proposing the reforms is also highlighted today.
MPs have today been served spoof planning notices warning that the Government’s proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill will ‘bulldoze environmental protections and demolish nature and local greenspaces’ unless crucial changes are made. Conservationists are also highlighting examples of nature loss in the constituencies of key ministers, drawing attention to the wildlife losses that could be worsened by the Bill.
Charities met the Secretary of State, Steve Reed, last week (Thurs 15 May) where they warned that the Bill as it stands would break Government nature commitments. Following this, 28 charities, including the RSPB, the National Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, the Mammal Society, People’s Trust for Endangered Species, and Wildlife and Countryside Link have mailed the spoof notices to all English MPs and Ministers, including the Prime Minister and Secretaries of State, Steve Reed, and Angela Rayner. Environmentalists are calling for MPs to support amendments that will deliver a planning system which works for nature, communities and sustainable development for generations to come.
In July 2024, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to nature charities to say that the Government would not legislate to amend nature protections in a way that would weaken environmental law. According to the Office for Environmental Protection, environmental lawyers, and nature experts, the Government is now breaking that promise with the current version of the Bill and it must be amended.
England is currently facing a nature crisis, with 1 in 6 British species at risk of extinction, a 32% decrease in wildlife populations since 1970 and the UK among the worst 10% globally for nature loss, alongside 40% less greenspace in new developments compared to older housing. That crisis is being played out across the country. From Steve Reed’s Streatham and Croydon constituency seeing notable losses of butterflies and common birds like the blue tit, to Angela Rayner’s constituency in Greater Manchester seeing a 90% decline in recorded insect species, charities warn that the Bill risks speeding up the loss of nature and disappearance of community greenspaces.
In Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Leeds West and Pudsey constituency just 1 out of 7 SSSIs in the area is in favourable condition. 1 in 5 species across Yorkshire have declined by more than 25% in the last 30 years: including swifts declining by 50% and red squirrels by 69%.
In Secretary of State Steve Reed’s constituency of Streatham and Croydon North, has seen records of Small Tortoiseshell Butterflies (Aglais urticae) drop to just 10 a year, compared to over 200 a year during the 1990s, and common bird species like Blue Tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) are down more than 10% in the last 20 years. Water voles have largely disappeared from this area and other London constituencies, with just a handful of river sites where they can be found.
In the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency of Angela Rayner, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government: records of Great Spotted Woodpeckers (Dendrocopos major) have decreased by 68% since 2007 and Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) by 68% since 2008. The last inspection of the Hollinwood Branch Canal SSSI protected nature sites found they were in a declining condition. The Huddersfield Narrow Canal SSSI was also found to be in an unfavourable condition.
Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife & Countryside Link, said: “As it stands, the Planning Bill is set to demolish legal protection for nature and pave the way for destruction of wildlife. So far, the proposals are a mile away from the Government’s aim for a win-win for nature and development. Even the Government’s nature watchdog agrees that it would damage environmental protection.
“It’s disappointing that Government rejected constructive amendments that could put the Bill back on firm foundations for nature protection and greener development. But we heard Ministers acknowledge the case for change and now we urge them to follow up with quick and decisive fixes for the Bill’s serious flaws. Without major improvements, Parliament should reject these damaging proposals.”
Beccy Speight, RSPB chief executive, said: “This should have been a once in a generation opportunity to create a planning system that helps restore nature at scale while delivering for communities and the economy. Instead, promises from the UK Government have been kicked into the long grass and we’ve been left with a Bill that as currently drafted risks species extinction, irreversible habitat loss and threatens legally binding Environment Act targets. Handing developers a license to destroy precious habitats and species for a fee is not what was promised, and certainly not what our natural world and the people of this country need and deserve. If the UK Government is to maintain a shred of credibility on the environment we must see substantial amends to part three of this Bill without delay.”
Hilary McGrady, Director-General of the National Trust, said: “With the right planning laws in place, we can restore our dwindling wildlife, increase the green spaces near where people live and build much-needed new homes surrounded by great nature. But as it currently stands, the Bill risks doing the very reverse, as the Government’s own nature watchdog has pointed out.
“The question for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister is do they want to be remembered as the Government that brought nature back into millions of people’s lives? Or do they want to further deprive current and future generations of this essential, universal need?”
James Cooper, Head of External Affairs at Woodland Trust, said: “The Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill risks taking an axe to our natural environment. In its current form, it could fatally undermine decades-old protections, including those of ancient trees and woods, which are already in need of better protection.
“Public outrage over the felling of treasured trees like the Sycamore Gap and Whitewebbs Oak shows just how important green spaces are to people. Nature is a necessity – not a blocker to be dealt with. The Government urgently needs to rethink its bill and put woods, trees and wildlife at the heart of its reforms, delivering the win-win it promised. This means embedding nature in planning so that everyone can benefit from it – regardless of where they live.”
Craig Macadam, Buglife Director of Conservation, said, “The current Planning Bill could be disastrous for invertebrates and accelerate their already precipitous decline. For years we have seen important invertebrate sites lost to ill-thought-out developments and these proposals would only exacerbate the situation. It is more important than ever that we take crucial steps to help nature recover and deliver our existing commitments to protect and restore vital habitats. A Bill that sacrifices hard fought for environmental protections simply won’t deliver for wildlife or people.”
The warning comes as the Planning Bill moves to Report Stage, a final opportunity for MPs to amend the bill before it progresses to the House of Lords. The coalition fears that the Bill in its current form would severely weaken existing environmental protections and lead to the decline or destruction of UK wildlife, wild places and green spaces in communities, with no guarantee of local environmental improvements in return for new development.
In their notice, the coalition reiterated their warning that the Government’s proposals would leave essential protection for wildlife and local neighbourhoods without the scientific safeguards, the delivery guarantees, or the positive plans for nature recovery that could justify such serious risks. Essential safeguards like the Habitats Regulations could be critically weakened. The Government’s own advisors, the Office for Environmental Protection recently concluded that the Bill constitutes regression on environmental legal protections.
In April, the coalition wrote to Secretary of State Steve Reed and Minister Mathew Pennycook warning of the urgent changes needed to the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill to avoid complete extinction of species and destruction of the natural spaces that millions of people depend on for their health and wellbeing.
The organisations want to see the government commit to supporting amendments which will ensure that the Bill does not leave nature. This includes a commitment to:
Guarantee results: The current law demands a high level of legal and scientific certainty for environmental outcomes. However the Bill only requires outcomes to be “likely”. Government must ensure benefits are delivered and clearly outweigh harm.
Avoid harm: Existing rules require developers to avoid damage to protected wildlife. The Bill drops this in favour of a “pay to pollute” model. Future planning rules must ensure that harm must be avoided wherever possible.
Follow the science: Environmental Delivery Plans should only apply to new protected features where there’s solid scientific evidence they work.
Make planning Wilder By Design: We need a legal duty for Councils to help meet climate and nature targets, strong national and marine plans, and low-cost, nature-friendly design like bee and bird bricks in new developments.
With ever more natural disasters occurring thought ought to be given to other Animals, and how to protect and rescue them – when often, sadly, only Human lives seem to matter. This is, in our view, an impossible situation, and all of us are tasked to change it, with our own behaviour, going forward towards a world where equal consideration is given to all.
When disasters strike, people are not the only victims. Hurricane Katrina raised public attention about how disasters affect dogs, cats, and other animals considered members of the human family. In this short but powerful book, now available in paperback, noted sociologist Leslie Irvine goes beyond Katrina to examine how oil spills, fires, and other calamities affect various animal populations―on factory farms, in research facilities, and in the wild.
In a new preface, Irvine surveys the state of animal welfare in disasters since the first edition. Filling the Ark argues that humans cause most of the risks faced by animals and urges for better decisions about the treatment of animals in disasters. Furthermore, it makes a broad appeal for the ethical necessity of better planning to keep animals out of jeopardy. Irvine not only offers policy recommendations and practical advice for evacuating animals, she also makes a strong case for rethinking our use of animals, suggesting ways to create more secure conditions.
Inaugural State of the World’s Animal Health report finds several animal diseases reaching new areas, with half of those reported able to jump to people.
Key findings:
Animal diseases are migrating into previously unaffected areas, half (47%) of which have zoonotic – or animal-to-human – potential.
Outbreaks of bird flu in mammals more than doubled last year compared to 2023, increasing the risk of further spread and human transmission.
Access to livestock vaccines remains uneven around the world, with disease eradication efforts facing funding and political challenges.
Antibiotic use in animals fell by 5% between 2020 and 2022 and expanding livestock vaccination globally would reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance.
23 May, PARIS – Infectious animal diseases are affecting new areas and species, undermining global food security, human health and biodiversity, according to the first State of the World’s Animal Health report.
The new annual assessment, published by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), provides the first comprehensive review of animal disease trends, risks and challenges, from the uptake and availability of vaccines to the use of antibiotics in animals. Released ahead of WOAH’s 92nd General Session and its Animal Health Forum – where leading experts will gather to discuss vaccination and innovation in disease prevention – the report sets the stage for high-level discussions on how science-based vaccination strategies and emerging technologies can help address current and future animal health threats through a One Health approach.
Among its findings, the report revealed the reported number of avian influenza outbreaks in mammals more than doubled last year compared to 2023 with 1,022 outbreaks across 55 countries compared to 459 outbreaks in 2023.
The authors highlighted that, while the risk of human infection remains low, the more mammalian species such as cattle, cats or dogs infected, the greater the possibility of the virus adapting to mammal-to-mammal, and potentially human, transmission.
“The spread, prevalence and impact of infectious animal diseases is changing, bringing new challenges for agriculture and food security, human health and development, and natural ecosystems,” said Dr.Emmanuelle Soubeyran, Director General of WOAH.
Bird flu, or high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI), which has caused the culling or loss of more than 630 million birds in the last two decades was one of several animal diseases to affect new areas last year.
Peste des petits ruminants (PPR), which has traditionally affected sheep and goats in developing countries, has re-emerged in Europe while Africa swine fever (ASF) reached Sri Lanka, travelling more than 1,800 km from the nearest outbreaks, the report found.
Almost half of the WOAH-listed diseases notified to WOAH between 2005 and 2023 were considered a threat to human health with zoonotic, or animal-to-human infection, potential.
The report cited climate change and increased trade among the factors influencing the spread and prevalence of animal diseases. Many are preventable through a combination of vaccination, improved hygiene and biosecurity measures, but the report noted that access to animal vaccines remains uneven around the world.
“Alongside other measures, vaccination remains one of the most powerful disease prevention tools available, saving countless lives, preventing economic losses and reducing the need for antimicrobial treatments,” Dr.Soubeyran added.
“To limit the spread of highly damaging diseases like avian influenza, foot and mouth disease and PPR, the global community must strengthen international cooperation and ensure equitable access to safe, effective vaccines, alongside other control measures.”
Since 2006, WOAH has supported access to animal vaccines through its vaccine banks and currently operates two, one for rabies and one for PPR. As of May 2025, the WOAH Rabies Vaccine Bank has delivered almost 30 million dog vaccines to countries in Africa and Asia. However, progress towards ending rabies has stalled in recent years, with the percentage of countries reporting implementing control measures falling from 85 per cent to 62 per cent.
The report also emphasised the importance of disease prevention for reducing the need for antibiotic treatment and limiting the development of drug-resistant diseases.
By 2050, antimicrobial resistance is projected to cause livestock losses that jeopardise the food security of two billion people and result in a US$ 100 trillion economic loss if urgent action is not taken.
The latest figures indicate that antimicrobial use, including antibiotics, in animals fell five per cent between 2020 and 2022, with use in Europe seeing the biggest decline of 23 per cent, followed by Africa at 20 per cent. However, one in five countries continue to use antimicrobials as growth promoters, which is discouraged by WOAH.
“The indiscriminate use of antimicrobials contributes to antimicrobial resistance, which is a major threat to both animal and human health,” said Dr.Javier Yugueros-Marcos, Head of the Antimicrobial Resistance and Veterinary Products Department at WOAH. “The declining use of antibiotics in almost all regions is encouraging but further reductions can be achieved by prioritising preventative measures against animal diseases, with vaccination as an essential component of these.”
WOAH calls for investments to strengthen national Veterinary Services, greater global and regional coordination and improved disease surveillance systems to scale up effective disease control. This includes developing and implementing advanced diagnostic tools to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals, enabling accurate disease tracking and trade transparency.
Read the report – For interviews, please contact media@woah.org
Key success stories on vaccination presented in the report
In October 2023, France became the first EU country to implement a nationwide vaccination campaign against bird flu in ducks, which play a key role in the spread of the disease. The campaign helped reduce the number of outbreaks from a forecasted 700 to just 10, according to the report.
Türkiye developed a new vaccine for an outbreak of FMD within just 37 days, vaccinating 14.2 million cattle – 90% of the national herd – and 2.5 million sheep within six months.
The Philippines has now vaccinated millions of dogs against rabies with help of WOAH vaccine bank. In the past, the country received 500,000 doses of rabies vaccine through EU funding, leading to a noticeable decline in rabies cases.
“Thugs do not suffer any sanctions, even when a report is filed, there is no reaction from the authorities and that is the problem.”
Photo: Reuters
((Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.))
28.09.2024
The text contains disturbing details
A man from East Sarajevo shot a dog, then dragged it wounded along the street with a tractor, a pensioner from the village of Stajkovce, in the south of Serbia, beat a mare with a hammer and a pole, a six-year-old boy from Niš threw a kitten and ran over it with a scooter, a man from Leskov tortured a poisonous snake – these are just some of the creepy headlines lately that disturb people in the Balkans.
Some of the adult perpetrators are prosecuted or convicted, but as a rule, the punishments are mild or none, and that is why there are more and more cases like this, says Milica Ranković from the Feniks Animal Protection Association.
“People who have these kinds of mental problems are increasingly relaxed, because they see that there is no adequate punishment.
“Thugs don’t suffer any sanctions, even when a report is filed, there is no reaction from the authorities and that’s where the problem lies,” Ranković told the BBC.
And when there is a reaction, it is slow, and punishments are often conditional or just a warning, he adds.
The situation is similar in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where because of the case from East Sarajevo, although the suspect was detained, protests were organized in Sarajevo and Banja Luka, demanding tougher sentences.
“There is enough violence against the weak, against women, children, animals… Enough!
“Monsters move freely among us, today it was a dog, and tomorrow it will be someone’s child,” said Mila Šarić, employed at the Veterinary Institute of the Republika Srpska, one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. transmissions H1.
What motivates people to be violent towards animals?
–Analysis by Marija Branković, professor at the Faculty of Media and Communications, Singidunum University*
Science today understands animals as sentient beings, which absolutely have the capacity to experience pain, fear and many other emotions.
Because of all this, violence against animals should alarm us as much as violence against people.
Based on psychological research, we know that there are complex explanations for violent behavior, it is impossible to attribute it to just one cause.
At the basic level, there are differences in people’s capacities for empathy, so we are talking about the expression of certain personality traits, which we call “dark traits” – psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism and sadism – which are associated with a tendency to aggressive and antisocial forms of behavior.
Research conducted in Serbia shows that these four personality traits are clearly related to a negative attitude towards animals.
However, this should not be understood as something that will necessarily manifest itself, because it always depends on whether this behavior is encouraged or punished in the environment.
Furthermore, we know for sure that aggressive and violent behavior is learned by model and not only in the family, but social beliefs and norms are also very important, therefore, the general climate in society.
And we live in a so-called post-conflict society.
These are societies of fear, in which people live with a sense of threat, insecurity, and mistrust, which all make fertile ground for violence.
Moreover, violence is justified and applied in the public and political sphere, especially towards dissenters, which means that at the highest and most visible level of society you have clear models of violent behavior.
It is not an exaggeration to say that violence is promoted and even rewarded, and it is certainly punished insufficiently and unsystematically.
* Marija Branković is Frpsychologist and research associate at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory and author of the book Psychology of humans and (other) animals
What penalties are threatened?
Bosnia and Herzegovina: The laws in the two entities differ – Republika Srpska (RS) i Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Anyone who severely abuses an animal or destroys animal habitats in a wider area will be fined or imprisoned for up to six months in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and up to two years in the RS. For more serious forms, when a material benefit has been obtained or a protected species has suffered, the prison sentence can be up to one year in the Federation, and up to five years in the RS.
Montenegro: Anyone who kills, injures or tortures an animal in violation of the regulations will be fined or imprisoned up to one year, and in the case of protected species, imprisonment from six months to five years.
Croatia: Whoever kills an animal without a justified reason or abuses it more severely, causes it unnecessary pain or exposes it to unnecessary suffering, will be punished with a fine imprisonment for up to two years or in more severe cases up to three years. In Croatia, the criminal offense of abandoning animals was recently introduced, which carries a penalty of up to one year.
North Macedonia: Torturing and killing animals is punishable by a fine and a sentence of up to six months in prison, and carelessness is also punished – if the animal is left without food and water, it can be obtained three months in prison.
Serbia: Abuse and torture of animals is punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of up to two years, writes in Criminal law, and for more severe forms up to three years and a higher fine. It is a criminal offense to organize animal fights and bet on them out of self-interest, for which the prison sentence is from six months to three years. Rulebook exact punishments for abuse of animals are also prescribed, for example, for a brown bear it is one million dinars, for a griffon vulture or a black eagle 500.000, for a wolf or lynx 300.000, for an otter 250.000, up to certain types of snails or frogs where the penalty is 1.200 dinars.
Associations are looking for a register of abusers
Legislation is completely fine in Serbia, but the problem is that it is not enforced, Milica Ranković points out.
“The same problem is in the entire Balkans,” she adds.
At the beginning of September, for the second time, the Feniks Association, together with ten other animal protection organizations from all over Serbia, sent an official letter to the competent ministries with a proposal to create a database on abusers and killers of animals.
They also request that systematic work be done on education and prevention of such cases from the earliest age – through creating empathy, but also to encourage reporting.
The state representatives were approached for the first time last year after the May tragedies, when the neighbors of Uroš Blažić, accused of mass murder in the villages of Dubona and Malo Orašje, claimed that mistreated animals.
However, the authorities never responded.
“It is devastating for our society, because it shows that it is not interested in dealing with violence.
“All associations from all over Serbia have the same experiences, we are all aware that such a database is necessary, the problems are the same and nothing has changed,” says Ranković.
Whether the introduction of such a register is being considered at all and what it would look like, the BBC did not receive an answer from either the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of the Interior.
TOMS KALNINS/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock
A worldwide problem
In the past decades, there were many monstrous cases that filled the columns of the domestic black chronicle.
From Kerusha Mila, whose paws were cut off, to a video of a cat being doused with gasoline and burned alive, to individuals who kill dogs with a knife, sometimes petting them beforehand, and that’s how it is in the world.
The shocking number of cruelty to animals, which are found daily in the media or on social networks, are only the tip of the iceberg, because most are never reported, according to the website of the American association. Humane society.
Puppies, cats, horses and domestic animals are the most common targets.
According to their data, animal abusers are more often men under the age of 30, and sick collecting of animals, which is more often done by women over 60, is also considered abuse.
Cruelty to animals is strongly related to other crimes.
People who mistreat animals are five times more likely to be violent towards people, according to an American study by Northwestern University in Massachusetts.
Behavioral profiles of criminals by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regularly show that many serial killers and rapists tortured animals as children, writes the British association Peta.
We live in a world where we share our homes with some species, eat others, and exploit still more in myriad ways, depending on what we’ve been taught about how we should see and treat different species, and whether we should consider ourselves superior to them. Unfortunately, the misguided belief that some species are worth our moral consideration and protection and others aren’t is known as speciesism, and it’s causing immeasurable harm.
What is Speciesism?
Speciesism is a form of discrimination that considers one species superior to others. This mindset is based on the belief that humans have the right to dominate, use, and kill non-human animals for their own benefit.
The term “speciesism” was coined in the 1970s by British psychologist and animal rights activist Richard Ryder, who introduced it in a pamphlet distributed as part of a campaign against animal experimentation in Oxford, England.
Why Is Speciesism a Form of Discrimination?
Like racism, sexism, homophobia, and all forms of discrimination against certain groups, speciesism devalues individuals based on arbitrary characteristics — and in the case of animals, their level of intelligence, their appearance, and if they have fur, feathers, and fins, or whether they walk on four legs instead of two.
This perspective perpetuates the idea that we have the right to use, exploit, and kill other animals simply because they’re different from us.
What Does Speciesism Look Like?
Speciesism is often the first form of discrimination we’re taught, and it manifests in two ways. The first is the belief in the supremacy of the human species over all other species. The second is viewing only certain species — such as animal companions and some wild animals — as worthy of care and protection, with some even considered part of our families. In contrast, most other animals are disregarded, and many are enslaved, tortured, and treated as commodities for food, entertainment, fashion, research, transportation, and much more.
Farmed animals are often depicted in marketing for food products as trivial, cartoonish characters, which strips them of their dignity and status as feeling individuals with their own personalities and preferences. Small family farms tend to be romanticized as wholesome places where animals live happy lives and are cared for by farmers. In reality, the basis of all animal farming is the exploitation and killing of sentient beings. Still, humans have compartmentalized their ethical views, allowing us to rationalize the cruelty and violence inflicted on animals we might otherwise be fascinated by and care about, all for our pleasure, convenience, advancement, habits, traditions, and tastes. Although it has been scientifically proven that humans can survive and thrive on a plant-based diet, most continue to consume the flesh, milk, and eggs of animals because we’ve been conditioned to believe that it’s “normal, natural, and necessary.”
Animal companions and certain wild species are granted some legal protections, while all other animals are not. Cruel practices and mutilations without anesthesia, such as castration, tail docking, burning off horns, and extreme confinement, are inflicted on farmed animals like pigs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, and turkeys, yet would be considered horrific abuse by most in Western culture if done to dogs or cats.
If we would never subject a dog or cat to these practices, nor send them to a slaughterhouse to end their life, we must recognize that no animal deserves to be used or enslaved by us, nor to have such pain and terror inflicted upon them. Even the desire to keep some animals as companions has led to their exploitation through breeding and selling, prioritizing profit over their well-being, which inevitably results in neglect, abuse, and often death. Beagle dogs and rabbits, usually seen as ‘pets,’ are also tormented and killed in research labs.
How is Speciesism Justified?
Humans often try to justify their oppression of animals by saying that humans are the most intelligent species. Yet many animal species possess sensory and physical abilities that humans do not have.
For example, bats use echolocation — the ability to use sound waves to navigate and find objects — to navigate in complete darkness. Tiny wrasse fish can recognize themselves and others in a mirror, joining chimpanzees and dolphins in this rare skill. Octopuses excel at problem-solving and camouflage, altering the texture and color of their skin to blend into their surroundings. Birds like the Arctic tern navigate thousands of miles using environmental cues, including the stars and the Earth’s magnetic field.
Chickens can recognize faces, form social bonds, and have memory and problem-solving skills on par with many other birds and mammals. Cows demonstrate empathy and many other complex emotions and can also solve puzzles. Pigs can navigate mazes and exhibit emotions and intelligence equivalent to a 3-year-old child.
Regardless, is intelligence truly the measure of whether someone deserves to be protected from harm by others? Some cognitively impaired humans are less intelligent than many animals. Does that mean we can also use and kill them? Of course not. No individual should be required to justify their right to safety and protection from human harm based on their cognitive or physical abilities.
How Can You Be Anti-Speciesist?
Whether human or non-human, each individual thinks and feels and has their own subjective experience of life, deserving the right to share this planet with us without being dominated by us. Unlike all forms of discrimination that focus on our differences, we must focus on what all species have in common — our will and desire to live and be free, and our capacity for pain, suffering, and joy.
If we would not tolerate discrimination and harm based on race, gender, or other differences, we must apply the same reasoning to speciesism and view it as equally unjust.
To embrace liberation, justice, and compassion for all Earthlings, live vegan—the principle that calls on humans to live without exploiting any other animals.
***********
Excellent book on the subject, for more in-depth study:
Defining speciesism as “a failure, in attitude or practice, to accord any nonhuman being equal consideration and respect,” this brilliant work critiques speciesism both outside and within the animal rights movement. The author demonstrates that much of the moral philosophy, legal theory, and animal advocacy aimed at advancing nonhuman emancipation actually perpetuate speciesism. Speciesism examines philosophy, law, and activism in terms of three categories: “old speciesism,” “new speciesism,” and species equality.Old-speciesists limit rights to humans. Speciesism refutes their standard arguments against nonhuman rights. Current law is old-speciesist — legally, nonhumans have no rights. Dunayer shows that “animal laws” such as the Humane Slaughter Act afford nonhumans no meaningful protection. She also explains why welfarist campaigns are old-speciesist.
Instead of opposing the abuse or killing of nonhuman beings, such campaigns seek only to make abuse or killing less cruel; they propose alternative ways of violating nonhumans’ moral rights. Many organizations that consider themselves animal rights advocates engage in old-speciesist campaigns, which reinforce the property status of nonhumans rather than promoting their emancipation.New-speciesists espouse rights for only some nonhumans, those whose minds seem most like those of humans. In addition to devaluing most animals, new-speciesists give greater moral consideration and stronger basic rights to humans than they do to any nonhumans. They see animalkind as a hierarchy, with humans at the top.
Dunayer explains why she categorizes such theorists as Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Steven Wise as new-speciesists.Nonspeciesists advocaterights for every sentient being. Speciesism makes the case that every creature with a nervous system should be regarded as sentient. The book provides compelling evidence of consciousness in animals often dismissed as insentient — such as fishes, insects, spiders, and snails. Dunayer argues that every sentient being should possess basic legal rights, including rights to life and liberty. Radically egalitarian, Speciesism envisions nonspeciesist thought, law, and action.
World Animals Voice 