A new investigation has revealed that the EU is home to 22,263 industrial chicken and pig farms – housing more than 516 MILLION Animals in the worst factory farm conditions.
Despite this, the EU Commission, some producers, and even some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are advocating for a further increase in the number of farmed animals.
But what would this increase mean for animal welfare; human health, as well as impact on the environment ?
The AGtivist data led investigation has, for the fist time, identified, and mapped these industrial farm around Europe; showing that the EU has 10,862 chicken farms; each holding at LEAST 40,000 birds; raised for egg or meat production, and 8,854 pig farms, holding at least 2,000 pigs each; or 2,547 for breeding pigs.
During the past ten years, 2,746 mega farms have started operations with the EU; with the highest rate of development happening in Spain, where 1,385 new industrial farms started up in the past decade. 5,314 permits for such farms were applied for during the last decade.
Whilst mega farms are sweeping across the EU, small and medium ones are rapidly declining. Between 2005 and 2020 the EU lost 5.3 million farms; most of which were smallholdings. – whilst the total agricultural land area remained stable, thus indicating the change – consolidation – into larger operations.
This represents a decrease of 44% within 15 years.
Meanwhile, the number of mega farms GREW by 56% within the same period; with the top 8% of the highest producing farms controlling a staggering 63% of all livestock in the EU. Here is the proof if you question what we say.
France has the highest number of industrial chicken farms at 2,342 farms.
Spain has the highest number of industrial pig farms, with 2,580 for fattening pigs and 821 farms fot breeding pigs. It is also the country that saw the biggest expansion of new farms starting to operate in the last decade.
Italy is in the top five countries for both industrial pig and chicken farms – 2,146 combined.
MEGA FARMS OPERATE INTENSVE FARMING SYSTEMS where chickens are densely packed into barns with INADEQUATE VENTILATION, INSANITARY CONDITIONS; ALONG WITTH NO ACCESS TO OUTDOOR SPACE OR NATURAL LIGHT.
The AGtivist investigations in Italy with our colleagues Essere Animali; revealed the reality of animal welfare on the ground; with chickens at a farm in Bergamo living in their own excrement and unable to stand no their feet because of their unnatural growth.
Photo – Stefania – AGtivist / Essere Animali.
In Brescia, investigators witnessed hens cramped together, on top of each other; while carcasses were left to decompose for around 3 weeks.
Photo – Stefania – AGtivist / Essere Animali.
In Spain, local investigators highlight the concentration of pigs in intensive farms, with pigs confined in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, suffering from both untreated injuries and disease. Sows are enclosed in metal crates of barely two metres squared; preventing natural movement and leading to severe physical repercussions.
For many, the little humble donkey is quite simply a neglected, but essential, work tool for its owner. The brick carrier; the tourist transporter, the list is endless. For some, after a life of neglect and suffering, their days unfortunately end with them being sold, barbarically slaughtered, and becoming a ‘suppler of skins’ for use in the traditional Chinese ‘Egiao’ medicine market.
In this post we are simply giving pictures of the different working situations that donkeys find themselves in at different locations around the world. We also reference SPANA, – a British charity which is helping animal owners by providing free veterinary care and veterinary advice.
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.
Charity Worldwide Veterinary Service launches Global Veterinary Challenge Award with BVA to allow scholars to design bold and impactful international projects.
£100,000 award scheme to encourage students to devise big, bold and impactful international animal welfare projects was launched today (12 June).
WVS-organised sterilisation campaign in the Andes, Ecuador.
UK veterinary charity Worldwide Veterinary Service (WVS) and the BVA joined forces to launch the Global Veterinary Challenge Award.
As part of the scheme, launched as part of BVA Live in Birmingham, students will be encouraged and empowered to design a project that champions an international animal welfare issue, and win the cash to help its launch.
Solutions
Students are being encouraged to develop an innovative, sustainable solution to a pressing global animal welfare issue close to their hearts.
The Global Veterinary Challenge Panel will judge the entries, with the winning project allocated funding up to £100,000 and the successful team or individuals working alongside WVS to bring it to life.
To apply, students must submit a proposal for any species that champions a welfare need in an effective, scalable and sustainable way and any location worldwide.
Work together’
Chief executive and founder of WVS, Luke Gamble, said: “The profession is most powerful when we work together as team. Most of us have causes we care about and sometimes it is incredibly hard to find a way to champion them. This challenge solves that.
“The winning idea will not only have funding, but full support to drive forward a project that will make an impactful difference. I couldn’t be more excited to see what comes in – remember, anyone can do easy – applicants need to think bold and big.”
And BVA president Elizabeth Mullineaux said: “At the BVA, our members care passionately about supporting and enhancing animal welfare and for many, myself included, it’s what propelled us to join this fantastic profession.”
‘Outstanding opportunity’
She added: “The WVS Global Challenge Award represents an outstanding opportunity for vet students to dive straight in and deliver real world welfare change for animals across the globe, all before they’ve even graduated.
“We’re looking forward to seeing the project ideas as they come in and the incredible impact this award will have, for both animals but also the students taking part.”
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 ?
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.
The Italian Senate has officially passed Bill AS 1308, a significant legislative advancement aimed at reinforcing animal protection across the country. The bill, previously approved by the Chamber under the name AC 30, introduces comprehensive amendments to the criminal code, criminal procedure code, and related provisions to address and deter crimes against animals, including the brutal practice of dogfighting.
One of the key aspects of the new law is the redefinition of the criminal code’s Title IX bis, replacing the outdated concept of “Crimes against the human sentiment toward animals” with the clearer and more progressive “Crimes against animals.” This change reinforces the idea that animals are deserving of legal protection in their own right, as sentient beings, not merely as subjects whose suffering might offend human sensitivity.
The bill also significantly increases penalties for acts of cruelty, including the killing of animals without necessity, mistreatment, and violations of the ban on unauthorized animal fighting or competitions. In particular, sentences for organizing or participating in animal fights have been increased, aiming to better deter those involved in these violent and illegal activities.
Additionally, the law introduces harsher penalties for crimes committed in aggravating circumstances, such as in the presence of minors or against multiple animals, as well as for the dissemination of videos or images of such acts via digital platforms. This is a critical step in tackling the spread of animal cruelty content online.
“The final approval of AS 1308 represents another important step in the protection of animals in Italy. We’ve made further progress towards the full recognition of non-human animals as sentient beings and victims of crimes, finally overcoming the outdated concept of exclusively protecting the ‘human sentiment’ towards them. We are pleased with the increase in penalties for dogfighting, a criminal activity that we have been combating for years through the ‘Io non combatto project,’ and the expansion of penalties to anyone participating in dogfighting in any capacity,” said Alessandro Fazzi, institutional relations consultant for Humane World for Animals Italy.
“We hope that it will soon be possible to intervene to offer even greater protection for minors, and also to introduce specific social rehabilitation programs for all those who commit crimes against animals, starting with those who participate in dog fights,” continued Fazzi. “By combining these requests with what has been approved today, our country will be able to take truly significant steps toward a more advanced legal civilization.”
A notable provision also addresses the management and recovery of animals seized in criminal proceedings. Under the new legislation, these animals can now be permanently assigned to certified organizations that can provide care and rehabilitation, helping to ensure they are not left in limbo during often-lengthy legal processes. The bill further includes a nationwide ban on keeping dogs chained, a practice often linked to dogfighting, except in strictly defined health or safety circumstances.
“The recently approved bill marks a significant step forward for all those who dedicate themselves every day to the protection of animals. It is a strong signal that strengthens the recognition of animals as sentient beings, deserving of direct protection. It also represents a concrete evolution on an operational level, particularly for the management of animals who are victims of crimes, taken from criminal circuits, and placed under judicial seizure,” said Federica Faiella, president of Fondazione Cave Canem, “I’m especially thinking of the dogs involved in fighting: this law finally recognizes their right to be immediately placed on a path of psychological and physical recovery and, where possible, welcomed into a family setting. This avoids the paradox of animals saved from abuse who remain trapped in the judicial system for years, confined to detention facilities.”
Although some proposed amendments, such as dedicated funding for law enforcement training or the ban on the import and export of hunting trophies from endangered species, were not included in the final version, the bill nonetheless marks a decisive move forward. It modernizes Italy’s approach to animal welfare by aligning legal language and enforcement practices with contemporary views on animal rights and ethical treatment.
By recognizing animals as victims of crime and ensuring stronger legal and institutional tools to protect them, this bill lays the groundwork for more robust animal welfare policies in the future. It sends a clear message that cruelty against animals will be met with serious consequences and that animal protection is a core part of a civilized, humane society.
In April, Michoacán became the sixth Mexican state to ban bullfighting, while the previous month, legislators in Mexico City approved legislation to reform the sport. These reforms will ban ‘traditional’ bullfighting, limiting the length of contests and preventing matadors from killing their animal opponents – making the sport ‘bloodless’. Meanwhile in 2024, the Colombian President signed a bill that calls on the country’s government to completely ban bullfights by 2027.
These developments are part of a number of recent legislative and legal efforts around the world aimed at enhancing animal welfare. In New Zealand, the government plans to outlaw greyhound racing – a result, it says, of the significant number of injuries and deaths suffered by the dogs. It intends to introduce legislation later this year. Meanwhile, a growing number of non-profit organisations are seeking to protect animal rights through the courts.
‘It’s unmistakeable that there’s a growing trend in favour of protecting animals through the legal system,’ says Christopher Berry, Executive Director of US-based organisation the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). His organisation is now 30 years old, but Berry believes the use of the law to enhance animal welfare has taken strides forward in recent years.
‘We’re currently in the midst of a global change in society’s relationship with animals,’ Berry says, highlighting how science is delving deeper into their intelligence, emotions and communication. There’s reportedly a boom in such research, with an ever-increasing range of species observed using tools or playing for fun.
Helen Mitcheson, a director at non-profit legal organisation Cet Law – which focuses on advocating for the protection of whales, porpoises and dolphins – agrees science has been one of the factors in the growing regulation of facilities that house captive cetaceans in recent years. However, ‘there’s not one driver or one-size-fits-all movement to stop captivity or change practices in captivity and in a lot of cases it’s not even a legal driver. It’s driven by legislative, political and social actions,’ Mitcheson says.
Looking back at the history of the anti-bullfighting movement in Mexico, Cecilia Stahlhut, Secretary of the IBA Healthcare and Life Sciences Committee, explains that the sport was suspended in Mexico City in 2022, but the ban was later overturned by the country’s Supreme Court in 2023. Since then, groups advocating both for and against bullfighting have been vocal on the subject.
The details of Mexico City’s reforms are still awaited. The city’s government has seven months to publish secondary regulations, detailing exactly how the changes will be brought about. ‘Most of the groups that support bullfights will wait until that moment to submit any claim against this amendment. That’s when the real legal fight will begin,’ says Stahlhut, who’s also a partner at Hogan Lovells in Mexico City.
While other states have already introduced regulations to prohibit bullfights – and also contests involving dogs – some are waiting to see how the situation in Mexico City develops, says Stahlhut. However, she adds that Mexico has strong regulations around animal protection. At the end of 2024, the Mexican Constitution was amended to explicitly protect animals from cruelty and to allow Congress to legislate in matters of their protection and welfare.
At a federal level, these amendments to the Constitution enhanced the protection of animals in the country, and Stahlhut says the Mexico City proposals on bullfighting would bring its state legislation in line with federal laws. ‘It’s just to be consistent with what the government at a state and federal level has been working on. You can’t criminalise certain acts against animals and not other ones,’ she says.
However, legislation protecting animals can lead to complex knock-on effects. In 2021, France banned whale and dolphin displays at aquariums – a move that has, according to park managers, directly led to the closure of facilities such as Marineland in Antibes, which shut its doors in January. Mitcheson says the park is still responsible for the care of the dolphins it had in captivity, and questions remain about where they should be sent.
Similar questions arise in the case of Happy the elephant, who has been in captivity in the Bronx Zoo since 1977. NhRP brought a case to the New York courts arguing that Happy was entitled to the right of habeas corpus – which would allow a challenge to the elephant’s detention. The New York Court of Appeals rejected the case in 2022, but two judges wrote dissenting opinions saying Happy did have a right to freedom – even if that involved merely moving to a more spacious sanctuary. Bronx Zoo operator the Wildlife Conservation Society maintains its elephants are well cared for.
Efforts to give animals legal rights are growing worldwide. In 2024, Polynesian Indigenous leaders signed the He Whakaputanga Moana – or Declaration for the Ocean – granting whales legal personhood. That move was followed by a pro bono initiative involving the UK’s Simmons & Simmons, marine law firm Ocean Vision Legal and the Pacific Whale Fund, to draft proposed legislation called ‘Te Mana o Te Tohorā’ (‘the enduring power of whales’), which would offer nations a pathway to adopt similar laws. ‘Legal personhood for environmental bodies is a real topic,’ says Mitcheson. ‘It’s very academic at the moment because the difficulty of it is implementation.’
Cultural barriers will probably also remain a challenge when it comes to implementing legislation protecting animals, and there are significant differences in the ways jurisdictions look at these issues – what may be permitted in one country could be banned in another.
But recent trends certainly show a move towards enhanced animal welfare protection through legislation, regulation and the courts. ‘There’s a lot of energy and there is a lot of progress being made,’ says Berry. ‘It’s incremental and it’s frustrating and there’s a lot of obstacles in our way, but I’m very positive about the way this is headed in the long term. How fast it spreads and how quickly remains to be seen, but the trend line is for more protection and higher legal status for animals.’
Believe me; as a welfare campaigner for all animals suffering live transport over several decades; Council Regulation 1/2005 of 22nd December 2004, has become like a bad rash throughout its entire existence.
From the start, it never worked. Over the years this document has been read, reviewed and checked over time and time again to see if we in welfare can gather anything with which to take prosecutions forward.
Other EU nationality versions can be found using the eur lex europa link given at the start.
This post is simply written to give everyone an insight into the ‘legal’ issues legislation wise if you want to take things further. Take it from me; there is a lot to absorb as you can see.
The new proposals being put forward now by some MEP’s fill me with dread – a new updated / revised version of 1/2005 should be being presented now to further help and further support ALL animals suffering the indignity of live transportation. 1/2005 has always been, and will continue to be a joke until it finally goes to that big trash basket in the sky. We as campaigners will all rejoice; but what will follow on afterwards with political point scoring now appearing to take priority over what should be animal welfare, science based fact ?
Please enjoy browsing the English version of 1/2005 from the above link.
World Animals Voice 