Part 2: Beyond the prevention of animal cruelty and abuse: regulating animal welfare

We published Part 1 of this two part howtoregulate article on moving beyond traditional prevention of animal cruelty legislation to regulating animal welfare and now we present Part 2. Part 1 provided an overview of animal welfare regulatory frameworks at the international, supra-national, national and state levels. Part 2 focuses on regulatory techniques for strengthening particular aspects of animal welfare regulation (A) and highlights some missed regulatory opportunities (B).

You can read Part 1 here.

A. Regulating for animal welfare issues of concern

I. Farmed animals

1. Farmed animals are particularly vulnerable to declining animal welfare conditions. Best practice regulation for farmed animals allows for species-specific codes or guidances that follow the World Organisation for Animal Health standards and further informed by recent scientific evidence. Part 1 of our article on regulating animal welfare looked at the species-specific Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines of Australia (Part C, Section IV). Other good regulatory references are New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Codes, the UK Animal Welfare Guides and Sweden’s Animal Welfare Ordinance 2019 and related guidances. The following regulations for animal welfare on farms concern specific issues of concern:

  • Germany and France have committed to banning the culling of newly born male chicks (egg producing farms). Germany’s federal Minister of Agriculture presented a Bill on 20 January 2021 that will amend the Animal Welfare Act to stop male chick culling.

  • Colony cages are being phased out in parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany, the Walloon Region of Belgium, Austria, Czech Republic.1 Some states Washington, Oregon (Senate Bill 1019 Relating to the egg industry), Michigan (Senate Bill 174 amending the Animal Industry Act) and California in the United States have legal bans on the sale and production of cage eggs and farms are changing to cage-free systems.

  • Sweden’s guidance on pig welfare bans sow stalls and farrowing crates requiring pigs to be kept loose after birth and be able to move and turn freely in their enclosed space. Tail docking, tooth cutting and piglet castration is prohibited. Pig farmers must apply for approval (Förprövning) from the county administrative board to build new, rebuild or renovate pig stables, fences or other storage spaces for pigs. Approval is also required for re-purposing a building to become a pig stable. The county administrative board much consider the extent to which the request for approval complies with animal welfare standards relating to: dimensions and spaces; furnishings, lying surfaces and manure systems; feeding and drinking water devices; stable climate and air quality and fire protection. The request for approval has no fee but if you build a stable without approval the stable will be prohibited from having animals and incur a fine of between SEK12,000-24,000 (US$1420-2845).

  • In the US state of California force feeding birds is banned [Health & Safety Code §§ 25980-25984(2011)] used in the production of foi gras (a specialty food product made of the enlarged liver of a force-fed duck or goose). Force feeding animals is prohibited by law in Israel, Germany, Norway and the United Kingston.2 India has banned the import of foi gras.3

  • The UK Guidance “Caring for beef cattle and dairy cows” provides double the amount of fibrous food and greater space allocation compared to EU law regulating the welfare of veal calves. Other requirements in the Guidance provide for bedding, a minimum amount of iron, welfare checks per day, separating sick calves with dry comfortable bedding, feed calves twice a day, ensure they receive bovine colostrum soon after birth (<6 hours post-birth), muzzling must not be used, calves must not be kept in individual stalls after 8 weeks of age and individual stalls or pens for calves need to have perforated walls so that they can see and touch each other.

II. Transport of animals

2. Following Australian public concern around cruel conditions of live sheep trade to the Middle East, Australia prohibited live sheep trade following a review of animal welfare regulation until higher welfare standards could be developed. The Export Control (Animals) Rules 2020 (the Rules) will replace existing regulation on live animal trade on 28 March 2021. The Rules aim to reduce the risk of heat stress in sheep to a very low level, while supporting a sustainable live sheep export trade. Key requirements of the Rules, Chapter 6 livestock export licences, include:

  • For exports to South Korea (Division 3), the holder of a livestock export licence must not export a consignment of cattle unless: (a) the consignment includes only steers, and (b) previous cattle consignments from Australia to South Korea have been released from South Korean quarantine before the new consignment is exported.

  • At least 14 days before the expected date of export to South Korea, the following documents must be given to the authority:

(a) a statements by a competent Korean authority that quarantine space is available for the expected weight and number of cattle in the proposed consignment,

(b) a written declaration from the importer in Korea that the importer has: (i) access to at least 1 month’s supply of fodder for the cattle after their release from quarantine in Korea, and (ii) suitable land transport arrangements in place in Korea to transport the cattle to their final destination.

  • Division 4 exports of sheep by sea to Middle East contains prohibitions on export to specific places to protect sheep from heat stress, including: (6-11) sheep must not be exported to Oman between 8 May and 14 September, (6-12) sheep must not be exported to Qatar between 22 May and 22 September, (6-13) sheep must not be exported through certain waters (Arabian Sea, or the Red Sea, north of latitude 11°N at any time during its voyage) between 1 June and 14 September, and (6-14) concerns transitional arrangements of consignments (noting that some consignments will be en route when the Rules come into force).

  • General conditions for consignments of sheep to Middle East, include (6-15): (a) the vessel is equipped with automatic livestock watering systems that have water receptacles at a height suitable for the sheep; and (b) details of those watering systems are set out in the record of equipment and arrangements attached to the Australian certificate for the carriage of livestock for the vessels issued by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority under Marine Order 43 (Cargo and cargo handling-livestock) 2018; and (c) a heat stress management plan for the voyage is in place; and (d) bedding (such as straw, shavings or sawdust) of at least 1 tonne for every 10,000 sheep will be provided on the vessel.

  • Conditions of sheep and of pens on vessel for exports during northern summer [6-18(3)] the body condition score for each sheep in the consignment must be 2 or 3 as specified in Table A1.1.1 of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, [6-18(4)] relative humidity and wet bulb temperature on vessel 140 metres long or less to be measured and recorded in at least 2 representative pens on each deck every 20 minutes during the voyage, [6-18(5)] relative humidity and wet bulb temperature on vessel longer than 140 metres to be measured and recorded in at least 3 representative pens on each deck every 20 minutes during the voyage, [6-18(5)] a report of these recorded temperatures must be given to the authority, by electronic means, within 5 days after the end of the voyage, also stating the location of each device used to take measurements and the time each record was made.

  • For exports during northern winter there are comprehensive requirements for watering systems (6-21); requirements for pen air turnover to be verified by an independent qualified mechanical engineer within the 5 years period ending on the day before the sheep are to be exported and any changes within that period must be verified again by an independent mechanical engineer; requirement to record information as listed in Rules; requirement to give the authority (and Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd)4 and a written notice stating the most recent verified pen air turnover for the vessel and the method used for verification.

  • Division 5 requirements for exports of sheep, goats and cattle to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: vaccination against scabby mouth, verification examination for scabby mouth by veterinarian and shipping conditions including an accredited veterinarian to accompany consignment until all animals are unloaded.

III. Animal slaughter

3. The following jurisdictions have developed interesting animal welfare requirements for regulating animal slaughter:

  • Zambia explicitly provides that any person who shall kill an animal in the sight of any other animal awaiting slaughter shall be guilty of cruelty and on conviction be liable to a fine, or in default of payment, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding 3 months [Chapter 245, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Article 3(1)(f)].

  • Poland Article 34.1 of the Act on the protection of animals (August 21, 1997) has requirements for slaughter house design so that animals do not perceive each other being slaughtered and it is an offence to slaughter an animal in front of children.

  • The Normative Instruction of 2018 of Brazil regulates the humanitarian methods of handling pre-slaughter and slaughter of animals and the requirements for their care, in order to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering, in all establishments authorised to carry out animal slaughter for commercial purposes. Each slaughter establishment is to designate a person responsible for animal welfare, who must be trained in the legislated pre-slaughter and humane slaughter management of animals according to their species (Article 17). This designated person is responsible for training and guiding all operators involved in the pre-slaughter and slaughter handling, including the drivers of the vehicles used to transport the animals (Article 18). Slaughter establishments must assess and monitor, at least, the following aspects related to animal welfare:

    • adequacy of vehicles for the transportation of different species and animal categories, maintenance conditions, capacity and capacity of transport vehicles;
    • time of suspension of the diet on the property;
    • distance traveled, by vehicle, from the property of origin to the slaughter establishment and the average speed of transport;
    • time for the start and end of the animals’ embarkation;
    • total travel time, per vehicle, counted from the end of the embarkation until the end of the disembarkation at the slaughter establishment;
    • total periods of fasting and water diet, from the property until landing at the slaughter establishment, per vehicle;
    • procedures and care during the handling of animals in the operations of embarkation, transport, disembarkation, rest and driving until the moment of stunning;
    • inform the Federal Inspection Service of the arrival of animals in physical condition that require emergency slaughter;
    • immobilisation of animals for stunning or bleeding;
    • stunning and its effectiveness;
    • suspension or hanging of live animals, when applicable; and
    • bleeding of the animals.
  • Most states (20 out of 28) of India prohibit the slaughter of cows (usually includes calves, bulls and bullocks, other states go further and include buffaloes) because of the traditional status of cows as an endeared and respected living being to many religions.5 Both legislative chambers of the Indian state of Karnataka have now passed the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2020 that aims to replace the Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1964). The scope of the Bill includes cows, calves, bulls and bullocks of all ages and male/female buffaloes below 13 years of age, defined as cattle. The Bill prohibits the slaughter, transport, sale and purchase of cattle. The penalty, on conviction of an offence, is a term more than three years but not exceeding seven years or a fine of Rs.50,000 (~US$680) or both.

  • The UK is reviewing its Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 and the introduction of clearer labelling about non-stunned animals used for halal and kosher meat to give consumers the choice not to buy it.

IV. Welfare of ‘pests’

4. Australia is interesting in its concern for ‘pests’, the state of New South Wales has developed a model for assessing the humaneness of animal pest control methods. Pest animals such as rabbits, feral pigs, foxes, wild dogs and feral cats cause significant environmental damage and agricultural losses in Australia. The humaneness of a pest animal control method refers to the overall welfare impact that the method has on an individual animal. A relatively more humane method will have less impact than a relatively less humane method. The model assists decision makers in the development, planning and implementation stages of pest animal control programmes along with other factors such as efficacy, cost-effectiveness, practicality, target specificity and operator safety. The model involves a two-part assessment process: Part A examines the impact of a control method on overall welfare and the duration of this impact; and Part B examines the effects of the killing method on welfare by evaluating the intensity of suffering and duration of suffering caused by the technique (for lethal methods). For more detailed information on how the model works seehere.

5. New Zealand and the Australian states of Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Tasmania have prohibited from sale glue mouse traps as being cruel.

V. Animals as pets

6. The German regulation ‘Hundeverordnung’, or Dogs Act, contains the following general requirements for having a dog:

(1) A dog is to be given sufficient exercise in the open air outside of a kennel or a tethered area as well as sufficient contact with the person who keeps, looks after or has to look after the dog (carer). Exercise and social contacts are to be adapted to the breed, age and state of health of the dog.

(2) Anyone who keeps several dogs on the same property has to keep them in the group as a matter of principle, unless other legal provisions prevent this. Group housing can be dispensed with if this is necessary due to the nature of the use, the behaviour or the state of health of the dog. Dogs that are not used to each other may only be brought together under supervision.

(3) A dog kept individually is to be given the opportunity to interact with caregivers for longer periods of time several times a day in order to satisfy the dog’s community needs.

(4) A puppy may only be separated from its mother when it is over eight weeks old. Sentence 1 does not apply if the veterinary judgment requires the separation to protect the mother or puppy from pain, suffering or harm.If, according to sentence 2, premature separation of several puppies from the mother is required, they should not be separated from one another up to an age of eight weeks.

7. Pet keepers in the Australian Capital Territory are required to ensure their pets are happy, healthy and not negatively impacting on the community in any way under the Domestic Animals Act 2000. For dog keepers this means:

  • Dog registration is compulsory for all resident dog keepers if the dog is over eight weeks old, if the dog is kept in the Territory for 28 days or more and if the dog’s keeper has been a resident of the Territory for 28 days or more.

  • Dogs must be desexed unless the dog is less than six months old, the dog was born before 21 June 2001 and the keeper of the dog holds a sexually entire permit. If the intent is to breed a litter from your dog, a breeders licence is also required.

  • All dogs must be micro-chipped, where a silicon chip, about the size of a grain of rice, is implanted under the skin of the animal and assists identification of lost dogs.

  • Keeping four or more dogs requires a multiple dog licence, before applying the dog keeper must ensure that all dogs are registered micro-chipped and de-sexed (unless the keeper holds a sexually entire permit). The application must include a map and photos of your premises, outlining any existing facilities and any proposed construction. A Ranger from the Domestic Animal Services must also conduct a site inspection of your property and consult with surrounding residents (Section 19). The Registrar may take numerous things into consideration before granting the multiple dog licence, including:

    • the number and kind of dogs to which the application relates;
    • the size and nature of the premises where the dogs are proposed to be kept;
    • the security of the premises;
    • the suitability of facilities for keeping the dogs on the premises;
    • the potential impact on the neighbouring premises; and
    • any conviction or finding of guilt of the applicant within the last 10 years against a Territory or State law for an offence relating to the welfare, keeping or control of an animal.

Minimum requirements to hold a multiple dog licence include:

    • written approval from your landlord if you are a tenant;
    • no objections from your neighbours;
    • adequate conditions for sanitary disposal of collected waste; and
    • dogs must be penned when the house is unattended (they may use the rest of the yard for exercise when you are home).
  • There are advertising requirements for selling or rehoming dogs.

8. For cat keepers there are similar requirements to dog keepers with the following differences:

  • Desexing cats from three months of age, unless the keeper has a sexually entire permit;
  • cats are not required to be registered, but they must be micro-chipped and wear identification (collar and tag);
  • Section 84B requires a licence for keepers of four or more cats; and
  • Some areas of the Territory have been declared cat containment areas to protect native wildlife in areas where cats pose a serious threat, this means resident in the containment area must keep their cats within their premises.
  • VI. Incentives

9. The world now produces more than three times the quantity of meat as it did fifty years ago.6 This production has large environmental impacts – increasing greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, wildlife loss, and at times declining animal welfare conditions. Animal welfare regulation could aim to encourage animal welfare improvement, like the South Korean example cited in Part 1 of our article. Korean farms may gain a secondary certificate as an ‘animal welfare farm’ if they allow animals to live “an ordinary life while maintaining their natural behaviour”. This certificate allows these farms access to government funds for improving facilities as well as counselling and education about environmental and animal welfare improvement. This measure incentivises animal farms towards better animal welfare practices.

10. Sweden remunerates animal farmers that convert to organic animal farming and who maintain their organic certification, a measure aiming at discouraging large scale farming by creating incentives to reduce scale or turn to organic farming. Like many other jurisdictions, Sweden requires registration of animal farms. An environmental permit (miljötillstånd) is required for animal farms in Sweden with more than 100 animal units (eg. 1 animal unit = 1 dairy cow, 10 sheep/goats >6 months old, 100 laying hens >16 weeks old etc.). This registration process helps the authority to gather information that can help target enforcement and inspections and develop incentive programmes encouraging animal farmers to become organic which requires high standards of animal welfare to be certified as organic.

VII. Information and labelling

11. Animal welfare labels do exist but are voluntary and in some jurisdictions there are requirements for organic labels (eg. European Union). On 15 December 2020, the EU Agriculture Council launched a European animal welfare label, including:

  • Harmonised and transparent criteria for greater animal welfare to be elaborated, going beyond the legally required minimum standards.
  • An EU-wide animal welfare label to be developed for all livestock species, taking into consideration their entire life span.
  • The label is intended to offer producers sufficient incentives to improve their animal welfare standards.
  • The creation of a uniform and protected logo.

Labelling of eggs is perhaps the more advanced of animal welfare regulation, for example labelling of free range or cage free7, but even then regulations are incomplete because economic operators develop other labels such as “ pasture raised”, “farm fresh” or “happy hens”.8

VIII. Enforcement by third parties

12. Regulation can empower third parties (non-government organisations, competitors, associations or other operators) with enforcement powers or provide rights to act in order to ensure compliance. The New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 is a good example of how a non-government organisation, the animal charity Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), is mandated as an approved organisation for the purposes of the Act (Section 189). Other organisations may also be approved on application under Section 120 of the Act:

Approved organisations, inspectors, and auxiliary officers

121 Approved organisations

(1) The Minister may from time to time, on the application of any organisation, declare that organisation, by notice in the Gazette, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The application must include—

(a) the full name and address of the applicant; and

(b) the area in which the applicant will, if declared to be an approved organisation, operate as an approved organisation; and

(c) information that will enable the Minister to assess whether the organisation meets the criteria set out in section 122.

Section 122 requires the Minister to be satisfied, on production of evidence, of the following criteria:

  • one of the purposes or roles of the organisation concerns the welfare of animals or a particular species of animal;
  • the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;
  • the functions and powers of the organisation are not such that the organisation could face a conflict of interest if it were to have both those functions and powers and the functions and powers of an approved organisation;
  • the employment contracts or arrangements between the organisation and the organisation’s inspectors and auxiliary officers are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation; and
  • the persons who may be recommended for appointment as inspectors or auxiliary officers—
    • will have the relevant technical expertise and experience to be able to exercise competently the powers, duties, and functions conferred or imposed on inspectors and auxiliary officers under this Act; and
    • subject to section 126, will be properly answerable to the organisation.

This regulatory arrangement under the Act is quite elegant and cost efficient because the New Zealand government provides 5% of the SPCA’s budget and the rest is made up through donations. For more information about enforcement by third parties (ie. not by authorities or conformity assessment bodies) see Chapter 11.4 of the Handbook: How to regulate? 2nd ed.

B. Missed regulatory opportunities

1. Several good examples of animal welfare regulations exist around the world, however, no one jurisdiction contained all the best practices for all the activities that involve animals. As noted in the Model Animal Welfare Act outlined in Part 1 comprehensive animal welfare regulation should be implemented progressively. For some jurisdictions this will mean establishing new regulatory systems of enforcement, for other jurisdictions this may mean creating incentives to reduce large-scale, intensive animal farming.

I. Incentives

2. In general, too few jurisdictions used incentives to better reach their animal welfare goals. While South Korea and Sweden had noteworthy incentives to encourage organic animal farming, additional measures to incentivise improved animal welfare conditions could be used to better reach the goal. For example information from a registration process could be used to map where farms are and the distances involved in transporting animals from farms to slaughterhouses, with the aim of developing incentives to reduce such centralisation, but also with a view of facilitating state enforcement. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (21 April 2020, Extraordinary G20 Agriculture Minister’s Meeting) the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the fragility of a food system based on industrialisation production which occurs far from consumers (and thus requires complex transport logistics). It highlighted the need for localised production and consumption, a shift towards healthy plant-based diets with less zoonotic risk and lower environmental impact, and more resilient production practices, including agroecological approaches and regenerative agriculture.

3. Chapter 4 of the Regulatory Institute Handbook: How to regulate? 2nd ed. 2021 outlines a typology of incentives that can be used in regulations, including:

  • Reputation advantage or risk of disadvantage such as naming and shaming. Specifically, this technique could include radical transparency such as publishing on the animal welfare authority’s website and that of animal welfare NGOs, those slaughterhouses, animal farmers and animal transporters that have been fined. In terms of reputation advantage, the food authority could publish on its website economic operators in the animal food production chain whose animal welfare practices comply with regulation;

  • status advantage or disadvantage eg. longer validity of certificates or approvals, exclusion from public tenders. Governments organise public tenders for economic operators to exclusively manage canteens, in-house restaurants and cafes for their staff, a requirement of the tender could be to exclude animal produce from suppliers who have been the subject of an animal welfare fine or require the use of organic meat. In terms of longer validity certificates, this could be automatically applied where animal economic operations have three years of a good animal welfare record;

  • indirect financial advantages eg. tax incentives to switch from intensive animal farming to organic farming, tax deductions for improvements to the pens and areas where the animals spend their time; or

  • indirect non-financial incentive eg. access to valuable know-how or access to new markets by inclusion in a diplomatic trade mission with access to senior foreign agricultural officials.

II. Information and labelling

4. Again, as was the case with regulatory incentives to better reach animal welfare goals, there were a few examples of jurisdictions outlined at (A) above, that required information and labelling in food regulation aiming at higher animal welfare. Noting consumers of meat would much rather consume meat humanely produced (Australian survey commissioned by agricultural authority, Food Consumption in the UKcommissioned by UK food authority), its surprising that more jurisdictions do not require animal welfare information and labelling. For example economic operators of meat could be required to establish a website with information about the farms where their meat are sourced, the number of animals raised on such farms, the animal welfare policies and protocols followed by such farms, the transport conditions and times to travel to slaughterhouses and the conditions at the slaughterhouses. Economic operators of organic meat already provide similar information as a requirement for organic certification and use of particular organic labels.

5. In our Handbook: How to regulate? 2nd ed. 2021, which contains more details about using information and labelling in specific situations:

  • Sub-section – Voluntary labelling and marking,
  • Section 11.1 Information and enforcement,
  • Section 11.9 Limiting own-brand labelling, and
  • Sub-section 15.4.12 concerns empowerments aimed at information.

III. Online automation

6. Any registration processes in the animal welfare regulatory system should be automated. Automation has high up-front costs due to technology infrastructure but in the long-term cheaper to administer. Automated registration is particularly useful where evidence of satisfying a regulatory requirement must be shown, eg. in the Australian example above of the regulation of live animal exports several requirements exist for animal welfare information to be emailed to the authority. Automation, where correct parameters or thresholds exist for authority action eg. inspection, greatly assists enforcement to target high risk situations. We cover in the Handbook: How to regulate? 2nd ed. 2021 the use of artificial intelligence in registration systems to enhance enforcement.

IV. Enforcement by third-parties

7. Above we looked at the regulatory example of New Zealand providing legal empowerments to a third-party, an animal welfare charity, to enforce animal welfare regulation. We could not find other examples of enforcement by third-parties outside of animal welfare regulation encouraging or providing for a positive responsibility to report animal abuse. However, a system can be established in which various actors execute effective control on each other through a network of control mechanisms. For example establishing a right to sue at court or mandatory arbitrage on the basis of non-compliance by:

  • competitors;
  • distributors;
  • business associations;
  • NGOs, specialised public institution;
  • law firms suing on public interest grounds;
  • protection from lawsuit for media reporting on low welfare animal economic operators provided they acted in good faith;
  • blacklisting non-compliant producers by entrusted organisations; and
  • organisations entrusted to organise information exchange across jurisdictions to spread news on non-compliance internationally.

See the Handbook: How to regulate? 2nd ed. 2021 for more information:

  • Sub-section 10.5.3 – Other third-party ex ante verification;
  • Section 11.4 Policing other than by authorities or conformity assessment bodies; and
  • Sub-section 15.4.7– Enforcement with the help of non-designated third parties.

V. Alert portals and whistle-blowing protection

8. Not less important than the measures in Section IV is the establishment of alert portals and whistle-blowing protection. Both farming and holding pets happens normally far outside the range that can effectively be overseen by authorities and it is difficult to execute a noteworthy number of random checks. Given the limited verification capacity of authorities, authorities can become more effective when directed to farmers or pet holders which are reportedly infringing obligations. See the Sections 11.4.2 and 11.4.3 of the Handbook and the dedicated article on whistleblowing protection.

VI. Multi-sectoral approaches

9. Animal welfare regulations should not be developed in a vacuum and should be multi-sectoral. We suspect here a high potential to be levied, but we found hardly any attempts for integration of animal welfare into neighbouring sectors, like food industry legislation. Food industry legislation could well impose certain verification functions on food manufacturers. Likewise, it could build on farming labels, permitting equivalent food labels. To further illustrate what we mean with a necessary multi-sectoral approach: we wrote aboutregulating cultured meat, which, if regulated correctly with the right incentives, could positively impact on animal welfare by reducing the demand for meat from animals. Cultured meat regulation not only concerns food for human consumption but also as an alternative for pet consumption for vegan pet keepers.

This article was written by Valerie Thomas, on behalf of the Regulatory Institute, Brussels and Lisbon.

Other links

1 Eurogroup for Animals, New report aims at higher welfare cage-free egg production in the EU,

3 Humane Society International, India foi gras import ban applauded, .

4 LiveCorp is a hybrid between private conformity assessment body and agency linked to the authority through Statutory Contracts, Agreements and Delegations (LiveCorp Strategic Plan 2025 and the Funding Agreement 2017-2021 with the authority), two of its four strategic objectives refer to enhancing regulatory compliance:

  1. Lead in materially advancing animal health and welfare along the export supply chain through research, development and extension.
  2. Spearhead efficiency gains in the livestock export supply chain through innovative solutions and technical and technological improvements, within the framework of relevant regulation (eg. ASEL and ESCAS).
  3. Advance the export of Australian livestock to overseas countries through services in market access, development and growth.
  4. Contribute materially to a growing acceptance of the livestock export industry within the community; to the industry’s ability to present its case; and to the ongoing development of a world-leading regulatory framework for the export of livestock.

7 EU-wide labelling applies to table eggs, which defines different production methods (cages, free-range, barns) regulated in the legislation for laying hens (Council Directive 1999/74/EC),

Australia regulates free-range terms applied to eggs,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

nine + eleven =