‘End self-regulation of farming to reduce animal suffering’, think tank says

A new report by the Social Market Foundation – a cross-party think tank – highlights critical flaws in the enforcement of farmed animal welfare regulations, calling for an end to the self-regulation of farms and greater governmental oversight.

The SMF’s report comes at a time when the EU has recently appointed its first ever Health and Animal Welfare Commissioner. The SMF has also recommended an animal welfare commissioner for the UK, as part of the shift away from self-regulation.

Of the small number of official inspections that take place each year, around a third of these inspections uncover non-compliance. Yet, according to data gathered by Animal Equality UK and The Animal Law Foundation, a shockingly small proportion (2.3% on average) of this non-compliance is prosecuted. Although compliance is marginally better in farms covered by private assurance schemes, participation in an assurance scheme is far from a guarantee of compliance, and assurance schemes have demonstrably failed to take sufficient action against breaches when they occur.

Issues identified with the current system that allow poor animal welfare standards to occur and go unaccounted for:

• Private assurance schemes: At present inspection is largely left to private assurance schemes, most notably the industry-led Red Tractor, which face misaligned incentives, as their revenue depends on keeping farms signed up.
• Low enforcement rates: On average, only 2.3% of identified welfare breaches lead to prosecutions, and improvement notices, a critical enforcement tool, are underutilised
• Fragmented responsibility: Welfare enforcement is split between local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), leading to inefficiencies and gaps in enforcement.
• Lack of transparency: There is little publicly available data on inspections or outcomes, making it difficult to hold the farming industry accountable.

The report puts forward two sets of recommendations: straight-forward adjustments to the existing system that could make an immediate impact, as well as a more ambitious medium-term plan for a government-run licensing system for farms.

This gap between violations and enforcement results in the widespread continuation of practices such as tail docking in pigs and the lameness epidemic in dairy cows. Although tail docking is supposed to be permitted only as a last resort, 72% of pigs undergo the procedure, while a third of dairy cows suffer from lameness without timely treatment.

The recommendations for immediate adjustments are:

1. Centralise welfare enforcement: Responsibility for enforcing animal welfare laws should sit exclusively with APHA, which has the expertise and resources to address the issue more consistently.
2. Increase transparency: APHA and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) should publish detailed data on inspections, non-compliance rates, and enforcement actions to enable public scrutiny.
3. Increase scrutiny: Following the EU’s example, introduce an Animal Welfare Commissioner, it could serve to hold the government’s progress on animal welfare issues to account, and improve the APHA’s focus and effectiveness.
4. Strengthen penalties: Enforcement agencies should be allowed to mandate education on animal welfare, and to retain fines from penalty notices, as is currently the case with speeding tickets for drivers.
5. Enhance inspection triggers: The ‘trigger threshold’ for chickens bred and slaughtered for meat should be lowered, which means that more farms are flagged as having excessive rates of disease or on-farm welfare concerns at slaughter, and prioritised for inspection. The trigger system should be extended from poultry to other farmed animals.
6. Mandatory CCTV in large farms: As is currently the case in abattoirs, CCTV should be mandatory in large industrial farms to ensure compliance, with footage made available to APHA for random inspections.

The report then proposes the more ambitious reform of government-run farm licensing, though it suggests this ought to be considered as an alternative to basic assurance schemes to avoid unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy.

Observing that private assurance schemes like Red Tractor, which farms are often required by supermarkets to be certified by, currently operate as a de facto licence, the SMF suggest that ‘insourcing’ this activity to the state would be more reliable and trustworthy. It could also be self-financing, with licensing fees paying for inspections. With the government considering introducing mandatory welfare labels on pork, chicken and eggs, the SMF argues that it should not rely on private schemes to validate these standards.

Aveek Bhattacharya, Research Director of the Social Market Foundation, and an author of the report said:
“We like to think of ourselves as a nation of animal lovers, yet the casualness with which we enforce welfare rules on farms undermines that perception. With responsibility for enforcement split between central government and cash-strapped councils, it has been easy to neglect. That, in turn, has led to greater reliance on private sector assurance programs facing conflicts of interest. 

“Even low rates of non-compliance can lead to enormous amounts of animal suffering, particularly in a country where over a billion chickens are slaughtered annually. Clearer accountability and transparency is needed to make sure that the issue is treated with the seriousness it deserves.”

Abigail Penny, Executive Director of Animal Equality UK, who sponsored the report, said:

“Over the years, Animal Equality’s team has obtained troubling evidence of animal cruelty, including pigs being jabbed with pitchforks, newborn calves being slapped and force-fed, and chickens left to die from dehydration. It is unacceptable that a charity should have to uncover these breaches; the Government has a duty of care toward the animals slaughtered for human consumption, yet there is a concerning lack of surveillance and an apparent reluctance to enforce existing laws.”

Continuing, she added: “For far too long there’s been an overreliance on accreditation schemes to carry out these checks and balances in farming facilities, schemes that often have a finger in the meat industry pie and are even funded by animal agriculture directly. We would never permit a headteacher to evaluate their own school – if we did, they would all be deemed exceptional. Yet the current system risks allowing the animal farming industries to essentially self-regulate, undermining standards that should and must be upheld.”

Notes

1. The SMF report, Taking responsibility, is published at https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/animal-welfare-british-farms/.

2. The Animal Equality’s report, The Enforcement Problem, can be found here: https://animalequality.org/news/the-enforcement-problem/

1. The report is sponsored by Animal Equality UK. The SMF retains full editorial independence.

Contact

• For media enquiries, please contact Impact Officer Richa Kapoor at the Social Market Foundation, at richa@smf.co.uk

ENDS