This blog post focuses on the third key area: farmed animals. It is mainly explanatory in nature, although I provide a comment at the end.

The need for change

The Strategy notes the vast scale of animal agriculture in the UK – there are around 155 million farmed animals in England at any one time, comprised of 22 million cows, sheep and pigs, and 133 million poultry. Every year over 1.1 billion meat chickens are reared and slaughtered in the UK^.[1]

The Strategy explains that where farmed animals experience lower welfare, this can decrease productivity and increase costs. For example, animals which are less healthy require increased use of antibiotics. The Strategy’s aspiration is that “as many farmed animals as possible experience a good life and not just a life worth living” – that is, not just a life which is net positive, but a life in which an animal has positive life experiences over and above that. In other words, the government wants animals to be healthier for the sake of both animals and humans.

The current state of affairs

By way of a brief interlude, it is worth identifying the key pillars of the legal framework for the welfare of farmed animals in the UK.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (“AWA”) is the key piece of primary legislation. Under section 4, it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal, except where an animal is killed in which case it must be done in “an appropriate and humane manner” (s.4(4)). As to whether suffering is ‘unnecessary’, this depends on inter alia whether the conduct which caused the suffering complied with a law, licence or code of practice (s.4(3)(b)). In a similar vein, a person who is responsible for an animal must take reasonable steps to ensure the animal’s needs are met “to the extent required by good practice” (s.9(1)).

The AWA also provides for further offences relating to mutilation (s.5), docking of dogs’ tails (s.6), poisoning (s.7), and animal fights (s.8).

As to what is practically required under the Act, the Secretary of State can make regulations for the promotion of animal welfare, including specific requirements for particular animals (s.12). The Secretary of State may also make regulations requiring licences or registrations to carry out particular activities (s.13) and may issue ‘codes of practice’ to provide practical guidance (s.14).

There are three key pieces of secondary legislation.

First, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 (“2007 Regulations”) concern how animals are kept and bred. A person responsible for an animal must ensure it is kept and bred in a way which complies with Schedule 1 (reg.4) as well as any other schedule which applies to their cows, pigs, hens or rabbits (reg.5).

Second, the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 concerns how animals are transported. It is an offence to transport any animal in a way which causes, or is likely to cause, injury or unnecessary suffering to that animal (art.4(1)).

Third, the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 (“WATOK Regulations”) concern how animals are slaughtered. There is a requirement for a certificate of competence or a licence to slaughter animals (regs. 5 and 12). Schedule 1 provides for the layout, construction and equipment of slaughterhouses (paras 3–9), handling of animals (paras 10–17), restraining of animals (paras 18–22), and the stunning and killing of animals (paras 23–32). For example, paragraph 23 provides the general requirement that stunning or killing must be “rapid and effective”.

Specific proposals for farmed animals

As mentioned above, the government’s ambition is to ensure that as many farmed animals as possible experience a good life and not just a life worth living. To achieve that overall aim, the Strategy sets out proposals relating to: (i) the use of cages and crates; (ii) welfare at the time of killing; (iii) management practices; (iv) fish; (v) breeding; (vi) transport of animals; (vii) food labelling; (viii) adaptation to climate change; and (ix) enforcement. I will explain these in turn.

i) Cages and crates

The government recognises that enriched ‘colony’ cages for laying hens (which supply just over 20% of the UK shell egg production) do not give chickens full freedom to express normal behaviours. For pigs, many mothers are confined in farrowing crates for around a month after giving birth; these crates restrict her movement so she cannot turn around or perform other natural behaviours.

The Strategy says that ending the use of cages and crates is a “key priority” for this government, and that it intends to: (i) transition to non-cage systems and consult on phasing out enriched ‘colony’ cages; (ii) explore how to transition from the current use of farrowing crates to using them for only a few days, or ‘free farrowing’ where there is no confinement; (iii) improve the welfare code for cows; and (iv) gather evidence on how gamebirds (e.g. pheasants, quail) are reared.

ii) Welfare at the time of killing

The Strategy recognises that all animals should be spared avoidable pain, suffering and distress when they are killed. It identifies two slaughter practices which are particularly problematic for the welfare of animals.

The first is gassing pigs with carbon dioxide, which works by forming carbonic acid in the eyes, nose, mouth and lungs. The Animal Welfare Committee (“AWC”) found that this causes pain, respiratory distress and fear during the conscious phase of the process, manifesting behaviourally as vocalisations, ‘air hunger’, hyperventilation, and escape attempts.^[2] The government recognises that there are higher welfare alternatives such as argon gas stunning and automated electrical stunning, and so commits to banning CO2 gas stunning subject to consultation.

The second is the killing of day-old male chicks of laying hens. This is carried out because the male chicks will not produce eggs and, being the offspring of hens bred to lay eggs, have slow growth rates and produce limited muscle so are commercially uneconomical to rear for meat. The government wants to see this practice ended, looking instead to modern technologies which enable the sex of the chick embryos to be determined before hatching. The government commitment on this is worded less strongly than with CO2 pig stunning, saying it will “encourage industry” to end the practice.

The Strategy also says the government will publish a review of the WATOK Regulations to ensure they still meet their objectives.

iii) Management practices

Under the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007, some practices are permitted as exceptions to the general ban on mutilation in s.5 AWA. These include tail docking of pigs and lambs, beak trimming of laying hens, and castration of ram lambs.

The government wants to: (i) reduce the prevalence of pig tail docking; (ii) end the practice of beak trimming of laying hens; (iii) improve the practice of lamb tail docking by bringing it in line with current scientific knowledge and allowing new devices to be used; and (iv) update the Sheep Welfare Code.

iv) Fish

While existing legislation requires that farmed fish are spared avoidable pain, distress and suffering during their killing, unlike land-based animals, fish have no further protections in domestic law such as a requirement to stun pre-slaughter. The Strategy commits to introducing humane slaughter requirements for farmed fish into legislation, and to commission the AWC’s advice on improving fish welfare.

v) Breeding

Technological advances in breeding such as genetic selection are double-edged swords. While they can be used to improve health and welfare of animals, they can also be used to maximise profit at the animals’ expense.

One high-profile example is the use of fast-growing chicken breeds. These chickens reach their slaughter weight of 2.2kg in only 5–6 weeks. Due to their excessive weight, they can develop heart conditions, leg disorders, and ulcers and lesions on the feet.^[3] These problems are exacerbated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of such chickens spend their whole lives in large, closed buildings.^[4] Concerns about their welfare led The Humane League UK to bring the ‘Frankenchicken’ litigation against the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In December 2024, the Court of Appeal ^[5] said that it could not determine whether the keeping of fast-growing chicken breeds is unlawful, as that depended on contested scientific evidence. However, Males LJ did rule on the interpretation of paragraph 29 of the 2007 Regulations, and at [52] held that if fast-growing chickens suffered health problems which could not be remediated by the environmental conditions in which they are kept (e.g. reducing stocking density), it would be prohibited to rear them. Then at [60] he made clear that “there is no question of balancing the advantage of higher productivity against the detrimental effect(s) on an animal’s health or welfare” – one must disregard “any commercial advantages” that may follow from the particular breed.

The Strategy says the government will publish and consider the AWC’s report on breeding practices, support voluntary efforts to move away from fast-growing chicken breeds, and monitor the welfare risks associated with breeding practices and update standards as necessary.

vi) Transport of animals

The Strategy says that during transport, animals can be subject to extreme temperatures, limited space, motion and vibrations, and a restriction on expressing normal behaviours. The government’s aim is to ensure that animals are only transported if necessary, and by the most welfare considerate route. To that effect, the government says it is taking action to ensure the live exports ban is enforced as robustly as possible, and will explore further measures to prevent horses being exported for slaughter. It will also continue to monitor the EU proposal for a new welfare in transport regulation.

vii) Food labelling

The Strategy recognises that the current lack of consistency in food labelling makes it difficult for consumers to understand the animal welfare standards to which their food was produced and make informed purchasing decisions. In turn, this makes it harder for farmers to be fairly rewarded for their higher welfare products.

For example, a ‘free range’ label on eggs may paint a picture of hens frolicking around grassy fields. But all that is actually required ^[6] for eggs to be ‘free range’ is that the hens have continuous daytime access to open air runs, which must provide for a maximum outdoor density of 4 square metres per hen. While the hens are inside – where the food, water, nests, litter and perches are – 1 square metre of space is deemed sufficient for up to 9 ‘free range’ hens.

The government commits to exploring how to improve food labelling, including method-of-production labelling. Improvements in food labelling will be conducive to the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway’s goal to “stimulate market demand for higher welfare products by making it easier for consumers to purchase food that aligns with their values”. ^[7]

viii) Adaptation to climate change

The Strategy recalls that during the 2022 heatwave, millions of birds died on farms while other animals experienced heat stress. It recognises that climate change will perpetuate this and other climate-based challenges to animal welfare. DEFRA has therefore commissioned the AWC to assess the likely impacts of climate change on farmed animals and what measures could be put in place by industry sectors to help mitigate those effects.

ix) Enforcement

The Strategy cites a report by the Animal Sentience Committee which concluded that the UK does not have a sufficiently effective, structured, fair and integrated system of animal welfare surveillance and enforcement. The government is aware of these deficiencies and commits to systematically track and publicly report enforcement actions taken in response to non-compliance for animal welfare, working closely with local authorities. Its initial focus is on the farming sector, with the first data return – covering the 2026 calendar year – set for publication in 2027. The government also commits to undertake a review to ensure that the appropriate tools and frameworks are in place to secure a proportionate and robust enforcement system.

Comment

The government’s proposals for change are certainly a step in the right direction for the welfare of farmed animals. Aside from legislative changes, there are plenty of opportunities to make better use of the existing framework. In addition to those in the Strategy, I make two suggestions below.

First, local authorities should be provided with sufficient resources to properly exercise their inspection and enforcement powers, and encouraged to do so. Under the AWA 2006, it is inspectors appointed by local authorities who may inspect premises (ss. 28, 51), and under Regulation 8 of the 2007 Regulations it is local authorities who may prosecute for an offence under those regulations. However, according to Animal Equality UK, fewer than 3% of farms in the UK are subject to an official inspection each year, and just 0.33% of farms are prosecuted following initial animal welfare complaints.^[8] It is unsurprising that of all of a local authority’s functions, inspections of farms and slaughterhouses are not at the top of their priority list. One solution would be for the government to provide funding to local councils ring-fenced for these functions.

Second, as alluded to in the Strategy, farmers’ participation in voluntary animal welfare schemes such as the Better Chicken Commitment – a pledge to adopt higher welfare standards, such as using slower-growing breeds and reduced stocking density – are welcomed but can place farmers with higher welfare standards at a commercial disadvantage. Food labelling is the salient way to ensure consumers know about these higher welfare standards and make purchasing choices accordingly. To ensure food labels are meaningful and not misleading, the definition of ‘free range’ could be made more stringent or different classifications of ‘free range’ could be created. A more simplistic approach which could also be applied to meat chickens would be to require stocking densities to be included on food labels. The benefit of improving farmed animal welfare through a market-based mechanism such as this, rather than simply passing more stringent regulatory standards, is that there is a lower political risk to the government; it can say that it is simply ensuring customers are well-informed, and any changes to farming practices necessitated to keep up with consumer demand for higher welfare products can be justified as being consumer-led.

Animal welfare is a very finely balanced issue. There is wide public support for high welfare standards for farmed animals, but also to keep down the costs of food amid concerns about the increasing cost of living. The only way to address this inevitable tension is to face it head on: consumers must be made aware of the standards to which farmed animals are actually raised and slaughtered, along with the higher costs that come with higher welfare standards. It will then be for the population at large to decide how much it is willing to pay for animal welfare.

Footnotes

[1] Population data found at ([url=https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/livestock-populations-in-england/livestock-populations-in-england-at-1-june-2025]https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/livestock-populations-in-england/livestock-populations-in-england-at-1-june-2025[/url]). Slaughter data found at ([url=http://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/poultry-and-poultry-meat-statistics]http://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/poultry-and-poultry-meat-statistics[/url]).
[2] ‘Opinion on the welfare impacts on pigs of high concentration CO2 gas stunning and of potential alternative stunning methods’, Animal Welfare Committee (16 October 2025), para 52 [here]
[3] ‘Eat. Sit. Suffer. Repeat. The Life of a Typical Meat Chicken’, RSPCA (February 2020).
[4] R (The Humane League UK) v SSEFRA [2023] EWHC 1243 (Admin) [41]
[5] R (The Humane League UK) v SSEFRA [2023] EWHC 1243 (Admin)
[6] Schedule 2 to the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007; Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 589/2008
[7] Animal Health and Welfare Pathway (updated 29 October 2025) [url=http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/animal-health-and-welfare-pathway/animal-health-and-welfare-pathway#laying-hens]http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/animal-health-and-welfare-pathway/animal-health-and-welfare-pathway#laying-hens[/url]
[8] ‘How to Solve the Enforcement Problem in UK Farms’, Animal Equality UK (16 April 2024)