Putting animals back in the Animal Welfare Act
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was created to protect animals from a whole host of maltreatment, one of those protections being from unnecessary suffering. Yet over time, its strength has been diluted. The law has shifted away from its core purpose, bending too often to commercial interests rather than safeguarding the animals themselves.
One of the most striking examples is the way “unnecessary suffering” has been interpreted. The principle set out in Ford v. Wiley (1889) was clear: commercial convenience or profit cannot justify cruelty. If suffering could be avoided, it should be. That strong moral standard has been eroded, with industries increasingly able to argue that harmful practices are acceptable if they bring economic benefit.
A clear example of that erosion being the widespread use of fast-growing chickens in modern farming. Chickens are selectively bred to reach slaughter weight in just five to six weeks, these birds grow so fast that many struggle with painful leg disorders, heart failure, and respiratory issues simply because their growth rate outpaces the development of their bones and organs. This suffering is not necessary, but exists simply for commercial gain.
But these developments undermine the very spirit of the Animal Welfare Act. Meeting an animal’s needs must mean more than the bare minimum, it must recognise that animals are sentient beings with physical, emotional, and social requirements. Token gestures toward welfare, while still allowing practices that cause prolonged pain or distress, betray both the law and public trust.
Re-centering the Act on the principle of avoiding all unnecessary suffering, regardless of commercial justification, would restore its integrity. It would align the law with modern science on animal sentience and with society’s growing demand for higher welfare standards.
Animals must be put back into the Animal Welfare Act, without this centering the Act loses its relevance. Their welfare should never be traded off against profit. The law should mean what it says that animals’ needs are truly met, and that their suffering is prevented wherever it can be. The Act was designed to protect them, not us.
Credits: Image 1. Tom Woollard / We Animals, Image 3. Ed Shephard / We Animals, Image 4. Rebecca Cappelli Loviconi / We Animals