Animals and the law: bursting the animal sentience bubble
VOICES: Recent political moves towards recognising the sentience of nonhuman animals may seem like positive developments, but as recent law graduate and animal rights advocate Imogen Meston writes, may simply be part of a grand illusion waiting to be shattered.
This guest article forms part of our series marking the release of our video ‘How animal agriculture runs New Zealand’.
With one turn of events, the UK government has given in to ‘overwhelming public demand’ to recognise animal sentience in the UK legal system. Yet with another, The Queen’s Speech 2022 has shown us a failure of the government to stand by promises made in 2021, regarding widely celebrated animal welfare commitments. Among these recent moves was the banning of foie gras and shark fin imports, as well as restrictions on advertising for tourist activities such as elephant riding. In light of the recognition of animal sentience, the UK now joins New Zealand as one of an increasing number of countries that have enshrined this concept in law.
Defined by the London School of Economics research, sentience is ‘the capacity to have feelings, such as feelings of pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, warmth, joy, comfort and excitement’. Across the country, animal advocacy bodies have celebrated this ‘monumental moment’, echoing the very celebrations made in New Zealand following the recognition of animal sentience in 2015. Unscathed by the disappointments of the Queen’s Speech, optimism fills the air…and you'd be forgiven for thinking that the future of animal welfare looks brighter than ever.
While the UK and New Zealand boast of their ‘world-class’ animal welfare laws and their titles as ‘world-leaders’ in this area, a paradoxical reality exists. Chickens are crammed in sunless sheds with little more than an A4 piece of paper’s worth of space. Calves are forcibly taken away from their mothers just hours after their birth. Pigs are imprisoned in farrowing crates that prevent them from doing basic actions, such as turning around. The sentient capacity of animals may be recognised, but these ongoing farming practices show it is far from being respected. Agriculturally bred animals and marine species are conveniently isolated from normal procedures that we would consider ‘humane’ and rather, are exploited in their masses. There is a significant gap between our shared recognition of animal sentience in the UK and New Zealand, and the very real treatment of animals. So, drawing from the comparative experience of New Zealand, what cause for celebration do we have in the UK - if any?
Lobbied for by big agricultural businesses in New Zealand, the recognition of animal sentience stemmed from the need to ‘protect the significant financial benefit derived from New Zealand’s…agricultural products’. Used as a marker of progressive animal welfare laws, the UK recently followed in the footsteps of New Zealand with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. That said, the Bill was criticised by Kerry McCarthy - a Labour MP for Bristol East - for being no more than a “paper exercise that will do little to improve animal welfare.” Both New Zealand and the UK benefit from sustaining the profitability of animal agricultural markets, by reason of the contributions they make to the economy. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of animal production methods consist of low-welfare, high-intensity factory farming that spares little regard for the experiences of sentient animals. Animal sentience may be legally recognised, yet as it stands, the concept has failed to challenge the exploitative industries that mistreat animals on a global scale.
In New Zealand and the UK, our lives are heavily intertwined with animals. Whether we keep animals in our homes, on our streets or on our menus, human and animal interests come together and, more often than not, conflict. The extent to which animals are integrated into society is ultimately a burden upon the development of welfare policies. Animal welfare must compete against political and economic interests that seek to undermine progressive policy changes. As it stands, animals are maintained through food, shelter, and warmth to sustain their productivity of resources that are intended for human use. Animal welfare policies not targeted at enhancing animal industry productivity are viewed as stifling towards market growth as they require significant expenditure for no increased rate of return.
If the recognition of animal sentience is to represent more than mere symbolism, the conceptualisation of animals as property must explicitly reflect their capacities as sentient beings. Thus, providing an opportunity to rebalance the animal welfare equation: prioritising the needs of animals as sentient beings in considerations of welfare policy.
Never miss an article
Stay up-to-date with the weekly Surge newsletter to never miss an article, media production or investigation. We respect your privacy.
Seeking to achieve just this, David Favre - a pioneer in animal law - argues animals must be recognised as ‘living property’. This theory has the potential to reimagine our relationships with animals, inclusive of agriculturally bred animals. Favre does not suggest a radical reconceptualisation of animals and our relationship with them - which, in the current climate, would struggle to generate political and public support. Instead, Favre enhances the current status of animals from within the property paradigm, in a way that accommodates their unique experiences as living, sentient beings. This would require an animal-welfare approach over the current outdated economic-welfare approach, which actively frustrates progressions in animal welfare. As such, the power of economic considerations within political debates would be reduced. Simply put, the ceiling that has so far restrained the development of animal welfare and the recognition of animal sentience would, finally, be lifted.
The recognition of animal sentience in New Zealand has set an unattractive precedent for its implementation in the UK having failed to challenge animal agriculture industries that continue to practice inherently cruel farming methods. Nevertheless, recognising this concept in law does stir conversation, education, and debate, about the role of animals in our society and the future of animal welfare. The UK and New Zealand governments are invested in protecting the profitability of animal agriculture industries. This makes them hesitant to develop animal welfare in a way that requires significant financial expenditure. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the public - the electorate - in continuing to pressure political bodies in New Zealand and the UK, to develop animal welfare policy in a way that respects, and not just recognises, animal sentience.
As Margaret Mead rightly said, “never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has”. Societal concern for the welfare of animals is growing. That so, there has not been a better time to come together and utilise the power of social movements to compel our governments to protect animal sentience in the books, and on our farms.
The recognition of animal sentience has not been a ‘monumental moment’ for animal welfare - that bubble has been burst. What it is, however, is an opportunity to challenge the clear inconsistencies between our legal acceptance that animals are sentient beings, and their treatment in the agriculture industry. We know animals deserve better, it is up to us to make this a reality.
Imogen Meston is a recent law graduate, animal rights activist and oat milk coffee addict who advocates for plant-based lifestyles and is as hungry for vegan junk food as she is for corporate change and the development of a progressive animal welfare system. Find Imogen on LinkedIn.
Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.
LATEST ARTICLES