The UK government will tell you that we have some of the best animal welfare standards in the world. We are hailed as a nation of animal lovers, and in common consciousness a typical British farm would involve lush green pastures and animals happily grazing the day away.

The long-held notion that the UK is a world leader for animal welfare carries some truth. The achievements that have been made over the years since the dawn of large-scale, industrial farming have been monumental when it comes to the welfare of farm animals. The banning of the veal crate in 1990, for example, meant that calves were no longer confined into such a tight space they couldn’t turn around, were often tied by the neck, and fed low-quality feed which made their flesh turn white. This was one of the first of a string of victories in the ongoing fight against farming systems which are cruel to animals.

This might come as no surprise, but these victories haven’t always been met with delight from industry bodies who represent farmers and producers. Mostly, because the cruel practices of intensive farming such as veal crates, battery cages, sow stalls, and mutilations are what enable factory farming’s “productivity-above-all-else” mentality.

“Deregulation” is an ugly word, with an uglier meaning: Liz Truss, the environment secretary, is overseeing moves to scrap the statutory codes on farm animal welfare and move towards “industry-led” guidance instead. A government that prides itself on how much it cares for our animals wants to hand over animal welfare regulation to the very people who threaten it – while vigorously patting itself on the back for coming up with such an ingenious plan.

The government’s welfare codes have long been a useful addition to UK legislation on farm animal welfare, because they provide guidance to farmers on how to achieve better welfare in a practical and accessible way. Anyone who has ever tried to read legislative text will recognise the feeling of frustration in trying to decipher what almost feels like intentionally confusing jargon – so these codes are a helpful way of understanding what the government is trying to achieve.

Government planning to repeal animal welfare codes Read more

Many practices which are detrimental to animal welfare are often seen by the intensive farming industry as essential. Piglets in the cramped conditions of a factory farm often chew each-others’ tails off out of boredom and frustration. Instead of providing a more stimulating environment, it is common for intensive farmers to dock piglets’ tails. The government’s code of recommendations for the welfare of pigs, for example, states that the painful procedure of tail-docking should only be carried out as a last resort. It is hard to imagine that an intensive farmer’s definition of “last resort” would be the same as ours, or indeed, government officials. The way tail-docking is handled is the perfect example of how we can expect things to change should the deregulation go forward.

Seeing these codes scrapped and re-hashed in the hands of the industry is a serious step backwards. The industry, especially the pig and poultry industry, is sadly dominated by intensive farming. What signal is the government sending, when it is willing to let those who treat animals as products decide what’s best for them? As Animal Aid’s Andrew Tyler rightly put it: “How can the industry be trusted to enforce animal welfare regulations? It’s like leaving them to mark their own homework.”

We know that many farmers care deeply about the welfare of the animals they keep. The issue here is that these farmers are unlikely to have a say in how these new codes will be set. At a time when public concern and awareness for the welfare of farmed animals is at its highest, the government has decided to relinquish the reins and give up, undoing all the hard-earned progress we’ve made in improving the lives of the animals we call “food”.