UK to tighten laws on 'abhorrent' ivory trade

Defra consultation on proposals received more than 70,000 responses, 88% in favour

Maev Kennedy

Tue 3 Apr 2018 00.01 BST

A UK ban on ivory sales, which the government claims will be the toughest in Europe and one of the strictest in the world, is to be introduced after the proposals were overwhelmingly backed in a public consultation.

The ban makes exemptions only for musical instruments containing a small percentage of ivory, some antiques, and museum objects.

The environment secretary, Michael Gove, described the trade in ivory as “abhorrent” and said: “Ivory should never be seen as a commodity for financial gain or a status symbol, so we will introduce one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales to protect elephants for future generations.”

No date has yet been set for the introduction of the legislation. A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said it would be done “when parliamentary time allows”.

A study last summer of records under the convention on international trade in endangered species (Cites ) suggested that between 2010 and 2015 Britain was the largest exporter of legal ivory in the world.

The number of elephants in the wild is believed to have declined by almost a third in the past decade, and an estimated 20,000 a year are killed to meet the global demand for ivory.

Some campaigners have been seeking a blanket ban, but Charlie Mayhew, the chief executive of the African wildlife charity Tusk Trust, described the exemptions as pragmatic. “The ban will ensure there is no value for modern-day ivory and the tusks of recently poached elephants cannot enter the UK market,” he said.

Read on 

Science check call over badger cull

4 November 2014 Last updated at 01:55

By Pallab GhoshScience correspondent, BBC News

A journal of the British Ecological Society has offered to check the badger culling trials, amid questions about their scientific basis.

The offer could address concerns about the lack of independent oversight of the government-run trials.

The trials are to assess the effectiveness badger culling as a means to control the spread of TB to cattle.

If the government deems its trials a success, badger culling will be used in other parts of England.

The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) scrapped the role of an independent expert group last year which had found that the first year of culls had failed.

According to Prof Rosie Woodroffe, of the Zoological Society of London, Defra has given very few details of how it proposes to assess the effectiveness of the culls.

"I suspect they are doing it on the cheap," Prof Woodroffe told BBC News. "That is why there is concern that the answer they get will not be robust".

A Defra spokesperson told BBC News: "The minimum numbers for this year's culls were set using the best available evidence gathered by local experts and the approach was signed-off by Defra's chief scientist.

Continued ...

Battle to stop capture of England's first wild beavers in 500 years

Petition signed by 8,000 people against Defra scheme to trap and rehome creatures spotted near river Otter in Devon

Steven Morris

The Guardian, Wednesday 16 July 2014 19.27 BST

Mike Flynn was fly-fishing for brown trout when an unexpected creature hove into view. "We often see otters here – they are lithe, playful things – but this was quite different," said Flynn. "It chugged down the middle of the river a couple of rod-lengths away from me like a tug boat. There was no doubt it was one of the beavers. It took no notice of me; it was an amazing sight."

If the government gets its way, the presence of these beavers in a corner of Devon – the first to be sighted in England for 500 years – will be a short-lived affair. This month, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said it planned to trap the colony and transfer them to a zoo or wildlife park, arguing they are an invasive non-native species and could carry disease.

The move has caused consternation. Almost 8,000 people have signed a petition against Defra trapping the beavers and animal rights campaigners are patrolling the banks of the river Otter, ready to raise the alarm if the hunters move in. There are whispers that hunt saboteurs are preparing to disrupt any moves to trap the beavers.

Read more

After the badger cull, is Defra planning to kill Devon’s beavers?

JAMIE MERRILL

Tuesday 20 May 2014

The first confirmed sighting of wild beavers in England in hundreds of years delighted environmentalists.

But now the future of the family of beavers caught on film in the River Otter in Devon in February looks perilous, as campaigners fear the Government is drawing up plans to trap and cull them.

There have been huge successes reintroducing the dam-building mammals in Scotland in recent years, but campaigners say the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is in danger of sending the animal “back to the stone age” with its approach in England.

The Independent understands the warning from campaigners came after Defra contacted quango Natural England to investigate the beaver population at the Devon site and contacted experts to discuss “health screening work”, with one option on the table being a trap and cull policy.

Continued

The terrible truth about the badger cull

By Guest writer | Talking Politics – Mon, Feb 3, 2014

By Dominic Dyer

And so the results are in. At least, the ones we can actually get hold of.

Statistics, costs and opinions have been calculated about Defra's badger culls from last year. An independent expert panel will be meeting (or already have) to look at the aims of the policy, and whether they were met. Then environment minister Owen Paterson will decide whether or not to roll out the cull to other parts of the country.

Whether or not he'll take notice of those statistics, costs and opinions is another matter. But for the record, here's Care for the Wild's report on the badger cull.

First Impressions

To start with, Defra did all it could to blame badgers as being the prime cause of TB in cattle. In fact the vast majority of TB infections are between cattle, which are often housed in large numbers in sheds and moved around the country (over 13 million a year) with poor biosecurity, control movements and TB testing regimes.

Continued

Somerset badger cull fails to meet target, Defra admits

Defra said a total of 940 badgers were shot in west Somerset during the first year of the trial cull

One of the badger cull pilot schemes failed to meet its target - even after a three-week extension, the government has admitted.

The cull ended last week, with an estimated 65% reduction in the badger population in the west Somerset cull zone - the target was 70%.

The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said 940 badgers were shot in total.

A similar cull in Gloucestershire has been extended until 18 December.

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Owen Paterson said the two badger control pilots were "designed to test that controlled shooting is a safe, humane and effective means of reducing badger numbers".

"I am announcing to the House that the three-week extension period in the Somerset control area concluded as planned on Friday 1st November," said Mr Paterson.

"During this period, a further 90 badgers have been removed, giving an overall total of 940 for the first year of the four-year cull.

"This will deliver clear disease benefits as part of a four-year cull in the area.

"While conclusions will need to await the findings of the Independent Panel of Experts, current indications also suggest the pilot has been safe and humane."

Ministers and the National Farmers' Union say badger culling is needed to control incidents of TB in cattle.

About 28,000 cattle were slaughtered in 2012, at a cost of £100m to taxpayers.

However, animal welfare groups say scientific evidence does not support the policy of shooting badgers in an attempt to control the disease.

The Wildlife Trusts said the cull was a "complete failure" and should be halted.

Continued

Extending BADGER culls - the ignorance of this government - A Letter to Natural England

Extending BADGER culls - the ignorance of this government - A Letter to Natural England

Posted: 11 Oct 2013 07:25 AM PDT 

LETTER TO NATURAL ENGLAND 

Bindmans LLP, the solicitors acting on behalf of Badger Trust, issued the following letter to Natural England on 9th October 2013: 

Dear Sirs 

Proposed Claimant: Badger Trust 

Proposed Defendants: Natural England and Secretary of State for DEFRA 

We write further to our correspondence prior to the cull, which was to have been conducted under strict adherence to the licence conditions authorised by Natural England and DEFRA’s guidance to Natural England under section 15 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Despite the undisputed fact that the shooters have failed to reach the mandatory 70% targets within the permitted pilot timeframe, and the widespread reports of animal cruelty and serious public safety concerns, and the fact that it was necessary to resort to expensive cage-trapping during the cull term, we now learn that the shooting companies are proposing to apply to Natural England for an extension of the licence period beyond the maximum 6 weeks permitted.

 

DEFRA’s guidance to Natural England is quite clear in its terms: 

“10. Applicants must satisfy Natural England that they are able to deliver an effective cull in line with this policy and have arrangements in place to achieve this. To deliver an effective cull, the following requirements must be met. 

a. Culling must be co-ordinated on accessible land across the entire control area.

b. Culling must be sustained, which means it must be carried out annually (but not in closed seasons) for the duration of the licence (minimum of 4 years). The killing/taking of badgers must be limited to a six-week cull period specified in each licence. Culling will not be permitted during the following closed seasons: 

i. 1 December to 31 May for cage-trapping and shooting badgers;

ii. 1 February to 31 May for controlled shooting; and

iii. 1 December to 30 April for cage-trapping and vaccination. 

c. Culling must remove a minimum number of badgers in each year as specified below:

i. in the first year of culling, a minimum number of badgers must be removed during an intensive cull which must be carried out throughout the land to which there is access, over a period of not more than six consecutive weeks. This minimum number should be set at a level that in Natural England’s judgement should reduce the estimated badger population of the application area by at least 70%” [emphasis added]

Given the clear criteria in the guidance and the DEFRA December 2011 policy document, there is no legal power to extend the culling period in these circumstances.

Furthermore, even if this were not so, or if Natural England were asked to grant a new licence, it would be necessary to consult lawfully given the clear deviation from the fundamental terms of the published policy, which resulted from a consultation process. If there is serious consideration being given to an extension, please confirm in your reply that there will be proper consultation before doing so. 

We set out below reasons why granting an extension, which deviates even further from the RBCT methodology, would be likely to result in the spread of disease, and not meet the licence conditions. We hope that reports of an extension have been exaggerated and that it will not be necessary to seek injunctive relief to prevent such a harmful course of action. We seek confirmation of your position on the matter. 

In the RBCT, proactive culls were completed across entire areas in 8-11 nights. On the four occasions when culls were conducted non-simultaneously and hence were prolonged (lasting 33, 107, 150 and 207 days from start to finish), there was an increase in the proportion of badgers infected, over and above the “background” increase in badger TB prompted by culling. The associated odds ratio was 1.7 (95% CI 1.18-2.56) (Woodroffe et al. 2006)[1]. Subsequently, DEFRA sought other explanations for this effect, but it remained evident despite the small sample size.

On the basis of the published analyses Sir David King agreed with the ISG[2] thus:

“Sir David confirmed that conducting badger culls simultaneously over such an area would have to be an essential element of any culling programme that was deemed to have been undertaken competently” (ISG 2008) 

And Defra’ science advisory committee[3] said this:

“There is little useful data on the issue of what time period should be considered as “simultaneous”. The Group advised that if culling was carried out in a period of up to 6 weeks (although preferably less), that is likely to reduce the adverse effects of non-simultaneous culling; this advice is based on opinion and not on evidence. The longer the period that culling is carried out in, the less confident one can be that the deleterious effects seen with non-simultaneous culling as carried out in the RBCT will be minimized.” (Science Advisory Council/Bovine Tuberculosis Science Advisory Body Joint Group on Defra’s Bovine TB consultation 2010) 

To grant any extension or licence fresh culling in these circumstances would further undermine the purported purpose for which a licence under Protection of Badgers Act 1992 was granted – prevention of the spread of disease.

We look forward to hearing from you by close of business on Monday. 

Yours faithfully

Bindmans LLP 

[1] Woodroffe, R., Donnelly, C.A., Jenkins, H.E., Johnston, W.T., Cox, D.R., Bourne, F.J., Cheeseman, C.L., Delahay, R.J., Clifton-Hadley, R.S., Gettinby, G., Gilks, P., Hewinson, R.G., McInerney, J.P. & Morrison, W.I. (2006) Culling and cattle controls influence tuberculosis risk for badgers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 14713-14717.

[2] ISG (2008) Meeting between the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser 13th December 2007. Defra.

[3] Science Advisory Council/Bovine Tuberculosis Science Advisory Body Joint Group on Defra’s Bovine TB consultation (2010) Advice based on the consultation questions. 

Badger Trust Contact: 

Jack Reedy 07751 731107

01564 783129

Badger cull a shambles according to Conservation charity – DEFRA denies

Somerset badger cull

September 2013. Following the revelation in the Western Morning News that shooters involved in the badger cull in Somerset are failing to kill anything like the numbers of badgers required to fulfil their quotas, Mark Jones, veterinarian and Executive Director of Humane Society International/UK gave the following reaction:

"It comes as no surprise that the badger cull is failing in its efforts to devastate badger populations in the pilot areas. This unjustified policy has been a shambles from the outset. It deeply saddens me that even one badger has to suffer and die for the sake of political expediency. The government should have rejected this policy from the start, and instead focused on more progressive, humane, and science-based solutions to the problem of TB in cattle. Now it must abandon this travesty that has already cost farmers and the taxpayer dear and caused deep divisions within our communities."

DEFRA breach on information

DEFRA is also in breach of a legally binding decision of the Information Commissioner, who ordered DEFRA to release information to HSI UK on exactly how ‘humaneness' was to be measured and assessed during the pilot culls. The legally binding deadlines for DEFRA to release the information, or appeal the decision, have both passed, but as yet no appeal has been lodged and HSI UK has received no further information.

DEFRA DENIES

A DEFRA spokeswoman has claimed that the HSI is incorrect in stating that the deadline for the information has passed. DEFRA believes that the deadline is the 23rd September, and that this will be met.

The spokeswoman, when questioned about the quota, stated that they will not be providing a running commentary on the numbers involved, and that they will provide details once the cull has finished.

Continued

DEFRA ordered to release badger cull information

Information Commissioner says DEFRA wrong to withhold information on badger cull suffering

August 2013. The Information Commissioner has ruled that DEFRA was wrong to refuse animal charity Humane Society International/UK access to information about how it intends to assess the 'humaneness' of its badger cull. DEFRA has been given 35 days to disclose information that HSI UK first requested under the Freedom of Information Act in October 2012 about how the suffering of badgers will be assessed during the imminent pilot culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset. 

HSI UK is extremely concerned that the Government's plans for badgers to be shot at night with high velocity rifles and shot guns, will result in considerable animal suffering. So in October 2012 HSI UK asked DEFRA to make public information related to its so-called 'humaneness assessment' - one of the key stated purposes of the pilot culls.

‘Delay and time wasting'

After much delay and time wasting, in May 2013 DEFRA supplied a heavily redacted document which withheld substantial amounts of information relating to three of HSI UK's five questions. It cited various sections of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as its excuse for refusing disclosure. HSI/UK appealed and following an investigation, the Information Commissioner's Office has found in HSI UK's favour, declaring that DEFRA incorrectly applied the EIR and ordering it to disclose the redacted information.

Extensive physical injury

HSI UK's persistence has already forced DEFRA to reveal that it expects many badgers will be shot and mortally wounded but not killed outright during the pilot culls. Official DEFRA documents reveal that these animals are expected to suffer extensive physical injury and die from shock, excessive bleeding and starvation due to physical injury.

Some 240 badger carcasses will be collected for examination, however, DEFRA has consistently refused to answer how these carcasses will be selected for post mortem examination; what examination protocols will be used to determine humaneness; and how shot and wounded badgers who retreat underground to die (and will arguably suffer the most) will be factored in to the humaneness assessment. 

Continued

Buglife questions Defra Minister's TV statements about Neonicotinoids and bees

Defra Minister David Heath on ITV

July 2013. On Thursday 18th July ITV's Tonight programme investigated the current bee and wild pollinator crisis which threatens food security. Defra Minister David Heath appeared on the programme and made a number of statements about neonicotinoid pesticides that are highly questionable.

Discounting the conclusions of over a hundred studies by independent scientists which show that neonicotinoids are an environmental risk David Heath stated "There's abundant evidence that this is a substance which is toxic in the laboratory...What we have not been able to demonstrate yet is there's any linkage between that and what you see in field conditions where you have much lower dosages than were applied in the laboratory tests".

Contradicted the opinion of the Government's own scientific advisory group

This statement contradicts the opinion of the Government's own scientific advisory group, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP). In the January 2013 meeting "Members commented that the laboratory and semi-laboratory studies reported in the literature represent sound science. The main questions raised were about whether the nature of the exposure was realistic, and information to date suggests the exposures were reasonable".

David Heath also stated that "Wouldn't you expect there to be some evidence after all of these trials, somebody to have gone on and said "What's actually happening in the field?" but they haven't".

Read on

Defra statistics show bTB soared after cattle imports

A case of foot in mouth for Defra as their own evidence reveals true cause of bTB outbreak

May 2013. Statistics released by Defra in a bid to explain why the badger cull must go ahead have, in fact, revealed the true cause of the bTB outbreak that they are trying to stop, say Care for the Wild.

bTB soared after Foot and Mouth controls relaxed

Figures show that incidences of bTB soared in 2000/2001, in certain areas. This correlates almost exactly with the relaxation of movement controls after the Foot and Mouth epidemic, which saw large numbers of herds restocked from the UK and across Europe.

Influx of untested cattle

Philip Mansbridge, Care for the Wild CEO, said: "It's not been a good day for advocates of the badger cull. First, Lord Krebs, the leading expert on bTB, repeated his belief that a cull is ‘crazy'. Then Defra themselves give detailed evidence as to why they are culling - but close examination shows that badgers clearly are not to blame for this outbreak - it was the influx of untested cattle after the Foot and Mouth outbreak.

"There's an increasing air of Emperor's New Clothes about this badger cull. Defra desperately want people to believe that it will work, and that it is scientifically valid - but it won't and it isn't. The science says that at best it'll reduce bTB by 16% after nine years - that simply is not enough to justify slaughtering 8 out of 10 badgers in this country.

Read on

Time to ban monkeys from UK pet trade

Why is it still legal to import monkeys as pets in the UK?

March 2013. Wild Futures, the leading primate charity that runs The Monkey Sanctuary in Cornwall, the only GFAS-accredited primate sanctuary in Europe, was very grateful last week when Michaela Strachan took some time out during her present tour (The Really Wild Adventures) to find out about the charity's current campaign to end the primate pet trade.

5000 primates privately owned in the UK!
Wild Futures has been campaigning heavily to end the primate pet trade due to it being a huge problem in the UK and legislation not being enforced. Wild Futures along with the RSPCA estimate that there are at least 5,000 privately owned primates in the UK.

Non-compliance
Wild Futures was instrumental in the creation of Defra's Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-Human Primates, which came into force in 2010. The Code is a guide to the steps that must be taken by primate keepers in order to ensure compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. Under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act (DWAA) 1976, owners of most primate species must obtain a licence from their local authority. However, non-compliance with the DWAA is rife, and there is little awareness or consideration of the Code on the part of keepers or the relevant authorities. Subsequently, the situation is mess, with monkeys suffering in inappropriate environments all around the UK. Wild Futures believes that the only enforceable option is to ban the trade in primates as pets.

Continued:  http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/monkey-pets.html

Wildlife charity threatens legal action over bee killing pesticides

Government ignoring plight of Britain's bees

November 2012. Wildlife charity, Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust is asking the UK Government to justify its decision to allow the use of bee killing pesticides or face a court case. Buglife has sent Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) a letter outlining a possible case as a preliminary to legal action. Buglife has also submitted the letter as evidence to the current House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into the impact of insecticides on bees and other insects.

Suspended in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia
Buglife argue that the legislation is clear; governments must take a precautionary approach in regulating pesticides. As a result France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia have suspended various neonicotinoid insecticides. Meanwhile in the UK neonicotinoid use has grown to the point where they are used on 1.2 million hectares of the British countryside.

Matt Shardlow, Buglife Chief Executive Officer said "Buglife has repeatedly raised concerns about the potential that these insecticides have to damage pollinators and the service they provide to us, but every time new bee damage evidence is published Government repeats that there is not enough proof to act. We believe that Government must stop their use now because there is no proof that neonicotinoids are environmentally safe".

"If we lose, bees, hoverflies, butterflies, mayflies and earthworms then wildflowers, garden flowers and fruits will dwindle and we will all suffer. This loss could cost UK farmers an estimated £510 million annually in crop yield, with the addition of alternative pollination methods costing a further £1.8 billion each year".

For years Buglife has been concerned that pesticide regulation is unable to identify which pesticides will damage populations of wild, non-target, invertebrates. Buglife is questioning the grounds on which Defra made the decision that ‘no change in the existing regulation of neonicotinoids is required' and considers that the decision is open to challenge by way of a judicial review.

Read on:  http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/bees-defra.html

Inquiry launched into neonicotinoid safety

Buglife applaud Committee inquiry on bees and neonicotinoids

September 2012. Yesterday the Environment Audit Committee launched a new inquiry into the impact of insecticides on insects.

Matt Shardlow, Buglife CEO said "Bees, butterflies and hoverflies across Britain applaud this announcement. There is robust scientific evidence that neonicotinoid pesticides have dire effects on bees and other pollinators - Government continues to dismiss the mounting evidence on increasingly flimsy grounds; this is not a sustainable position."

DEFRA
In light of Defra's review of research into neonicotinoid insecticides and bees published on the 18th September 2012 the Committee will investigate whether Defra's decision not to take action is justified with the available evidence.

Matt Shardlow, Buglife CEO said "For four years Buglife has been campaigning for a precautionary ban on Neonicotinoid insecticides - in all that time the Government has failed to produce evidence that these chemicals are safe. This enquiry should focus on the key legal question - has it been proven than these pesticides are not damaging key parts of our environment"

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/neonicotinoid-safety.html

Campaigners go to court to overturn cull decision

Wildlife campaigners are today expected to launch a High Court legal challenge against the Government's proposed badger cull.

The Badger Trust hope the two-day judicial review will overturn what it believes are unscientific plans to shoot the animals in England. Trials are earmarked for West Somerset and West Gloucestershire.

Lawyers for the trust will ask the court to quash the decision to authorise culling made by the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) last December.

According to the trust, culling will spread the disease amongst livestock – vaccination is its preferred option.

The trust hopes it can repeat its 2010 victory over the Welsh Assembly when a judicial review saw the plans to cull overturned.

The Welsh Government has dumped its bid to cull and will instead vaccinate badgers.

David Williams, chairman of the Badger Trust, said the charity had a legal duty to mount the challenge.

He said: "We see it as our duty to use all legal means of persuasion and scientific argument to overturn this decision which risks making a bad situation even worse."

Gwendolen Morgan, solicitor for the trust, said culling would cause rather than prevent disease in cattle and therefore failed the legal test for licensing.

She added: "In terms of its cost-benefit analysis, Defra made a decision on basis A, when in reality the plan may well be rolled out on basis B.

"As a matter of public law, that is unlawful."

The trust argues government guidance given to Natural England who are responsible for licensing was legally flawed.

They claim killing badgers was not one of Natural England's original functions and legally culling badgers to prevent disease lies in the hands of the Secretary of State.

Ms Morgan said: "Defra's culling plans are bad for farmers, bad for cattle, and bad for badgers. The plans cost millions, and threaten to prompt rather than prevent the spread of disease."

Humane Society International/UK backs the legal move.

Mark Jones, veterinarian and executive director at the society, said: "As a plan to eradicate tuberculosis in cattle, it lacks any scientific credibility. Consequently, the badger cull finds itself opposed by a host of scientific, conservation and welfare experts and the subject of multiple legal challenges."

One Cornish farmer, who asked not to be named, said vaccination was costly and insisted the cull was necessary to protect livestock and prevent farmers going out of business.

He said: "We're not talking about wiping out the whole of the badger population just reducing numbers to beat the disease.

"Vaccination will cost millions of taxpayers' pounds and we have no idea how effective it will be."

A decision from the High Court is expected in several weeks' time.

http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/Campaigners-court-overturn-cull-decision/story-16446364-detail/story.html

Cruelty to farm animals should come as no surprise

The recently released footage of workers at a slaughterhouse in Essex punching, beating and stubbing out cigarettes on pigs makes for extremely distressing viewing. Animal Aid should be applauded for documenting such horrific and illegal abuse, and exposing it to the public and relevant government authorities.


The fact that Defra has decided that it cannot prosecute such obvious violations of animal welfare standards – on the grounds that the footage was obtained by trespass – is incredibly frustrating. Moreover, it is not entirely clear that trespass has to serve as an absolute roadblock to prosecution. Given the gravity of the incidents, it certainly seems like a proper use of Defra's resources to pursue the case further.

In any case, recording and publicising footage from this and other slaughterhouses is not of value only insofar as it leads to the prosecution and punishment of the wrongdoers. It is also of value in that it makes us confront a much wider issue: the very processes by which our food is obtained.

After all, while the cruelties shown in the footage appear to be in breach of legal standards, it is worth reflecting on what those standards are designed to regulate: a process that is quite astonishing in terms of its scale and efficiency.

At bottom, of course, that process is a massive slaughter. But it is one that is planned, industrialised and breathtakingly efficient. It is an organised slaughter that successfully "processes" around 100,000 cattle, sheep and pigs every single day in the UK. Across the EU as a whole, 800,000 cattle, sheep and pigs are slaughtered every day for food. Moreover, despite the good work of animal protection organisations, and despite much talk of a growth in public sentimentality towards animals, these systems of industrialised slaughter are on the increase. For one, the efficient processing methods perfected in Europe and North America are now being adopted elsewhere around the globe, as the modern westernised diet grows in popularity. Indeed, global per capita consumption of meat has more than doubled between 1961 and 2007 and is expected to double again by 2050.

Even when legal animal welfare standards are met within these modern slaughterhouses, we must question the "humanity" of the process of which they are a part. Societies introduce animal welfare standards, quite rightly, because they recognise that animals such as pigs are beings that can experience joy and suffering in their lives. And yet, those standards regulate a system in which vast quantities of those sentient creatures are lawfully bred, confined, mutilated, fattened and transported in lorries to death on an assembly line. It is hard to see what is humane about such a process, even without deliberate beatings, burnings and other such cruelties.

Crucially, within the context of an industrial system designed to dispatch animals so routinely and in such massive numbers, it can hardly be much of a surprise that there are some workers who commit the kind of horrific cruelties exposed by Animal Aid.

I do not say this with the intention of excusing those individuals. Undoubtedly, those who commit such acts do so of their own free will and should be held accountable and punished as such. But at the same time, it has to be acknowledged that a system which reduces so many millions of sentient, social and intelligent animals to "units" to be dispatched on an assembly line is likely to have some undesirable consequences. Not least, the fact that these animals are sentient, sociable and intelligent is likely to be neglected or ignored.

To expect humane practices within a system that is so fundamentally inhumane is perhaps to expect too much.

Alasdair Cochrane guardian.co.uk,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/cruelty-farm-animals-slaughterhouse