Reader TTS

The many different consequences of the decision to quit the EU are being debated in depth in public life. But one aspect of the referendum vote has been widely overlooked – to the UK’s

shame. That is, the effect on billions of animals worldwide for decades to come and, perhaps, indefinitely. A major new report by vet and academic, Steven McCulloch of the University of

Winchester, says Brexit poses the biggest threat to animal protection, globally, as the UK loses its ability to influence policymaking and practice. Successive British governments, under the

pressure of public opinion, have been the driving force behind improvements to animal legislation in Europe, since 2007 – some of which have then gone on to be adopted by other countries.

They include bans on veal calf crates (2007), battery cages (2012) and sow stalls (2013) – caging systems that inflict intense stress, physically and mentally, restricting the natural

behaviour of calves, hens and pigs, such as suckling, stretching out, dust-bathing and running free. But when Britain leaves the bloc, its ability to spread positive reforms worldwide will

disappear, according to the analysis. Dr McCulloch says: “Brexit will result in a reduced political lobby within the EU for progressive animal-protection reform, with the UK having less

power to exert this influence to improve animal welfare outside the EU.” He warns: “The loss of political influence of the UK within the EU and its resultant impact on animal protection in

the EU and internationally may be the most substantial threat to animal protection.” Thanks to Britain’s influence, Chile, for example, now recognises animal sentience – the ability of

animals to feel pain, frustration, fear and pleasure. The report, which argues that post-Brexit the UK will have the potential to raise animal protection standards within our borders, also

warns against a downward spiral of lower-welfare imports – and not just for consumers. Dairy and eggs from animals raised in conditions considered cruel in the UK, as well as much-discussed

US chlorinated chickens and hormone-treated beef – outlawed in Britain – could drag down farming standards. Until now the concern has been for food quality and the effect on consumers’

health, but Dr McCulloch believes creating a much bigger market for these products will drive up numbers of animals born to suffer. The US has some of the lowest standards in the developed

world, according to Dr McCulloch. “If the UK government were to permit the import of lower welfare products, it is difficult to see how Brexit could have a net positive impact for animals,”

he added, warning British farmers may lobby for relaxed regulations. The government has stated its intention to maintain, or even improve, animal welfare post-Brexit, but the huge commercial

pressures to allow such imports may become irresistible. Dr McCulloch’s report, published in the journal _Animals_, also exposes how a draft Bill in 2017, aimed at enshrining sentience in

law post-Brexit, watered down animal protection. The draft Bill was put on hold after criticisms from MPs on the committee for environment, food and rural affairs. Asked about the delay to

the Bill, a Defra spokesman said the government was still consulting and planned legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allowed. Dr McCulloch said putting the Bill on hold had given

ministers and officials more “wiggle room” in policymaking. That’s because European law says the EU and member states must “pay full regard” to animal welfare when devising policies. But the

draft UK Bill referred to only paying “regard”, dropping the “full”. It also changed the obligation from “states” to simply “ministers”, prompting fears that councils and other public

bodies would compromise on principles. Both sets of changed wording could potentially allow those in power to disregard animal concerns when formulating and implementing policy. Ministers

would have more latitude when agreeing post-Brexit trade deals, for instance, according to Wildlife and Countryside Link. Councils may feel freer to allow industrial-style mega-farms,

according to James West of Compassion in World Farming.  And local authorities could start buying eggs from lower-welfare sources, he said. Dr McCulloch said new developments, involving

disturbing habitats of insects or “pests” such as foxes, could potentially pass more easily. Campaigners believe a no-deal Brexit – or Brexit before a sentience Bill is passed – is a huge

threat, allowing farm animals to be treated as if they were inanimate objects, such as sacks of potatoes. Dozens of animal and wildlife groups lobbied for sentience to be written into law,

calling for “a better deal for animals”. At a campaign launch, however, Defra secretary Michael Gove pledged: “I will continue to make sure we have the strongest legal protections in place

for our animals.” A Defra spokesman added: “We have absolutely no intention of watering down our welfare standards after we leave the EU. To suggest otherwise is thoroughly misleading. As

the secretary of state has also said on numerous occasions, we will not also lower our import standards in pursuit of trade deals. Some standards, such as the ban on growth-promoting

hormones, are already in domestic legislation. Others, such as the ban on chlorine washing of poultry, will be brought through the EU Withdrawal Act.” He said the term “regard” placed as

much duty on ministers as “full regard”. Debates over the Irish backstop, the economic fallout and freedom of movement continue endlessly, but Brexit’s consequences for farmed animals and

wildlife have scarcely been given a thought. Yet these are sentient beings, every bit as capable as you and me of feeling pain, fear, cold, discomfort, thirst, hunger, pleasure and joy –

their only difference from us being that they cannot tell us. The likelihood of Article 50 being revoked seems slim; but the more than 70 billion animals raised for food, globally, each year

need the UK. Our laws and regulations may be imperfect but they are better than most. If we compromise them, it will be a silent scandal.