Animal welfare at German abattoirs: insights into the occurrence of violations against laws and regulations from official veterinarians and judicial decisions.

Introduction: This study investigated the occurrence of various animal welfare violations at German abattoirs by analyzing the results of an anonymous online survey and relevant German court decisions. Methods: The survey targeted official veterinarians (OVs) and other individuals responsible for enforcing animal welfare laws and regulations at German abattoirs. Participants were asked to report the five most common animal welfare violations in their workplaces during the past 3 years (2019-2021), and whether 22 specific given violations had occurred or not (in the same timeframe). The court decisions were examined to determine how many abattoirs were penalized for a specific animal welfare violation and the details about the number and species of affected animals. Results: Overall, the violations examined throughout this study fell into one of the following categories: (1) use of prohibited driving aids (e.g., illicit use of electric prods, or hitting/beating animals); (2) inadequate husbandry in lairage; (3) inappropriate handling of animals with special care needs; (4) improper restraint, stunning, and bleeding of animals; and (5) unqualified task execution/inadequate administrative work (e.g., documentation of a violation). The violations analyzed in the scope of this study most frequently fell into categories 1, 2, and 4. Regarding the five violations that survey participants reported to be the most common in the years 2019-2021, 42.6% of responses (N = 277 reported violations) fell into category 4, followed closely by category 1 with 37.9%. Of the 22 violations surveyed in the second part of the survey, those reported by 50.0% or more participants were concentrated in categories 1, 2, and 4. Regarding the 16 relevant court rulings spanning from 2015 to 2022, the most frequently documented instances of misconduct primarily fell into category 1. Discussion: The collected data suggest that there may be need for improvements regarding compliance with animal welfare legislation, especially concerning categories 1, 2, and 4. The authors suggest OVs to consider these findings when conducting monitoring activities at abattoirs and in the training and education of abattoir personnel.

Animal rights, animal research, and the need to reimagine science.

What would it look like for researchers to take non-human animal rights seriously? Recent discussions foster the impression that scientific practice needs to be reformed to make animal research ethical: just as there is ethically rigorous human research, so there can be ethically rigorous animal research. We argue that practically little existing animal research would be ethical and that ethical animal research is not scalable. Since animal research is integral to the existing scientific paradigm, taking animal rights seriously requires a radical, wholesale reimagining of science.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05340426.

Inclusive dignity.

The idea of dignity is pervasive in political discourse. It is central to human rights theory and practice, and it features regularly in conceptions of social justice as well as in the social movements they seek to understand or orient. However, dignity talk has been criticized for leading to problematic exclusion. Critics challenge it for undermining our recognition of the rights of non-human animals and of many human individuals (such as children, the elderly, and people with disabilities). I argue that, on a plausible articulation of it, the idea of dignity does not lead to these exclusions and that it in fact helps defend an appropriately inclusive moral and political treatment of all individuals. Difficult issues about equality and diversity indeed arise, but a dignitarian approach can provide good answers to them or at least help make them clearer and more tractable.

[Historical and philosophical issues in animal experimentation]. / Enjeux historiques et philosophiques de l'expérimentation animale.

Initial practices involving experimentation with animals can be found in ancient Greece, but animal experimentation as understood in the modern world first emerged in the Renaissance. In the 19th century, the French scientist Claude Bernard analysed the basis for animal experimentation using the Cartesian philosophical concept of animals being equivalent to machines. Yet as Claude Bernard's work on biology developed, it showed that animals, in particular the so-called sentient animals, did have forms of sensitivity and consciousness similar to humans. This led to the present-day moral concern with animal experimentation. The moral argument is expressed in philosophical terms in the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights and the law known as the "Three Rs", while the practical measures for implementation are set out in the European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, and then as transposed and enforced in the different European Union Member States. This has led to improvements in the treatment of animals used for experimentation, and also allows scope for further improvements to be added in the future, particularly with alternative methods.

Title: Enjeux historiques et philosophiques de l'expérimentation animale. Abstract: Les ébauches de l'expérimentation animale peuvent être trouvées dans l'Antiquité, mais sa pratique moderne s'amorce à partir de la Renaissance. C'est Claude Bernard qui en analyse au XIXe siècle les bases, fondées sur le concept philosophique cartésien de l'animal-machine. Mais le développement même de la biologie bernardienne a révélé que les animaux, notamment les animaux dits « sentients ¼, disposent de processus de sensibilité et de conscience proches de ceux des êtres humains. D'où un souci moral qui se glisse, de nos jours, dans l'expérimentation animale et qui conduit à diverses améliorations du traitement des animaux d'expérience.

Why don't politicians talk about meat? The political psychology of human-animal relations in elections.

Building on literature from political science and psychology, I argue that political attention on animals and animal-friendly political candidates cause voter backlash. I test this using two different kinds of experiments with large, representative samples. I ask respondents to consider political candidates running for office in a U.S. presidential primary context. I find that, overall, political attention on the need to reduce meat consumption for environmental reasons caused voter backlash compared to both a control condition and attention on the need to reduce reliance on gasoline-powered vehicles (also for environmental reasons). But, the heterogeneous effects of partisan identification were strong: voter backlash was mainly driven by Republicans and Democrats were neutral. Surprisingly, candidates who put attention on farm animal rights during elections faced no voter backlash from Republicans or Democrats. Animal-friendly candidates, particularly Black women and Latinas, with attributes that demonstrate personal concern for farm animals and strong support for animal rights generally fared very well in elections, receiving large boosts in voter support. This work launches a research agenda in political psychology that "brings the animal in" to politics.

Legal Personhood for Animals: Has Science Made Its Case?

The use of Latin in identifying an organism's genus and species is likely familiar to scientists and zoological professionals, but a traditional legal doctrine, known as habeas corpus (meaning "you have the body") may not have obvious applicability to nonhumans in the animal kingdom. In recent years, animal rights organizations have utilized the habeas corpus doctrine as a basis to bring legal challenges on behalf of nonhuman animals to expand "legal personhood" to them. These lawsuits, which have focused on species such as nonhuman primates and elephants, seek to challenge the "confinement" of animals in zoological institutions and by private owners, much like a prisoner or other detainee. The small but vocal animal legal personhood movement bases its argument on the fact that elephants and nonhuman primates are highly sentient and have complex cognitive characteristics. Proponents of legal personhood for animals have argued that the common law has progressed and expanded over the years as societal norms and conditions have changed and, much like the law has expanded to afford women and persons of color legal rights and protections, so should the law expand to treat animals the same as humans. Despite these efforts, to date, no court in the United States has accepted this invitation. This article summarizes key legal challenges and decisions to date in the United States, examines how science and societal conditions have influenced the law, and analyzes the reasons why legal personhood for animals so far has been viewed as a "bridge too far" in the American legal system.

Sentience and Intrinsic Worth as a Pluralist Foundation for Fundamental Animal Rights.

To date, welfare protections have failed animals. In this context, many animal advocates and scholars have supported recognition of animal rights. Animal rights theory, however, remains underdeveloped. This article contributes to the development of animal rights theory and, in this respect, proposes the utilisation of sentience and intrinsic worth concepts as a pluralist foundation for prospective animal rights. Sentience and intrinsic worth as a conceptual underpinning for animal rights hold clear benefits in that (i) the concepts are already embedded in many legal systems, (ii) sentience would enable the development of animal rights to be built on the established interest theory of rights, and (iii) sentience directly links to the justification of rights as being primarily concerned with the prevention of pain and suffering.

A Inserção Acadêmica dos Movimentos Pró-Animal no Brasil sob a Perspectiva Bioética

Objetivo/Contexto. Objetivou-se caracterizar o ativismo pró-animal e a concepção popular e acadêmica dos movimentos de proteção animal no Brasil sob a perspectiva da bioética, elencado os argumentos e as vulnerabilidades. Metodologia/Abordagem. A pesquisa se caracteriza como de abordagem mista (quali-quantitativa) envolvendo três dimensões: a) mapeamento das organizações não governamentais (ONG) e movimentos sociais pró-animal; b) análise opinião popular quanto a atuação dos movimentos pró-animal; c) revisão bibliográfica integrativa sobre movimentos sociais pró-animais. Resultados/Descobertas. O Ativismo foi caracterizado pelas ONGs e movimentos sociais pró-animais, os quais embora comunguem o interesse da proteção animal divergem em linguagem, processos e ideologias que comprometem a sinergia de esforços. A vulnerabilidade do ativismo esteve atrelada a necessidade engajamento da sociedade e das barreiras de inserção na academia. A vulnerabilidade do público leigo foi demostrado necessidade de instrumentalização para acessar as informações tanto do ativismo quanto da ciência, a fim se subsidiar decisões conscientes na relação com os animais não-humanos. Por fim, a academia apresentou vulnerabilidades atreladas a credibilidade e adesão social e do ativismo quanto aos seus processos balizados por normatizações legais e metodológicas que atestam a sua idoneidade. Discussão/Conclusões/Contribuições: A academia despontou como o eixo capacitado para intermediar o debate e a deliberação da proteção animal juntamente com a sociedade e o ativismo. A bioética com seus pressupostos éticos, natureza dialogante e multidisciplinar, atuantes nos espaços das comissões de ética no uso de animais, se apresenta como uma ferramenta hábil na superação dos ruídos de comunicação.

Propósito/Contexto. El objetivo fue caracterizar el activismo proanimal y la concepción popular y académica de los movimientos de protección animal en Brasil desde la perspectiva de la Bioética, enumerando los argumentos y las vulnerabilidades. Metodología/Enfoque. La investigación se caracteriza por tener un enfoque mixto (cuali-cuantitativo) que involucra tres dimensiones: a) mapeo de organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) y movimientos sociales proanimales; b) análisis de la opinión popular sobre la actuación de los movimientos proanimales; c) revisión integradora de literatura sobre movimientos sociales proanimales. Resultados/Hallazgos. El activismo se caracterizó por ONG y movimientos sociales proanimales, que si bien comparten el interés por la protección animal, difieren en lenguajes, procesos e ideologías que comprometen la sinergia de esfuerzos. La vulnerabilidad del activismo está ligada a la necesidad de involucrar a la sociedad y las barreras para ingresar a la academia. La vulnerabilidad del público lego radica en la necesidad de instrumentalización para acceder a información tanto del activismo como de la ciencia para apoyar decisiones conscientes en la relación con animales no humanos. Finalmente, la academia presentó vulnerabilidades vinculadas a la credibilidad y la adhesión y activismo social respecto de sus procesos que se guían por normas legales y metodológicas que dan fe de su idoneidad. Discusión/Conclusiones/Contribuciones. La academia surgió como el eje capaz de mediar el debate y la deliberación de la protección animal junto con la sociedad y el activismo. La Bioética con sus presupuestos éticos, de carácter dialogante y multidisciplinario, activa en los espacios de los comités de ética en el uso de animales, se presenta como una herramienta hábil para superar el ruido de la comunicación.

Purpose/Background. Our objective was to characterize pro-animal activism and the popular and academic conception of animal protection movements in Brazil from the perspective of bioethics, listing the arguments and vulnerabilities. Methodology/Approach. The research is characterized as having a mixed approach (quali-quantitative) involving three dimensions: a) mapping of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and pro-animal social movements; b) analysis of popular opinion regarding the performance of pro-animal movements; c) integrative literature review on pro-animal social movements. Results/Findings. Activism was characterized by pro-animal NGOS and social movements, which, although they share the interest in animal protection, differ in language, processes and ideologies that compromise the synergy of efforts. The vulnerability of activism is linked to the need to engage society and the barriers to entering academia. The vulnerability of the lay public lies in the need for instrumentalization to access information from both activism and science to support conscious decisions in the relationship with non-human animals. Finally, the academy also presented vulnerabilities linked to credibility and social adherence and activism regarding its processes that are guided by legal and methodological norms that attest to its suitability. Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions. The academy emerged as the axis able to mediate the debate and deliberation of animal protection together with society and activism. Bioethics with its ethical assumptions, dialoguing and multidisciplinary nature, active in the spaces of ethics committees, presents itself as a skillful tool in overcoming communication noise.

The 12 Rs Framework as a Comprehensive, Unifying Construct for Principles Guiding Animal Research Ethics.

Animal research ethics and animal welfare in science have become progressively tightly regulated, and ethical integrity and scientific quality, as well as social responsiveness and responsibility have become key requirements for research to be approved, funded, published, and accepted. The multitude of factors to contemplate has in some instances not only become complex, requiring a team approach, but often perceived as confusing and overwhelming. To facilitate a process of simplistic yet comprehensive conceptualization, we developed the 12 Rs Framework to act as a mind map to guide scientists, oversight structures, and other stakeholders through the myriad of ethical considerations. It unfolds into three domains of twelve encompassing ethical principles, values, and other considerations, including the animal welfare, social values, and scientific integrity domains, whilst also recognizing the diversity of local context, legal requirements, values, and cultures around the globe. In the end, it can be seen as a unifying ethical framework to foster and promote animal research ethics.

Rawls and Animal Moral Personality.

The relationship between animal rights and contractarian theories of justice such as that of Rawls has long been vexed. In this article, I contribute to the debate over the possibility of inclusion of animals in Rawls's theory of justice by critiquing the rationale he gives for their omission: that they do not possess moral personality. Contrary to Rawls's assumptions, it appears that some animals may possess the moral powers that comprise moral personality, albeit to a lesser extent than most humans. Some animals can act in pursuit of preferences and desires (and communicate them non-verbally), which might be taken as implicitly selecting a conception of the good; further, scientific research demonstrating inequity aversion and social play behaviors suggests that some animals can have a sense of justice relating to their own social groups. I conclude that Rawls's theory needs to acknowledge any animals that can be considered to meet the threshold of moral personality, while the concept of moral personality as a range property may also require reconsideration.

Anthropocentrism, Natural Harmony, Sentience and Animal Rights: Are We Allowed to Use Animals for Our Own Purposes?

Taking a cue from J.W. Yates' recent work on animal sentience published in this journal, which explores the field and categorizes it as a harmony with nature and a recognition of its values, inferring that the inclusion of animals in the sphere of objective rights is the obligatory step for a real sustainability in all human activities, this opinion paper seeks to challenge some of the claims made in the article and present an alternative perspective on sentience and animal rights. Preliminarily, I propose a semantic word-washing and the use of more precise terms instead of not well-defined ones such as "harmony" in relation to nature and "sentience" in relation to animals, and I affirm that there can be only one point of view, however rich in dialectics, which is the human one for looking at the problems of animal ethics. Below, I present the thesis that concludes that it is not possible to attribute rights to animals, but it is our right and duty to protect their well-being, which requires states to pass laws for their defence. I conclude that while it is acceptable to raise animals for priority human rights (such as food and health), it is also an obligation to properly care for and protect them.

What Do Chimeras Think About?

Non-human animal chimeras, containing human neurological cells, have been created in the laboratory. Despite a great deal of debate, the status of such beings has not been resolved. Under normal definitions, such a being could either be unconventionally human or abnormally animal. Practical investigations in animal sentience, artificial intelligence, and now chimera research, suggest that such beings may be assumed to have no legal rights, so philosophy could provide a different answer. In this vein, therefore, we can ask: What would a chimera, if it could think, think about? Thinking is used to capture the phenomena of a novel, chimeric being perceiving its terrible predicament as no more than a laboratory experiment. The creation of a thinking chimera therefore forces us to reconsider our assumptions about what makes human beings (potentially) unique (and other sentient animals different), because, as such, a chimera's existence bridges our social and legal expectations about definitions of human and animal. Society has often evolved new social norms based on different kinds of (ir)rational contrivances; the imperative of non-contradiction, which is defended here, therefore requires a specific philosophical response to the rights of a thinking chimeric being.

The relationship between attitudes to human rights and to animal rights is partially mediated by empathy.

Veganism has become increasingly popular in recent years in many countries including the UK and the USA. Studies have found that vegans tend to be female, lower in Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and higher in feminist perspectives (FPS). Study 1 (n = 311) investigated the relationships among meat consumption, ethical veganism (using a custom-written scale), RWA, SDO, and FPS, in a series of questionnaires completed online. RWA, SDO, and meat consumption correlated together in one group of variables; FPS and ethical veganism correlated together in a distinct group. In Study 2 participants also completed the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) as a potential mediator variable. The relationship between RWA, SDO, and FPS as predictors, and ethical veganism as target, was partially mediated by empathy. This pattern of results suggests that individuals who hold egalitarian and inclusive views as regards human-human relationships also tend to have similar views as regards human-animal relationships, with empathy as an underlying common factor.

Animal rights, environment, or health? Effects of argument type and dissonance on the attitudes toward the consumption of animals.

The scientific literature and advocacy organisations highlight three harm-related arguments as paramount reasons for the reduction and cessation of the consumption of animal-derived products (ADP) - violence toward animals, damage to the environment, and human health. However, research on their comparative effects is scarce and there is no clear definition of which type of argument is the most effective in restricting ADP consumption. Based on cognitive dissonance theory, this study aimed to investigate the effects of these types of arguments on meat-eaters' attitudes and beliefs toward the propositions of reducing and ceasing ADP consumption. The study sample comprised 545 Brazilian adults. We adopted an experimental between-subjects design based on the presentation of vignettes. Each participant responded to one of the vignettes (animal rights, environmental, or health arguments) or a control condition. Results showed that greater levels of ADP-related dissonance provoked greater positive attitudes toward the reduction and cessation of ADP consumption. Compared to baseline, the animal rights and environmental messages significantly increased dissonance and positive attitudes toward ADP restriction, but not the health argument. Participants most frequently adopted the dissonance-management strategies of denial of responsibility, denial of harm, and the articulation of beliefs favourable to change. The discussion highlights that the different effects of social influence contexts and argument types depend on their capacity to reveal ADP consumption as morally problematic behaviour. To our knowledge, this is the first study to experimentally compare the effects of animal rights, environmental and health-related arguments in generating ADP-related dissonance and attitude change.

Corporate insecthood.

Whether the corporation should be considered a person is a matter of active academic and public debate. Here, we examine whether, and in what ways, ordinary citizens conceptualize the corporation as a person. We present evidence that corporations are anthropomorphized, but only to a certain degree. Compared with other entities, the average corporation is considered about as similar to a person as an ant. Corporations differ in the extent to which people are willing to grant them personhood however, and this pattern is predicted by how salient the organization's mental and moral traits are. This process of anthropomorphization has important downstream consequences, increasing support for granting legal rights and responsibilities to corporations. Because our studies show that this relationship also obtains for animals, we conclude that perceptions of corporate personhood draw on a more general set of rules for assessing an entity's personhood.

Individuals Matter: Dilemmas and Solutions in Conservation and Animal Welfare Practices in Zoos.

Compassionate conservation advocates for minimizing individual suffering in conservation practice and adheres to the principle "individuals matter"-intrinsically, in and of themselves. Our objective is to determine the extent to which, and how, zoos recognize the intrinsic value of wild individuals beyond their status as members of species or ecosystems. We analyzed discourses surrounding the Smithsonian National Zoo in the U.S.A., the zoos of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in France, and the Seoul Grand Park Zoo in South Korea. Using existing literature on zoos, conservation, animal welfare, and rights, we distilled two discourses (justificatory and abolitionist). Through interviews with professionals in the zoo, conservation, welfare, and animal rights communities, we demonstrate how actors frame individual zoo animals as (1) sentient persons, (2) reproductive components, and (3) species ambassadors. Our analysis shows how actors' views shape three zoo practices related to ex situ conservation: (1) captivity, (2) captive breeding, and (3) culling. This analysis revealed two significant findings. First, actors representing the justificatory discourse fail to frame animals as intrinsically valuable individuals. Second, within the constraints of the zoo, the intrinsic value of individual animals is recognized through welfare practices and education focused on fulfilling animal interests.

Animal Research that Respects Animal Rights: Extending Requirements for Research with Humans to Animals.

The purpose of this article is to show that animal rights are not necessarily at odds with the use of animals for research. If animals hold basic moral rights similar to those of humans, then we should consequently extend the ethical requirements guiding research with humans to research with animals. The article spells out how this can be done in practice by applying the seven requirements for ethical research with humans proposed by Ezekiel Emanuel, David Wendler, and Christine Grady to animal research. These requirements are (1) social value, (2) scientific validity, (3) independent review, (4) fair subject selection, (5) favorable risk-benefit ratio, (6) informed consent, and (7) respect for research subjects. In practice, this means that we must reform the practice of animal research to make it more similar to research with humans, rather than completely abolish the former. Indeed, if we ban animal research altogether, then we would also deprive animals of its potential benefits-which would be ethically problematic.

The welfare of wildlife: an interdisciplinary analysis of harm in the legal and illegal wildlife trades and possible ways forward.

Wildlife trade-both legal and illegal-is an activity that is currently the focus of global attention. Concerns over the loss of biodiversity, partly stemming from overexploitation, and the corona virus pandemic, likely originating from wildlife trade, are urgent matters. These concerns though centre on people. Only sometimes does the discussion focus on the wildlife traded and their welfare. In this article, we make the case as to why welfare is an important component of any discussion or policy about wildlife trade, not only for the interests of the wildlife, but also for the sake of humans. We detail the harm in the trade as well as the current welfare provisions, particularly in relation to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which guide global transport and trade. There are a number of ways that the current approach to wildlife welfare could be improved, and we propose ways forward in this regard.

Should We Protect Animals from Hate Speech?

Laws against hate speech protect members of certain human groups. However, they do not offer protection to nonhuman animals. Using racist hate speech as our primary example, we explore the discrepancy between the legal response to hate speech targeting human groups and what might be called anti-animal or speciesist hate speech. We explore two sets of possible defences of this legal discrepancy drawn from the philosophical literature on hate speech-non-consequentialist and harm-based-and find both wanting. We thus conclude that, absent a compelling alternative argument, there is no in-principle reason to support the censure of racist hate speech but not the censure of speciesist hate speech.

Diagnosis of animal abuse: A Brazilian study.

Due to their intimate relationship with human beings, animals can experience abuse, especially in the family environment. Research on the variables involved in this topic is scarce in Latin America. The objective of this study was to identify the main types of animal abuse in Brazilian municipalities and to characterize animals and perpetrators in addition to identifying the socioeconomic factors associated with the incidents. The occurrences of animal abuse were analyzed from the records of the Police Station Specialized in Fauna Crimes Investigation Department of the Civil Police of Minas Gerais operating in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, from September 2016 to September 2018. Events involving cruelty to animals were categorized as active maltreatment, while acts of omission, which refer to neglected animals, were categorized as passive maltreatment, defined according to sets of nutritional, health, behavioral, and comfort indicators. Cruel crimes were the most frequently registered (45.7 %, 101/221), with intoxication and aggression being the most common types. Active maltreatment generated more deaths compared to passive maltreatment (OR: 3.900, 95 % CI: 1.873-8.588, p<0.05). Regarding abuse, dogs were the most affected animals (59.7 %, 132/221), followed by felines (14.9 %, 33/221), equine (5.4 %, 12/221), birds (5.8 %, 13/221), poultry (2.7 %, 6/221), reptiles (2.2 %, 5/221), and other groups of animals (9.0 %, 20/221). Adults were the most frequently reported (55.2 %, 122/221) age of abused animals. Cats were the main cruelty victims, with the highest chance of death (OR: 6.829, 95 %CI: 2.916-16.696, p<0.05) and were those who suffered most from intoxication abuse (OR: 4.72, 95 % CI 1.585-14.996, p=0.001). The perpetrators of abuse were predominantly males (66.8 %, 137/205) aged between 40 and 59 years (38.6 %, 53/137). Perpetrators of committing animal cruelty were 3.57 times more likely to be male and 2.5 times more likely to have no college education. The perpetrators of animal abandonment had a 25 times greater chance of being between 18 and 24 years old compared to the category between 40 and 59 years old and perpetrators of animal intoxication had 5 times greater chance of being also between 18 and 24 years old. Among all victimized animals, dogs and cats were the most affected, probably due to their close relationships with humans. Understanding the profile of victims and suspects involved in neglect maltreatment and cruelty to animals is fundamental to the establishment of policies and strategies to prevent and restrain these activities.