The Disclosure Podcast
Join best-selling author Ed Winters as he dives into veganism and our connection with animals, touching on everything from philosophy and psychology to health, science, politics, and the environment.
The Disclosure Podcast
Inside the Legal Fight Against Animal Farming. An Animal Law Solicitor Explains How the Law Is Being Used Against Animal Farming | In conversation with Edie Bowles
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Since recording this episode, the UK government has presented its new Animal Welfare Strategy. One of the things that is set to be banned is the boiling alive of lobsters and crabs. This an issue that Edie Bowles and her team have been campaigning on, taking the legal fight to the UK government and compelling them to change the welfare laws around crustaceans.
Can the law take on animal farming? In this episode, I sit down with animal law solicitor Edie Bowles who explains how the law is being used to protect animals, the battles being fought behind the scenes, and what it could mean for the future of farming.
Edie Bowles is an accomplished animal law solicitor and co-founder of both Advocates for Animals (AFA) - the UK’s first animal protection law firm - and The Animal Law Foundation (ALF), a charity that researches and advocates for better enforcement and interpretation of animal protection laws.
Edie began her career in intellectual property law and heard little about animal law as a career option during university. Once she discovered it was possible to turn her passion for animals into a profession, she made the switch, spending several years as a solicitor with Cruelty Free International before founding AFA and ALF.
You can find more about Edie's work here:
- https://www.advocates-for-animals.com/
- https://animallawfoundation.org/
- Social media handle: @AnimalLawFDN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
📚To order my new book, click this link.
For more exclusive content and personal writing from me, check out my Substack here.
On my Substack, I share not only my own reflections and personal thoughts on veganism, but also my journey and struggles. You’ll get a deeper insight into the issues that matter most to me and, in doing so, I hope it helps you feel more connected to your own veganism as well. It’s a space where we can connect and explore the intersection of compassion, reason and rationality together. By joining my Substack you also support the work that I do!
Through my Substack you can also receive regular free 'Good News Roundups' - a collection of positive and inspiring stories from the world of veganism.
If you’d like to support my work separately to Substack, you can also make a one-off or monthly donation here or through my PayPal.
If you’re interested in reading my previous books, you can find them here:
📚 My second book How to Argue With a Meat Eater (And Win Every Time) + if you’ve read the book, you can leave a review here!
📚 My first book This is Vegan Propaganda (& Other Lies the Meat Industry Tells You).
Additionally, if you enjoyed this episode, I’d be so grateful if you could leave a review or rating. Your feedback helps the podcast reach more people, and it truly means a lot to me. If you think this episode would resonate with someone you know, please share it with them too.
Thank you so much for listening to this episode and for all of your support. I look forward to speaking to you again in the next episode!
Welcome to the Disclosure Podcast. If you enjoy this episode and the work that I'm doing here, then please consider checking out my Substack where I post regular articles. You can also support my work by becoming a paid member of my Substack, through which you will also gain access to weekly articles or by making a donation through my website. For those of you who do support my work, thank you so much. I am incredibly grateful and appreciate it very much. Links for everything can be found in this episode's show notes. Leaving a review for this podcast is also really helpful and encourages more people to listen to it. I hope you find this episode interesting and informative, and thank you for listening. Hello everyone, and welcome to this episode of the Disclosure Podcast. On today's episode, I'm thrilled to be joined by Edie Bulls. Edie is the co-founder of Advocates for Animals, which is the UK's first animal protection law firm, and is the founder of the Animal Law Foundation, which is a charity that advocates and researches for better enforcement and interpretation of animal protection laws. Edie started her career in intellectual property law before marrying her passion for law with her passion for animal protection and before working in the current organizations that she currently works for. Edie was a solicitor for several years with Cruelty Free International. So, Edie, thank you so much for joining me today on the podcast.
SPEAKER_01Thank you very much for having me.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, my absolute pleasure. And we've we've known each other for a number of years. I think we met back in 2018, was it? Yeah.
SPEAKER_01I mean, you'll always be very kind of instrumental in the journey because we had, of course, our launch party for one of my ventures advocates for animals. We had our launch party at Unity Diner.
SPEAKER_00That's right.
SPEAKER_01And um, yeah, you were there. And I remember people being starstruck, Ed.
SPEAKER_00Oh, I'm glad that you're very kind. It's a it's a real honor to have you here because I really admire the dedication that you put into the work that you do in a field that's notoriously difficult. Um, and I think it's really wonderful to have someone like yourself spearheading this side of the movement because you know, we all approach veganism as advocates in in different ways, but there's this huge side of advocacy, which is obviously the legal side, which is so crucial. Um, and so I think it's really wonderful that you're you're spearheading that and you're involved in that and pushing this side of the conversation as well. And actually, on that point, maybe we could start by talking about the Animal Law Foundation. I wondered if you if you could maybe talk about why you founded it and and the work that you do there.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, of course. So the Animal Law Foundation actually came about as a result of the work that I do through my separate entity, Advocates for Animals. So, Advocates for Animals is a law firm that represents um clients from across the animal protection space and also individuals and activists as well. And through doing that work, so we we founded that organization around, I mean, around 2018. And through doing that work for clients day in, day out, it became very apparent how much work there was to do. And quite often through doing research on you know various client projects, um, I'd come across a new legal problem and um approach potential clients with, you know, with a potential case. And sometimes they were interested, which is great. In fact, one of our really important cases to do with fast-growing chickens happened that way. I identified a case, approached the Humane League, and the Humane League thankfully wanted to take up that case. Brilliant. But there were often cases where there wasn't a potential client for lots of, you know, really valid reasons, perhaps financial reasons or campaigning reasons. And it just felt a shame for those really important cases that could have huge um implications for animals to just fall through the cracks. And so it then became apparent that another entity was needed that could focus on researching areas of animal law and what's actually happening in practice on the ground for animals, and uh yeah, where where necessary, bring bring legal interventions. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Oh, that's terrific. And I think there's there's a few core issues that I wanted to discuss around sort of enforcement, the current situation in terms of what laws are on the table, what they actually mean for animals, do they make a difference, what needs to change? But I think maybe before we delve into sort of the the current context around animal protection laws, maybe we sort of go back in time and maybe sort of talk about the origin. You know, what were the first animal welfare laws that were introduced and and when was that?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, great question. So it's a big question. I mean, caring about animals has been a you know, it's something that goes back into, you know, ancient history, really, you know, and and spirituality and religions have, you know, have all had their version of compassion towards animals and frameworks around that. So it really does have ancient origins, and then of course, philosophy took over the mantle, and you know, there were lots of debates throughout the centuries over, you know, the treatment of animals um by you know various philosophers. So all of that really does kind of pave the way for what then followed in terms of codifying that into statutes. Um, so actually the UK is the birthplace for that for the first kind of nationwide statute on animal law, and that happened around 1822. It was something called Martin's Act. And um it was actually the ill-treatment of Cattle Act, uh, I believe, but everyone refers to it as Martin's Act, um, named after um an MP called Richard Martin. Um I believe he was maybe an Irish MP. But anyway, he cared about animals and did not like the way certain animals were being treated. So uh lobbied for this, for this piece of legislation, which essentially protected certain animals from ill-treatment. And then what we see after that is a series of pieces of legislation where that, first of all, where that act gets uh extended to include more animals, and then different acts where, you know, they're they'll deal with different industries, so where that was to do with cattle, but by the uh old meaning of the word, which is essentially shattle and meaning money and capital. Um, you know, we see laws later that in the, you know, you know, not long after the Cruelty to Animals Act, I believe, which um regulated certain animal experiments. You then see throughout the decades, you see a series of laws that regulate, you know, the treatment of wild animals, um, how animals should be slaughtered, pet trades, boarding houses. So what you see is just a succession then of welfare protections come into place, bringing us to the modern day, where essentially everything operates now pretty much under the Animal Welfare Act when it comes to, you know, animals under human control or domesticated animals. Um, but there are obviously different frameworks to do with animals kept in a wild state and and you know, and trade and various things, invasive species. But the main piece of legislation when it comes to humans' control over animals is the Animal Welfare Act.
SPEAKER_00It seems like in the past sort of 200 years or so since that first piece of legislation, it feels like there's been, from a legal perspective, quite a bit of progress. I mean, there must have been some, you know, you were talking about bringing more animals into the scope, maybe sort of widening what that scope involves in terms of what happens to individual species. So presumably we have what would now currently be the best set of animal welfare laws that we've ever had on paper, but we also have the worst system that we've ever had, and we have more animals being exploited and farmed than we've ever had. I mean, in the UK, we're we know we've never farmed more animals in a, in a worse way than we currently do, but then also at the same time we have more laws supposedly protecting animals. And this seems like a bit of a paradox. Is that because the laws are failing to be enforced correctly, or is it just that the industry is able to sort of bypass these laws? How is it true that we have these two seemingly contradictory realities in existence?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, it's it's a really fair point. I think that at its core, it's to do with, you know, a wider problem and a direct a global direction of travel in terms of the treatment of animals and in terms of you know the intensive farming model. I think that that's just a global trend. It's worth noting that in countries where they don't have as many animal protection laws as we might have, it's not that there's kind of public outcry about animal abuse there or, you know, better treatment of animals there necessarily. So I don't necessarily think there's a correlation between the extent of animal laws that exist and um yeah, and the, you know, and and uh the growing exploitation of animals. I do think that that's just a wider direction of travel. I do agree with what you've said that actually there's a lot that should be happening within those laws that's not happening. I think that, you know, it's one of the reasons why I think animal law is so important. I think what's happened historically is that these laws have been left to the industry to interpret them as they see fit. Just to give you one example of that, there was a law. Well, actually, the law was kind of based off a case. So there was a case called Ford versus Wiley in, I believe, the 1800s. And then the principle established in that case was essentially codified in a later law in 1911 called the Protection of Animals Act. In that case, the a farmer um removed horns off a cattle without the proper anesthetic, and it was known to cause a lot of pain. Anyway, that farmer was prosecuted, and within that case, they essentially came up with the modern definition of unnecessary suffering. And that that case basically said that, yeah, if you're gonna it was previously unlawful to do something cruel to an animal, and essentially it said it's cruel if it's unnecessary. But one of the things that was actually really crucial in that case is it's it essentially said that the commercial benefit of doing it without an anesthetic was not a legitimate aim. It wasn't legitimate to do that. And I find that that's that's quite a progressive principle, especially when you look at where we are today. Now, essentially that principle of unnecessary suffering was then codified in the Protection of Animals Act, and of course, even exists today in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. But instead, you know, we, you know, instead of that principle of commercial benefits not being a legit legitimate aim being upheld, in fact, we see that commercial benefit is often the reason why there's a lot of suffering caused to animals. Now, I would argue that with lawyers, you know, around throughout this kind of history and throughout this evolution of treatment of animals, nipping stuff in the bud, saying, hang on, what about what about this very important case and this very important principle? A lot of those practices might have been able to be curbed or stopped entirely. So yeah, so to go back to your point, I think what's happened is that these laws quite often have progressive aims kind of tied up within them, but left them to, you know, left in the industry to do what they will, um, or indeed no one monitoring. And so as a result, they can get away even if, you know, even if actually we would argue it is unlawful. So, yes, I think that there's a lot of opportunities that aren't being explored.
SPEAKER_00And I suppose part of the problem then is that when these practices were starting to become the norm within the industry, there wasn't a legal challenge. So perhaps the part of the issue that you face now, and obviously the animals face, is that these practices have become so ingrained, so normalized, so undisputed, that to challenge them legally, even if there seems to be, at least on papers, strong grounds to do so, feels like a more insurmountable task because of the sort of culturally, socially, and I suppose sort of not legally ingrained, but kind of allowed legally for so long that it doesn't feel like it's a legal issue to these farmers and industries.
SPEAKER_01Completely. That's exactly what I think has happened. And I think that, you know, the good news is we can start now. Um, and on top of that, you know, can really help raise awareness of this stuff and and hopefully press a bit of, you know, press the reset button on some of these practices. You know, I think that people would be horrified to learn, you know, that some of these practices go on for, you know, let's just take one example, the selective breeding of chickens, for example, and what that actually looks like for the life of a chicken and the suffering that's involved and the densely populated way that the, you know, the the the confined living spaces that they're forced to endure. I think people would be horrified to learn that. And and the fact that it's legal. In fact, quite often when I tell people about my work, people are shocked that this stuff's legal. So actually, in people's minds, a lot of these practices are illegal. And so actually, there's a lot of work that can be done there to shine a light on it and hopefully press the reset button and put animals actually back into the Animal Welfare Act.
SPEAKER_00I mean, that sounds sounds like a fantastic thing. And then there's this sort of voice that in the back of my head says if there was a legal challenge that was indisputable, is there a risk that the government would just change the law, would would retract the law rather than hold the industry accountable to the law?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I'm smiling because they've just done that. I mean, actually, it's no sm it's no smiling matter. But uh, it's yeah, exactly. It is a risk. I mean, so so background of the case where this has just happened. So one of the cases through the Animal Law Foundation, um, that's that, yeah, that that we're actually going through litigation um with at the moment. Essentially, there was this EU-derived piece of legislation that said you can't pick animals up by the legs uh during transport and transport-related operations. Now, the only time a chicken will be picked up is during transport or transport-related operations, save for a few exceptions. You know, they're dropped off in these massive sheds as chicks, and then what, six weeks later, scooped up, put into lorries, and that's that's the life of a chicken. What that actually looks like, that handling process, that transport process, it looks like these chicken catchers going into these big sheds, swooping up several, often in one hand, and then shoving them in crates. Now, this causes a lot of uh welfare issues, you know, damp break broken legs, a lot of panic. Chickens can't breathe when they're upside down because they don't have a diaphragm. So there's a lot of welfare issues associated with this handling practice. And on top of that, this EU-derived law says you can't pick animals up by the legs. There is no carve-out for chickens within this legislation. And in fact, in the Netherlands, they've had success with this same piece of legislation because it is standard practice on farms throughout Europe. So, anyway, we brought a similar case to what they brought in the Netherlands in the UK. And sure enough, rather than enforce the law, the government has just recently changed the law. They rushed that through parliament without any scrutiny. Um, first dilution of, you know, first dilution of animal welfare since Brexit, something that they promised that they wouldn't do. Yes. Labour's first animal welfare policy. So really, really shocking stuff. And of course, does exactly what you just said. To that, I would argue several things. I first of all would argue that it hasn't changed anything for chickens, you know, on the ground. Chickens were being handled this way anyway. And in fact, if we're gonna go with the kind of welfare benefit, actually, prior to this dilution in law, it was standard practice to pick chickens up by one leg. Right. The law has made it clear that it has to be two legs. So actually, on that very, very marginal welfare benefit, that's you know, that that's that's something. Um, but of course it's not about that. The the thing that I also think it's done is it's basically informed the government that they are being watched and that they're being scrutinized. I think that they would be very um cautious to do something like that again, certainly anytime soon. Throughout the process, the the minimal scrutiny that did happen whilst it was rushed through Parliament, the House of Lords did produce a damning report um scrutinizing what the government has done and actually saying, you know, why were you not enforcing this law before? Right. Um, so again, that's something that has been put to the government by the House of Lords. And I mean, I guess a kind of a more uh maybe important point is the fact that I don't think that we should be paralyzed by that fear, you know, by rocking the boat. The reality is, is the industry are going to want to do what they want to do. And they'll largely have a sympathetic ear with the government. I think we've got to basically do what we can to curtail so much of that, especially when we're dealing with these awful practices, you know, these intensive models. And so, yeah, I think it's just part of part of a necessary approach to kind of do what we can.
SPEAKER_00You know, we obviously we're we're passionately vegan, but people who aren't vegan are still passionate about animals and animal welfare issues. You know, that might sound somewhat contradictory at times, but I think about previous examples where politicians or political parties have somewhat gone against the grain when it comes to animal issues. Theresa May with talking about repealing the fox hunting ban. Um, and I think David Cameron as well, before then, was looking at changing the sit the setup so that the chicken industry would be self-regulated, something, but then he had to do a U-10 on that because there was so much backlash. And so I think that obviously in this case it's it's very damning, especially as it's been rushed through. But if they were going to go against the animal welfare bill, there's this sort of landmark piece of legislation that really sets the tone for how we as a country like to perceive our relationship with animals. I think that would be a step too far for the electorate vegan or not to say, oh, rather than you know, holding these industries accountable, we're going to scrap the law or heavily water it down. I think that would become a political issue in a way that that that maybe uh hasn't previously been. So I do think we should find some comfort in in sort of recognizing that Britain, even if we do contribute to these systems through the purchase we make, I think the British attitude is one that still values animals in a way that would that would make them uncomfortable to see these laws watered down significantly. Um yeah, hopefully. Um but then I suppose that brings us on to something else, which is we were speaking before about how some of these laws are a little bit older and these practices are very much ingrained. But something that a little bit more recent that happened is in relation to lobsters and crabs. So correct me if I'm wrong, but we have a sentience bill in in uh in the UK where we recognize certain species of animals as being sentient, and we recently added lobsters and crabs to that bill, which means that we should change how we treat them because we recognize that these are feeling conscious sentient beings under the law. And then we have the Animal Welfare Act where we we're not supposed to inflict unnecessary harm and pain and distress on animals. But what I think is quite scary is when that uh inclusion of lobsters and crabs occurred, which I think was just a few years ago, DEFRA in the UK, who is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, had said that it wouldn't change how these animals were treated, including in restaurants such as being boiled alive. So under law, we know these animals are sentient, we recognize them as being sentient. We also have laws that are supposed to protect them from unnecessary pain, harm, and distress, but we can still boil them alive in in in commercial kitchens. I mean, that's just such an obvious contradiction, surely.
SPEAKER_01So, yes, you you raise a really good point um by bringing up the Sentience Act, and in fact, it's something that we're working on at the Animal Law Foundation, especially as it pertains to crabs and lobsters. Right. Um, however, before I get into that, let's just take a step back in terms of what you said about the recognition of sentience. So the Sentience Act 2022 essentially recognized animals as sentient and extended that to decapod crustaceans and cephalopods. So it established that principle, which was, you know, symbolically a very powerful um position to have that these animals are now recognized as sentient. However, prior to that, the recognition of sentience for lots of animals was already well established. You know, as soon as you recognize that animals can suffer, which of course is present in lots of legislation, then you've recognized their sentience. What that means in terms of the contradictions that it reveals, right? You know, you recognize animals as sentient and yet they receive certain treatment. I think that what that shows is something that does just represent the truth about the law, and especially the law in this country, which essentially means that a law can, you know, do or don't do whatever it says it will or won't do. And so you can end up with these contradictions where you can recognise that animals are sentient and yet you can kind of legally have their, you know, legally kind of have a piece of legislation that would mean that they suffer. I think that that isn't the end of the story because within that there's also a lot of opportunity. It essentially means that you can actually then lobby to have a law say something else and to say what you want it to say. I think sometimes people assume we need some massive, um, you know, lofty new way of being. Actually, we have a vehicle, we have, you know, we have a process in place where we could lobby for a law to say you cannot treat animals this way. And certainly there's been lots of laws that have said that. You know, we've seen lots of laws ban practices, you know, dolphin area banned, frog grass banned, um, fur farming is banned. Various pieces of legislation have done that. So I think that the law is just that. It it says what it does in the tin. And in this case, the law was simply set up to say animals are sentient. However, it did do something interesting as well as that. It did also set up the animal welfare, the animal sentience committee, sorry, and the animal sentience committee is for. Specifically set up to review government policy and policy making, and essentially put together a report assessing whether it feels that due regard is being paid to animals as a result of their sentience. And some of these reports are actually, you know, quite critical of the government. In fact, recently they produced a report on the poor enforcement of animal welfare laws. And yeah, essentially, you know, we've done a lot on that over at the Animal Law Foundation and, in fact, cited our work. So it did set up that, which means that, you know, the act itself wasn't entirely kind of futile and symbolic. It also did have a kind of a proactive element to it. However, more importantly than that, the Sentience Act, in recognizing decapod crustaceans as sentience, I would argue activated another legal protection where decapod crustaceans fall under and essentially has banned the boiling of these animals alive. And this is what we're working on at the Animal Law Foundation currently. So under the welfare of animals at the time of killing regulations, decapod crustaceans are actually protected. It's very interesting. Prior to the recognition of sentience, it would have been difficult to argue that boiling these animals alive was illegal because the protection under the welfare of animals at the time of killing essentially says that you can't cause these animals avoidable pain and suffering at the time of killing. So prior to the recognition of sentience, it would have been difficult to win that case because essentially the other side would have just said, well, how do you know they suffer? Whereas as soon as they're recognized as sentient, then this the suffering aspect of that test has been recognized. So then it all comes down to what's avoidable or not. And there are alternative ways of doing this. And so it is wholly avoidable. So over, yeah, over the Animal Law Foundation, we're exploring that. And in fact, we do hope to have some positive movement on that soon, which uh, yeah, which I mean, you've when I've been, you know, I've been doing this for a long time now, so until something's happened, it's not happened. Um, but we do hope to have some positive developments on that soon. But actually, one of the um one of the ways that we started that case was actually to do with that statement that you brought up at the start about DEFRA saying it won't change industry practices, that they're recognised as sentient, because in fact, we would, you know, we would challenge that statement and we would say that that's an unlawful statement that DEFRA has put out, saying that, you know, it doesn't change anything because it does, it activates this other legal provision. And in fact, we've written to local authorities up and down the country because local authorities are actually in charge of enforcing animal welfare law. And so we've written to them making them aware of this, you know, of this, uh, of what of what the Sentience Act does for this other legal provision and had, you know, varying, varying degrees of success. So um in Birmingham, a councillor put it to the chamber. In Sheffield, they actually opened a criminal investigation. It wasn't to do with buying a lobster alive, it was actually to do with someone crushing a lobster with their heel. But it was a recognition that lobsters are protected under the welfare of animals at the time of killing. So certainly something to, you know, build on. But yeah, like I say, hope to have some positive developments in that area.
SPEAKER_00That's good to hear because it's one of those more obvious contradictions. And I think when we were talking, to me, one of the issues that that sort of springs out about some of this is sort of the vagueness in the wording, and you'd said about avoidable, and you'd said, well, there are other ways of killing them, which means that it is it is avoidable. Does that mean though, that let's say in the case of chickens or pigs or cattle, where there are other ways of killing these animals, but most likely those ways are not going to cause less suffering or harm or less pain? And I think sort of the gas chamber's example for for poultry, but also for pigs, is is a good example of something that is so utterly terrible, but the industry makes sort of welfare claims around it related to the the way that they die and such. If there is, say, on paper, not another a way of killing these animals that is higher welfare that doesn't cause less suffering and pain, does the law inherently then protect something like gas chambers based on the fact that out of all slaughtering options, this would be the quote unquote most humane and high welfare, even though the alternative would be to not do these things in the first place? Like, does does that word inherently protect the act of slaughter?
SPEAKER_01So it's a really it's a really interesting point. So I think, yes, on the face of it, maybe. So on the face of it, there does tend to be, you know, the assumption that unless it's expressly banned, it's not banned. However, there are some exceptions to that. So sometimes things have been banned just based on interpretations of the law. So Frog Gras, for example, um, was banned under the Animal Welfare Act because it wasn't deemed a suitable diet and it was, you know, deemed to cause unnecessary suffering. So I think that there's a, there's a, there's, again, there's kind of opportunities to explore there in terms of how far some of these concepts can be interpreted. Um yeah, and I think that that example you raised about the pigs going to gas chambers, again, I would put that down to there not being enough animal lawyers challenging this stuff. Because actually, you know, and again, I don't want to kind of split hairs over kind of wh which gas is better, but actually, you know, there are alternative ways, you know, to killing these animals, and yet they're using one of the worst ways of killing these animals for again, you know, going doing full circle back to that Ford and Wiley case for commercial reasons. Um, and so I think that there's a lot of opportunities to explore there that aren't being explored. And on top of that, there are interpretations which could potentially ban some practices.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. That's fascinating, of course. Yeah, the the the interpretation of it related to commercial reasoning, because the reason they use the the CO2 and the ratios of gas as they do is because it's the most commercially viable. So there is every single day in slaughterhouses, there is a violation of the precedent that was set all those years ago. So it feels like that there is sort of a ripe opportunity for some for some good, strong legal testing of all of this. Is this something the industry is aware of? Do they do you think that they're sort of cautious to this? Do you think they've just never had these challenges put towards them? Is there sort of a complacency in there? Do you think that they would be sort of prepared for something like that, or are they just sort of complacent in these attitudes?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so I definitely think complacent in these attitudes, and I definitely think emboldened as a result of things going on for so long and with so much support. Um, but I also think that it's it's also got more complicated. I think, in part due to what you said earlier about these things that have been going on for so long, they become the kind of cultural norm, and then it's very hard to undo that the cat's out of the bag, or to want to use a more animal-friendly version if you know one. Um but I also think the law itself has got more complicated. So, under the current definition of unnecessary suffering within the Animal Welfare Act, when determining whether that suffering was necessary or not, one of the considerations is whether it's, you know, whether it's whether someone's following legislation elsewhere. And so what we see is we see a whole kind of host of pieces of legislation that basically outline how to how to slaughter and how to keep these animals. And some of those conditions are like, you know, horrific stocking densities or horrific killing methods. Um, but the problem is, is again, that's kind of set into the law as being something that then becomes necessary, deemed necessary suffering. I don't think that that makes it um impossible to challenge, because of course, the secondary piece of legislation, which these pieces of legislation I'm referring to that tend to explain how to kill, how to keep an animal, tend to be secondary legislation. Secondary legislation needs to be compatible with the primary legislation, and the primary legislation in this case would be the Animal Welfare Act. And so these cases aren't insurmountable, they're just very complicated, made more complicated by the fact that these practices have been going on for so long.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and that makes complete sense. Um, one of the things that the industry will often say, and I do actually have some sympathy for this, we know in the case of I'll say pig pig producers in the UK, if we create stronger welfare laws that are then enforced correctly and and and ultimately change how the industry is forced to farm, there's also the issue with imports. And what's what's so frustrating is we you know we've banned foie gras, we've banned fur, but it can still be imported. And it just sort of makes a mockery of the idea that we're saying these industries are so immoral that they should be outlawed, but you can still import them and sell them here. How do we then address the balance of creating laws and restrictions in this country? But how do we then sort of combat the fact that retailers and supermarkets can just pay for cheaper imports that the consumer will opt for because of the the lower costs, the way they're marketed and branded? Is there sort of that that sort of challenge of not just restrictions in this country, but restrictions in terms of what we can import?
SPEAKER_01Absolutely, absolutely. So, and that is a real risk, but again, it kind of comes down to what I was saying earlier about, you know, about the law is what it is, and it says what it says, and it does what it does. Right. And, you know, this is the principle, I think, of legal positivism. Yeah, we could essentially ban the import through legislation. So again, that stuff needs to be kind of lobbied for and campaigned for. Um, but certainly certain things have been banned. You know, seal fur, dog fur, cat fur, that's all banned. There's there's import bans on that, on that stuff. So again, you could, you know, you could widen that principle. But it's a, you know, it's a it's a common, it's a common concern actually that, you know, we have these standards and yet it becomes a race to the bottom when when you import. And in fact, you know, especially as you know, trade deals are being entered into at the moment, um, that definitely seems to be front and centre of the animal protection community's mind. You know, the fact that the fact that you know we'll enter a trade deal with Australia and we'll end up seeing certain products in the market or America and you know, wasn't it chlorinated chicken that was the big yeah, the big Palm and beef and chlorinated chicken?
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And it looks like, you know, all of that stuff is potentially still on the table. And, you know, currently we're going through negotiations with the EU. Um, well, we'll potentially be harmonising our legislation with theirs. Um and we just need to make sure that, you know, that that doesn't mean that we can't improve our standards. Um, and indeed we we don't import things in that's to a lower standard. But of course, that's difficult to do, especially when dealing with global trade. Um, but it's not, there are principles that have established that it's possible. And so I think it's really just within the realms of campaigning and lobbying to make that a reality. And the good news is the law can achieve it, which we've already seen.
SPEAKER_00Well, that's yeah, it I suppose it is that sort of ongoing challenge. But then the same legal frameworks, which as you're saying, we could use to restrict how animal products are produced in this country, can be applied in similar ways. So there is that sort of way of closing that loophole, so to speak, which I think is sorely needed. And I think it in a in a way, I think it would make the argument more compelling for animal farmers in this country if they if they felt that they weren't going to be sort of left hang out to dry by having extra restrictions placed on them, but then undercut by by imports. So in a way, there's a sort of argument that if the government was able to sort of close the gaps on on imports to make them match the sort of the standards we have here, that would actually maybe encourage farmers here to naturally want to improve standards or at least make them less antagonistic towards the idea of doing so. Um, but then maybe that's wishful thinking. Um, I'm not so sure.
SPEAKER_01I don't think it's wishful thinking, actually. You do tend to see a lot of alignment on this particular issue between the animal protection community and you know, and and farmers, because yeah, for for you know, the no one, you know, farmers do not want to be importing, you know, they do not want the UK to be importing in products that undercut them, you know. There might be a commercial reason to it, but yeah, there's there's a lot of well, you know, and and they would argue that they also, you know, want to see those standards mean something. Um, but yes, they there is alignment on that particular issue.
SPEAKER_00I guess part of the problem then is if we move the conversation on to sort of the next element of this, which I think is quite fascinating and arguably in many ways maybe even more challenging. So we so let's say that we have laws passed that are obviously there to protect animals, and let's say that we pass uh stronger laws, these laws are kind of more ingrained and and and as a consequence are providing more meaningful protections, there's still the issue of enforcement. Because we see uh from investigations in in farms and in slaughterhouses, we we we see consistently violations of laws, and that's just from the ones that are investigated, but you know, there are thousands and thousands of farms. How do we know that these laws are actually being properly enforced? You know, it's one thing having something on a piece of paper or online that says this is how animals should be treated, but then we still see uh uh uh terrible things happening on a daily basis that that breach even these legal standards. I know that with Animal Law Foundation, you you've published a couple of reports looking specifically at this this very issue. So I'm wondering if you could maybe speak to it and some of the problems you faced and maybe some of the solutions to make this issue a little bit more manageable.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, sure. And you you said, you know, how do we know that the laws are being enforced? Um and to answer that question, well, we know that they're not, actually. You know, we we know that. So yeah, our data that we've gathered at the Animal Law Foundation essentially asked uh all of the regulators and enforcement bodies that are responsible in this space, um, a series of questions. So that includes the 168 local authorities that enforce animal welfare law throughout the UK. It includes DEFRA, it includes the Scottish Government, the Welsh government, the DARE, the Northern Irish government, and also the Food Standard Agency, Food Standards Scotland, and essentially asks a series of questions, enforcement-related questions, to really get a picture of what's going on. Right. And, you know, some key findings from that data show that um 2.5% of farms are being inspected. Of those farms that are being inspected, one in four show non-compliance. Of those that show non-compliance, only 1% are being prosecuted. It shows that there's about one inspector for 900 farms. So it shows that these departments um are completely under-resourced to do this activity. So it really does paint a very um damning picture of the enforcement of animal welfare laws and absolutely something that needs to be tackled. You know, we've spoken at length about interpretation and what that can unlock and the opportunities that that can unlock. Enforcement, I think, can also unlock a lot of opportunities. I mean, firstly, it just ensures that the mean the law means something in practice, right? And it also ensures that the public, who, like you said, the British public, do tend to care about animals, it ensures that what they think is happening is actually happening. And I would say so far that is not the case. It's currently not the case. So it ensures that there's some, you know, some reality there, some alignment there. I think what it does, which is kind of harder to harder to almost, you know, quantify, but definitely intuitively feels like something real, is this idea that animals matter under the law. Right. You know, that they're individuals, that they're worthy of these legal protections that are given to them. And I think that that could that's a really important part of this story, the fact that they are, you know, members of society that have been given these legal protections and that for each animal that needs to mean something, I think that's crucial. And so that's again, you know, one of the key reasons why we wanted to make sure that animal law is enforced.
SPEAKER_00I mean, it's such a vital part of the conversation. Um, because if it it's also the idea that if farmers, if there is sort of a general viewpoint, which is if you sort of do something wrong or if you're not quite up to standards or up to scratch, it there's not really any consequence there. You know, you maybe you'll get reprimanded. Maybe if you've done something particularly extreme or it or it creates quite a media storm, maybe there'll be a prosecution. But realistically, even if you get found out of doing something that breaches those standards, there's not really going to be much consequence. But the flip side to that is if you can start to enforce these laws, hopefully it will increase compliance because they'll start to realize that if they do get caught out, there is sort of a chain chain of reactions there. One thing that I think is also pretty interesting in terms of this uh conversation around enforcement is it's not just on farm enforcement necessarily, it's it's also the way that uh uh the issue animal farming or the non-issue in terms of how the industry presents itself is sort of reinforced in the minds of the consumer. You know, we're talking about how if we have laws in place that protect animals, that that is obviously a fantastic thing. And if those laws are enforced, that's even better. But also the issue that we have is uh and actually you spoke about this right towards the beginning because you said when you speak to people, people are shocked that these things are illegal. And I suppose that doesn't just speak necessarily to a failing of the legal system, it speaks to how uh covert the industries are in terms of how they operate. They uh are sort of preaching a certain set of values in terms of how they treat animals, but sort of uh in these in these facilities, what's happening is this completely different story, so much so that the people who are buying these products are not even necessarily aware, which is why they're shocked when they find out they're legal. So uh there's also the issue of how these products are marketed, how how the consumer views these products. They're not thinking, oh, this this pig was tail-docked to our meeting, this pig was killed in a gas chamber, this these things were happening to these animals. That's not the viewpoint they're necessarily taking into that moment of consumption, because the way that these products have been marketed is sort of tricking the consumer into having this illusion of animal farming, which is not the reality of animal farming. Is that something that you've come across? Is that I believe you've done a report looking specifically at the issue of marketing and sort of misinformation across the the system of animal product production? Could you maybe speak a little bit about that? What you found, what are some of the main issues? How do we challenge that? What can we what can we do? Is this just again a legal issue, or is there something a little bit more around public awareness that can be brought in without necessary legal changes?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, absolutely. And so this project of work, this, this program of work that we're doing on misinformation is actually something a bit different. Usually we do focus on the animal laws themselves, and so focusing on misinformation is a bit different, but we decided to do it just because it does feel like a key part of the puzzle. Partly because people don't know, yeah, people do not know the reality and they, you know, and they assume that these laws have passed, and that's the end of the story. So it's all it's all so interconnected. The work that we're doing on misinformation is actually broader than just products. It's actually just misinformation on um however um the story of animal farming is told, right? So we actually looked at TV programs, we looked at um journalism, just essentially trying to kind of paint this picture and also kind of doing it maybe with no judgment and just because just to give you a kind of an anecdote, um quite often when we are conducting a case, we'll get some media coverage around that. And quite often, you know, these journalists will be sympathetic and they'll cover it really well, but they'll use a picture of, you know, a healthy-looking animal. So there's no ill intent there. But what it does do is it reinforces, you know, it could be talking about a really awful practice and then have this healthy, healthy image. And so again, it just kind of reinforces this idea of the lives that these animals live that doesn't reflect reality. So our report just wanted to kind of really map out what the situation is. So, in terms of advertising, we looked at, I think, around 47 producers. Three of those didn't show any kind of animal imagery on their website. Um, and those that did, over 80% showed animals outside, you know, healthy animals outside. Um, similarly, we looked at nine supermarkets, and 100% of those on their corporate website showed healthy animals outside. Of you know, the media stories that we looked at, uh significant numbers again showed animals outside. And similarly with TV programs, healthy animals outside. So there's a common kind of story being told to the public, to the consumer. Now, what's interesting is that most of these areas will actually be regulated either by, you know, law or soft law. You know, they might have their own internal codes, you know, to follow. And quite a lot of these, in fact, I'd argue all of these will have some sort of principle around not misleading and being honest. And in fact, we would argue that a lot of these practices are not doing that. And they're certainly not showing the alternative. And in fact, that's another thing I think that the report revealed. It revealed that, yes, there's a dominant image in people's minds of animal farming, um, which does tend to be animals outside, healthy animals outside. But I actually think maybe a bigger part of the problem, or at least an equal part of the problem, is that there's nothing challenging that dominant image. And that's so that creates just a complete distortion of reality in people's minds. And we know that that can cause problems. So, for example, you know, we would argue that that causes um issues with persuasion. So, you know, that some data from the Food Standard Agency showed that 74% of people care about animal welfare when making, you know, when buying animal products. There's also data to show that when When there's kind of exaggerated claims, or you know, when claims are shown to be exaggerated, this is on greenwashing, specifically this data. But when there's exaggerated claims on greenwashing, once people realize that they're exaggerated claims, that actually puts them off claims in general, environmental claims in general. And so there's a real risk that actually what it would do is it would just mean that those that are doing kind of higher welfare practices, actually people won't bother buying those products because they would have lost trust altogether. So it's just kind of this this is creating um, yeah, a distorted, a distorted reality and it has real life consequences on people's perception, people's, you know, then people's actions.
SPEAKER_00I'm thinking about how sort of the words sustainable and eco-friendly has become so diluted and meaningless in terms of packaging. Every every company says they're sustainable, every every product has some sort of environmental claim, and it all it devalues it to such an extent where you just look at them on any piece of packaging on anything, you just think it's greenwashed and you think there's a problem that you think it it it sort of reduces or it creates apathy, I suppose, in the consumer where they just feel like they're being sold this lie. And I suppose the risk with what you're saying then is that the same could happen with animals, where people might claim that they care about animal welfare, or they might genuinely genuinely do, but then they become so tired of having these companies consistently telling them or overstating their animal welfare um practices that they just opt for anything.
SPEAKER_01You can see, I mean, it's it's kind of relatable. It's a breakdown of trust, really, is what's, you know, it kind of resonates as to how that how that could happen. Um, so there's absolutely an issue in the system. Where we find it particularly interesting and relevant to our work is that a lot of this stuff may also be illegal. So there's consumer protection laws that essentially prohibit certain practices that make you know people enter purchasing decisions that they wouldn't have had it not been for the misleading activity or or indeed the omission or the aggressive practice. So there are actually consumer protection rules that should protect the consumer from this. And that's what we're really interested in. We're interested in exploring those opportunities. Now, of course, these cases are never straightforward. They require a lot of evidence. You know, you need to find that consumer that you would argue has been misled and wouldn't have purchased had they not been. So it's not, you know, it's not an easy case to build. But certainly, you know, when you look at what the law says and then you look at some of these prepses, certainly something doesn't seem to kind of add up there. So there's definitely, again, opportunities to explore. Um, there's also, you know, the law protects people from fraud. You know, fraud is about misrepresenting and trying to get a gain as a result of that misrepresentation. In fact, there's been cases where um there's there's been actually two really important cases in Dorset. There must just be a very good local authority that are, you know, that are onto this stuff. But they're kind of very similar cases as well. So one of the cases involved a couple who were selling eggs whilst chickens were kind of roaming around near where they were selling the eggs. Of course, the impression that the consumer has buying those eggs is that the eggs come from those chickens when in fact they'd actually been buying cheap eggs and just putting them in these boxes by their roaming chickens. Wow. And Dorset Council took them to court over some consumer protection legislation. They did that with another case that was very, very similar and under fraud, or the person kind of pleaded guilty to fraud. And so there are actually some, you know, important decisions that have happened in this space and definitely scope to explore further.
SPEAKER_00So if, for example, a a a company, let's say an egg company again was making claims about their hands being outdoor on grass, they had imagery on their website, that kind of thing, but they they were actually being housed indoors, that would be a claim potentially for fraud or or for sort of violation of consumer protection.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, absolutely. You'd have to, you know, you'd have to go through what you're actually seeing and what the reality is, then against what the legal protection is. But yeah, absolutely. I mean, one of the things that has become apparent is I think that producers have become more alive to that issue, in fact. And quite often what you see on product packaging now is, you know, it's not actually animals outside. You see, you know, the web we were talking about kind of websites and well, actually sometimes product packaging, but actually I think that there has been a move towards removing that imagery for probably fear of this type of case. And in Ted, what in instead what you tend to see are things that conjure up those images in people's minds. So a splash of green, you know, or a farmhouse. So it does a similar thing, but without doing the potentially misleading thing.
SPEAKER_00Ah, okay. So this is, I guess this is the problem, isn't it? There's can there's like an updating of how these companies or these industries will market themselves, you know, appeal to the consumer. They'll they'll change that. It reminds me actually, when you were talking about that that just then, it reminds me of supermarkets who have created like fake farm names. I think Tesco have done it. I think I think a couple of them have done it, where they they put this made-up farm on the packaging to create the idea, oh, this wholesome farm, it's traceable, you know, farm to fork, but but the farms don't exist. They're just it's just marketing. It's just a name. So there are all these little sort of sneaky things that the industry can do and what supermarkets do as well, to sell as products. And it becomes quite challenging for consumers to know what's real, to know what's true, to know what logos mean and what certifications mean and what they actually translate to in terms of what's happening to animals. And there's this constant challenge, and I think it's also uh broader than just what we're talking about today, where the emphasis is consistently put on the consumer to make better choices. And no, and as a vegan who advocates for lifestyle change, I'm asking people to do the same. And it's this consistent idea that I think the burden of responsibility rests on consumers. Yeah. But what your work does and what people who are sort of challenging the legal system does, is it says actually the burden of responsibility is not on the everyday person who's in a supermarket trying to make the best choice and doesn't understand what these different things mean. It's on these industries who are consistently manipulating, twisting the truth, obfuscating that they they have this sort of playbook that they are utilizing all the time to mislead people into purchasing products that if they knew the reality of, they might feel differently about purchasing. And I think that that is one of the most important things about legal change, is it is it's changing that burden of responsibility and saying this is on our lawmakers, on the enforcers of those laws, and on the industries themselves, not on the people every day who are just trying to get by and make the best choices they can. Um but but with that, there becomes the problem of these industries are so powerful, governments work hand in hand with these industries. There's often a sort of circular revolving door of the private and public sector. How do we, in effect, go against or go up against these bear moths, these these huge industries that have so much power, so much influence, and are able to manipulate in the ways that they do? Is there is there the capability for us to meaningfully launch something that will that will fundamentally alter the system in a way that will protect animals meaningfully?
SPEAKER_01Great question. And I don't think you kind of overstate the challenge. You know, I think that that is that's true. Everything you've said is true. It's a it's a huge undertaking, it's a huge challenge, and this stuff is so embedded and it's gone on for so long, and it's it's absolutely difficult. But I am incredibly optimistic in terms of, well, first of all, I look around and I see such talent working in this space and people that are just trying out incredible new ideas all the time that are really, you know, becoming thorns in the side of you know of the industry and forcing the industry to you know change their approach. And that's that's incredible, you know, that that these kind of small organizations can do that. And I think with everything like this, you know, this is this has been true of anything that's shifted over over time, you know, it's always been up against this and eventually things change. And so I definitely see it as the direction of travel, but I certainly see it as as being an incredibly challenging task. And I do think that the law plays an important role in that, you know. What's interesting about the law is it compels people to act. You know, when I take DEFRA to court, they have to apply. They have to put together a case, they have to argue their case, you know, against a small little charity, you know, in the eyes of that court, we are equal and we've got a case. You know, certainly when we get past a certain threshold, you know, we we have to get past the permission stage, but then it's us versus them. That's incredible. That's the government. And similarly, you know, if you had a case against a massive corporation, it would be a similar situation. Okay, there are other things to overcome. They'll have top lawyers, they'll have a lot of money to throw at it, but the fact that you can compel them to be there to defend themselves, that's huge. Um, so I think that there are loads of things that can be done to stop them. And I think that the good news is I do think that the public is on our side. It's just so much of this stuff is kept in the dark. But the public is on our side. Not only that, justice is on our side. And, you know, with with you know, armed with that, I think it is just a matter of time.
SPEAKER_00I and I think you you touched on something which is really important. I think the the general sort of attitude in the public is people like a good David versus Goliath story. And I think when we talk about sort of Goliaths, we talk, you know, we're thinking of these huge corporate businesses, you know, whether it's the big meat companies, the big fossil fuel companies, whoever it is, and there is, I think, this desire to see these companies held accountable, even people who aren't vegan, I think, have a general dislike of sort of big meat, so to speak, and the practices they employ, the exploitation of animals, humans, the degradation of the environment that goes along with it. And so I think people do have this sort of perception that in a court situation, if these laws were being meaningfully challenged or the interpretation of them was being challenged in a way that positively reflected on animal welfare and on our treatment of animals, I think the the the general pardon the pun appetite of society would be one that is in favour of these companies being held accountable. So they might have political power, they might have financial power, but I think there is sort of the public power, that that that desire for something meaningful to happen. Because I think we have that now. We have whether we're left, right, I think there is this sort of anti-establishment thinking that means that we're kind of growing growing sick in a way of these huge, big industries that don't care about us consistently determining the direction of travel. And I think a lot of the political zeitgeist right now and the turbulence in that is people trying to find out where they're aligning themselves in this sort of battle against the status quo. And the status quo has for so many years been these huge, big corporate industries determining what we buy, how we live, how you know, how we're influenced by advertising. And I think the way that we perceive our legal system around animals is ripe for that kind of challenge. And I think people would would respond positively to that.
SPEAKER_01I can agree more. And to be honest, I think that, yeah, and I think that what I've seen in this, you know, in doing this work has actually been that the, you know, that the public are also kind of victims of the same stuff. You know, they think laws are being passed, but those laws are not being interpreted or enforced how they, you know, how the public believe that they should be, or, you know, how they would imagine that they would be. Similarly with consumer protection laws, you know, the public are being actively misled. You know, the I think that there's so much that actually unites people around this issue that I think should be, should be explored more.
SPEAKER_00Certainly. And just then I was thinking about how, yeah, the public is consistently misled. We're talking, we're talking about CCTV and slaughterhouses, you know, but then we don't really we're not told about what that actually means. How is this CCTV going to be monitored? Who's monitoring it? The slaughterhouses themselves are monitoring. You know, there's so many, there's so many things that we're told are happening that we're told are meaningful, and yet we're consistently let down by the lack of enforcement, by the lack of the actual laws themselves. So I I I do think it sort of wears people down. And the question becomes does that wearing of people, you know, wearing down of people create sort of apathy or a strong commitment to something meaningful? And I think that I think it's something meaningful. I think people want something to happen, they want laws to mean something, they want animals to be treated well, and you know, broader than that, of course, the way that we're sort of treated by these industries, we want to be treated well and fairly and equitably by these industries. So I do think that there is something to be said about that. And I think the Zeitgeist right now is one that is sort of hungry for that to occur. Um, but in the meantime, I'm I'm thinking about an investigation that was released by um Joey Carbstrong. He he was uh he he does these investigations really powerfully and did one recently, which was looking at a slaughterhouse. And what I think was quite notable was there was CCTV in this slaughterhouse and also there was an FSA inspector present at the time. Is part of enforcement not just having sort of agencies with the financial backing to be able to enforce, but is there also the the idea that we need to empower enforcers to feel like they'll be supported? You know, outside of just enforcers, whistleblowers as well. Is there a sort of changing of the attitude around enforcement and whistleblowing, which means that we need to embolden these people to actually feel like their voice will be heard? Because part of me has some sort of sympathy. I think about maybe enforcers on fishing vessels or enforcers in slaughterhouses going into these environments, being surrounded by um, you know, a group of people who know each other, who are bonded around the job that they're doing, and you're kind of like the snitch in the mist, you know, in the midst. You're the one who's got to keep an eye out on them, get them into trouble. And so there's a natural wariness between them and you, and you kind of feel sort of immediately on your own in that environment. Is part of enforcement also about the emboldening of these people to so that they know that if they make a claim, if they write something down, if they film something, if they report something that's illegal, they will actually be backed and not just ostracized from their workplace and from the industry that they're sort of part of.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, absolutely. So I think that there's, yeah, and there's probably several ways that you could go about that. You know, you could ensure that they are sufficiently resourced, that they do, you know, that the culture in whatever organization they're working for does support their role. Um, but on top of that, I actually think it kind of comes back to what we're saying about that necessary shift and the law meaning something in practice. If we get able to get to that place, if we're able to kind of get that message through to people and through to the relevant regulators, that the law needs to mean something in practice, hopefully that that shift, that shift will also do something in that situation. And in fact, the shame should be on the person that's done the wrong act and not the person snitching, you know? And that's what we need to see happen. We need it to be that they're the ones that should be embarrassed that they've done that, not the person that's whistleblowing or enforcing the law.
SPEAKER_00There is a, and it speaks to what you're saying before, sort of a more all-encompassing nature to this. It isn't just these isolated things in in a vacuum. The laws that we have in certain areas can also impact how laws are uh created in other areas or how attitudes are shifted in other areas as well. And I think as a vegan community, and I myself am guilty of this, sometimes I think we get so frustrated with animal welfare because we see these sort of microchanges and we think, oh, but this isn't the big thing that we want, this is such a small thing. We want the abolition, we want these things to be made. We want there to be a law that says farming animals is illegal, not changing how we deal with that. But actually, if the end goal is something closer to abolition, which is what I would want, and I know vegans in general want, but there is the argument that actually these steps in that direction are so impactful because they add up to something bigger than just the laws themselves. And this sort of all-or-nothing approach to animal welfare or animal legislation can actually be self-defeating because it stops us from making these positive steps in the right direction. And even if it is something like an updating of animal welfare, which on paper we might go, that's not what we want, it still means something because it has an impact in terms of how consumers engage with the industry, it has an impact in terms of how the industry itself has to pay for certain welfare changes. All of these things have a positive knock-on effect. And I think that sometimes the legal aspect of things is overlooked because the legal change we want is one that's not within our grasp right now. But to get there requires us to take all of these steps that that you're currently taking, and others like you work in this field are currently taking.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. I think that that's what history is showing to be the case. You know, that's that has been the direction of travel from those very early animal welfare laws. And yes, you know, you mentioned that there's m more, you know, harm towards animals now than perhaps there was back then. But I do, you know, that there's so many variables as to why that is. Um, but the reality is is that the public's perception towards animals has grown significantly throughout that history as well, you know, and the and the compassion towards animals has as well. So I think that absolutely that these these laws, changing these laws, no matter how small they may seem or how far away from whatever anyone's ultimate goal is, I think that each individual law does mean something in practice for various reasons, you know, the very straightforward reason of making sure that the animal is treated a bit better in that situation, through to the more kind of abstract idea of shifting perceptions and relationships with animals. All of that does kind of pave the way for bigger change.
SPEAKER_00Absolutely right. Um, and just to sort of reinforce that point of the legal system versus the number of animals, we we also have more vegans now than we did 200 years ago. So it is this case that there is sort of two parallels that exist sort of simultaneously where there is a lot of progress being made, but clearly that progress is being made, you know, alongside an increasing in the problem in certain ways. But part of the point is that you reach a hopefully you reach a plateau where then all the progress that we're making and you know the changes that are happening in the in the many ways that they are start to have an impact in a way that means that we reach peak meat, let's say, and start to see a change in in those attitudes. So it is a process, and I think part of the vegan experience is living in a state of of uncomfortableness where we are deeply passionate about this this issue, not just this issue, many issues, of course. There are so many problems in the world. And as a consequence, you have to live in a world where you are constantly going against the grain, and you're also constantly having to face the reality and and uh of the situation in front of us. And I think that can be a really heavy burden at times, but that's why focusing on the positives is so vital and and taking these wins and championing these things that are occurring is so vital. And I think that updates in the law, whether that's due to enforcement, interpretation, or just new legislation being passed, these are all victories which should embolden us to feel confident about the direction of travel, even if we know we we can constantly remind ourselves that there are there are so many problems in the world, there's this an emboldening that can happen as a consequence of changes occurring around us. And I think it's really vital for us as a community and as a movement to always remind ourselves of the positive things that are happening, because otherwise you you end up in the shadow of the Goliaths that we're facing and feeling completely disheartened. But actually, there's something there is something that is happening as well, which I think we can cling on to and be, you know, that creates a sense of optimism and hope for the future. Anyway, I I believe that. And I do think that the way that we interpret laws and enforce laws will be a huge thing moving forward. So thank you for your work.
SPEAKER_01Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for yours too.
SPEAKER_00You're very kind. Well, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast. It's been really um insightful for me because this is an area that I've not explored too much. It's not an area that my work normally covers. So it's really great to gain an insight into that, to hear about some of the things that have been happening, what you've been working on, and hopefully what you'll be able to continue working on long into the future as well. So thank you so much for joining me today.
SPEAKER_01Thank you.
SPEAKER_00Thank you so much for listening. If you've enjoyed this episode, make sure to subscribe to the disclosure podcast on whichever platform you listen to it. As doing so means that you can always stay up to date with new episodes. Leaving a review and sharing the podcast is also really helpful. And if you'd like to support the podcast and my work more generally, you can either make a donation through the link in the show notes or sign up to my Substack where I post weekly and share my thoughts and feelings about the experience of living vegan. In the show notes, you can also find links to purchase my books. Thank you again for listening.