Urge your MP to join HSI/UK at the Fur-Free Britain parliamentary reception on 27th November
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
Region: United Kingdom
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
Ask the Secretary of State to support a just-introduced bill to ban fur imports and sales
Labour MP Ruth Jones says UK legislation would ‘shut up shop on the cruel and unnecessary fur trade’
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
LONDON―A bill to ban UK fur imports and sales will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow by Ruth Jones, Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn. The Fur Free Britain campaign, led by animal protection charity Humane Society International/UK, welcomed the tabling of this draft law as a significant step forward.
The bill proposes to extend existing bans on trade in fur from cats, dogs and seals to include foxes, raccoon dogs, mink, chinchilla, coyotes and other animals killed for fur fashion, and prevent the import and sale of new animal fur from all species. If passed into law, the ban would end the UK’s complicity in the cruelty of the global fur trade. HSI/UK estimates that the amount of fur imported into the UK over the five years 2019-2023 equates to approximately 7 million animals brutally killed.
Fur farming has been illegal across the UK since the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Acts were brought into force in 2003 under a Labour Government. Despite this, importing fur into the UK and selling it here is still allowed. Fur Free Britain campaigners are calling on the government to strongly back the new bill and finally put an end to this double standard. Their Fur Free Britain campaign is supported by a host of celebrities including Dame Judi Dench, Stella and Sir Paul McCartney, Leona Lewis OBE, Paloma Faith, Simon Pegg, Sue Perkins, Alesha Dixon, Kirsty Gallacher and Pete Wicks.
Ruth Jones MP said: “Footage of terrified foxes on fur farms breaks my heart and I can’t comprehend why anyone would inflict this kind of cruelty on an animal for a bit of frivolous fashion. I have heard about the issue from hundreds of my constituents in Newport West and Islwyn and I am delighted to introduce this Bill to reflect their concerns. It is about time we shut up shop on this cruel and unnecessary trade and a fur import ban would send a powerful message to the rest of the world.”
In a study published in Nature last month, scientists studying animals farmed for their fur in China identified 39 viruses classed as “potentially high-risk” for transmission to humans, including 13 novel viruses and 11 zoonotic viruses which can be transmitted from animals to humans. The paper’s authors warn that fur farms act as a hub for transmitting viruses. Top British virologists from Imperial College London’s Department of Infectious Disease have also warned that fur farms are a ticking time bomb for another pandemic and that farming mink for fur should be considered the same risk level as the bushmeat trade and live animal markets due to the threat it poses for the emergence of future disease outbreaks.
Claire Bass, Humane Society International/UK’s senior campaigns and public affairs director, said: “I’ve looked into the eyes of hundreds of animals on fur farms in Finland and these animals are broken souls, tormented their whole lives in tiny barren wire cages, often suffering agonizing untreated wounds and deformities. We know that millions of British people are disgusted by the fact that animals are suffering like this overseas to end up as a piece of fur trim sold here in the UK, so we are enormously grateful to Ruth Jones for introducing this extremely popular bill for a Fur Free Britain. We urge the Labour Government to back the ban.”
National polling carried out in April 2022 revealed that 77% of British citizens think the government should ban the importation of animal products such as fur, where the production methods are already banned in the UK. The Fur Free Britain campaign has so far gathered over 1.2 million petition signatures calling for a ban on the import and sale of fur in the UK. Most of the world’s major fashion-houses have already gone fur-free, including Chanel, Dolce & Gabbana, Saint Laurent, Valentino, Prada, Gucci, Versace, Alexander McQueen, Balenciaga and Armani.
Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK country director of FOUR PAWS UK, Fur Free Britain coalition partner said: “Ruth Jones’ Private Member’s Bill presents a powerful opportunity for the Government to end our association with the cruel and high-risk fur trade once and for all. Over two decades have passed since fur farming was banned in the UK by the then Labour Government. Now this Bill presents them with an opportunity to fully address our role in what is left of the cruel trade and stop importing and exporting cruelty for good. By implementing a nationwide ban on the import and sale of fur products, we can help save the lives of millions of animals who are needlessly killed for their fur, and Labour can start fulfilling their promise to deliver the biggest boost to animal welfare in a generation.”
Mark Glover, chair of the Labour Animal Welfare Society, said: “We are delighted to be working with Ruth Jones MP on this groundbreaking bill that would put an end to Britain’s role in the horrific suffering endured by animals on fur farms. By banning the import of fur products, Britain will no longer contribute to the unimaginable pain and torment that is needlessly inflicted on animals in the fur trade. The Labour government banned fur farming in the UK over 20 years ago as it offends public morality, and this bill would close the loophole that allows the importation of products that are illegal to produce here. We strongly urge the government to honour the public’s belief in the humane treatment of animals by supporting this bill.”
Recent reports by FOUR PAWS UK and HSI/UK set out the environmental impact of the fur industry and its links to environmental degradation. Harsh chemicals are used throughout the production of fur, including some that are hazardous and carcinogenic. The environmental impacts of mink, fox and raccoon dog fur production significantly exceed those of other materials used in fashion, including cotton and even polyester and acrylic used to make faux fur. A significant component of fur’s carbon footprint is the vast quantity of animal products fed to carnivorous animals on fur farms, and fur farms can also pollute local waterways with manure.
ENDS
Media contact: Sally Ivens, senior media manager, HSI/UK: sivens@hsi.org
View images/video from HSI’s latest (2023) investigation into Chinese fur farms; and (2021) investigation into Finnish fur farms. To download these visuals, email: sivens@hsi.org
Notes:
- Tens of millions of animals suffer and die each year in the global fur trade. The majority of animals killed for fur are reared in barren battery cages on fur farms.
- HMRC records show that almost £40million of fur (£39,703,694) was imported to the UK in 2023 from countries including China, Finland, Spain, Greece and Poland.
- In addition to the physical and psychological torment of being confined in small, barren cages for their entire lives, the killing methods typically used on fur farms are equally distressing. Mink are killed by gassing, foxes and raccoon dogs are killed by anal electrocution and investigations also show animals commonly bludgeoned to death on farms in China.
- Wild animals like coyote and raccoons who are trapped for their fur, fare little better – they can languish in agony in cruel traps for hours or even days before dying from dehydration, starvation, attacks by predators or by being killed when the trapper returns. HSI’s 2022 joint undercover investigation into trapping in the US revealed shocking cruelty and animals suffering protracted and violent deaths. Report available here.
- Mink on almost 500 fur farms across 13 countries have been infected with COVID-19 which can be transferred from humans to farmed mink, between mink and from farmed mink to humans. Further, around 500,000 foxes, mink, raccoon dogs and sable have been ordered killed on public health grounds after Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A (H5N1) was found on more than 70 fur farms in Spain and Finland.
- The Conservative Government stated it would “explore potential action” on the fur issue under its May 2021 Action Plan for Animal Welfare. It launched a Call for Evidence which attracted around 30,000 responses, of which an FOI request revealed over 96% strongly agreed that it is wrong for animals to be killed for the sake of their fur. Its full findings are yet to be published. At a Westminster Hall Debate in June 2023, a Defra Minister confirmed the Animal Welfare Committee had been commissioned to produce a report, by end of 2024, on “the issue of responsible sourcing in the fur industry, including the animal welfare standards and safeguards that apply to fur imported into this country.” During the June 2023 debate, Labour’s shadow Defra minister, Alex Sobel MP, stated: “a Labour Government would take the necessary action on the importation of fur into Britain. We are committed to this. … A Labour Britain will be a compassionate, fur-free Britain.”
Humane Society International/UK declares the new study should be a ‘major wake-up call’ for governments to stop trading in cruel and hazardous fur fashion
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
LONDON—Dozens of new viruses have been detected in animals in China, including those on fur farms, providing damning evidence of the public health risk of the fur industry and leading animal protection charity Humane Society International/UK to intensify its call for an end to the trade. In a new study published in Nature, scientists studying animals farmed for their fur in China found 36 new viruses, as well as identifying viruses associated with human infections and frequently observing potential cross-species transmission of coronavirus and avian influenzas. The paper’s authors warn that fur farms act as a hub for transmitting viruses.
The study, which tested 461 tissue samples from fur-bearing animals, identified 39 viruses classed as “potentially high-risk” for transmission to humans, including 13 novel viruses and 11 zoonotic viruses which can be transmitted from animals to humans. These potentially high-risk viruses were found in mink, arctic foxes and rabbits, as well as raccoon dogs who carried the most (up to 10), with the scientists noting that these animals “constituted potentially high-risk hosts for the transmission of viruses to humans and other animals”. Seven coronavirus species were identified in 66 farmed fur animals. The authors also state particular concern about finding bat coronaviruses (HKU5), and separately, avian influenza (H5N6) viruses in farmed mink, and note that co-infection is commonplace.
Claire Bass, senior director of campaigns and public affairs at Humane Society International/UK, said: “This new study needs to be a major wake-up call to politicians to stop us from sleep walking into another pandemic. The results couldn’t be clearer, fur farms are a ticking time bomb for deadly infectious diseases, all for a completely outdated ‘fashion’ product that no-one needs. Governments that still permit fur farming, including in the EU and China, must stop playing Russian roulette with public health and bring bans into place. Countries trading in fur are fully complicit in this public health risk and must stop imports to help shut down this cruel and deadly industry.”
Just last year, HSI/UK released alarming footage from fur farms in north China of animals kept in intensive conditions, including in close proximity to poultry, despite the potential for zoonotic disease spread. Investigators witnessed several other biosecurity risks including widespread use of antibiotics, animal feed containing raw chicken meat and the sale of raccoon dog carcasses for human consumption.
The new study is not the first time that scientists have raised concerns over about the risks of fur farms spreading viruses with pandemic potential. In July 2023, after outbreaks of avian flu (H5N1) on mink and fox fur farms in Spain and Finland, virologists from Imperial College London’s Department of Infectious Disease warned that farming mink for fur should be considered the same risk level as the bushmeat trade and live animal markets due to the threat it poses for the emergence of future disease outbreaks. Concern has also been raised over the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in mink on almost 500 fur farms in Europe and North America, with the virus passing from humans to farmed mink, between mink, and from farmed mink to humans. In recent years, millions of animals on fur farms have been ordered to be killed on public health grounds.
Fur farming has been illegal in the UK since the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Acts came into force in 2003. Despite this, HMRC records show that £39,703,694 of fur was imported to the UK in 2023, from countries including China, Finland, Spain, Italy and France. Humane Society International/UK leads the #FurFreeBritain campaign urging the Government to end this double standard by banning imports and sales of fur in the UK.
The UK Government’s Animal Welfare Committee is currently tasked with reviewing imported fur sourcing, and HSI/UK is urging the advisory body to seriously take this new study, highlighting the trade’s dangerous potential for zoonotic disease spread, into account.
ENDS
Media contact: Sally Ivens, senior specialist media and communications for HSI/UK; sivens@hsi.org , 07590 559299
Notes:
- Since April 2020, mink on 488 fur farms across North America and Europe have been reported as having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The virus has been shown to pass from mammal to mammal on intensive mink fur farms and reports of farmed mink to human transfer has been reported in at least six countries. The most recently recorded outbreak was in Bulgaria in October 2023.
- Animals on more than 70 fur farms have been infected with highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) in Europe—in Spain in 2022 and Finland in 2023—resulting in more than 500,000 mink, raccoon dogs, foxes and sable ordered to be killed by the authorities on public health grounds.
- HSI estimates that the amount of fur imported into the UK over the last five years (2019-2023) equates to approximately 7 million animals brutally killed, including the equivalent of around one million animals’ worth of fur imported directly from China.
- In May 2021 the UK Government launched a Call for Evidence on the UK fur trade, with the stated intention of using the findings to inform possible future action. Almost 30,000 responses were submitted before the consultation closed in June 2021, but over three years on, officials are yet to release the results or set out a policy response.
Humane Society International/UK calls on the Government to conduct an urgent review of the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board’s goals and spending priorities.
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
LONDON— As the second round of a Government-backed multi-million pound ‘Let’s Eat Balanced’ campaign launches today, explicitly aimed at encouraging the public to eat more red meat and dairy, charity Humane Society International/UK says promoting climate-costly diets directly contradicts Labour’s manifesto health and nature goals and calls on farming Minister Daniel Zeichner to commission an urgent review. The campaign has been launched by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, a non-departmental public body, accountable to the UK Parliament through Defra Ministers, with board members appointed by the Secretary of State for Defra.
HSI/UK says a review is needed into the AHDB’s goals and spending priorities. HSI/UK’s analysis of Defra’s departmental spending figures shows that between January and June 2024, the AHDB spent over £2.5million on pro-meat propaganda, equating to at least 42% of AHDB total expenditure (£6.1million) (for line items over £25,000).
Animal agriculture accounts for an estimated 16.5% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, similar to the emissions from all global transportation. The Climate Change Committee says reducing meat and dairy consumption is essential to reach the UK’s legally binding climate targets and specifically recommended that Defra “Take low-cost, low-regret actions to encourage a 20% shift away from all meat by 2030, rising to 35% by 2050, and a 20% shift from dairy products by 2030, demonstrating leadership in the public sector whilst improving health.” This goal was reported as ‘overdue’ in the Committee’s 2023 annual report.
In its July 2024 report to Parliament the Climate Change Committee explicitly criticized the AHDB for continuing “to invest in proactive marketing campaigns to encourage meat and dairy consumption, despite the evidence showing that a reduction in meat and dairy consumption supports a shift towards low-carbon, sustainable and healthy diets.” One of their “priority policy recommendations” to the Government is to “Empower people to make low-carbon choices by communicating the most impactful ways to reduce emissions, such as changing car travel, home energy use and dietary behaviours… and support people to make these choices.”
Claire Bass, senior director of campaigns and public affairs for Humane Society International/UK, said “This AHDB campaign is reckless self-sabotage on Labour’s health and climate policy ambitions. As Ministers get to grips with how to deliver on manifesto pledges to reduce non-communicable diseases like heart attacks and cancers, and to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it makes zero sense for Defra to be quietly processing invoices for a lavish public marketing campaign that completely undermines both policy goals.
By law, the AHDB exists to help ‘improve the ways in which the industry contributes to sustainable development’ yet this year almost half of its spend has been on a resolutely head-in-the-sand campaign trying to cling on to unhealthy and unsustainable over-consumption of meat and dairy. We urge the new Labour Government to recalibrate the AHDB to allow it to prioritise playing a positive role in marketing the UK’s horticultural produce, including vegetables, legumes and grains, and stop fixating on flogging dead cows, sheep and pigs.”
In addition to drawing criticism from the CCC, the AHDB’s campaign was criticized by health professionals in May for its “inaccurate and misleading public health messaging”, noting that the campaign is “at odds with established scientific evidence on healthy and sustainable diets” and makes “suggestive ‘health benefits’ whilst ignoring the guidance to limit meat intake, particularly red and processed meat”.
The AHDB’s expenditure, including that for the ‘Let’s Eat Balanced’ campaign, is funded by an industry levy. However, information obtained through Freedom of Information requests this year revealed that the £4.6million campaign was approved by former farming Minister, former dairy farmer Mark Spencer.
Against a backdrop of European governments including Denmark, Germany and Norway actively promoting more plant-based eating, and introducing higher taxes on meat production, HSI/UK condemns the ‘Let’s Eat Balanced’ campaign as a regressive initiative that makes the UK look out of sync with European momentum towards people and planet friendly food and farming policies.
Notes
- Labour’s 2024 election manifesto includes a commitment to “take preventative public health measures to tackle the biggest killers and support people to live longer, healthier lives.” It also states that “Labour will ensure the institutional framework for policy making reflects our commitments to reach net zero and meet our carbon budgets.” and Labour “will deliver for nature, taking action to meet our Environment Act targets, and will work in partnership with civil society, communities and business to restore and protect our natural world.”
- About the AHDB
- Section 3(2) of the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board Order (2008) states its priorities to be:
(a) increasing efficiency or productivity in the industry;
(b) improving marketing in the industry;
(c) improving or developing services that the industry provides or could provide to the community; and
(d) improving the ways in which the industry contributes to sustainable development.
- Defra reporting on AHDB spends over £25,000, January–June 2024. Line items for ‘Let’s Eat Balanced’ campaign include advertising agency costs, creative Gen Z partnership agency fees, and online banner placement with Sainsbury’s.
| Month | Spend naming ‘Let’s Eat Balanced’ campaign | Total AHDB spend for month |
| January | £70,680 | £669,934 |
| February | £1,290,996 | £1,916,876 |
| March | £1,006,171 | £1,993,229 |
| April | £137,9191 | £535,666 |
| May | – | £645,358 |
| June | £90,465 | £410,567 |
| Total | £2,596,231 | £6,171,630 |
Based on a conservative interpretation of Defra’s spend reporting, 42% of the AHDB’s expenditure for January-June 2024 was on the ‘Let’s Eat Balanced’ and ‘Love Pork’ campaigns designed to convince the public to eat more red meat and dairy.
Media contact: Sally Ivens, senior specialist media and communications for HSI/UK ;sivens@hsi.org
Consumers could unwittingly break new law banning glue traps, says Humane Society International/UK
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
LONDON—England today becomes the third UK nation, after Wales and Scotland, to bring into force a ban on the use of rodent glue traps, which are described by leading animal protection organisation Humane Society International/UK as “inhumane, indiscriminate and indefensible”.
Entering into force today, the Glue Traps (Offences) Act prohibits use of glue traps by the public. The ban has been welcomed by HSI/UK, which led the Unstuck campaign to end the public’s use of glue traps. However, as glue traps remain on sale to the public throughout the UK despite their use by the public now being illegal, the charity is urging caution against accidental law breaking.
The rudimentary traps, widely available for as little as 99p from hardware and corner shops, immobilise small mammals in strong adhesive in which the animals can suffocate, rip off skin and fur and break their limbs in desperate efforts to escape. The traps also pose a serious risk to other species, including hedgehogs, cats and wild birds, with numerous reports every year of animals being caught and suffering often fatal injuries.
Claire Bass, senior campaigns and public affairs director for Humane Society International/UK, said: “We are delighted that it is no longer legal for members of the public to use these horrendously cruel traps which cause immense suffering to animals, who have been known to chew off their own limbs in a desperate attempt to escape. But confusingly, although it is now an offence for the public to use glue traps, it is not illegal to sell or buy them which means consumers could unwittingly commit an offence. We will be raising awareness of the new law so that people don’t unintentionally break it, and we’re also calling on retailers to voluntarily stop stocking these traps. We are urging the UK, Welsh and Scottish governments to unite on a glue traps sales ban.”
HSI/UK’s research on the welfare problems of glue traps is referenced in glue trap ban legislation passed in all three nations. It shows that when confronted with a dying animal on a trap more than 50% of the public say they either would not know what to do with them or would take an action that risks committing an offence under the Animal Welfare Act (2006) for causing unnecessary suffering, including 9% who said they would drown the animal.
As well as being inhumane, killing animals like mice and rats typically does not offer a permanent solution to the problems their presence might cause. Treating the symptom by eliminating a single rat or mouse—or even an entire colony—is ultimately futile unless the conditions that encouraged them to take up residence in the first place are addressed. Over time, others will simply move into the vacated territory. HSI/UK advocates humane methods of deterrence such as removing food sources and blocking up access holes which are ultimately more effective than the “quick fix” of killing. Read more here.
The ban explained:
- The Glue Trap (Offences) Act 2022 requires rodent control professionals in England to apply for and hold licenses for glue trap use only in exceptional circumstances and where all alternative methods are impossible or have failed.
- Anyone applying for a licence needs to complete required training and meet specific requirements, including the need to carry out regular inspections of the trap and prevent the capture of non-target animals.
- Anyone caught setting a glue trap to catch a rodent, or in a way that risks catching a rodent (without a licence), or who permits a trap to be set to catch a rodent, could face up to 51 weeks in prison, or receive a fine, or both.
- Anyone who finds a glue trap that risks catching a rodent and fails to act to stop the risk could be fined, unless they have a reasonable excuse for why they failed to act.
- The Welsh Government introduced a full ban on use of rodent glue traps in 2023.
- Earlier this year the Scottish Government passed a ban—with an allowance for Ministers to approve glue trap use in exceptional circumstances where all other methods have failed—and asked to be allowed an exemption to the Internal Markets Act to allow Scotland to unilaterally ban the sale of glue traps, but the UK Government has so far denied this.
ENDS
Media contact: Sally Ivens, HSI/UK, sivens@hsi.org ; 07590 559299
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
Glue traps, also known as glue or sticky boards, are trays coated with an extremely strong adhesive. Any animal who touches one becomes stuck and cannot escape.
Depending on how frequently the trap is checked, animals can be stuck anywhere from hours to days. Trapped animals struggle to free themselves, some rodents break bones and tear off, or even bite through, their own limbs in a desperate attempt to free themselves. Most often death comes from a combination of exhaustion and dehydration.
Glue traps are indiscriminate. Non-target animals have become trapped, including protected species like wild birds and bats, hedgehogs, fox cubs and even pet cats. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has concluded that there is “an undeniable risk of capture of non-target species”.
Advocacy efforts by HSI and other groups have been successful in bringing about legislation to ban or regulate the use and sale of glue traps. Legislation to ban the use and/or sale of glue traps is in place in several countries, including England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, the Australian state of Victoria and Iceland. We want to see a complete ban on the sale and use of these cruel, indiscriminate and indefensible traps, due to the suffering they cause to animals. Read our Humane Society International/UK report, ‘The Case for a UK Ban on Rodent Glue Traps’.
There are non-lethal ways of dealing with unwanted rodent visitors that are not only more humane, but also far more effective in the long-term, too. Read more about humane rodent solutions.
Where is it illegal to use or sell glue traps?
Several countries have already acted to ban or regulate the sale and use of glue traps on animal welfare grounds.
- Australia: The state of Victoria has regulated both the sale and use of glue traps.
- England: Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 (legislation.gov.uk) 2022 banned use of glue traps to control rats and mice without a licence. Licenses to use glue traps are only issued to rodent control professionals, in exceptional circumstances and where all alternative methods are impossible or have failed. Anyone applying for a licence to use a glue trap must complete required training and meet specific requirements, including the need to carry out regular inspections of the trap, keep detailed records and prevent the capture of non-target animals.
- Iceland: The Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority announced the new ban citing Article 28 of Iceland’s animal welfare law, which makes it unlawful to use rodent control methods that cause unnecessary entrapment or pain.
- Ireland: Glue traps are banned under the Wildlife Act, 1976, which forbids the use of certain traps ‘except where authorised in exceptional circumstances’. To date, no authorisations have been granted and since 2008 there have been eight prosecutions for the illegal possession of glue traps.
- New Zealand: Outlawed the purchase and use of glue traps by members of the public since January 2015, under the Animal Welfare (Glueboard Traps) Order 2009.
- Scotland banned the use of glue traps in 2024, but the Scottish government’s request for an exemption to the Internal Markets Act was rejected, meaning that a ban on glue trap sales was blocked.
- USA: Two cities (Ojai and West Hollywood) have banned the sale and use of glue traps.
- Wales: Banned all use of glue traps in October 2023.
More you can do
Although glue trap use is banned in Scotland, Wales and England (unless under licence in England), they are still commonly found for sale in shops and online. Not only is anyone who uses a glue trap or sticky board at risk from prosecution, they are also condemning animals to a slow and painful death.
- Seen glue traps on sale? Send us the details info@hsiuk.org and we will write to the supplier, to highlight the cruelty involved, outline the relevant legislation and ask them to stop selling glue traps.
- Read our glue trap FAQs
- Learn how to help an animal caught in a glue trap
Thank you for taking a stand to help animals and for supporting our campaign to end the sale and use of glue traps!
After being rescued from a farm where they were confined in small metal cages, the pigs are enjoying their new-found freedom
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
LONDON—Two mother pigs, who have spent around a quarter of their adult lives confined in metal cages barely bigger than their bodies, have been rescued from slaughter and rehomed by leading animal protection charity Humane Society International/UK. The pigs, who gave birth to multiple litters of piglets at a UK farm which cages sows for weeks around the time they give birth, were willingly relinquished to HSI/UK in support of the charity’s Crate Escape campaign to ban use of the cruel cages known as farrowing crates.
Every year on UK farms, around 200,000 sows are confined for up to five weeks at a time, several times a year, in metal cages so small they can’t even turn around, causing them physical and mental suffering. At just a few years of age, having been repeatedly bred but no longer considered productive, the two pigs were due to be sent to slaughter but instead the farmer entrusted them to HSI/UK to live the rest of their lives in freedom and as campaign ambassadors.
Photos and video footage of the two pigs before and after their rescue, can be downloaded here.
Photos of pigs in farrowing crates on the farm, including a range of health problems, can be downloaded here.
The farmer who gave up the pigs wishes to remain anonymous but believes that farrowing crates are cruel and hopes the pigs’ story will help HSI/UK persuade politicians to ban the practice. The farm has used farrowing crates for over 35 years, but the farmer now believes that farmers should be supported financially to end their use because of the suffering endured by pigs. The farmer told HSI/UK: “It’s hard watching them so upset. When an animal’s telling you ‘I do not want to be in here, I’m going to do my best to escape’ and then you’re like, ‘I’m going to have to tie you in’, that feels cruel. It bothers me every day.”
They added: “I really hope that we move on from this sort of barbaric cage. It doesn’t have to be this way, there are loads of different kinds of free farrowing systems but why aren’t retailers and consumers asking for them? It feels like they don’t know the reality of what’s going on behind farm gates. I think we do really need to change the script. We’ve got to have support from governments – both the money and the right policies. I don’t think putting sows through weeks of crate confinement six, seven or eight times in their lives can be justified any more.”
Claire Bass, senior director of campaigns and public affairs at Humane Society International/UK, who helped to rescue the pigs, said: “Across the UK right now some 200,000 mother pigs are hidden away suffering behind bars. Such big numbers can mask the fact that each one is an intelligent, sensitive individual. Studies have found that pigs are smarter than dogs and even 3-year-old children, and yet they are routinely subjected to this appalling cruelty. That’s why it is so important that we were able to rescue them and tell the stories of these two mums. The farmer’s account of the suffering caused by crates is heartbreaking and dealing with distressed and depressed animals takes its toll on farmers’ mental health.
Almost two-thirds of British people have never heard of farrowing crates, meaning that they’re also unaware of the intense suffering that they cause. Few people would dream of keeping a dog confined in a metal crate so small they couldn’t even turn around for five long weeks, and our Crate Escape campaign aims to create the same compassion and respect for pigs. We’re urging all governments in the UK, as well as retailers, to commit to supporting farmers financially to get rid of these cruel and unnecessary cages for mother pigs.”
The pigs – who will soon be named by HSI/UK’s supporters – have been given a permanent home at Hopefield Animal Sanctuary in Brentwood, Essex. At the sanctuary they will be free to stretch their legs on grass, root around in the mud, and carry out all the other natural behaviours that were denied to them during their time in farrowing crates.
HSI/UK is calling on all political parties to commit to banning farrowing crates and providing support to farmers to help them move away from using these archaic and cruel confinement devices. Take action for mother pigs by signing the petition here.
Notes
- Polling data shows that 63% of British people have not heard of farrowing crates.
- Fewer than one in five people in Britain (19.8%) support the use of pig farrowing crates once the intended purpose (protecting piglets from being crushed) and the movement restrictions imposed by farrowing crates are described to them.
- Two-thirds of those polled would support governments providing financial support to farmers to transition away from using the devices, and only 15.5% would oppose a ban.
- Polling was carried out by Survation via online panel, with 1,074 total UK respondents, in March 2023.
- The full interview with the farmer is available here.
ENDS
Media contact: Sally Ivens, media and communications senior specialist at HSI/UK: sivens@hsi.org ; 07590 559299
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
“We just can’t justify putting sows in farrowing crates any more.” – a British farm manager shares insights into the impact of confinement for sows, and perspective on how the sector must change
HSI/UK made contact with a British pig farm, which wishes to remain anonymous. The farm has used farrowing crates for over 35 years but the farm manager now believes that farmers should be supported financially to stop using crates, because of the suffering they cause. This is the testimony of the farm manager, who wants the public and politicians to understand the tragic impact crate confinement has on these intelligent animals. The farm agreed for HSI/UK to re-home two sows at the end of what the industry considers their productive breeding lives, in order for their stories and experiences to be understood.
Why are farrowing crates used?
Farrowing crates are supposed to protect piglets from being crushed but they don’t always do that. Piglets are pretty resilient and can be lain on for a short time and survive but the problem in crates is that once the sows are down they can’t be bothered to get back up again. It took them ages to go down because it was so uncomfortable, so even if they realise there’s a piglet under them they’re like, ‘no, I’m not getting up’. These crates are not a lifesaving cradle like some people have said they are, particularly when we’ve got huge litters with weak piglets.
How do the sows react, being locked into farrowing crates?
When they first go into a farrowing crate, it’s very, very stressful and scary for them. It’s a dead end, and then they’re suddenly shut in and then they can’t turn around or anything. Our first time mothers sometimes try to escape the crates, and they’ll bite and paw and try to back out. I’ve had gilts escape, tried to literally climb out of the crates, it’s hard watching them so upset. When an animal’s telling you ‘I do not want to be in here, I’m going to do my best to escape’ and then you’re like, ‘I’m going to have to tie you in’, that feels cruel. It bothers me every day. But you know, in order to do your job every day, you have to park it.
Over the course of their life they farrow multiple times, by the time they get to their sixth or seventh litter, they are still reluctant to be shut in the crates but they’re more just resigned to it. Over time they get emotionally broken, it’s sad.
When we let them out of the crates they’re just desperate to roll in mud, water, anything cool to wallow in. They remind me of dogs at the beach.
What are some of the behavioural challenges for a sow kept in a crate for several weeks?
They have a strong desire to nest build and they can get very frustrated trying to do that in a farrowing crate. We provide enrichment like a handful of fresh straw every day but it’s still not a lot. They are rooting at the bars and rooting at the concrete and all they want to do is make a nest, you know, for the safety of their piglets.
Nesting helps them to release all the hormones that are required for the farrowing process, and we’re essentially shutting that down by restraining them in a non-enriched environment. It can have a really negative consequence on the sow and the piglet’s relationship and sometimes the sow will bite and even kill her own piglets. Luckily we don’t get it very often, but all sorts of horrible things happen.
Do the crates cause physical pain and suffering?
We get a lot of shoulder sores because they’re lying on their sides longer and they often get so, so unbothered about moving posture that it’s essentially a pressure sore. If we don’t treat them quickly the piglets could start licking and eating them and then the wound gets really big.
We’ve seen pigs’ height and length increase significantly over the last 20 years, they’re bred to be bigger and bigger and the crates haven’t changed. So the pigs no longer fit into the crates as well as they used to, we have a few sows that are too big for the crates, so they’re essentially touching the bars all the time. For some of the longer sows there’s no room for their head, so when they lie down, their head is on top of their feed trough and drinker. That must be so uncomfortable for them stuck in that position for four weeks, it actually makes me wince. We had to develop extension bars to make the crate bigger.
Pushing the sows to have larger litters is also a problem for the sows and the piglets. We artificially inseminate using semen sent through the post. We changed our supplier and started getting a lot of enormous litters of 18, 19, 20 piglets, where there’s more piglets than then sow can feed. We had to put excess piglets down regularly. Between increasing the physical dimensions of the sows and increasing the number of piglets born, we’ve pushed them into being like an absolute machine, it can’t carry on indefinitely this way, being all about productivity at the expense of the animals’ welfare.
They also damage themselves on the crate trying to lie down or flip over, they can catch their teats with their own feet and rip them, and damage their vulvas on the back of the crate.
And the piglets’ space, for the weeks they’re in the crate, becomes very, very constricted very quickly. They try to play but the only space away from the sow is about the body length of a piglet, so there’s really no room to manoeuvre. And the piglets can get sore knees, elbows and feet from the floors too. The bigger the litter the more we see piglet sores that can lead to infection and lameness.
The law requires that farms provide enrichment materials that enable pigs to fulfil their essential behavioural needs. Is that possible in practice?
Our standard enrichment is they get about half a bucket of wood shavings and they get about half a leaf of straw every day, and the sows eat a lot of straw, so a lot of that will vanish. We try a range of enrichment, hessian sacks are good, but you’ve got to be on enrichment all the time not just put it in and forget about it. The blocks on chains can get snagged around the top of the crate so that they can’t get hold of them, or they can push the straw out of reach then that’s really frustrating. If they weren’t given any enrichment at all, then they will absolutely smash up their face during nesting, biting at the bars, biting at their food trough.
We speak to the girls every day, give them a scratch – they love a scratch and they get all squeaky and you know they love those little bits of interaction with us. It’s like the highlight of their day, but imagine 2 minutes, you know, in 24 hours where somebody’s showing you some appreciation. It’s not very great. Seeing them sitting there depressed day after day after day with their heads hung low, it just screams depression to me.
We quite often have pigs who essentially just go into a glazed vegetative state where their sole purpose is to just lie still and provide milk, and they barely eat. Sometimes they lose 100 kilos in three or four weeks and it’s horrible. And if the sow isn’t feeding then her milk can be affected, which can reduce the weaning weight of the piglets. We try everything to get them interested in eating again.
You’ve looked at free-farrowing pens, what are the advantages there?
In the farrowing pens you see them throwing the straw around making their nest and they’re really active and it’s clearly such a big box ticked for them. Seeing how they interact physically, being able to touch their piglets and move around and nurse them and then sometimes tell them off as well, it’s all so much better than what they experience in crates.
Temporary crating wouldn’t be so bad if it was only used to protects the piglets for up to five days, but often the sows just don’t get let out after that time, and sometime they get shut in before nesting. And there’s nobody inspecting that kind of thing.
What are the barriers to farmers wanting to move away from crates?
It will be the meat price, I would say. Unless we could get a quality assurance sticker, with a big enough mark up to pay for the cost. How are we supposed to invest in big welfare changes when we’re getting so many cheap meat imports from the continent and from elsewhere outside of the EU?
It feels like British consumers should be asking more questions and given more answers about their food, where it was raised and how it existed, the food miles. We also have the problem that people want cheap meats 24/7. It used to be a valued product and now it’s a pocket snack.
What are your hopes for the future of farrowing in British pig farming? And what should the Government do?
I really hope that we move on from this sort of barbaric cage. It’s a horrible system and there are so many better ways out there, with less suffering, less injuries, stress and illness. It doesn’t have to be this way, there are loads of different kinds of free farrowing systems but why aren’t retailers and consumers asking for them? It feels like they don’t know the reality of what’s going on behind farm gates. I think we do really need to change the script.
Yes, indoor free farrowing is more expensive, but we need to find the money to shift. We’ve got to have support from government – both the money and the right policies. I don’t think putting sows through weeks of crate confinement six, seven or eight times in their lives can be justified any more.
Polling data reveals cracking down on animal cruelty could be a seat winning pledge in marginal constituencies as 23 leading animal groups launch new campaign
Humane Society International / United Kingdom
LONDON—With the general election just weeks away, UK political parties are being urged to harness the untapped ‘paw power’ of animal-loving voters after a new report shows that political parties are failing to match the British public’s high level of demand for strong animal protection policies. Analysis of opinion poll data suggests there are opportunities for candidates pledging anti-cruelty policy actions to influence thousands of animal-loving voters, especially in tightly contested seats.
The report analyses several national opinion polls, including constituency-level MRP polling. It concludes that despite a supermajority of public support for progressive policies to prevent animal cruelty, voters’ expectations are insufficiently reflected in British political discourse, policy commitments and government policymaking. In a 2023 YouGov poll, nearly one third (33%) selected animal welfare as one of their top three most important causes and Focaldata 2023 polling revealed that one in six (15.4%) ranked ‘whether or not a party will protect animals from cruelty’ as one of their top three most important policies that will influence which party they vote for.
Analysis of the top 10 target seats for major parties reveals that while the top Labour target seat requires only a 128-vote swing, and the top Conservative target seat requires just a 66-vote swing, more than 3,800 people in those constituencies have signed a sample of 10 government e-petitions on animal protection between 2017-19 alone.
Dr Steven McCulloch, Senior Lecturer in Human-Animal Studies at the University of Winchester, said “Polls consistently show supermajority levels of support for stronger animal protection laws across England, Scotland and Wales, and for voters of all main political parties. And one in six British voters place animal protection within the top three concerns that will influence their vote.” Paul Chaney, professor of policy and politics at Cardiff University School of Social Sciences noted “Parties and candidates with a strong offer to tackle animal cruelty could speak to a significant cohort of voters in the upcoming election. Additionally, polling indicates that such policies provide indications to voters on parties’ and candidates’ broader values, including association with competence and compassion.”
The report coincides with the launch of ‘Crackdown on Cruelty’, a joint campaign by more than 20 leading animal protection organisations. The groups aim to mobilise half a million compassionate voters to contact their candidates and urge them to commit to be a voice for animals in Parliament if elected.
Candidates are being called on to pledge to 10 key commitments which would strengthen legal protections for millions of animals, such as bans on trading in cruelty including stopping imports of fur and hunting trophies, government support to help farmers transition away from factory farming, stronger protections for wildlife including a ban on snares in England, and the appointment of an Animal Protection Commissioner. Pledge commitments will be shared on the website votesforanimals.org.uk, which will also host copies of animal protection pledges made by major political parties in their manifestos.
Claire Bass, senior director of campaigns and public affairs at Humane Society International/UK, said: “We identify as a nation of animal lovers and there is keen voter interest in politicians cracking down on cruelty, so we’re urging parties and candidates to pledge action. On 4th July we’ll see thousands of dogs proudly posing outside polling stations, there is a lot of paw power to be won at the ballot box! MPs elected in July will hear from their constituents about animal protection more than any other issue, so progressive animal protection policies could very well help swing voting decisions.”
Iain Green, Director of Animal Aid, said: “Supported by so many animal protection organisations, Votes For Animals will mobilise hundreds of thousands of voting public who care about animals. Together, we will ensure that the Parties and candidates understand that we want them to pledge to crackdown on cruelty if elected, we want strong laws that will protect all animalkind. But moreover, we are at the forefront of a movement that will change hearts and minds forever – and will ensure that all animals have rights, and are treated with respect and compassion.”
The report, titled ‘Political animals’ and authored by Dr Steven McCulloch, Dr Lisa Riley and Professor Paul Chaney, from Winchester and Cardiff Universities, is fully referenced and available to view here.
ENDS
Media contact: Sally Ivens, HSI/UK, sivens@hsi.org ; 07590 559299