‘Animals may only be kept for farming purposes if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health or welfare.’
‘18. The executive summary of the report states that the genetic selection of meat chickens for performance: “has been reported to be responsible for contributing to not only the most, but also the most severe, welfare problems seen in broilers today, such as chronic leg disorders and heart and circulatory problems. The severity of the welfare problems, the huge number of animals involved globally, and the fact that these welfare concerns have not been adequately addressed to date, means this long-standing issue requires urgent attention.” 19. After an overview of the broiler genetics industry, the report has a section on the welfare implications of intense genetic selection for performance. The first heading is “health”, and the report has three subsections. The first addresses heart and circulatory health and states that fast growth can increase the risk of two types of heart conditions, ascites, and sudden death syndrome. There is reference to several studies to support and explain this. Walking ability is the next subsection, and how fast growth can cause leg developmental disorders. Again the matter is developed by reference to relevant research on leg fractures and walking ability. The final sub-section, hock burn and foot burn, states that prolonged periods of inactivity can contribute to the development of ulcers and lesions on those areas of the bird that are in contact with the floor, typically the feet (foot burn) and hocks (hock burn). 20. Following the section on health the report has a section on behaviour. Selective breeding for increased performance, it states, has resulted in a reduction in the activities the birds can carry out. It then explains that healthy chickens are motivated to perform a wide range of behaviours, including foraging, dustbathing, and perching, all of which contribute to good welfare. If a chicken cannot express a full repertoire of natural behaviour, the report continues, it may experience frustration, helplessness or boredom and may not have the opportunity to experience pleasure or other positive states. There are then sub-sections on foraging, dust bathing and perching. 21. For the purposes of the report, the RSPCA commissioned research by Dr Laura Dixon at Scotland’s Rural College to assess the production and welfare characteristics of fast-growing meat chickens (conventional breeds) compared with a slow growing breed: “Slow and steady wins the race: The behaviour and welfare of commercial faster growing broiler breeds compared to a commercial slower growing breed” PLoS One 2020;15(4):e0231006. 22. The RSPCA report summarises the findings of Dr Dixon’s research as follows: “The trial revealed that, in general, compared to the slower growing breed, the conventional breeds had significantly poorer health: higher mortality (including culls), poorer leg, hock and plumage health, and more birds affected by breast muscle disease (white striping and wooden breast) ... The conventional breeds were also less active, spending less time walking and standing, and more time feeding and sitting, and spent less time engaged in enrichment type behaviours: foraging, perching and dust bathing”.’ “has been reported to be responsible for contributing to not only the most, but also the most severe, welfare problems seen in broilers today, such as chronic leg disorders and heart and circulatory problems. The severity of the welfare problems, the huge number of animals involved globally, and the fact that these welfare concerns have not been adequately addressed to date, means this long-standing issue requires urgent attention.” “The trial revealed that, in general, compared to the slower growing breed, the conventional breeds had significantly poorer health: higher mortality (including culls), poorer leg, hock and plumage health, and more birds affected by breast muscle disease (white striping and wooden breast) ... The conventional breeds were also less active, spending less time walking and standing, and more time feeding and sitting, and spent less time engaged in enrichment type behaviours: foraging, perching and dust bathing”.’
‘ensure that the conditions under which animals … are bred or kept, having regard to their species and to their degree of development, adaptation and domestication, and to their physiological and ethological needs in accordance with established experience and scientific knowledge, comply with the provisions set out in the Annex.’
‘20. Natural or artificial breeding or breeding procedures which cause or are likely to cause suffering or injury to any of the animals concerned must not be practised. This provision shall not preclude the use of certain procedures likely to cause minimal or momentary suffering or injury, or which might necessitate interventions which would not cause lasting injury, where these are allowed by national provisions. 21. No animal shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype or phenotype, that it can be kept without detrimental effect on its health or welfare.’
‘(1) The appropriate national authority may issue, and may from time to time revise, codes of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance in respect of any provision made by or under this Act. … (3) A person's failure to comply with a provision of a code of practice issued under this section shall not of itself render him liable to proceedings of any kind. (4) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under the Act or an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13— (a) failure to comply with a relevant provision of a code of practice issued under this section may be relied upon as tending to establish liability, and (b) compliance with the relevant provision of such a code of practice may be relied upon as tending to negative liability.’ (a) failure to comply with a relevant provision of a code of practice issued under this section may be relied upon as tending to establish liability, and (b) compliance with the relevant provision of such a code of practice may be relied upon as tending to negative liability.’
‘28. (1) Natural or artificial breeding or breeding procedures which cause, or are likely to cause, suffering or injury to any of the animals concerned must not be practised. (2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not preclude the use of natural or artificial breeding procedures that are likely to cause minimal or momentary suffering or injury or that might necessitate interventions which would not cause lasting injury. 29. Animals may only be kept for farming purposes if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health or welfare.’
‘(1) An official veterinarian conducting controls under Regulation (EU) 2017/625 in relation to chickens must evaluate the results of the post-mortem inspection to identify possible indications of poor welfare conditions in their holding or house of origin. (2) If the mortality rate of the chickens or the results of the post-mortem inspection are consistent with poor animal welfare conditions, the official veterinarian must communicate the data to the keeper of those chickens and to the Secretary of State without delay.’
‘58. Leg disorders with associated lameness can be a key cause of poor welfare in meat chickens. There are many causes of leg disorders leading to poor leg health including those linked to nutrition, microbial infection and genetics. Nutritional deficiencies and imbalances including calcium, phosphorus and vitamin D can lead to an increase in bone deformities and lameness. Lameness can also be caused by bone or joint infection, so effective prevention and control of viral and bacterial disease plus good litter management are essential. 59. Welfare and health considerations in addition to productivity, should be taken into account when choosing a strain for a particular purpose or production system. In line with this, meat chickens should stem from broad breeding programs, which promote and protect health, welfare and productivity. Keeping birds in line with appropriate growth curves that optimise these criteria, particularly with regard to leg health, should be considered.’
‘94. Consequently, my view is that Paragraph 29 means what it says given the matters referred to above. Given the breed of animal chosen for keeping for farming purposes, it must reasonably be expected by the reasonable person responsible for them that given their genotype or phenotype they can be kept in appropriate conditions without any obvious or deleterious effect on their health or welfare.’
‘The Court declares that: (1) Paragraph 29 concerns the choice of breed (by reference to genotype or phenotype) which may be kept. (2) “Kept for farming purposes” means that the animal is of a kind ordinarily kept as a farmed animal. (3) “May only” means that the keeping of animals is prohibited unless the conditions of paragraph 29 are satisfied. (4) “Reasonably be expected” means what would be expected by a keeper operating in ordinary commercial farming conditions. (5) The “genotype or phenotype” (i.e. breed) of the animal must be the cause of the detrimental effect. (6) “Detrimental effect” means any kind of detriment that has an effect on the health and welfare of the animal which is more than de minimis. (7) If there is “any” relevant detriment then the breed cannot be kept.’
‘46. In broad terms, there are three types of case where a policy may be found to be unlawful by reason of what it says or omits to say about the law when giving guidance for others: (i) where the policy includes a positive statement of law which is wrong and which will induce a person who follows the policy to breach their legal duty in some way (ie the type of case under consideration in Gillick[1986] AC 112 ); (ii) where the authority which promulgates the policy does so pursuant to a duty to provide accurate advice about the law but fails to do so, either because of a misstatement of law or because of an omission to explain the legal position; and (iii) where the authority, even though not under a duty to issue a policy, decides to promulgate one and in doing so purports in the policy to provide a full account of the legal position but fails to achieve that, either because of a specific misstatement of the law or because of an omission which has the effect that, read as a whole, the policy presents a misleading picture of the true legal position.’
‘52. Whenever a legal duty is imposed, there is always the possibility that it might be misunderstood or breached by the person subject to it. That is inherent in the nature of law, and the remedy is to have access to the courts to compel that person to act in accordance with their duty. An asylum seeker has the same right to apply to the courts as anyone else. Save in specific contexts of a kind discussed below and in our judgment in the A case, there is no obligation for a Minister or anyone else to issue policy guidance in an attempt to eliminate uncertainty in relation to the application of a stipulated legal rule. Any such obligation would be extremely far-reaching and difficult (if not impossible in many cases) to comply with. It would also conflict with fundamental features of the separation of powers. It would require Ministers to take action to amplify and to some degree restate rules laid down in legislation, whereas it is for Parliament to choose the rules which it wishes to have applied. And it would inevitably involve the courts in assessing whether Ministers had done so sufficiently, thereby requiring courts to intervene to an unprecedented degree in the area of legislative choice and to an unprecedented degree in the area of executive decision-making in terms of control of the administrative apparatus through the promulgation of policy.’