Why Does U.S. Animal Welfare Lag Behind Europe?

Chicken in battery cage under bad condition

Imagine you could be reincarnated as a domesticated animal, and you had the choice between being born in the U.S. or Spain. Where would you choose?

Many people might think that Spain is a bad choice because of bullfighting. While it’s true that an estimated number of bulls die in bullfights each year, it’s a mistake to assume animals in Spain have worse lives overall than those in the U.S.

Consider egg-laying hens. In the U.S., approximately 230 million hens live in cramped wire cages that don’t allow them enough space to spread their wings. In Spain, however, keeping hens in such conditions is illegal. Spanish hens have nearly twice the space and enjoy access to nests, perching areas, and litter. These enrichments are completely absent in U.S. cages.

These hens spend a full year in their cages, while a bull only lives for a short time before dying in a bullfight. So, it’s reasonable to conclude that U.S. cages cause more suffering to hens than bullfights do to bulls, considering the length of time and conditions of confinement. And given that there are over 1,000 times more hens in Spain than bulls bred for bullfighting, a randomly selected domesticated animal is more likely to be a hen, and will have a much better life in Spain than the U.S.

The situation is similar for pigs, especially pregnant sows raised for pork, ham, or bacon. In the U.S., approximately 75% of sows spend their entire 16-week pregnancy in individual stalls too narrow for them to turn around or walk more than a step forward or backward. Again, such practices are illegal in Spain.

Even more disturbing are the methods used in the U.S. to kill millions of chickens and turkeys when bird flu is detected on a factory farm. Often, the birds are killed by sealing the shed and bringing in heaters, so that, after an hour or two of heat over 104°F, they die of heat stroke. In Spain, heating birds to death is prohibited.

But it’s not just about the U.S. vs. Spain. The laws that protect animals in Spain apply to all 27 countries that make up the European Union, stretching from Portugal to Finland. The UK, though no longer a member of the EU, maintains animal welfare standards similar to those of the EU.

It’s not just hens and pigs who have better lives in Europe than in the U.S. It is prohibited to conduct experiments on animals or import cosmetics tested on animals within the EU. There are no such restrictions in the U.S., and no one knows the exact number or types of experiments conducted. This is because the U.S. Animal Welfare Act, which gives the Department of Agriculture authority to regulate research on animals, specifically exempts research on rats, mice, and birds, which make up the majority of vertebrate animals used in U.S. experiments.

Why does the U.S. lag so far behind the UK and EU in terms of animal welfare? One theory is that Americans still hold onto a Wild West mentality that tolerates harsh treatment of animals. Supporters of this view point to the continued existence of rodeos, which, like bullfights, entertain spectators by inflicting pain and suffering on animals. People who find it entertaining to watch a frightened calf being lassoed and dragged to the ground are unlikely to be concerned about the suffering of pigs or chickens.

Yet, when Americans have the opportunity to vote for laws that give farmed animals more space, they consistently choose to do so. In 2002, 55% of Floridians voted to ban keeping pigs in stalls too narrow to allow them to turn around. In 2006, 62% of Arizonans voted to ban such stalls for pigs and veal calves. In 2008, 63% of Californians voted to ban such stalls for pigs and veal calves, as well as standard battery cages for hens. In 2016, 78% of Massachusettans voted to ban narrow stalls for pigs and veal, standard battery cages for hens, and the sale of pork, veal, and eggs from out-of-state producers using these systems. In 2018, 63% of Californians voted to ban the sale of pork, veal, and eggs from out-of-state producers using systems that don’t meet California’s standards. (A challenge by pork producers to the ban on in-state sales was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.)

So, I suggest that the U.S. lags so far behind the EU on animal welfare not because Americans care less about animals than Europeans, but because the U.S. political system is less democratic than parliamentary democracies. In most parliamentary democracies, political parties are stronger, and individual lawmakers don’t need to raise large amounts of money to get re-elected. Money and lobbying have a significant influence in U.S. politics.

The U.S. congressional committee system also disempowers the electorate in a way that cannot happen in a parliamentary democracy, where the Prime Minister and Cabinet are members of the legislature and have significant influence on legislation. In the U.S., House and Senate Agriculture committees in both state and federal Congresses are typically made up of lawmakers representing predominantly agricultural districts, effectively giving them a veto over proposals to protect farmed animals. These committees receive substantial donations from factory farm operators. In states without provision for citizen-initiated ballots, only tiny Rhode Island has farmed animal legislation that can compare with the EU or UK. At the federal level, there is no legislation that even attempts to regulate the conditions in which farmed animals are kept.

Most Americans care about animals and would like their country to be among the leading nations in protecting animals from unnecessary suffering. The reality is more disturbing, and I hope that people who learn the true situation will seek to change it.