Compassion In World Farming Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from judicial review proceedings concerning the welfare of broiler breeder chickens and the legality of restricted feeding regimes imposed on them. The claimants challenged the policy of the Secretary of State ("DEFRA") which permits the restricted feeding of broiler breeders, a practice said to cause chronic hunger and potentially contravene welfare regulations. The appeal follows a decision by Newman J dated 27th November 2003, with permission to appeal granted by Maurice Kay LJ.

Broiler chickens are selectively bred for rapid growth, resulting in welfare concerns due to health problems associated with fast growth. Broiler breeders, the parent stock, are subject to restricted feeding for approximately the first 20 weeks of life to control weight and improve reproductive outcomes. The claimants contend that this restricted feeding causes chronic hunger, adversely affecting welfare and breaching statutory obligations under the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 ("the 2000 regulations").

The proceedings focus on whether DEFRA's policy of not prosecuting owners or keepers who use restricted feeding regimes is lawful, particularly regarding paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 to the 2000 regulations, which requires animals to be fed in sufficient quantity to promote a positive state of well-being.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the restricted feeding regime for broiler breeder chickens breaches paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 to the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 by failing to promote a positive state of well-being.
2. Whether DEFRA's policy of not prosecuting owners or keepers who subject broiler breeders to restricted feeding is unlawful.
3. Whether the requirements of the regulations allow for balancing animal welfare against commercial interests of intensive farming.
4. Whether the phrase "to promote a positive state of well-being" imposes a distinct and strict obligation separate from other welfare requirements.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The restricted feeding causes chronic hunger and stress, seriously compromising the welfare of broiler breeders.
• The phrase "to promote a positive state of well-being" in paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 imposes a strict, cumulative obligation that is not met by the restricted feeding regime.
• DEFRA's policy of non-prosecution effectively permits unlawful treatment of broiler breeders and should be overturned.
• The judge erred by allowing a balancing of welfare requirements against commercial interests; all welfare requirements must be strictly complied with.
• The use of fast-growing genotypes exacerbates welfare problems, and slower growing genotypes should be mandated to comply with the regulations.

Respondent's Arguments

• Restricted feeding during the first 20 weeks causes persistent hunger but also reduces metabolic disorders, mortality, and improves reproductive capacity, resulting in an overall welfare benefit.
• The obligations under paragraph 22 are qualified by regulation 3(2), requiring owners and keepers to take "all reasonable steps" rather than impose strict liability.
• The term "promote" allows for a degree of latitude; it does not require absolute achievement of every welfare element independently.
• Welfare is a composite state requiring balancing of competing factors, including the risks of overfeeding leading to obesity and health problems.
• DEFRA’s policy is lawful as owners and keepers comply with the regulations by taking reasonable steps and following statutory welfare codes.
• The regulations and Directive presuppose intensive farming and the genotypes used; mandating different genotypes is a policy matter beyond the scope of these regulations.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed examination of the scientific evidence and statutory framework. It acknowledged the difficulty in defining and measuring "hunger" and "well-being" in broiler breeders. The judge emphasized that hunger is a natural physiological state and that restricted feeding is necessary to prevent health problems such as heart failure and lameness in broiler breeders.

The court accepted that the restricted feeding results in persistent hunger but found no evidence that this hunger compromises the birds' fundamental health or welfare to an extent that breaches the regulations. The court noted that welfare obligations require a balance between competing factors, including health risks associated with unrestricted feeding. The concept of "promoting a positive state of well-being" was interpreted as allowing such balancing rather than imposing strict, compartmentalized requirements.

The court further held that the obligations under the 2000 regulations are qualified by the requirement to take "all reasonable steps" and that compliance with statutory welfare codes tends to establish compliance with the regulations. The court rejected the claimants' argument that the use of fast-growing genotypes must be prohibited under the regulations, concluding that such policy decisions fall outside the scope of the welfare regulations.

Ultimately, the court found that DEFRA's policy of not prosecuting owners or keepers who apply restricted feeding regimes was lawful, given the evidence and balancing of welfare considerations.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold DEFRA's policy permitting the restricted feeding of broiler breeder chickens and its approach to enforcement under the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000. The court confirmed that welfare obligations involve balancing competing considerations and that restricted feeding, while causing persistent hunger, does not necessarily breach the regulations if it promotes overall health and welfare. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the qualified and balanced approach to animal welfare regulation enforcement in the context of intensive farming and broiler breeder management.