animal welfare
animal rights
animal-based measures
resource-based measures


While more than ever we are discussing animal rights and considering the possibility to extend the circle of our moral consideration, we are also more than ever inflicting suffering on more animals than in any time in history. This is especially the case for farm animals. This article aims to demonstrate that introducing animal-based measures into the legal system can be a practical and realistic step towards changing the familiar perspective of farm animals as mere commodities into the sentient beings they are.

Currently, legislation on farm animals builds on what are called resource-based measures. These measures are not based on the animals but on their environment and the conditions in which the animals are living. They are very compatible with the legal system being relatively easy to assess, less subjective and highly repeatable. However, compliance with resource-based measures does not always mean good animal welfare, since these measures are generally considered to be less well correlated to the experiences of the animal.

Animal-based measures, on the other hand, measure the state of the animal based on the actual animal, its behaviour (e.g. repetitive behaviour, human-animal relationship) and/or appearance (posture, facial expression, body condition).

A change where laws on animals actually require looking at the animals has the potential to improve the relationship to the animals and is an essential shift towards farm animals being regarded as someone and not something. By acknowledging animals as whole sentient beings, we do not just see a complex system of ‘behaviours’ (e.g. walking), but first and foremost we see a “behaver”, a dynamic living being, whose movements are always meaningful and psychological expressive.

In conclusion, animal-based measures force us to look at animals and recognize that they are able to feel pain, love, joy, loneliness and fear. Implementing animal-based measures for farm animals makes us, in a practical and realistic way, take those animals that are mostly considered as mere commodities, into our moral consideration, and unveils aspects of their sentience, which are currently hidden by the law.


Broom, Donald. 2007. “Cognitive ability and sentience: Which aquatic animals should be protected?” DAO Volume 75(2): 99-108.

Compassion in World Farming. 2017. Strategic Plan 2013-2017 for Kinder, Fairer Farming Worldwide. Retrieved August 1, 2019 (

European Food Safety Authority. 2012a. “Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of dairy cows.” EFSA Journal 10(1): 1-85. DOI:

European Food Safety Authority. 2012b. European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals. Retrieved August 1, 2019 ( welfare/strategy_en).

European Commission. 2016. Special Eurobarometer 442 Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare. Retrieved July 28, 2019 (

European Court of Auditors. 2018. Special report No 31/2018: Animal welfare in the EU: closing the gap between ambitious goals and practical implementation. Retrieved August 1, 2018 (

Francione, Gary. 2008. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Exploitation of Nonhuman Animals. New York: Columbia University Press.

Graça, João. Maria Manuela Calheiros and Abilio Oliveira. 2014. “Moral Disengagement.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27(5): 749-765.

Nussbaum, Martha and Cass Sunstein. 2005. Animal rights: current debates and new directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sowery, Katy. 2018. “Sentient beings and tradable products: the curious constitutional status of animals under union law.” Common Market Review 55(1): 55 - 99.

Wemelsfelder, Françoise. 1997. “The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53(1-2): 75-88.

Wemelsfelder, Françoise. 2007. “How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of animal behaviour.” Animal welfare 16(5): 25-31.

Wemelsfelder, Millard, De Rosa, Napolitano. 2009. “Qualitative Behaviour Assessment.” Pp. 215-224 in Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves, edited by B. Forkman and L. Keeling. Uppsala: SLU Service.