In this international metropolis of Hong Kong, we daily enjoy an abundance of meat, yet seldom pause to consider where the food on our plates comes from, or what kind of life the animals endured before becoming our meal. The living conditions and final moments of farm animals—particularly pigs and poultry, which constitute the bulk of local consumption—have long existed in the dual shadows of public invisibility and legal neglect. In 2010, the University of Hong Kong published a landmark Review of Animal Welfare Legislation in Hong Kong report. It pointedly states that Hong Kong’s animal welfare legal framework, centred on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169), has seen no fundamental update since its enactment in 1935 and is severely “outdated and fragmented, difficult to locate and to understand, and therefore difficult to enforce.” More critically, this antiquated law was designed solely to punish extreme acts of “cruelty,” leaving a regulatory vacuum concerning the basic welfare of ‘food-producing’ animals during rearing, transport, and slaughter. This means the animal group which is most numerous and most integral to the human food supply is paradoxically the most vulnerable and unprotected in law.

An Outdated Legal Framework and the Absurd Reality of Selective Protection

The core problem with Hong Kong’s current animal welfare legislation lies in its philosophy, which remains rooted in the early 20th century. Compared to jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and Australia, which have shifted their legal focus from “preventing cruelty” to “positively promoting animal welfare,” Hong Kong’s law appears exceptionally passive and backward. The design of the current Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance functions like an alarm that only sounds after a disaster; the law can only intervene once an animal has endured “unnecessary suffering” reaching the threshold of “cruelty.” However, it is virtually powerless against the chronic, systemic welfare issues farm animals face throughout their lives in intensive systems—such as severe space restrictions, an inability to express natural behaviours, and the immense fear and stress prior to slaughter.

This legal stagnation has led to an absurd reality of “selective protection.” While the ordinance theoretically covers all animals, enforcement focus and societal concern are overwhelmingly directed towards companion animals (cats and dogs). Meanwhile, pigs and poultry, which constitute the vast majority of Hong Kong’s meat consumption, lack a set of species-specific, legally enforceable welfare standards governing their entire lifecycle from birth, rearing, and transport to slaughter. The “Five Freedoms” principles long advocated by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)—freedom from hunger and thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury, and disease; to express normal behaviour; and from fear and distress—are far from being a mandatory legal baseline in Hong Kong’s farms and slaughterhouses. Consequently, the welfare of food-producing animals largely depends on industry self-regulation and commercial considerations, not on binding legal requirements.

The Slaughterhouse: The Last Line of Defence for Welfare, Dangerously Breached

The slaughter process is the final stage of an animal’s life and should be governed by the primary principle of minimising suffering, i.e., practising “humane slaughter.” Yet, in the absence of clear legal standards and effective oversight, this last line of defence is easily compromised. The core of humane slaughter lies in effective stunning technology that renders an animal instantly insensible, thereby preventing it from experiencing pain and fear during subsequent bleeding and processing. International scientific consensus and practice confirm that inhumane slaughter methods are not only profoundly cruel but also affect meat quality due to substances like adrenaline released during extreme fear and stress.

Although the 2010 University of Hong Kong report identified slaughterhouse animal welfare as a key area for review, the public knows very little about actual operations inside these facilities. Historical experience shows that reform of slaughter methods often faces industry opposition citing operational inconvenience and increased costs. However, a civilised society cannot prioritise commercial convenience over the fundamental moral responsibility to alleviate animal suffering. Ensuring that every animal sent for slaughter ends its life with minimal fear and pain is an inescapable part of a modern food production chain. As an advanced city, Hong Kong’s slaughter standards must not remain at a level set decades ago but must align with internationally recognised animal welfare science.

Policy Reform Recommendations: Building a Comprehensive Welfare Safeguard System for Food-Producing Animals

Faced with legal voids and practical challenges, piecemeal criticism is futile. We need a systematic, forward-looking policy reform plan. To this end, the HKSPCA Research Department proposes the following key recommendations:

First, dedicated legislation must be initiated to establish a “positive duty of care.” Hong Kong should draw on the legislative reform experiences of advanced overseas regions to begin drafting a local Food-Producing Animal Welfare Ordinance, or undertake a fundamental revision of the existing Cap. 169. The core of this legal reform must be the introduction of a “duty of care” concept. This means the law would require all persons responsible for animals (including farm operators, transporters, and slaughterhouse operators) to take positive, reasonable measures to ensure the welfare needs of animals in their care are met, rather than passively punishing cruelty after it occurs. This statutory duty should explicitly cover all stages of the animal’s life, from on-farm housing and transport conditions to pre-slaughter handling and stunning procedures.

Second, develop and mandatorily enforce a Code of Practice for the Rearing, Transport, and Slaughter of Food-Producing Animals. The new legal framework must be supported by concrete, operable technical standards. The government should convene animal scientists, veterinarians, welfare experts, and industry representatives to develop a detailed Code of Practice for major food-producing species like pigs and poultry, based on OIE standards and the Five Freedoms. The Code’s content must include: minimum space and environmental enrichment requirements for all growth stages; maximum journey times and welfare conditions during transport; rules for pre-slaughter rest and handling methods; and the mandatory use of scientifically verified humane stunning equipment and techniques that cause instant unconsciousness. This Code should carry legal force and serve as the basis for enforcement and industry compliance.

Finally, establish an independent, transparent, and robust monitoring and enforcement mechanism. The best law is meaningless without effective execution. We recommend: 1. Strengthening the professional training and staffing resources for Animal Welfare Inspectors within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), enabling them to conduct unannounced spot checks on farms and slaughterhouses. 2. Exploring legislation to require the installation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems in all key areas of licensed slaughterhouses (e.g., unloading bays, driveways, stunning and bleeding points). Recordings would be available for regular review by regulators, a measure that would significantly enhance operational transparency and act as a powerful deterrent. 3. For operators who seriously or repeatedly violate animal welfare provisions, consideration should be given to suspending or revoking their relevant licences, in addition to imposing fines.

Conclusion: From the Hidden Margins to the Core of Civilised Consideration

The welfare of food-producing animals has long been hidden at the end of the food production chain and on the margins of public awareness. Yet, how a society treats the animals that contribute their lives to its sustenance and development is the true measure of its civilisation. The 2010 University of Hong Kong report has sounded the alarm for us. Changing the status quo is not only a response to the silent suffering of animals but also a necessary step to ensure food safety, comply with international trade standards, and elevate the overall ethical standing of our society.

We urge the SAR Government, Legislative Councillors, the food industry, and every consumer to jointly confront this critical issue of ethics, rule of law, and civility. Through decisive legal reform, stringent standard-setting, and transparent regulatory enforcement, we can end the legal neglect of farm animals and truly integrate animal welfare principles into every link of the chain from farm to fork. Only then can Hong Kong rightfully claim to be an international metropolis that truly respects life and embodies compassion.