In Hong Kong, a highly urbanized international metropolis, discussions about animal welfare often focus on companion animals or wildlife. However, behind our daily diets lies the largest yet most legally forgotten group—farm animals—living with almost no welfare protections. While most of the pork, chicken, and eggs consumed daily in Hong Kong are imported from the mainland, local farms still raise pigs and poultry to supply the market. The stark contrast between the living conditions of these animals that provide our food and their legal protections reveals the deepest deficiencies in Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy. Including farm animals within the scope of legal protections is not only a moral responsibility but also a litmus test of our society’s general respect for life.

• The True Face of the Law: The Absurd Disconnect between the 1935 Ordinance and 21st Century Farming
  
  The core law protecting animals in Hong Kong is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Chapter 169), enacted in 1935 and derived from the UK’s Animal Protection Act of 1911. This nearly eighty-year-old legislation was designed to punish acts of cruelty that inflicted “unnecessary suffering” on animals, but it is completely disconnected from the modernized and intensive agricultural production model.
  
  The biggest flaw of this ordinance lies in its “reactive” and “punitive” nature. The law only intervenes after animals have clearly suffered “cruel treatment” (such as violent beating or malicious torment), and it provides almost no protection against the “chronic suffering” that farm animals endure over time due to poor living conditions. For example:
  
  • Severe Lack of Space: The law does not stipulate minimum space requirements for pig pens or chicken coops, meaning animals can spend their entire lives unable to turn around, stretch their wings, or perform basic natural behaviors.
  • Monotonous and Poor Environments: The law does not require the provision of environmental enrichment, causing animals to suffer from boredom and frustration, potentially leading to stereotypical behaviors.
  • Lack of Health Management: The law does not set standards for disease prevention, parasite control, or pain management (such as post-castration or beak-trimming pain relief).
    

The Animal Welfare Law Review Report published by the University of Hong Kong in 2010 pointed out that the current laws provide “seriously inadequate” protection for farm animal welfare. The report explicitly recommended establishing specialized, scientifically-based “duty of care” standards for farm animals, yet by 2013, this critical recommendation had still not been legislatively implemented. This means that local farming practices can be completely legal, even if they violate international basic scientific consensus on animal welfare, as long as they do not constitute obvious “cruelty.” This legal vacuum subjects countless lives to systemic and tacit suffering.

• The Intellectual Roots of the Problem: Viewing Animals as “Property” Rather Than “Sentient Beings”
  
  The lack of legal protections stems from deeper societal and legal concepts. Under the current legal framework, farm animals are primarily defined as “property” or “units of food production,” rather than living beings with complex sensory capabilities and emotional needs. This commodification directly leads to their welfare being systematically marginalized in favor of economic efficiency and production costs.
  
  The international community has long moved beyond this outdated view. Since the 2000s, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has listed animal welfare as a core area of work, establishing scientifically-based “Five Freedoms” as a global benchmark for animal welfare:
  
  • Freedom from hunger and thirst
  • Freedom from discomfort
  • Freedom from pain, injury, and disease
  • Freedom to express normal behavioral patterns
  • Freedom from fear and distress

However, these increasingly important standards in international trade and agriculture are hardly reflected in the legal protection of farm animals in Hong Kong. The EU, the UK, New Zealand, and other regions have already legislated on the housing space, environment, transportation, and slaughter of farm animals based on these principles. Hong Kong, as an international city, finds its legislative progress in this area stagnated, sharply contrasting with its advanced image in other fields. This gap is not a matter of technology or resources but a lack of political will and legislative priority.

• The Multiple Values of Legislation: The Necessity Beyond Moralit
  
  Legislation for farm animals carries significance far beyond mere moral appeals. It pertains to public health, food safety, industrial upgrading, and the overall advancement of social civilization.
  
  • Public Health and Food Safety: Overcrowded and stressed animals in poor health are more likely to spark and spread diseases (such as salmonella and avian influenza), necessitating the use of more medications and increasing the risk of antibiotic residues. Good animal welfare is foundational to preventive veterinary medicine, enhancing food safety at its source.
    
  • Sustainable Industry Development and Market Competitiveness: Global consumers and multinational dining enterprises are increasingly concerned about “ethical sourcing.” If local agricultural products cannot demonstrate compliance with basic animal welfare standards, they will gradually lose competitiveness in future markets. Legislation can guide local agriculture toward more sustainable and high-value models.
    
  • Social Education and Ethical Standards: Laws have powerful educational and normative functions. Legislation for the most vulnerable animal groups can convey core values of “respect for life” and “responsible consumption” to the public, especially the next generation, shaping a more harmonious social ethics.
    
• Specific Legislative Recommendations: Establishing the Legal Foundation for Farm Animal Welfare in Hong Kong
  
  We call on the SAR government and the Legislative Council to urgently initiate the following legislative procedures to thoroughly reverse the predicament where farm animals are without legal protection:
  
  • Enact a Specialized “Farm Animal Welfare Ordinance”:
    Completely abandon piecemeal approaches and initiate entirely new legislation. This ordinance should be based on the OIE’s “Five Freedoms,” establishing specific, verifiable welfare standards for major farm animals in Hong Kong (including pigs, chickens, and egg-laying hens). The standards must cover:
    
    • Husbandry Systems (prohibiting full-time caged confinement and providing bedding and enrichment)
    • Space and Environment (setting minimum area requirements, lighting, ventilation, and temperature control)
    • Health Management (pain management plans and frequency of veterinary inspections)
      
  • Introduce a Statutory “Duty of Care” Principle:
    The new legislation should clearly state that all farm operators bear an active “duty of care” for the animals they raise. This means they must take “proactive measures” to ensure animal welfare, beyond merely “avoiding cruel treatment.” The burden of proof should partly shift to the farmers, requiring them to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to meet the welfare needs of the animals.
    
  • Establish Independent Oversight, Enforcement, and Support Systems: Strengthen the authority and responsibility of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD):
    
    • Establish a dedicated “Farm Animal Welfare Division” within the AFCD, staffed with veterinarians and inspectors knowledgeable in animal welfare, responsible for developing detailed regulations, conducting regular and surprise inspections, and prosecuting violations.
    • Set clear transitional periods and financial support: The legislation should provide the industry with reasonable transitional periods to meet the standards (such as 3-5 years) while also launching corresponding financial subsidies or low-interest loan programs to assist farmers in upgrading facilities for a smooth transition.
    • Implement a product labeling system: Following the EU model, promote a voluntary “Animal Welfare Label” certification program to help local farm products that meet higher welfare standards gain recognition and premium pricing in the market, encouraging positive competition through market forces.

Conclusion

The way society treats farm animals is a profound reflection of its collective conscience. Hong Kong cannot continue to rely on an outdated law rooted in colonial times that addresses only extreme cruelty to regulate 21st-century agricultural production. We must have the courage to acknowledge the failures of current legislation and weave a legal safety net for those quiet lives based on scientific and ethical foundations.

This is not merely a reform of animal welfare; it is a social reflection on how we define progress and balance interests and ethics. Legislation protecting farm animals is a crucial step toward allowing the light of civilization in Hong Kong to shine on the most hidden production lines. Now is the time for the government to show leadership, the industry to demonstrate foresight, and the public to express support through consumer choices. Let us work together to end the suffering tacitly permitted by law and build a city that is more just for all lives.