Fears that the bill will infringe on "
kosher and
halal slaughter,
game shooting, killing vermin on farms and testing medical products on animals" were raised in a letter written by several Tory donors. Further complaints were raised such as the notion that the UK has recognised animal sentience and that animal welfare has been around in the UK for 200 years (originally introduced in the
Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822). This sentiment was expressed by
Nick Herbert in the
House of Lords as well as by
Daniel Hannan, arguing that the law is already clear on the issue. The idea that the law in place is already enough may not be accurate since
Brexit. Angus Nurse argued that leaving the EU would result in a step back in terms of animal rights, returning animals to the status of things. The reason for this is that there are significant differences between the laws MPs state as reasons for not including sentience in the law and the protections that used to be granted by EU law, in particular Article 13. Steven McCulloch draws attention to the fact that the Animal Welfare Act fails to protect wild animals whereas Article 13 protects all sentient animals. There has also been critique that the original bill did not go far enough as it fails to recognise the sentience of
invertebrates. According to recent studies conducted by C. M. Sherwin, the notion that invertebrates are not sentient is incorrect, as many studies on them are conducted differently. If the same arguments from analogy were used in investigations on invertebrates then it would be concluded that they were sentient. Therefore, leaving them out of the bill may cause them to be unduly unprotected. The final bill was amended to include some invertebrate animals such as octopuses and lobsters, following a scientific review that concluded that there was "strong scientific evidence" octopuses were sentient. == See also ==