New Zealand Has Officially Recognized All Animals As Sentient Beings

[Calliegirl]

New Zealand has set an incredible precedent by legally ruling on what nature lovers already know to be true: that animals are sentient and have feelings in the same way that we do.

This marks an incredibly shift in public perception, where previously only some animals were given the benefit of protection.

The Animal Welfare Bill that passed last month will prosecute people in animal cruelty cases and ban animal research and testing. All hunting and capture of wild animals will be illegal...

http://vbetweenthelines.com/index.p...ally-recognized-animals-sentient-beings-huge/

 

[Capstan]

Happy news.

 

[ledboots]

But how can it be legal to kill and eat them if they are sentient....?
Not that I'm not happy about the bill passage, but ...?

 

[Calliegirl]

But how can it be legal to kill and eat them if they are sentient....?
Not that I'm not happy about the bill passage, but ...?

I was wondering how that worked too.

 

[ledboots]

I guess they have to treat the farmed animals better while they are alive, which is of course nice.

 

[Blues]

Goodness , I didn't even know the bill went through , the bit about " All hunting and capture of wild animals will be illegal" in the link is not correct ....the bills wording is

"Remove uncertainty around the ill-treatment of wild animals by targeting acts of wilful or reckless ill-treatment (but not affecting ordinary hunting, fishing, and pest management ."

"It also bans the use of animals to test finished cosmetic products or ingredients that are intended for use exclusively in cosmetics."<< I must admit, that was a happy read .

 

[Calliegirl]

Goodness , I didn't even know the bill went through , the bit about " All hunting and capture of wild animals will be illegal" in the link is not correct ....the bills wording is

"Remove uncertainty around the ill-treatment of wild animals by targeting acts of wilful or reckless ill-treatment (but not affecting ordinary hunting, fishing, and pest management ."

"It also bans the use of animals to test finished cosmetic products or ingredients that are intended for use exclusively in cosmetics."<< I must admit, that was a happy read .

Oh, so killing is still allowed.

 

[Blues]

Oh, so killing is still allowed.

Yes Calliegirl

This is the rational from where those who put the bill in place are coming from .


“New Zealanders care deeply about how animals are treated. Sixty eight per cent of New Zealand households have at least one pet, and we earn around $25 billion a year by exporting animal products such as meat, milk and wool.

“How we treat animals matters not just to animals, but to ourselves and overseas markets.”

 

[Tom L.]

But how can it be legal to kill and eat them if they are sentient....?
Not that I'm not happy about the bill passage, but ...?

I was wondering how that worked too.

Hmmmm... I've been wondering about that too... for decades.

I think blues' signature explains it about as well as anybody ever has, to my knowledge:

People are weird

vbetweenthelines.com really should edit that typo though (about all hunting and capture of wild animals being illegal).

 

[robert99]

"How we treat animals matters not just to animals, but to ourselves and overseas markets.”
New Zealand's reputation for good quality dairy products is what sells in China. (New Zealand is the world's eighth largest milk producer - Dairy farming in New Zealand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) China relies on New Zealand for almost all its imports of milk powder. Imports are highly prized in China after a tainted milk formula scandal in 2008 killed six babies and made some 300,000 infants ill. But back in 2013, China banned all imports of milk powder from New Zealand after its main dairy exporter, Fonterra, found a bacterial strain in some of its products that can cause botulism. (China bans New Zealand milk powder in botulism scare - BBC News ).
So this is more about the dairy industry's image then animal wellfare I believe.

 

[Blues]

Just a point for those campaigning for cruelty free cosmetic products , make certain the campaign is focused around ingredients and products as set out in the bill in NZ

'It also bans the use of animals to test finished cosmetic products or ingredients that are intended for use exclusively in cosmetics"

I am having trouble recalling the whole deal, but I think originally, it just covered cosmetic products . Some manufactures twig onto this and still carried on animal testing of individual ingredients , then mixed them together for the final product and said the product was not animal tested . Which, by law , was technically correct ....so I am please bill has covered this

 

[robert99]

Just a point for those companying for cruelty free cosmetic products , make certain the campaign is focused around ingredients and products as set out in the bill in NZ

'It also bans the use of animals to test finished cosmetic products or ingredients that are intended for use exclusively in cosmetics"

I am having trouble recalling the whole deal, but I think originally, it just covered cosmetic products . Some manufactures twig onto this and still carried on animal testing of individual ingredients , then mixed them together for the final product and said the product was not animal tested . Which, by law , was technically correct ....so I am please bill has covered this

The same thing is going on in the EU. Those naughty people at EFFCI ( http://effci.com/about-us/ ) have been trying to use chemical regulations (REACH) to apply to cosmetic regulations
see http://action.peta.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=5&ea.campaign.id=34533

and http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/features/eu-court-official-supports-destruction-cosmetics-marketing-ban/

EU's Advocate General Michal Bobek’s opinion 17 March 2016
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=175149&doclang=en
"The more common situation under EU legislation is that animal testing is to be avoided wherever possible but reluctantly tolerated wherever no alternative is available."
"Animal testing may be carried out as a last resort under REACH (the chemical regulations). There is no special rule that applies where a substance happens also to be used in cosmetics. However, it should not be possible to rely on the results of those tests in the context of the Cosmetics Regulation. They will of course have to be reported in the PIF (product information file). However, they cannot be used to demonstrate the safety of the ingredient.

This is the only reasonable interpretation that I see which reconciles these two pieces of legislation and avoids circumvention while at the same time (a) respecting the sectoral nature of the Cosmetics Regulation, (b) maintaining the link between the animal testing and sale of the tested ingredient in cosmetics as required by the wording of the legislation and (c) avoiding impossible enquiries into specific purpose/subjective intent."

 

[Freesia]

This is nice but I am afraid it does not really translate into reality... one thing NZ is good at is marketing itself to the rest of the world... and sometimes what it says is a bunch of BS.

 

[Freesia]

At least there are some nice cruelty free cosmetics companies to choose from here. Lately I buy stuff from Karen Murrell, Living Nature, and Lush (of course .

 

[Blues]

I haven't tried Lush, will look it up . I usually buy sukin , that's an aussie product .

I think the act seems to give clarity to courts and animal welfare inspectors and read the riot act act to some farmers in some of the appalling cases of animal abuses on their farms .

On a lesser note , it had what we call "cross party support" which means that all MPs of all parties voted for the bill .

 

[Freesia]

Sukin is great, I love their skin moisturiser....

 

[shyvas]

Animal Rights - France Votes Animals are 'living, sentient beings'

Nothing much has changed since the animals in France are considering as sentient beings.