I feel like this article is a lot of fluff and not a lot of specifics, right? What changes, effectively? If there’s no prohibition of farming animals for food, clothes, whatever in general, nothing changes apart from more criteria that lead to “animal welfare”. But what animal welfare is there to be had when farm animals are killed in the end regardless? If they have another half square meter to “live” their lifes?
Sorry if I’m missing something, but I’m not really sure what this accomplishes. Is it the fact that they’re mentioning farm animals in their constitution in general?
I feel like this article is a lot of fluff and not a lot of specifics, right? What changes, effectively? If there’s no prohibition of farming animals for food, clothes, whatever in general, nothing changes apart from more criteria that lead to “animal welfare”. But what animal welfare is there to be had when farm animals are killed in the end regardless? If they have another half square meter to “live” their lifes?
Sorry if I’m missing something, but I’m not really sure what this accomplishes. Is it the fact that they’re mentioning farm animals in their constitution in general?
It’s a step towards progress but ultimately it’s still less than bare minimum when it comes to ethics towards living beings