Grants to Support Farm Animal Welfare Work in China

In 2016, we began investigating potential grant opportunities to support farm animal welfare in China. This page lays out the reasoning behind the first set of grants we decided to make, which total $3,821,783 over two years and will support 10 groups to begin or scale up farm animal welfare work in China. The grants break down as follows:

These groups plan to use our grants to pursue four complementary goals:

  1. To build on the current level of awareness of animal welfare in China’s livestock industry and institutionalize farm animal welfare as an important concern for government officials, meat producers, and food companies in China.
  2. To cooperate with relevant partners in building the technical capacity of officials, quasi-official entities, producers, veterinarians, and retailers to incrementally improve farm animal welfare in China.
  3. To encourage progress and secure reforms on the “low-hanging fruit” (low-to-no-cost reforms) of farm animal welfare in China, such as gentler handling and humane slaughter of pigs.
  4. To promote reduced meat consumption, including vegetarianism, and increased concern for animal welfare.

We decided to recommend these grants in August of 2016, but are publishing this page now because - largely due to logistical difficulties we encountered in granting to groups working in China - the last few of these grants have only recently been finalized.

Published: August 2017


The cause

These grants fall within our work on farm animal welfare, one of our focus areas. This is one of two main international farm animal welfare strategies we explored in 2016; the other focuses on getting cage-free reforms in Latin America and the European Union, which we expect to have a shorter timeline for impact.

A large part of the reason we are interested in supporting farm animal welfare work in China is the large number of animals farmed there and the relatively poor conditions in which many of them live. According to the best estimates we’re aware of, China produces almost half of the world’s farmed animals if fish are counted, and almost a quarter excluding fish. This includes approximately:1

  • A majority of all farmed fish (54 billion farmed at any time)
  • One fifth of all broiler chickens (3 billion farmed at any time)
  • One quarter of all laying hens (1.5 billion farmed at any time)
  • Half of all pigs (480 million farmed at any time)

We are unsure what proportion of these animals are intensively confined, but it is clear that the proportion is rising as Chinese farmers, under pressure to increase production, are increasingly emulating closely confining production systems found in the U.S. and elsewhere.2

We hope that our grants will slow the rise in the use of extreme confinement systems, ameliorate the suffering caused by inhumane transport and slaughter methods, and lay the groundwork for longer-term changes in farming practices.

Prospects for farm animal welfare work in China

The prospects for future farm animal welfare work in China appear to us to be mixed. The Chinese government continues to promote industrialization of animal agriculture; one estimate suggests that state-sanctioned agribusinesses (“Dragon Head Enterprises”) control 70% of pork and poultry production.3 A 2011 public opinion survey found that only one third of Chinese citizens had heard of the concept of animal welfare, and few supported stronger welfare protections for the animals’ sake.4 However, the same survey found that the majority of Chinese supported improving conditions for pigs and chickens - including through legislation - for instrumental reasons (largely food safety and taste).5 Further, the Chinese government has issued humane slaughter regulations for pigs, and pig welfare is now being discussed at Sino-EU conferences.6 Our understanding is that work led by the government-approved International Cooperation Committee of Animal Welfare (ICCAW) is also under way on voluntary farm animal welfare standards for a range of species.

In addition, it can be challenging to support organizations in China as a non-Chinese funder.7 We have deliberately focused primarily on groups that have official sanction to work in China and that (in many cases) are working closely with government-affiliated entities. We will continue to ensure that any of our activities as they relate to China respect all relevant legal frameworks.

About the grants

Grant descriptions

Compassion in World Farming (“Compassion”) — $765,112 (£598,500)
This UK-founded international NGO has played a major role in the European Union’s farm animal welfare reforms and has been working in China for 10 years including, over the past four years, with in-country partner ICCAW. Compassion currently has two team members in China, who are focused on raising awareness of farm animal welfare and engaging with producers and food companies. In 2013, Compassion launched the Good Pig Production Award to incentivize and recognize welfare improvements by Chinese pork producers. Compassion estimates that this program now reaches 1.4 million pigs per year. Compassion’s global budget is approximately $10 million per year and its China program operates on about $300,000 per year.

Compassion plans to use our grant to triple the scale of its corporate engagement work in China, augment the capacity of its China team (including in-country) and add in significant technical and operational support. It will also fund the events, travel, and staff costs to expand its Good Pig Production Awards, its new-for-2017 Good Chicken and Good Egg Production Awards, and deepen its engagement with ICCAW. We are excited about this plan because it will scale up Compassion’s existing producer engagement, which has been consistently praised by philanthropists and experts on animal welfare in China whose judgment we trust.

WildAid — $700,000
WildAid is an environmental group that specializes in using celebrity support and donated media to promote behavioral change relating to animals and animal products. Some past campaigns have targeted shark fin removal and the ivory trade. Its current campaign focuses on reducing meat consumption in China, in partnership with the Chinese Nutrition Society; it has already released two public service announcements (PSAs)8 featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Li Bingbing (a famous Chinese actress), and director James Cameron.

WildAid plans to use our grant to expand its meat reduction PSA campaigns beyond Beijing and Shanghai to four new large Chinese cities, and to produce and distribute additional content. We see WildAid as a promising partner because of its relationships with state-owned media, which allow it to use free airtime to screen its PSAs; its ties to A-list celebrities, who star in the PSAs; and its support from the Chinese Nutrition Society and the National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation (two Chinese government agencies) to campaign for meat reduction.

World Animal Protection — $544,607
World Animal Protection is an international group that promotes animal welfare in the public and private sectors globally. It has a well-established humane slaughter program in China and is now focusing on demonstrating the commercial viability of higher-welfare pig production by trialing higher-welfare pig production practices with progressive food companies and building demand for higher welfare pork. World Animal Protection collaborates closely with the Chinese Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and ICCAW, and its new CEO previously led Compassion’s corporate engagement program (including its Good Farm Animal Welfare Awards).

World Animal Protection plans to use our grant to scale up its current work on pig welfare, by engaging producers and retailers and providing additional capacity to them to advise on pilot projects and supply chain audits; publishing and publicizing a report on pig welfare; and hiring a creative agency to educate the public on pig welfare. We hope that the organization’s previous experience in China will allow it to work effectively on this new project.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) — $453,440
Based in the UK, the RSPCA has been active in China since 1999, most recently focused on drafting China’s first anti-cruelty law (with Professor Deborah Cao, more below) and promoting humane education. The RSPCA launched its farm animal welfare work in China in 2005, co-hosting with Compassion and China’s Ministry of Commerce the country’s first conference on pig welfare. This meeting was the first to present evidence to the Chinese authorities of the impact of the poor treatment of farm animals on meat safety and quality, and opened the door for closer cooperation between international animal welfare organizations and Chinese officials, producers and retailers. The RSPCA is known for its own farm animal welfare standards and higher welfare “RSPCA Assured” labeling scheme, and so appears well-placed to promote the development of standards in China.

The RSPCA plans to use our grant to hire a China-based consultant to work closely with ICCAW and the official China Association for Standardisation, which has already sought the RSPCA’s assistance in developing and launching voluntary higher farm animal welfare standards. It will also fund a major survey to gauge Chinese support for higher-welfare farming, and two conferences to bring together government officials with experts and businesses to advance high welfare standards. We are excited about this project because it will allow the RSPCA to cooperate with a government agency in advancing China’s first comprehensive animal welfare standards

Humane Slaughter Association (HSA) — $419,236 (£331,458)
This small British charity works cooperatively with slaughterhouses to incrementally improve slaughter practices. HSA took part in the RSPCA-Compassion pig welfare conference in 2005 and more recently has done some limited work in China, in collaboration with the Jeanne Marchig Centre, but we believe it is well-suited to working there given its cooperative and technical approach.

HSA plans to use our grant to translate its guides on humane handling, transport, stunning, and slaughter into Mandarin Chinese and publicize them in Chinese agriculture industry magazines. It also plans to pay for HSA staff to travel to China to lecture at veterinary universities and train staff at slaughterhouses and livestock markets, and to invite Chinese officials for an expenses-paid study tour of slaughterhouses and livestock markets in the United Kingdom. We are excited about this project’s potential to reduce suffering and institutionalize farm animal welfare values.

The Jeanne Marchig International Centre for Animal Welfare Education at the University of Edinburgh — $255,816 (£201,594)
This center is part of the University of Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and has an agreement with the CVMA to collaborate on animal health and welfare educational initiatives. The Jeanne Marchig Centre has sent speakers to talk with Chinese producers and veterinarians about improving farm animal welfare, and has brought Chinese producers to tour farms and slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom. While the Centre’s relationship with the CVMA gives it access to large producers, it is unclear to us what impact its educational initiatives have.

The Centre plans to use our grant to send international farm animal welfare experts to visit China to work collaboratively with ICCAW, large-scale producers, veterinarians, small-scale rural producers, and technical staff to identify and solve animal welfare challenges through its partnership with ICCAW. The budget primarily covers staff and travel costs for these workshops, focusing on pigs and poultry, and also provides funding for a PhD student to evaluate whether the pilot program actually improves outcomes for animals. We are unsure of the efficacy of the Jeanne Marchig Centre’s core program, but excited about the large evaluation component. We note that in the time since we decided to make this grant, the Centre has reported to us that its work has resulted in the integration of animal welfare content into the national examination for Chinese veterinarians, and the development of Chinese-language online educational resources on farm animal welfare, hosted by the CVMA.

The Animal Welfare Standards Project — $238,212
This project brings international animal welfare academics and technical professionals to China to encourage the implementation of scientifically supported higher welfare standards, and raise awareness about the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) standards for animal welfare during slaughter and transport, which China has signed on to. The first, two-year phase of this project was funded by the Australian, Malaysian, and New Zealand governments, Australian and Malaysian universities, the European Union, and World Animal Protection, and focused on initial workshops in the region along with research to begin understanding the stakeholders in livestock in these areas.

The Animal Welfare Standards Project plans to use our grant to run further workshops across China to train local “facilitators” on animal welfare best practices in the production, transport, and slaughter of pigs and poultry, who in turn will then train other producers, transporters, and slaughterers in these best practices. The Animal Welfare Standards Project’s budget will also fund the development of new resources that will be freely available in the future, and cover the time of a project manager (a veterinary PhD researcher) who will oversee the project and conduct extensive evaluation of whether the project is effective in changing practices. We are unsure of the efficacy of the workshops in China, but are excited about this project because of its substantial focus on evaluation, which we expect will enable us to assess whether the workshops ultimately improve slaughter practices. Research will also simultaneously be conducted around Southeast Asia to better understand what other initiatives are likely to be successful amongst livestock stakeholders in improving animal welfare in the future.

Green Monday — $226,000
This organization is registered as a non-profit in Hong Kong, and focuses primarily on climate change and global food insecurity.

Green Monday plans to use our grant to run a small pilot project on meat reduction in mainland China, aiming to persuade schools, corporations, restaurants, and other institutions to sign onto a meat reduction pledge. These efforts will build off Green Monday’s work in Hong Kong and other countries spreading the “Green Monday” pledge, which requires eating a plant-based diet on Mondays.

Professor Deborah Cao at Griffith University — $120,000
Professor Deborah Cao is an Australian professor and expert on Chinese animal law, based at Griffith University. She was involved in a project to draft a proposed animal cruelty law in China in 2011, which has yet to be adopted by the Chinese National People’s Congress.

Professor Cao plans to use our grant to collaborate with leading animal welfare scholars in China on papers on farm animal welfare and vegetarianism in China. They will also host a Farm Animal Welfare in China Symposium in Beijing later this year. The budget will cover research assistance, teaching relief to allow Professor Cao to focus on this project, and the costs of hosting the symposium and editing and publishing a book on farm animal welfare.

Brighter Green — $99,360
This organization is a public policy action tank that focuses on issues related to the environment, animals, and sustainability. It has been working to raise awareness in China about the consequences of expanded factory farming and animal product consumption on both animal welfare and environmental and food security concerns. Its primary outreach tactics have been through research and documentary production, as well as outreach to civil society representatives, academics, university students, media representatives, and individual advocates..

Brighter Green plans to use our grant to send a four-person team, including a U.S. chef/educator, on a road trip across more than 20 Chinese provinces to conduct workshops exploring the general public’s awareness of factory farming conditions (“the true costs of food”) and “good food” alternatives such as plant-based diets, ecologically friendly farming practices, and locally-grown food options (where possible). It will also host two skills and advocacy training/“train the trainers” workshops for more than 100 participants (one in Beijing or Wuhan, and another in Guangdong or Shanghai) to increase the number of people and organizations who can engage effectively on factory farming and farm animal welfare issues with Chinese policy-makers, media, students and the general public. Brighter Green’s budget primarily covers staff and travel costs. We are excited about the grassroots nature of this project, but unsure about the potential impact of Brighter Green’s work, and we hope to learn more by funding this project.

Animal welfare strategy in China

Our strategy in China is to support promising opportunities to improve farm animal welfare practices and reduce animal product consumption. Given the young state of animal welfare in China, such opportunities remain limited, and we’ve thus been opportunistic in our grantmaking. We’ve also been careful to only support approaches that have already succeeded in China’s political environment — these approaches tend to be cooperative and not confrontational.

Six of these grants are aimed at roughly the same goal as the work we have been pursuing to improve animal welfare in the U.S. — pushing for welfare-based reforms to farm practices. It is not clear to us whether this is the best strategy to pursue in China. We also investigated the possibility of funding groups advocating for vegetarianism, reduction of meat consumption, and general concern for farm animals. While we actively sought out groups working in these areas, we found limited opportunities with the exception of:

  • WildAid, Green Monday, and Brighter Green advocate for vegetarianism and reduction of meat consumption.
  • The work of Professor Deborah Cao and Brighter Green both fall into the category of making the case for general concern for animal welfare. We decided against making a grant to a third group working in this area, because the group was focused on dogs and “charismatic” wildlife and seemed to have little interest in farm animals. We believe that the goal of increasing general concern for farm animal welfare will also be advanced by the work of several of our other grantees:
    • Compassion’s public awards to good producers
    • World Animal Protection’s social media engagement and advertisements
    • RSPCA’s promotion of higher standards and national survey
  • We have spoken with other international groups and foundations about supporting local groups that are doing similar work, and all of them have told us that there are limited opportunities for funding local groups. Two of our grants will fund limited local collaborations (the Brighter Green grant will cover a planned road trip across China for a small team to conduct workshops and trainings, and Professor Deborah Cao’s grant will primarily fund a conference in Beijing and the work of Chinese academics) and we will continue to look for opportunities for our other grantees to work with local groups. Our understanding is that opportunities to fund local groups are limited both due to restrictions on how grassroots organizations may operate and receive funding (especially from non-Chinese funders) and due to relatively low interest from local groups in farm animal issues.

Overall, we believe that the types of welfare reforms that our grantees are pursuing seem uniquely well-suited to China, and differ substantially from U.S. farm animal welfare campaigns. These reforms are focused on technical improvements and expert cooperation, which are activities that the Chinese government actively supports.

Case for the grants

We decided to make these grants for several reasons:

  • We are excited about the possibility that these grants will help to lay the groundwork for larger and longer-term reforms. All of these groups are currently working on a small scale (most have two or fewer staff working on farm animal welfare in China), and we believe that our grants will enable them to begin building the capacity to engage with the large scale of China’s factory farming industry. These grants may enable our grantees to lay the groundwork for mandatory farm animal welfare regulations in China, cause the CVMA to advocate for improved welfare standards, and/or prepare major pork and poultry producers to implement animal welfare reforms when food chains eventually demand them.
  • We do not expect significant short-term gains in farm animal welfare in China, given the early stage of farm animal welfare work there, but we are optimistic that these grants will help to address some low-hanging fruit (such as introducing pre-slaughter stunning where it is not yet practiced). It is possible, however, that some of our grantees’ work may yield short-term results. Compassion claims that its work already affects 1.4 million pigs per year in China, and the work of the Jeanne Marchig Centre, RSPCA, HSA, and Animal Welfare Standards Project could all reduce the severe suffering of millions of animals associated with inhumane transport and slaughter.
  • All of these grantees are doing cooperative and technical work with food producers and government-organized non-governmental organization (GONGOs) or universities, which is particularly well-suited to China’s political environment.
  • We believe it is unlikely that many of these grantees would have found alternate sources of funding for the projects listed above.

Risks and reservations

We see several risks to the success of these grants:

  • The work of one or more of these groups could spur backlash from the Chinese government against all animal welfare groups working on China, and/or against the Open Philanthropy Project. This seems to us to be the greatest risk of harm that our grants pose. We nonetheless believe that this is very unlikely, because:
    • The groups that we are funding are already operating in China, with either direct or indirect official sanction.
    • We have talked with most of these groups about how China’s new “Law on the Management of Foreign Non-Governmental Organizations”9 will affect them and have received reassuring answers.
    • While the Chinese government is sensitive to foreign funding of NGOs, our grantees are not engaged in sensitive topic areas (e.g. human rights and corruption) and do not use controversial tactics (e.g. undercover investigations and campaigns), instead focusing largely on technical assistance, cooperation, and educational outreach.
  • The groups could fail to achieve short-term improvements in slaughter and farming practices due to a lack of interest from the farming industry. Because several of these programs are largely focused on educating Chinese producers, veterinarians, and retailers, they rely heavily on the will of these parties to engage and change their practices. To date, these parties seem to have been fairly receptive to animal welfare messages, particularly those focused on cheap improvements that could improve meat quality (e.g. introducing pre-slaughter stunning). However, it is possible that they have already agreed to many of the reforms that we consider to be low-hanging fruit and will resist further reform, or that they have merely given lip service to reform and will resist tangible changes.
  • The groups could fail to advance farm animal welfare in China in the long term. We find this possibility more worrying than the risk of short-term failure, and we can foresee this happening in one of several ways: 1) the Chinese government could begin opposing farm animal welfare reforms for economic or cultural reasons, 2) Chinese consumers and food companies could fail to demand more meaningful animal welfare reforms, or 3) Chinese producers, veterinarians, and/or regulators could become reluctant to work with foreign groups, and local groups may not arise to replace them. These all seem to us to be real risks, but we believe that they are worth taking given the potential impact of these grants.

Unanswered questions

Several open questions about these grants remain:

  • How will the Chinese government implement the new foreign NGO law this year, and how will that restrict what these groups can do in China?
  • Will Chinese regulators and producers continue to be receptive to these cooperative approaches?
  • Will there be local organizations or individuals that we can grant to in the near future?
  • How much impact do the workshops, lectures, and other cooperative ventures actually have on attitudes towards factory farming, and thereby on the treatment of animals?

Plans for follow-up

We plan to follow up more frequently and in more depth with these grantees than we normally would, due to our uncertainty about their efficacy and because it is possible that farm animal welfare work in China could become a long-term priority for the Open Philanthropy Project. This would likely include at least one visit to China.

Goals for the grants

In the short term, we expect these groups to:

  • Incrementally increase the number of farms and slaughterhouses where they affect welfare practices, thereby reducing the number of animals that are inhumanely transported and slaughtered.
  • Develop the animal welfare expertise of regulators and GONGOs.
  • Build advocacy and technical capacity to improve farm animal welfare in China.
  • Increase the salience of factory farming and farm animal welfare as an issue among civil society, researchers, policymakers, and the public.

In the long term, we expect that:

  • China will slowly move toward more strictly regulating welfare on farms, during transportation and at slaughter.
  • We may also see U.S.-style corporate progress, though government regulation seems to us to be a more likely route to major changes in China.

We also expect our grantees to develop and support promising Chinese experts and advocates, and to increase the global animal welfare movement’s focus on China’s farm animals.

Internal forecasts

We’re experimenting with recording explicit numerical forecasts of events related to our decisionmaking (especially grantmaking). The idea behind this is to pull out the implicit predictions that are playing a role in our decisions, and make it possible for us to look back on how well-calibrated and accurate those are.

Given that the primary goals of these grants are to build institutional interest and capacity in farm animal welfare, we do not have specific predictions for the number of animals that will be affected. Instead, in most cases we are predicting the likelihood that we will consider each grant a “success” (meaning that the grantee achieves roughly what it says it will) or a “major success” (meaning the grantee achieves much more, e.g. by spurring a new government regulation, major corporate policy, or national media coverage), based on our view of the grant in retrospect.

For these grants, we are recording the following forecasts:

  • Compassion: 80% chance of success, including a 10% chance of a major success
  • World Animal Protection: 50% chance of success, including a 20% chance of a major success
  • RSPCA: 50% chance of success, including a 20% chance of a major success
  • HSA: 70% chance of success, including a 5% chance of a major success
  • Jeanne Marchig Centre: 70% chance of success, including a 5% chance of a major success
  • Animal Welfare Standards Project: 70% chance of success, including a 5% chance of a major success
  • Green Monday: 40% chance of success, including a 10% chance of a major success
  • Professor Cao: 50% chance of success, including a 10% chance of a major success
  • Brighter Green: 50% chance of success, including a 5% chance of a major success
  • WildAid: 30% chance that the WildAid campaign will contribute to a noticeable decline in the growth of Chinese meat consumption after three years
  • 90% chance that we will want to invest at least an additional $1 million in some of these groups for their work in China after the two-year grant period is over
  • 70% chance that we will want to invest at least an additional $3 million in some of these groups for their work in China after the two-year grant period is over
  • 50% chance that we will want to invest at least an additional $5 million in some of these groups for their work in China after the two-year grant period is over

Our process

Lewis Bollard, our Program Officer for Farm Animal Welfare, talked to every person and group he could find working on farm animal advocacy in China, and asked them for recommendations for other people and groups to speak to. Based on these conversations, we compiled a list of groups that are working (or had previously worked) on farm animal welfare in China and had some form of official sanction to continue to do so. Lewis then talked to these groups about their plans and room for more funding for their work in China, and reviewed their proposed budgets. He went through a few rounds of budget revision with several of the grantees to shorten grant timelines to two years, restrict activities to China, and add a greater focus on program assessment so that we will be better equipped to evaluate these programs in two years. Lewis also extensively investigated whether there were any opportunities to make grassroots or movement-building grants to local Chinese groups, and whether there were groups pushing vegetarianism or general concern for animals that the Open Philanthropy Project could support.


Document Source
Brasch 2014 Source (archive)
Schneider and Sharma 2014 Source (archive)
Lu, Wang and Liu 2009 Source (archive)
Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China, Order of the President of the People’s Republic of China No. 44 Source (archive)
Nielson and Zhao 2014 Source (archive)
Open Philanthropy Project, Farm Animal Statistics Source (archive)
Voice of Sustainable Pork, China Works to Reverse Poor Pig-Welfare Record Source (archive)
WildAid, News Release June 20 2016 [archive only] Source
You et al. 2014 Source (archive)
  • 1. Our summary of these figures is here: Open Philanthropy Project, Farm Animal Statistics
  • 2. For example, from Brasch 2014: “The number of hog farms dropped 70 percent between 1991 to 2009. Over the same period, the average hog farm grew from 945 head to 8,389 head.”

    Growth on this scale would only be achievable with intensive confinement.

  • 3. Schneider and Sharma 2014, Pg. 26, box 3.
  • 4. You et al. 2014:
    • “From 6,006 effective questionnaires approximately two thirds of the respondents had never heard of ‘animal welfare’.” Pg. 1, Abstract
    • “The first statement is human-centered: ‘Pigs and domestic fowls are only beast, and people can treat them as they wish’. The second one sees animals as tools: ‘Humans should improve the rearing conditions for pigs and domestic fowls to ensure the quality and safety of animal products’. The third one says that animals should have some basic rights: ‘Pigs and domestic fowls should enjoy happy life and be free from troubles as humans do’. The results show that, among 5,916 respondents, 4,314 of them (72.9%) choose an ‘instrumental reason’ to decide how humans should treat animals; 1,135 of them (19.2%) agree that animals themselves should enjoy some basic rights; and 468 people (7.9%) support anthropocentrism.” Pg. 4
  • 5. “The first statement is human-centered: ‘Pigs and domestic fowls are only beast, and people can treat them as they wish’. The second one sees animals as tools: ‘Humans should improve the rearing conditions for pigs and domestic fowls to ensure the quality and safety of animal products’. The third one says that animals should have some basic rights: ‘Pigs and domestic fowls should enjoy happy life and be free from troubles as humans do’. The results show that, among 5,916 respondents, 4,314 of them (72.9%) choose an ‘instrumental reason’ to decide how humans should treat animals; 1,135 of them (19.2%) agree that animals themselves should enjoy some basic rights; and 468 people (7.9%) support anthropocentrism.” You et al. 2014, Pg. 4
  • 6.
    • “In August last year, ‘humane slaughter’ was officially written into the Commerce Ministry’s regulations on the killing of pigs, and a set of technical standards on their humane slaughter was issued in December, said Jia.” Lu, Wang and Liu 2009
    • “Dr. Ruqian Zhao is a professor at Nanjing Agricultural University and the director of Key Laboratory of Animal Physiology & Biochemistry, Ministry of Agriculture, China. She is currently coordinating a national project on farm animal welfare that is supported by the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest from Ministry of Agriculture, China. The project is aimed at establishing Chinese standards for welfare-assured husbandry of pigs and chickens.” Nielson and Zhao 2014
    • “Alberto Alvarez, food chain manager at Zoetis, says the success Europe has had in using its higher welfare standards to add value to its products also appeals to China’s pig industry. “At the Sino-EU Business Conference in Beijing in April, some of Europe’s biggest pork exporters explained how they were utilizing the EU’s high welfare standards to add value to their pork,” he says.” Voice of Sustainable Pork, China Works to Reverse Poor Pig-Welfare Record
  • 7. For example, see the “Overseas NGO Management Law”, which came into force on 1 January 2017: Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China, Order of the President of the People’s Republic of China No. 44.
  • 8. Archived copy of link: WildAid, News Release June 20 2016 [archive only]
  • 9. Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China, Order of the President of the People’s Republic of China No. 44