Hide table of contents

Why it’s important to fill out this consultation

The UK Government is currently consulting on allowing insects to be fed to chickens and pigs. This is worrying as the government explicitly says changes would “enable investment in the insect protein sector”. Given the likely sentience of insects (see this summary of recent research), and that median predictions estimate that 3.9 trillion insects will be killed annually by 2030, we think it’s crucial to try to limit this huge source of animal suffering. 

Overview

  • Link to complete the consultation: HERE. You can see the context of the consultation here.
  • How long it takes to fill it out: 5-10 minutes (5 questions total with only 1 of them requiring a written answer)
  • Deadline to respond: April 1st 2025
  • What else you can do: Share the consultation document far and wide! 
  • You can use the UK Voters for Animals GPT to help draft your responses.
  • If you want to hear about other high-impact ways to use your political voice to help animals, sign up for the UK Voters for Animals newsletter. There is an option to be contacted only for very time-sensitive opportunities like this one, which we expect will happen less than 6 times a year.
See guidance on submitting in a Google Doc

Questions and suggested responses:

It is helpful to have a lot of variation between responses. As such, please feel free to add your own reasoning for your responses or, in addition to animal welfare reasons for opposing insects as feed, include non-animal welfare reasons e.g., health implications, concerns about farming intensification, or the climate implications of using insects for feed. 

 

Question 7 on the consultation: Do you agree with allowing poultry processed animal protein in porcine feed? 

Suggested response: No (up to you if you want to elaborate further). 

We think it’s useful to say no to all questions in the consultation, particularly as changing these rules means that meat producers can make more profit from selling their off-cuts and waste products to be used as animal feed. You don’t have to explain your reasoning if you don’t want to. 

 

Question 9: Do you agree with allowing porcine processed animal protein in poultry feed?

Suggested response: No (up to you if you want to elaborate)

 

Question 11: Do you agree with allowing insect processed animal protein in porcine and poultry feed?

Suggested response: No.

 

Longer response for the Question 12 text field 

If you agree with the below text we recommend asking this custom ChatGPT to convert & adapt these bullet points into narrative text such that everyone does not use the exact same wording. This will make it more effective when being reviewed by the government. It might be helpful to give specific prompts such as “convert these bullet points into text as a member of the public concerned about animal welfare and sustainability”. Also, please feel free to include any other reasons or justification you hold for being against this decision:

  • There is increasing evidence to suggest that many species of insects are sentient (Gibbons et al., 2022). 
  • The proposed change would lead to a significant increase in the number of insects bred and slaughtered. Given their small size, they could quickly become the most numerous farmed species in the UK. 
  • This consultation provides no indication that the animal welfare aspects of the decision have been taken into account.  Given that the New York Declaration of Consciousness, signed by over 500 academics, states there is a realistic probability of sentience amongst insects, I believe this deserves serious consideration. 
  • Additionally, very little is known about the appropriate practices for raising insects. The precautionary principle ought to apply until we have more research and evidence into the sentience and best practices of raising insects, particularly black soldier flies and their larvae.
  • Before any further action, the Government should commission the Animal Welfare Committee to write a report on the sentience of insects used in farming and their welfare needs.
  •  If the government does choose to allow insects to be fed to other animals, the industry must have mandatory minimum welfare standards, as is the case with other farmed species.

     

Question 13: Do you agree with allowing ruminant collagen and gelatine in non-ruminant feed?

Suggested response: No (up to you if you want to elaborate)

 

Question 15: Do you agree with the proposed measures to prevent cross contamination in the feed chain?

Suggested response: No / Don’t know (up to you if you want to elaborate)

 

Any questions?

Any questions about this consultation, feel free to email hello@ukvotersforanimals.org or comment below. UK Voters for Animals, coordinating the response to this consultation, is a new grassroots organisation using the political system to help animals.  

Comments8


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Also, we're trying to gauge roughly how many are filling this out so please agree vote this comment if you've done the consultation - thank you!

For consistency, either upvote it or click agree — not both.

Done, thanks!

I think it could be beneficial to diversify the arguments by adding a note on the impact on environment and the costs of insect meal - even if the argument on insect sentience is accepted it may be deemed not important (factory farming has a track record of this). Here's what my colleague Keyvan Mostafavi wrote in addition to the animal welfare arguments:

"One of the main issues with insect meal is its cost. It is currently 2 to 10 times more expensive than conventional feed options like soybean or fish meal (Leipertz et al., 2024; World Bank). Additionally, insect farming was initially promoted as an environmentally friendly solution. However, studies challenge these claims (Thévenot and all, Mealworm meal for animal feed: Environmental assessment and sensitivity analysis to guide future prospects). Insect farms often rely on cereal-based feed, competing with traditional agriculture rather than utilizing food waste as originally intended. This reduces their sustainability benefits and, in some cases, increases their environmental impact. (...)"

Consider adding these to the post if you find them useful.

Can people who aren't UK citizens vote too?

It only asked me for my name (not citizenship, residency, or address), so not sure if they cross check with a citizens directory or something, but the UK didn't require citizenship to answer a public consultation on the kinds of causes their international aid should go towards so it seems like they just allow anyone to give input. 

You can fill out the consultation although I’m not sure if your views will be considered the same as a UK resident. Doesn’t hurt to try though! 

Done, thanks for posting this! Concrete ways to take action in a high-impact, low-input way are really nice to see on the forum!

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by