• Abstract

    This paper explores the emerging application of the precautionary principle for animal sentiment to companion animal adoption practices. The study's objective was to determine the extent to which this principle can foster more ethically defensible, proactive, and welfare-centric adoption outcomes. Employing a methodology of documentary analysis, this research critically reviewed Birch's primary work alongside relevant literature in animal welfare science and adoption ethics, focusing on the principle's foundational tenets: the definition of sentience, the epistemic rule for inferring sentience, and the decision rule for action. The results indicate that Birch's framework offers a compelling rationale for a paradigm shift in adoption, mandating enhanced adopter screening, comprehensive counseling, ongoing postadoption support, and innovative precautionary clauses in adoption contracts. While acknowledging potential challenges such as increased resource demands and privacy concerns, the findings suggest that these challenges are manageable through carefully calibrated measures. In conclusion, applying the precautionary principle to companion animal adoption is a necessary advancement toward more ethically sound, welfare-centric practices, urging a move from transactional views to a covenant of care. This requires systemic engagement, including standardized guidelines and supportive legal structures.

  • References

    1. Appleby, M. C., Olsson, A. S., & Galindo, F. (2018). Animal welfare. CABI.
    2. Bekoff, M. (2021). Dogs demystified: An A-to-Z guide to all things canine. New World Library.
    3. Birch, J. (2017). Animal sentience and the precautionary principle. Animal Sentience: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Animal Feeling, 2(16), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478
    4. Birch, J. (2024). The edge of sentience: Risk and precaution in humans, other animals, and AI. Oxford University Press.
    5. Blasco, A., & Mateu, A. B. (2011). Ética y bienestar animal. Ediciones Akal.
    6. Bradshaw, R. H. (1998). Laboratory animal consciousness and feelings: Adopting the precautionary principle. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 27(5), 791–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261192999027005
    7. Broom, D. M. (2019). Sentience and animal welfare. CABI.
    8. Council of Europe. (1987). European convention for the protection of pet animals. European Treaty Series - No. 125.
    9. Croney, C., Applebaum, J. W., Delgado, M., & Stella, J. (2025). How does access to veterinary care relate to animal welfare? Advances in Small Animal Care. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yasa.2025.06.014
    10. European Commission. (2000). Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. COM(2000) 1 final. Brussels.
    11. Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1
    12. Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. Wiley-Blackwell.
    13. Garner, R. (2005). Animal ethics. Polity Press.
    14. Gartner, M. C., Powell, D. M., & Weiss, A. (2016). Comparison of subjective well-being and personality assessments in the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), snow leopard (Panthera uncia), and African lion (Panthera leo). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 19(3), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2016.1141057
    15. Grandjean, P., Bailar, J. C., Gee, D., Needleman, H. L., Ozonoff, D. M., Richter, E., Sofritti, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2004). Implications of the precautionary principle in research and policy-making. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 45(4), 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10361
    16. Harrison, R. (2013). Animal machines. CABI.
    17. International League for Animal Rights. (1978). Universal declaration of animal rights. Proclaimed in Paris, 15 October 1978.
    18. Johnson, J. S. (2018). Heat stress: Impact on livestock well-being and productivity and mitigation strategies to alleviate the negative effects. Animal Production Science, 58(8), 1404–1413. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN17725
    19. Jones, R. C. (2013). Science, sentience and animal welfare. Biology and Philosophy, 28, 1–30. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/ethawel/2/
    20. Jones, R. C. (2016). Fish sentience and the precautionary principle. Animal Sentience, 3(10). https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol1/iss3/10
    21. Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E. L., Quinn, M., Rudel, R., Schettler, T., & Stoto, M. (2001). The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(9), 871–876. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.01109871
    22. Linzey, A. (2009). Why animal sentience matters. Oxford University Press.
    23. Loureiro, M. Á. F. (2023). El maltrato animal como instrumento violento en contextos de violencia de género y doméstica. Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental, 14(2), 1–31. https://www.raco.cat/index.php/rcda/article/view/425205
    24. Low, P., Panksepp, J., Reiss, D., Edelman, D., Van Swinderen, B., & Koch, C. (2012, July 7). The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and Non-Human Animals, Cambridge, UK.
    25. Mellor, D. J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “five freedoms” to “a life worth living”. Animals, 6(3), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6030021
    26. Mohan-Gibbons, H., Dolan, E. D., Reid, P., Slater, M. R., Mulligan, H., & Weiss, E. (2018). The impact of excluding food guarding from a standardized behavioral canine assessment in animal shelters. Animals, 8(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020027
    27. Newbury, S., Blinn, M. K., Bushby, P. A., Cox, C. B., Dinnage, J. D., Griffin, B., ... & Spindel, M. (2010). Guidelines for standards of care in animal shelters (pp. 1–64). Association of Shelter Veterinarians. https://www.aspcapro.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/asvguidelinessecondedition-2022.pdf
    28. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Harvard University Press.
    29. Palmer, C. (2010). Animal ethics in context. Columbia University Press.
    30. Patterson-Kane, E., & Golab, G. C. (2013). History, philosophies, and concepts of animal welfare. In American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (Ed.), Laboratory Animal Welfare (pp. 1–6). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00001-4
    31. Petrini, A., & Wilson, D. (2005). La iniciativa de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal en materia de bienestar animal. In Comisión Europea (Ed.), Bienestar animal en Chile y la UE: experiencias compartidas y objetivos futuros (pp. 13–17). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
    32. Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights (Updated ed.). University of California Press.
    33. Rollin, B. E. (2006). Animal rights and human morality (3rd ed.). Prometheus Books.
    34. Saura, À. G., & Banqué, M. M. (2023). Sobre bienestar y protección animal en España. Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental, 14(2), 1–8. https://raco.cat/index.php/rcda/article/view/424893
    35. Singer, P. (2015). Animal liberation (Updated ed.). Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
    36. Stephen, C., Carmo, L. P., las Nieves Montano Valle, D. D., Friker, B., Sousa, F. M., Vidondo, B., & Berezowski, J. (2022). The implementation gap in emerging disease risk management in the wildlife trade. The Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 58(4), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-21-00199
    37. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press.
    38. Tye, M. (2016). Tense bees and shell-shocked crabs: Are animals conscious? Oxford University Press.
    39. Vargas Chaves, I., & Marulanda, D. (2024a). El bienestar animal: un balance sobre los avances recientes de su regulación en Colombia y España. Revista CES Derecho, 15(2), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.21615/cesder.7648
    40. Vargas-Chaves, I., & Marulanda, D. (2024b). El deber de información en los alimentos para animales de compañía: una propuesta de aproximación desde los sellos frontales de advertencia en Colombia. Derecho Animal. Forum of Animal Law Studies, 15(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/da.640
    41. Vera, A., Ruiz, C., & Martin, A. M. (2023). Reactions against farm animal abuse: The role of animal attitude and speciesism. Acción Psicológica, 20(2), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.20.2.39324
    42. Wolfensohn, S., & Lloyd, M. (2018). Handbook of laboratory animal management and welfare (5th ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
    43. Yeates, J. W. (2024). Animal behaviour and welfare research: A One Health perspective. Research Ethics, 20(3), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241236941

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2025 The Authors

How to cite

Vargas-Chaves, I. (2025). The precautionary principle and the expanding moral circle for animal sentience in Jonathan Birch’s proposal. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology, 13(4), 2025032. https://doi.org/10.31893/jabb.2025032
  • Article viewed - 854
  • PDF downloaded - 359