Problems with the Five Freedoms

• The Five Freedoms (Brambell Committee, 1965) provided the first framework for animal welfare.
• Widely adopted worldwide in legislation, farm assurance schemes, and welfare assessment.
• However, with advances in welfare science, several limitations and problems have been identified.

Problems and Limitations

a. Too General and Broad

• The freedoms are principle-based but lack clear, measurable indicators.
• Example: “Freedom from fear and distress” is difficult to quantify.

b. Focus on Avoiding Negatives, Not Promoting Positives

• Emphasizes only the removal of suffering (hunger, pain, fear).
• Does not explicitly promote positive welfare states like pleasure, play, or comfort.

c. Ambiguity in Application

• Terms like “freedom” may be misleading because complete freedom is unrealistic.
• Example: Total freedom from disease is impossible; instead, animals need good health management.

d. Not Species-Specific

• The Five Freedoms are generic and do not consider species differences in behavior and welfare needs.
• Example: Freedom to express normal behavior differs for cattle, poultry, and dogs.

e. Static and Outdated

• Developed in the 1960s, the framework does not incorporate modern welfare science (e.g., neuroscience of emotions).
• More recent models (like the Five Domains Model) provide deeper insights into mental states.

f. Conflict between Freedoms

• Some freedoms may contradict each other in practice.
• Example: Restricting an animal for veterinary treatment may reduce pain but limit normal behavior temporarily.

Consequences of the Limitations

• Can lead to oversimplification of complex welfare issues.
• May encourage minimum compliance rather than striving for higher welfare standards.
• Focused mainly on preventing suffering rather than ensuring quality of life.