In 2023, the number of nonprofit businesses handling animals in Japan reached a decade-high of around *** thousand. Nonprofit animal handling businesses registered as 'Type II Animal Handling Businesses' in Japan refers to organizations engaged in transferring, caring, lending, training, and exhibiting animals for non-profit causes.

This statistic shows the number of new food and beverages (F&B) launches tracked featuring the claim "animal welfare" worldwide from 2011 to 2015. In 2014, *** new "environmentally friendly" products were launched, increasing to *** product launches the following year.

Scientists who perform major survival surgery on laboratory animals face a dual welfare and methodological challenge: how to choose surgical anesthetics and post-operative analgesics that will best control animal suffering, knowing that both pain and the drugs that manage pain can all affect research outcomes. Scientists who publish full descriptions of animal procedures allow critical and systematic reviews of data, demonstrate their adherence to animal welfare norms, and guide other scientists on how to conduct their own studies in the field. We investigated what information on animal pain management a reasonably diligent scientist might find in planning for a successful experiment. To explore how scientists in a range of fields describe their management of this ethical and methodological concern, we scored 400 scientific articles that included major animal survival surgeries as part of their experimental methods, for the completeness of information on anesthesia and analgesia. The 400 articles (250 accepted for publication pre-2011, and 150 in 2014–15, along with 174 articles they reference) included thoracotomies, craniotomies, gonadectomies, organ transplants, peripheral nerve injuries, spinal laminectomies and orthopedic procedures in dogs, primates, swine, mice, rats and other rodents. We scored articles for Publication Completeness (PC), which was any mention of use of anesthetics or analgesics; Analgesia Use (AU) which was any use of post-surgical analgesics, and Analgesia Completeness (a composite score comprising intra-operative analgesia, extended post-surgical analgesia, and use of multimodal analgesia). 338 of 400 articles were PC. 98 of these 338 were AU, with some mention of analgesia, while 240 of 338 mentioned anesthesia only but not post-surgical analgesia. Journals’ caliber, as measured by their 2013 Impact Factor, had no effect on PC or AU. We found no effect of whether a journal instructs authors to consult the ARRIVE publishing guidelines published in 2010 on PC or AC for the 150 mouse and rat articles in our 2014–15 dataset. None of the 302 articles that were silent about analgesic use included an explicit statement that analgesics were withheld, or a discussion of how pain management or untreated pain might affect results. We conclude that current scientific literature cannot be trusted to present full detail on use of animal anesthetics and analgesics. We report that publication guidelines focus more on other potential sources of bias in experimental results, under-appreciate the potential for pain and pain drugs to skew data, and thus mostly treat pain management as solely an animal welfare concern, in the jurisdiction of animal care and use committees. At the same time, animal welfare regulations do not include guidance on publishing animal data, even though publication is an integral part of the cycle of research and can affect the welfare of animals in studies building on published work, leaving it to journals and authors to voluntarily decide what details of animal use to publish. We suggest that journals, scientists and animal welfare regulators should revise current guidelines and regulations, on treatment of pain and on transparent reporting of treatment of pain, to improve this dual welfare and data-quality deficiency.

In 2019, just over 60 percent of respondents taking part in this survey stated to consider animal welfare important when purchasing fresh food products. This was a slight decrease in comparison to the previous year, but an increase compared to 2014. According to this survey, animal welfare was the criterium most widely taken into account by Belgians when doing groceries. Other important criteria included the environment, fair trade and country of origin.

The global wildlife trade network is a massive system that has been shown to threaten biodiversity, introduce non-native species and pathogens, and cause chronic animal welfare concerns. Despite its scale and impact, comprehensive characterization of the global wildlife trade is hampered by data that are limited in their temporal or taxonomic scope and detail. To help fill this gap, we present data on 15 years of the importation of wildlife and their derived products into the United States (2000–2014), originally collected by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. We curated and cleaned the data and added taxonomic information to improve data usability. These data include >2 million wildlife or wildlife product shipments, representing >60 biological classes and >3.2 billion live organisms. Further, the majority of species in the dataset are not currently reported on by CITES parties. These data will be broadly useful to both scientists and policymakers seeking to better understand the volume, sources, biological composition, and potential risks of the global wildlife trade. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: United States LEMIS wildlife trade data curated by EcoHealth Alliance (Version 1.1.0) - Zenodo. File Name: Web Page, url: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3565869 Over 5.5 million USFWS LEMIS wildlife or wildlife product records spanning 15 years and 28 data fields. These records were derived from >2 million unique shipments processed by USFWS during the time period and represent >3.2 billion live organisms. We provide the final cleaned data as a single comma-separated value file. Original raw data as provided by the USFWS are also available. Although relatively large (~1 gigabyte), the cleaned data file can be imported into a software environment of choice for data analysis. Alternatively, the assocated R package provides access to a release of the same cleaned dataset but with a data download and manipulation framework that is designed to work well with this large dataset. Both the Zenodo data repository and the R package contain a metadata file describing each of the data fields as well as a lookup table to retrieve full values for the abbreviated codes used throughout the dataset. Contents: lemis_2000_2014_cleaned.csv: This file represents the compiled, cleaned LEMIS data from 2000-2014. This data is identical to the version 1.1.0 dataset available through the lemis R package. lemis_codes.csv: Full values for all coded values used in the LEMIS data. Identical to the output from the lemis R package function "lemis_codes()". lemis_metadata.csv: Data fields and field descriptions for all variables in the LEMIS data. Identical to the output from the lemis R package function "lemis_metadata()". raw_data.zip: This archive contains all of the raw LEMIS data files that are processed and cleaned with the code contained in the 'data-raw' subdirectory of the lemis R package repository.Resource Software Recommended: R package,url: https://github.com/ecohealthalliance/lemis

Demographic data of 395 respondents in Bogotá and 387 in Curitiba, from a survey concerning the perception of fish sentience, welfare and slaughter; August 2014 to April 2015.

Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) are kept at commercial facilities as tourist attractions across many of their range states. Maintaining elephants in captivity presents a multitude of challenges for meeting their physical and behavioral needs as a wild species. Significant cause for concern for the welfare of elephants at tourism venues has previously been published and includes the need for severe restraint, limitations to nutritional variety, stressful interactions with visitors, and harmful practices of controlling the elephants, to name a few. This study presents data from the longest and most comprehensive assessment of captive conditions for Asian elephants in the tourism industry, to date. Researchers visited elephant tourism venues across Thailand, India, Laos, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Malaysia in 2014–2016 and 2019-2020. These were continuations of an earlier study in Thailand from 2009-2010, which allows a ten-year perspective. The most recent assessments documented 3,837 elephants kept at 357 tourism venues across these countries. Here we define trends observed across the industry in the period 2010–2019 and discuss the welfare concerns associated with the captive conditions documented during the study period. Our data indicate that while during the duration of the study animal welfare condition scores improved across almost all assessed welfare condition indicators, they remained low for the majority of elephants. There was a notable decrease in the frequency of venues offering elephant rides but a significant increase in other tourist experiences that allow direct visitor interaction with elephants, such as elephant washing and feeding. Despite fluctuating trends and some improvements in management, over 3,000 elephants still faced challenges to their welfare in 2020. Documented improvements to elephant tourism venues indicate a diversification of tourism experiences to cater to an emerging demand for ethical tourism activities, yet not an actual phase out of problematic practices. We hope our data can provide a snapshot of the conditions provided for the majority of captive Asian elephants, on a wide scale and over an extended time period, to provide a broad perspective of welfare within the captive elephant tourism industry as a whole.

Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) are kept at commercial facilities as tourist attractions across many of their range states. Maintaining elephants in captivity presents a multitude of challenges for meeting their physical and behavioral needs as a wild species. Significant cause for concern for the welfare of elephants at tourism venues has previously been published and includes the need for severe restraint, limitations to nutritional variety, stressful interactions with visitors, and harmful practices of controlling the elephants, to name a few. This study presents data from the longest and most comprehensive assessment of captive conditions for Asian elephants in the tourism industry, to date. Researchers visited elephant tourism venues across Thailand, India, Laos, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Malaysia in 2014–2016 and 2019-2020. These were continuations of an earlier study in Thailand from 2009-2010, which allows a ten-year perspective. The most recent assessments documented 3,837 elephants kept at 357 tourism venues across these countries. Here we define trends observed across the industry in the period 2010–2019 and discuss the welfare concerns associated with the captive conditions documented during the study period. Our data indicate that while during the duration of the study animal welfare condition scores improved across almost all assessed welfare condition indicators, they remained low for the majority of elephants. There was a notable decrease in the frequency of venues offering elephant rides but a significant increase in other tourist experiences that allow direct visitor interaction with elephants, such as elephant washing and feeding. Despite fluctuating trends and some improvements in management, over 3,000 elephants still faced challenges to their welfare in 2020. Documented improvements to elephant tourism venues indicate a diversification of tourism experiences to cater to an emerging demand for ethical tourism activities, yet not an actual phase out of problematic practices. We hope our data can provide a snapshot of the conditions provided for the majority of captive Asian elephants, on a wide scale and over an extended time period, to provide a broad perspective of welfare within the captive elephant tourism industry as a whole.

Table of animal samples requested for rabies testing in Manitoba since the province took over the rabies program on April 1, 2014. This table contains information on animal samples requested for rabies testing in Manitoba since the province took over the rabies program on April 1, 2014. As of that date, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is no longer involved with managing rabies cases in Manitoba. The provincial Rabies Management Program is now coordinated by Manitoba Rabies Central, which is a collaborative effort involving the Manitoba departments of Health, and Environment, Climate and Parks. Samples for rabies testing are requested by Manitoba Health in cases of human exposure to a suspected rabid animal, and by Agriculture in the case of animal exposure to another suspect rabid animal. Collection of a sample from the suspect rabid animal is coordinated by Agriculture. This information will be updated on a quarterly basis. This data is used in the Manitoba Rabies Surveillance Dashboard. Fields included (Alias (Field Name): Field Description.) Region (Region): Regional health authority where the affected person or animal was exposed Fiscal Year (Fiscal_Year): Government of Manitoba fiscal year (April 1-March 31) when the rabies testing was requested Date (Date): Date when the sample for rabies testing was requested Year (Year): Calendar year (January 1-December 31) when the sample for rabies testing was requested Species (Species): Animal species of the sample requested for rabies testing Result (Result): Laboratory result of the sample tested for rabies.

In 2019, just over half of respondents taking part in this survey stated to consider the environment an important factor when purchasing fresh food products. This was a slight decrease in comparison to the previous year, but an increase compared to 2014. According to this survey, animal welfare was the criterium most widely taken into account by Belgians when doing groceries. Other important criteria included fair trade and country of origin.

In 2019, just over ** percent of respondents taking part in this survey stated to consider it important to buy organic products when purchasing fresh food products. This was a slight increase in comparison to the previous years. According to this survey, animal welfare was the criterium most widely taken into account by Belgians when doing groceries. Other important criteria included the environment and country of origin.

Thailand’s pet industry is expected to reach nearly ** billion baht by 2024. Over the past year, the value has grown, with pet food contributing the highest to the market value. Given that the Thai pet industry is booming, what are the initiatives taken by the Thai government to support the sector, and what is the state of animal welfare in Thailand? Thailand as a leading pet food exporter As of June 2024, there were over ***** registered pet businesses, ranging from manufacturing pet food to breeding pets. These businesses brought in *** billion Thai baht of foreign investments as of June 2024. The Thai government recognizes the potential of the pet industry. With pet food manufacturing generating over half of the pet sector's value, the government aims to promote Thailand as one of Asia’s leading pet food exporters. In 2023, Thailand was the leading pet food supplier for the Philippines and ranked within the top five for South Korea and Canada. How is Thailand treating animals? The first Animal Welfare Law was passed in 2014 to protect pets and animals from abuse and neglect. However, the country has a considerable number of stray animals. The government supports programs for sterilization and vaccination of stray dogs and cats to control the stray population, especially in urban areas like Bangkok. While some stray animals may receive care from public services, most household pets are treated in private veterinary facilities, as their owners have greater confidence in the veterinarians.

In 2024, the number of vegans was estimated to be *** million. Based on survey results, another *** million intend to follow the diet in the future. A combined **** million more are going meatless and either follow a vegetarian, vegan, or pescetarian diet. How many vegans are there really? Due to the small share of vegans in a population, it is often difficult to get a reliable estimate of how many vegans can be found in any given population. Often the margin of error in a survey is larger than the share of vegans found. In the United States, for example, depending on the survey, you can find survey results ranging from *** to **** percent of the population. Across Europe, the overwhelming majority of countries have ***** percent or less of their population following a vegan diet. Healthy eating & Veganism In the United Kingdom, consumers cite health reasons among the top factors that might encourage them to adapt a vegan or vegetarian diet. Almost a quarter of women named health reasons, while ** percent of their male counterparts had a similar standpoint. For men, this made it the leading reason, while women named animal welfare as high as health. Consumers in the United States who have already adopted a vegan or vegetarian diet also frequently named the desire to eat healthier as one of the reasons they adopted their current diet. Two in five vegans and vegetarians in the U.S. named healthier eating, only animal welfare ranked slightly higher.

This statistic displays the underlying segment operating profit of the Co-operative Group Ltd in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2012 to 2023. In 2014, 174 million British pounds were generated from the underlying segment operating profit, which has decreased to 107 million British pounds by 2018. Since then, this figure has fluctuated to a high of 235 in 2022 and back down to 97 in 2023. The Co-operative Group is commonly known as the Co-op throughout the United Kingdom and is made up of a diverse range of retail services, from food retail to insurance services and funeralcare. It is also a well-established ethical retailer and the first to champion Fairtrade products, as well as having high animal welfare standards and a home-grown, locally-sourced product range.