As our understanding of animal sentience improves, so does the concept of animal welfare. Animal welfare science has traditionally focused on minimizing suffering caused by pain, fear, and distress. However, positive animal welfare shifts the focus from merely preventing negative experiences to actively promoting positive ones. The absence of suffering doesn’t mean an animal is thriving, and positive animal welfare pays explicit attention to the positive aspects of animals’ lives, offering opportunities to improve animal welfare.

Public perception already links animal welfare to positive experiences, and industries are adapting to meet these expectations. Marketing of products from “happy animals” is just one example of this. Unfortunately, however, inconsistent descriptions of positive animal welfare make it difficult to validate these and other claims like them.

Thus, the authors of this paper aimed to establish a clear definition of positive animal welfare as a step toward a unified understanding, which can guide scientific research and create a framework for future studies. The article presents the agreed-upon definition and explains its significance.

The “Laying the foundations for positive animal welfare” (LIFT) network, consisting of more than 330 scientists from 42 countries, was created to advance the scientific understanding of positive animal welfare. To establish a consensus on the concept, a subgroup of these scientists completed a survey and engaged in a two-day session of brainstorming, discussion, and voting.

Ultimately, the interdisciplinary research group reached the following consensus definition of positive animal welfare:

Positive animal welfare is defined as the animal flourishing through the experience of predominantly positive mental states and the development of competence and resilience. Positive animal welfare goes beyond ensuring good physical health and the prevention and alleviation of suffering. Positive mental states result from rewarding experiences, including having choices and opportunities to actively pursue goals and achieve desired outcomes, according to species-specific and individual capabilities. Genetic, developmental and experiential factors (e.g., prenatal, early life, environmental) contribute to individual differences in the ability to achieve positive animal welfare. Positive animal welfare can be assessed using animal-based indicators and can be evaluated over different timescales, thereby contributing to the lifetime picture.

The article further explains key terms and concepts within the definition. Flourishing, for instance, links physical and mental well-being and is presented as an aspirational goal for scientists and animal caretakers, with the authors recognizing that more research is needed to measure it in animals.

The authors emphasize that positive animal welfare can’t be achieved simply by eliminating negative states. While reducing suffering can lead to positive mental states, such as relief, it’s not sufficient for positive animal welfare. For example, treating lameness may reduce pain, but it doesn’t necessarily promote positive well-being. Likewise, a narrow focus on an aspect of animal welfare such as good physical health isn’t an appropriate indicator of positive animal welfare. For example, while barren cages may reduce disease risk, they also restrict natural behaviors, leading to frustration and other welfare concerns.

Positive animal welfare offers a fresh perspective on animal welfare by shifting the focus to actively enhancing animals’ lives. This approach emphasizes not just avoiding problems but also promoting overall well-being. As an example, consider indoor pens for dairy calves. A recent scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) suggests that calves need three square meters of space to prevent discomfort while resting. This addresses the issue from a “lack” perspective, focusing on minimizing distress. In contrast, a positive animal welfare approach would suggest providing 20 square meters per calf, giving them space for enrichment and the opportunity to fully express play behaviors. Rather than merely avoiding harm, this approach actively fosters rewarding experiences, ensuring better well-being for the calves.

This progressive and aspirational definition of positive animal welfare can inspire new research methods for assessing animal welfare. However, some challenges remain, particularly with the term “experiences,” which implies animal sentience. Since sentience is still a subject of debate and difficult to measure, not all scientific opinions agree on this point.

The authors conclude that this new definition of positive animal welfare could exert pressure on animal care practices, legislation, and markets to align with society’s evolving expectations of how animals should be treated. While the current definition may need updates as research advances, the authors are optimistic that it will help guide future research and inspire progress.

For animal advocates, this framework offers an opportunity to push for higher welfare standards. By focusing on enrichment and positive experiences, advocates can encourage industries and policymakers to move beyond harm reduction and actively improve the quality of life for animals in a variety of settings.