Leverage Points: strategic prioritisation for Animal Advocacy in India (Part 3 of 3): Asks for land animals, policy and food systems

This is Part 3 of Leverage Points: strategic prioritization for Animal Advocacy in India, Animal Ask's assessment of where advocates and funders in India can achieve the most for animals. This part sets out priority asks for layer hens, broiler chickens and rodent control, makes the case for reforming enforcement of existing animal welfare law, and closes with earlier-stage opportunities in alternative proteins and institutional meat reduction.

The executive summary and key takeaways are on the overview page. The complete report, including all three parts and the full reference list, is available as a single PDF.

Read the report

• Overview and executive summary.

• Part 1: The scale of animal use in India.

• Part 2: Strategies, and asks for aquatic animals.

• Part 3: Asks for land animals, policy and food systems (you are here)

• Download the full report (PDF)

---

5.5. Layer hen farming

Conditions for layer hens are not ideal in either backyard or commercial farms, though the main welfare problems and severity levels are very different. In backyard farms lack of resources and veterinary care lead to neglect or lack of vaccination and biosecurity for common diseases (1–3). Predation is also a significant issue. Collectively these can lead to mortality rates of up to 60% (4). However, as they are left to live freely and scavenge on their own, their freedom to pursue natural behaviours is much greater (a very significant welfare benefit). These farms also have a much lower average number of birds (typically below 100 birds (4)), often producing only for limited local consumption, which makes it more difficult to affect these birds at scale outside of systematic disease control programs. 

On concentrated commercial farms, pressures on farmers to produce cheaper eggs regardless of the consequences of important externalities, such as environmental, human health, and wellbeing of animals in their care forces them to use systems against public values. The unnecessary suffering inflicted upon hens in cages in the commercial layer hen industry is the most significant and solvable problem. Therefore, our focus for layer birds will be concentrated here. 

5.5.1. Layer hen Cages 

The majority of a hens life is spent in commercial housing in lay. After an initial period of maturation up to 18 to 22 weeks they then spend the subsequent years producing 255 to 340 eggs per year before slaughter at between 18 and 24 months of age. The most significant cause of suffering at this stage is the use of battery cages which is near standard practise in commercial operations, with the overwhelming majority currently using battery cages. The severity and importance of this issue across many contexts has already been well established through broader assessment, most notably through Welfare Footprint Institute’s assessment of the cumulative time in pain in cage and cage-free. They find that cage-free systems have reduced disabling pain by approximately ⅔, hurtful by half, and annoying pain by over ⅔ (5). 

While the issue is clear and any successful efforts to resolve this would greatly reduce the harms of the commercial layer industry, the strategies available for resolving this are not easy.

Table 9: Estimates for total number of layer hens whose eggs are sold at Indian companies and value of cage-free transitions

Company name/brand	Sector	Overall egg estimate	Overall hen estimate	Bounty
Total Retail Market	Retailer	117,957,042,645	393,452,398	$182,153,887
Modern Retail	Retailer	5,190,109,876	17,311,906	$8,014,771
Reliance Fresh	Retailer	535,191,833	3,297,081	$1,526,426
D-Mart	Retailer	527,507,173	1,654,303	$765,881
Patanjali	Retailer	440,479,429	1,381,378	$639,527
Metro Cash & Carry	Retailer	96,427,945	302,406	$140,003
Vishal Mega Mart	Retailer	83,311,306	261,271	$120,959
BigBasket	Retailer	81,600,998	255,907	$118,475
Easyday	Retailer	73,614,814	230,862	$106,880
Future Retail	Retailer	64,070,288	200,929	$93,023
More Supermarket	Retailer	62,759,602	196,819	$91,120
Heritage Fresh	Retailer	53,682,188	168,351	$77,941
Domino’s	Food Service	44,839,876	140,621	$65,102
Grofers	Retailer	36,039,748	113,023	$52,326
Flipkart	Retailer	33,974,250	106,546	$49,327
Food World	Retailer	33,523,054	105,131	$48,672
Spencer's Retail	Retailer	32,596,219	102,224	$47,326
McDonald's	Food Service	25,427,932	79,744	$36,919
Canteen Store Department (CSD)	Retailer	24,066,382	75,474	$34,942
KFC	Food Service	23,437,698	73,502	$34,029
Star Bazaar	Retailer	21,622,409	67,810	$31,393
Ratnadeep Supermarket	Retailer	19,677,806	61,711	$28,570
SPAR	Retailer	15,966,138	50,071	$23,181
HyperCity	Retailer	12,741,026	39,957	$18,499
Nilgiris	Retailer	12,033,191	37,737	$17,471
Cafe Coffee Day	Food Service	11,958,662	37,503	$17,363
Pizza Hut	Food Service	11,598,262	36,373	$16,839
Haldiram’s	Food Service	11,944,711	30,364	$14,058
Taj Hotels & Palaces	Hotel	6,173,887	28,502	$13,195
Barbeque Nation	Food Service	7,500,620	23,523	$10,890
Lulu Hypermarket	Retailer	6,938,423	21,759	$10,074
24 Seven	Retailer	5,497,276	17,240	$7,981
Modern Bazaar	Retailer	4,247,009	13,319	$6,166
ITC Hotels	Hotel	2,737,934	12,079	$5,592
Oberoi Hotels & Resorts	Hotel	2,099,765	10,697	$4,952
Nature's Basket	Retailer	3,179,904	9,972	$4,617
Marriott International	Hotel	2,774,381	8,701	$4,028
Biryani by Kilo	Food Service	1,601,985	5,024	$2,326
Radisson Hotel Group	Hotel	1,345,331	4,219	$1,953
Accor	Hotel	1,302,929	4,086	$1,892
Hyatt	Hotel	938,927	2,945	$1,363
Louvre Hotels Group	Hotel	816,194	2,560	$1,185
IHG	Hotel	812,130	2,547	$1,179
Lemon Tree Hotels	Hotel	391,733	1,405	$650
Wyndham	Hotel	426,995	1,339	$620
Royal Orchid Hotels	Hotel	342,254	1,192	$552
Leela Palaces Hotels Resorts	Hotel	364,273	1,142	$529
Hilton	Hotel	343,140	1,076	$498
CHPL Hotels & Resorts	Hotel	337,044	1,057	$489
Lalit Suri Hospitality Group	Hotel	320,517	1,005	$465
Clarks Inn Group	Hotel	265,652	833	$386
Keys Hotels	Hotel	262,130	822	$381
Choice Hotels	Hotel	142,377	447	$207
Best Western	Hotel	102,143	320	$148

Estimates based on Animal Ask internal estimates across key sectors (6). Bounty is estimated based on about one fifth of  Saulius' estimate for the cost-effectiveness of historic cage free campaigns (7)

From our estimates, surprisingly even though the vast majority of eggs are sold through the informal market, the small formal market does have companies of sufficient size to alone be responsible for a significant number of hens in cages. A variety of organisations focus existing efforts on formalised companies, large hotels, and restaurant chains with international commitments applicable to India. While smaller these represent the ‘lowest hanging fruit’ for cage-free work where international brands have already committed or transitioned their supply chain in other areas around the world but lag behind in the Indian context. The main case for this work remains the relative tractability of working with these companies and the hope that action from recognised prestigious international brands will help build momentum towards cage-free.

There are also a wide variety of other potential institutions that we could work with for similar momentum building including but not limited to universities, schools, hospitals and government institutions. These again are relatively smaller commitments for the number of hens they might benefit but as in the case of  some hotels that are well respected brands, it provides a good signal to the wider market. 

Table 10: More speculative estimates for total number of layer hens whose eggs are sold at other Indian institutions 

Institution	Sector	Overall egg use estimate	Overall hen estimate	Bounty
King George’s Medical University	Hospital	243,118	762	$353
Madras Medical College & Government General Hospital	Hospital	187,687	588	$272
Medical College and Hospital, Kozhikode	Hospital	163,429	512	$237
IndiGo	Airline	853,770	2,676	$1,239
Air India	Airline	186,762	585	$271
Vistara	Airline	133,402	418	$194
Average Secondary School	School	2,478	8	$4
Large Uni campus	University	185,873	583	$270
Moderate Uni campus	University	37,175	117	$54
Small Uni campus	University	3,717	12	$5

Estimates based on the number of meals served at these institutions and the average number of eggs served per meal across India. Only this method was used and this is inherently an error prone method so should be taken as more of a rough order of magnitude estimate. Bounty is estimated based on about ⅕ of  Saulius estimate for the cost-effectiveness of historic cage free campaigns (7)

There is potential to work towards cage-free through a variety of approaches, outlined in greater detail in section 4.1. These include private sector approaches such as cage-free credits, model farms and producer outreach as well as public sector advocacy through policy advocacy and strategic litigation. Although, at this time the effectiveness of legal rulings and legislation has been constrained by the private sector suggesting further work is needed there before public sector solutions become viable for the long term. 

Ryba 2025 (8) analyses studies across countries (including India), finding an 11% increase in costs associated with the transition from cage to aviary systems, which is more than offset by a 13% increase in total revenue. Similarly, it finds that a 17% increase in total costs associated with transition from cage to barn farming, is mostly offset by a 15% increase in total revenue. Ryba concludes that the 2% difference in costs is swamped by other factors, especially the variable cost of feed, and so economic considerations shouldn’t get in the way of a cage free transition

5.5.2. Male chick culling

Alongside cages another significant source of suffering and loss of life is the killing of male chicks soon after birth. Male chicks are produced in equal numbers alongside the females (who become layer hens) but males are only needed in very small quantities and have limited commercial value. This means the vast majority of male chickens born into the egg industry are killed or otherwise disposed of shortly after birth. The number killed is not formally tracked but previous estimates place the figure at over 180 (9) or 200 million (10). Given industry growth the number is now likely to be over 320 million a year. 

Methods for slaughter or disposal vary and are in fact worryingly unstandardised. Previous investigations from animal protection groups have documented chicks being drowned, dumped live to starve, buried alive, fed live to catfish, eaten by dogs, or burned alive (11,12). A small number are dyed and sold as toys to children (11,13). Depending on the method of slaughter chicks could be alive for as short as a few hours or days before being burned, drowned or killed from dehydration or starvation. While the cumulative duration of suffering here is relatively brief compared to cages it is particularly severe and still affects a significant number of animals each year. 

There are several methods to mitigate the suffering of these chicks, and even potential to resolve most of the issues entirely in the near future. 

The first would be standardising slaughter methods by mandating the use of maceration. Maceration is a visually gruesome method of slaughter, so can often be perceived as cruel, but if equipment is maintained death can be near instantaneous (14). Even if not properly maintained, as we would have to expect for many hatcheries, this would still remain a marked improvement over many of the existing methods of slaughter. The main barrier here will be adoption of macerating equipment which will require capital investment and continuous access to electricity.

The better solution in the long term is in-ovo sexing. In-ovo sexing is a process of identifying which chicken embryos are male and which are female while they are still in the egg during incubation. This has the potential to entirely mitigate their suffering as it can be performed before pain or consciousness is developed in the male chick embryo, which, according to current knowledge, could be between day 13 and 16 of incubation, (15–17), sparing all or the majority of male chicks from the totality of their suffering. Methods of in-ovo sexing use spectroscopy, chemical assays, or imaging, so like maceration they require continuous access to electricity. Unlike maceration, in-ovo sexing is still in the early adoption phase in many regions around the world, but given public opposition to the practise of chick culling (18) and the relatively low cost (19) estimated by Innovate Animal Ag, adoption is rapidly spreading (20,21). Though at present relative cost in India is likely to be higher given lower egg prices and more expensive existing tech.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Egg Laying Hens) Rules, 2023 now require that male chicks be euthanised in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the World Organisation for Animal Health by 2029 (22,23). This gives hatcheries until 2029 to adopt maceration or gassing, something that seems unlikely to be implemented in time. Many state governments are already recognizing that in-ovo sexing could be a more humane solution with the animal husbandry departments of Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, and Goa committed to using in-ovo technology when it becomes available in India (22). The commitments outline this is the case as soon as it becomes commercially available and scalable in India, which can be interpreted ambiguously. 

In-ovo sexing is the superior solution for the welfare and respect for the chicks right to life, so alongside the precedent for commitments from Indian state husbandry departments, and adoption globally, directly focusing on adoption of this technology, the focus should be on sexing rather than the intermediary solution of maceration. Expansion and strengthening of state level commitments for adoption continues to be worthwhile work but given the broadly weak enforcement regime and ambiguity of many current commitments, complimentary engagement with hatcheries to encourage and prove the commercial availability is necessary to ensure real world impact. The status quo would lead to weak enforcement and reliance on industry timelines for adoption which could easily take many decades. 

There are potentially 800 hatcheries in India for broilers and layer hens (24). Unfortunately, we could not locate any layer specific data but, but the number of layer hen hatcheries is likely considerably smaller, since broiler chick production greatly exceeds layer chick production in India. These hatcheries are likely to be concentrated in the major commercial egg and meat producing Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. International Egg Commission data from 2008 estimates that 92% of eggs in India are white (25) which cannot use the more widely and cheaper commercially available in-ovo sexing technology made by Cheggy (26). India would therefore depend on color-independent methods such as Seleggt's (27) hormonal test, which currently tend to be costlier or lower-throughput.

Instead, they would need to develop solutions for India or local entrepreneurs would need to establish local companies manufacturing the same technology which could accelerate adoption. This would extend from providing connections, advice on installation and adoption, and potentially subsidising installation in the first few hatcheries in key states to prove viability. 

While the operating cost per egg is very low, the installation itself would be expensive running into the high hundreds of thousands. Some equipment could then sort up to 25,000 eggs per hour (28,29) giving it the capacity to sort up to 100 million eggs a year (assuming 16 hours of running time 5 days a week). At a fertility rate of approximately 80% (30) and 95% accuracy (31) this could screen out 38 million male chicks per year. Over the 15 - 20 year lifespan of the equipment, this would cover 500 million to 750 million chicks. Although this would only be applicable to the largest hatcheries. 

Sometimes these in-oxo sexing devices may be rented to companies instead of bought outright, but in either case, these may effectively increase the price of eggs by approximately 1 cent USD per egg, with larger hatcheries being more efficient than smaller hatcheries for this purpose (32). Due to the low prices of eggs in India, this could represent a more significant price increase compared to the relative price of eggs, rather than a nominal increase seen in western markets. This is an issue that would have to be worked around while working on this in India.

5.6. Broiler chicken farming 

Broiler chickens are by far the most numerous terrestrial farmed animal in India with over 3 billion killed each year (33). However, work in this area in India is still in its early stages. The issues present in the industry echo those found internationally but local conditions and market structures create novel campaign and welfare challenges. Any work beginning in this area will inherently be development work, seeking tractable routes to establish initial footholds of improved practices or potentially limiting the development of more intensive farming.  

5.6.1. Broiler genetics 

A key concern in this area is the breed of chickens used in farming. The majority of fowl are fast growing (74.56%) rather than indigenous desi fowl. Driven largely by commercial farms that use overwhelmingly fast-growing broiler breeds (97.62%) compared to backyard farms who use mostly desi fowl (82.02%) (34). Native chickens like Aseel, Kadak Nath, Tellicherry, Haringhata Black, Nicobari, and Danki which are still popular among the rural and tribal areas for backyard farming and free range farming (35). Fast growing Cobb 500 (65-70 percent market share), Ross 308, and Hubbard strains typically reach slaughter weight in 4 to 6 weeks (35–37). 

This rapid growth imposes severe welfare costs. The difference in welfare between these fast growing breeds and slightly slower growing (not even desi breeds) is the most significant welfare improvement available in current commercial farming (38). Fast-growing broilers commonly suffer from musculoskeletal disorders including leg weakness and lameness, as their skeletal systems cannot keep pace with the rate of muscle development. Cardiovascular problems including sudden death syndrome and ascites (fluid accumulation in the abdomen) are also associated with fast growth rates (38,39). 

Unfortunately, transitioning breeds is also a very difficult ask increasing both the price, and necessitating a progressive transition of breeder flocks to appropriate breeds. Large scale change on this issue will become a priority in time, but making progress through the private sector at this time would likely be more difficult than for layer hen cages, which has still not succeeded. Instead progress on this important issue will be driven from focusing on establishing an initial slow growing breed adoption in a minority of the market; small established breeder flocks for these slow-growing hybrids breeds and model farms. This could be established by working with producers or FPOs, though getting the first few farms to transition is likely to be very difficult. 

Alternatively, it may be possible to work with livelihood focused non-profits, with existing programs in the poultry industry, to select better breeds and include animal welfare as a component in their training programs. These often work through local cooperatives focused on providing an income to women in rural regions. Examining a few existing programs, the flock size of farmers can be very small relative to commercial systems but overall numbers involved are not insubstantial. These programs will also help to establish ongoing operations so training or breed selection will have persistent effects over time. 

Table 11: Poultry development programs poultry number estimates 

Organisation	Program	Type	Number of farmers	Number of animals given directly per year	Flock size	Yearly flock rotation	Rearing period	On-going population from program
Shiva	Poultry Development Services (or PDS)	Meat and eggs	>8000	91,433	40			106,667
Professional Assistance for Development Action	Home-based broiler farming pilot project	Meat			300 to 400	7 to 8	32 days	N.A
PRADAN	Kesla Poultry Model	Meat	14,000	18,250,000	500		4 to 6 weeks	1,500,000
National Smallholder Poultry Development Trust (NSPDT)		Meat	15,000		500 to 1000	5 to 6		5,625,000
Government of Puducherry	Poultry Development Scheme	Meat and eggs
Youth Power	Establishment of Broiler Farms	Meat			3000
Maharashtra Government	Integrated Poultry Development Programme	Meat and eggs			100
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (DADF)		Meat and eggs			>150
Uttarakhand Government		Meat and eggs			250
Rajasthan Government	Poultry Development	Meat and eggs	800	320,000	400
Madhya Pradesh Government	Kadaknath Chicken Chick Supply Scheme	Dual-purpose			40
Bihar Animal and Fisheries Resources Department	Integrated Poultry Development Scheme,	Dual-purpose			45
Indian Council for Agriculture Research	Vanraj poultry farming	Dual-purpose	1300	27,000

Gaps in the table above are due to lack of data

There are also some government programs running similar schemes often alongside or through favourable loan schemes or direct subsidies. The Indian government has several of these schemes running through the Central Poultry Development Organisation (40,41), through state governments (42), and the Poultry Venture Capital Fund (PVCF) (43,44).

Given the more charitable motivation of the programs, they may be easier to work with than profit driven integrators. Some of these programs - and some government programs - already utilise native breeds for example the Kadaknath Chicken Chick Supply Scheme provides subsidies for Kadaknath chicks, an Indian breed of chicken (45).  

A study by Khire and Ryba 2025 (46), identifies that Northeastern India has maintained a large backyard and extensive chicken farming system, and that this has been viable even in higher income states such as Sikkim. Which is case which may be persuasive to NGOs and the Indian government towards changing these programs

Although this is an exciting angle to produce welfare improvements in broiler farming and maintain more of a indigenous or slow-growing breeder flock, the approach is still very experimental. A few key areas for future research need to be well established before action can confidently be taken. These include:

• welfare and productivity trade-offs between desi, hybrid, and “improved” breeds in small holder chicken farming under Indian conditions; and 

• the viability of working with these programs. Either civil society actors or government development programs. 

5.7. Wild/liminal animal interactions 

Wild and liminal animal populations are significant but they only directly interact with humans for a limited fraction of their lives, often through their deaths. This includes deaths through hunting and fishing, accidental deaths through road collisions, crops, deliberate population control from pesticides or other control measures. While indirect effects occur for nearly every activity, including but not limited to, artificial lighting, fireworks, urban planning, domestic pets (47), pollution and air quality (48,49). The breadth of activities and their impacts on the environment and wild animals is staggering but the field of wild animal welfare science is still in its early development (50). This means while there are a large number of potential interventions to explore in this area only a small number, often focused on anthropogenic harms, are currently well developed enough to begin work on. Instead more broadly work in this area is focused on developing the scientific discipline to develop our understanding in this area.

5.7.1. Rodent control methods 

Rodent population control is a common issue in cities and agriculture. Estimates of foodgrains losses by rodents in India range from 2.4 million tons to 26 million tons per year (51), so an uncontrolled population represents a significant financial risk to farmers. Possible rodent control methods include extermination through traps or poisons, broader management practices such as deterrence and rodent proofing, and more novel methods of birth control. However, the use of rodenticide in India has been favoured, and it is widely used and available (52). Rodenticide poisoning is unfortunately common in India, including both accidental and deliberate use of it to commit suicide (53). This, and its effects on non-target species, provides significant motivations for restrictions.

However, this section focuses on the harms caused by traps and poisons on the rodents themselves. Rodent and other wild animal deaths caused by these methods are not tracked in any meaningful way, so the best proxy we have for the number of individuals killed by each substance is from their total usage in the market (MT), and the amount needed for a lethal dose. From these two factors the total market volume for these substances suggests potentially many 10s of billions of lethal doses sold each year. However, it would be unreasonable to expect 100% efficiency. Instead we expect that a large amount of poison is wasted either due to consumption by non-target animals, wastage or weathering of bait, or sub-lethal/clinical consumption from bait shy animals. Still even when adjusting to these factors deaths are likely to be in the billions (5 -10 billion). Our uncertainty on the exact distribution is higher than for other animal issues due to the lack of tracking and sensitivity to the efficiency of usage estimates.  

Table 12: Characteristics of rodent control methods used or available in India 

Substance/method	Usage	LD50 (mg/kg)	Onset of symptom	Time to rodent death	Potential symptomatic duration	Rodent welfare	Risks to non-target animals	Human mortality	Human exposure in India
Zinc phosphide (ZnP)	35% market share in 2024 (54), 65 to 200 MT (55), ~120 MT in 2019-2020 (55)	27–48 (56)	2 h to >6 h post gavage (57)	11.8 ± 2.0 hours for exposed wild mice (57)	10 hours	Severe prolonged pain	Low risk (58)	37% to 100% (59), no antidote	23.23% yellow phosphorus + zinc phosphide (60)
Aluminium phosphide	33% market share in 2024 (54), ~90 MT in 2019-2020  (55)	40 (61)	30 min after exposure (58)	50 min to 3 h (58)	~2 hrs	Severe acute pain	Low risk of exposure (62)	48-61%  (63)	26.1% of all pesticide poisoning cases (52) risk of exposure when from gas, 94% are intentional (63)
Bromadiolone	10% market share in 2024 (54), ~20 MT in 2019-2020  (55)	0.37 (64), 0.57–0.75 (65)	4 or 5 days (66)	5.96 ± 0.35 days for pellet based rat exposure (67)	three days (58)	Severe very prolonged pain	Bioaccumulation likely to occur (68,69) case study in Indian Leopard (70)	20% (71)	2% of patients (60)
Brodifacoum		0.31 (64)		2-3 days in no-choice test (72)	2 to 3 days (73)	Severe very prolonged pain	Bioaccumulation likely to occur has long half life (68,74)		2% of patients (60)
Yellow Phosphorus	Used for a wide variety of reasons outside of rodenticide	3-6 (75)	24–36 hours (18–72 hours) in humans (60)	4.22 days since exposure (range 2–8 days) in humans (60)	Approximately 3 days in humans	Severe very prolonged pain		30% mortality rate (52)	most common rodenticide used in suicide attempts  (52) 67.68% of patients (60) high risk for children (59)
Birthcontrol	N.A	N.A	N.A	N.A	N.A	Unaffected	Minimal (73)	N.A	Minimal (73)
Glue traps	N.A	N.A	Immediate	3 hrs to 24 hours (58)	3 hrs to 24 hours	Prolonged distressing death	Indiscriminate (76,77)	N.A	N.A
Snap traps	N.A	N.A	Immediate	< 2 minutes  (58)	< 2 minutes	Short death	Risk of injury (78)	N.A	N.A

Note that these figures are from a variety of rodent species (or where unavailable deferring to human symptoms) so are mostly illustrative. Ethylene dibromide, methyl bromide, EDCT mixture, warfarin and coumafuryl were excluded due to their low market share.

The most common method for rodent control in India is through poisons such as zinc phosphide, aluminium phosphide, and bromadiolone. The fromer has the largest market share by weight. However, because the LD50 (a standard toxicological measurement indicating the amount of a substance administered all at once required to kill 50% of a test population) of zinc phosphide and aluminium phosphide is much higher than in bromadiolone, even with the greater volumes used, the total number of lethal doses for these substances is about 1/10 of bromadiolones. This indicates that although market share is higher for other substances most rodent deaths are likely caused by bromadiolone. 

This is concerning as we believe that bromadiolone has greater symptomatic duration which translates into an overall greater welfare harm. Assuming a linear relationship between symptomatic period and the total suffering from the death, bromadiolone poisoning would be about 7 times worse than zinc phosphide, and 36 times worse than aluminium phosphide. 

Existing substances used have been selected entirely for perceived efficacy and cost with no regard to the welfare of the animals killed. All of the main poisons cause acute pain over main hours, if not days. This combined with the surprisingly high number of animals who might be dying because of this makes rodenticide and rodent control among the most significant welfare harms we inflict on other animals around the time of death. 

In addition, these poisons are not only harmful to the rodents themselves, they also pose risks to non-target animals including pets, other wild animals, even endangered species, and humans through deliberate or accidental ingestion. A campaign on this issue should highlight a holistic view of the harms of these substances on the overall health and welfare of all animals. 

Fortunately a number of states and union territories have already taken action against some of the most cruel methods of population control. With at least 32 states and union territories banning glue traps to catch rodents and to ensure the strict prohibition of the manufacture, sale, and use of these traps (79–81). These were motivated by Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) advisories on the grounds of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and prevention of unnecessary pain and suffering to animals (79,82). Compliance with this ban will be questionable but this does show that states are willing to take a stand on which rodent control methods cause unnecessary cruelty. 

Future work on these issues could focus on first ensuring glue traps bans in all states and territories, building relationships for future similar reforms. Then completing a comprehensive assessment of the welfare consequences of existing rodent control measures used in India. Working alongside the AWBI to provide advisory notices to ban or restrict the usage of the most dangerous and cruel substances to professionals, rather than being available over the counter. As developments continue with birth control methods, ensuring rapid regulatory approval is essential to drive adoption, as otherwise research and other processes might have to be repeated with significant delays (73). 

Counterfactuals are an especially significant factor which should be considered for work in this area. A ban on one method should be expected to lead to correspondingly more of other methods being used. So while a ban on glue traps can improve welfare because it is a particularly painful way of killing rodents, as long as very painful rodenticides are still allowed, the total welfare benefit is only equal to the difference between those two methods.

5.8. Broad policy work

5.8.1. Improve enforcement of existing animal welfare laws

5.8.1.1 Current enforcement regime 

Many broader provisions in Indian law are remarkably progressive. The Constitution recognizes that animals can suffer physically and mentally, it is applicable to ‘all living creatures’, and requires that citizens must ‘have compassion for living creatures’ (83). The primary statutory instrument, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) criminalises a range of acts causing unnecessary pain or suffering.

There are multiple landmark rulings and recommendations such as the advisory letter from the Animal Welfare Board of India to the Indian government, highlighting that battery cages were not consistent with Indian animal welfare legislation (see more in the section on strategic litigation (4.3.3)). Yet there is continued systematic failure of implementation and enforcement. Policy effectiveness is often compromised or overturned by subsequent institutional challenges, socio-cultural factors, regional disparities, and economic influences (84). Sudan et al. 2024 (84) note that “These challenges are not uniform across the country but vary significantly between urban and rural areas and across different states”.

The existing framework for enforcement fractures responsibility across multiple bodies, some of whom are primarily responsible for and focused on other areas. Although our aim is compliance with the law rather than punishment of offenders, to understand enforcement, it is useful to understand each stage from detection to penalty. 

Table 13:  Existing institutions in the enforcement framework 

Institution	Mandate & Powers	Enforcement Stage	Key Limitations
Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI)	Statutory body under PCA that advises Central Govt on amendments; funds SPCAs (23)	Advisory, capacity-building	No enforcement powers instead serving advisory role only from within the DAHD. It is also severely underfunded.
CPCSEA	Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals. Inspects laboratories; can recommend suspension of experiments (85)	Inspection, licensing for animal experimentation	A 2003 ADI/NAVS report found deplorable standards in the majority of 467 inspected laboratories, indicating weak follow-up (86).
State Animal Welfare Boards (SAWB)	Coordination between district level SPCA, State policy and NGOs	Coordination	Delayed on establishment, poorly resourced.
District SPCAs	Recognised under PCA Act. can document cruelty, file complaints, and follow up on prosecution	Detection, complaint-filing, victim (animal) care	Severely resource-constrained; not present in most districts; effectiveness varies hugely by state.
State Police	First responders for complaint registration under PCA and BNS. Can seize animals under PCA Act.	Detection, FIR registration, investigation	Low prioritisation of animal crime; minimal training; many offences non-cognizable requiring magistrate’s order for arrest.
Magistrate Courts	Summary trial jurisdiction for PCA Act offences.	Prosecution and sentencing	Trivial maximum penalties with fines of Rs 10–50 (first offence) or Rs 25–100 plus up to 3 months imprisonment (repeat offence within 3 years),  limited judicial attention.
Forest Department / Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB)	Enforce Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 for wild animals. WCCB coordinates intelligence-sharing on wildlife crime across states. Forest officers have police powers under WPA.	Detection, investigation, inter-state coordination for wildlife crimes	Critically understaffed (one guard per 50 square km in UP). Conviction rate for wildlife crimes reported at approximately 2% (2012–2018) and 15% per NCRB 2023.

Detection and documentation of offenses varies depending on the act the offense falls under. 

The strongest example is the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) for animal testing. Over 665 laboratories registered with CPCSEA (87). CPCSEA appoints committee nominees who are required to conduct and upload annual inspection reports (85). However, even here the accuracy of these inspections can be questioned due to the close ties of the nominees with the institutes and centers using experimental animals. Compliance is inconsistent, with reports indicating poor housing facilities in some labs, lack of analgesia during procedures, and limited awareness of alternatives (88). 

For the enforcement of the PCA responsibilities are split across Animal Welfare Boards, Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs), State Police, and Magistrate courts.

State Animal Welfare Boards (SAWB) monitor the implementation of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) and take action for the welfare of animals in the district (83) through coordinating the activities of the district SPCAs (89). There were significant delays in establishing and resourcing state animal welfare boards (89). Although boards have now been established across all major states and union territories, except for Ladakh and Lakshadweep (23). 

The district level SPCAs can assist in enforcing the provisions of the PCA. They do this through search and seizure of any animal from any person who has committed an offence under the PCA with the help of the police, and construction of animal shelters and infirmaries to protect and treat the animals who are victims of cruelty (90,91). They submit an annual report to the SAWB on activities during the year, including enforcement, and may receive feedback from the SAWB to improve functions (91).

Unfortunately even when SAWB were established the respective SPCAs have not, even after repeated circulars established SPCAs in all districts (23). Of the 731 listed districts a notification has been received in only 437 (59.8%), leaving 294 (40.2%) with no indication of an SPCA established (23). Notably this list is slightly outdated and not exhaustive with the government directory listing a total of 749 districts (92). 

Even if there has been notification, there has likely been no budgetary allocation or staff provided from authorities (89). The SPCA model depends on state governments creating, staffing, and funding bodies whose primary purpose is to hold those same state governments (and their constituents) accountable for animal welfare violations. This creates an inherent conflict of interest. States where animal cruelty is most pervasive are precisely the states with the least political incentive to establish effective SPCAs.

The hybrid governance model, where the managing committee is partly state-appointed and partly selected from civil society, means that where state governments are hostile or indifferent to animal welfare, they can appoint sympathetic chairpersons who won't push enforcement aggressively, or who will focus on only certain political and more palatable issues such as stray dogs. There is no mechanism for AWBI or the central government to override a non-cooperative state government, since animal welfare enforcement ultimately depends on state-level police and magistrate courts.

We see the typical scope and focus on the AWBI itself through their records of action taken on cruelty cases. Over the past 10 years the board has had a dramatic rise in ‘actions’ taken on cruelty cases. This coincides with the establishment of SAWBs from 2020 onwards, after continued campaigning and legal action from Gauri Maulekhi (23,89). This is a positive step for detection of cruelty cases but still relies on remarkably few complaints with 2.7% of complaints in 2023-2024 coming from just one individuaI. 

Figure 11

Complaints received by AWBI by animal type 2023-2024

Figure 12

Even well-functioning SPCAs which prioritise enforcement of the PCA remain dependent on the same state police and animal husbandry officers. They may register a complaint with the police but many offences are non-cognizable, requiring a magistrate's order for arrest (93). This in addition to the negligible fines make animal cruelty offences a very low priority for investigation. An SPCA could inspect, seize an animal and file a complaint, but if the police won't investigate, and the magistrate can at best impose a Rs 50 fine, the deterrence effect is negligible.

Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations’s (FIAPO) 2020 report, ‘In their own right’, looks at a novel data set collecting public cases of animal abuse from news articles, animal organisations internal data, social media posts, and documentary films (94). Of the total 2400 cases, which included grievous hurt, violence and torture, they were able to document a police complaint in 569 instances. These represent the most visible well documented cases of abject public abuse, and yet even here, only 24% were lodged as police complaints. Very few of these cases were investigated. If arrests were made, the accused were released immediately on bail and FIAPO finds no record of any final convictions (94). Some prominent cases include documented CCTV footage of men bludgeoning street dogs to death without subsequent legal action.  

Overall we can see that existing data on detection of non-compliance with the law and subsequent action is fractured. What does exist, understandably focuses solely on the most malicious cases of cruelty, leaving the majority of cruelty cases that occur in factory farms unexamined. 

5.8.1.2 Is enforcement a solvable problem in India?

The existing system is clearly inadequate for ensuring compliance with the law, yet potential for reform only exists if the Indian government has capacity to enforce the law. Broad global governance indicators show India's Government Effectiveness percentile rank was reported at 67.92% in 2023, according to the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators (95). On rule of law, India's ranking stood at 79 out of 142 countries with a score of 0.49 (96). However, on corruption specifically, the picture is weaker. India ranked 96th out of 180 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index 2024 (97). This has the potential to limit enforcement effectiveness but is by no means prohibitive.  

Environmental law enforcement has had some success with a variety of reforms leading to increased compliance and reduced emissions. Effective interventions include:

• third-party environmental audits randomly assigned to plants, paid from a central pool, and subject to random back-checks of their reported data, which lead to reduced emissions (98); 

• real-time compliance monitoring via Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) where compliance reached 99% among participating plants (99);

• Maharashtra Star Rating Programme, in which a randomised subset of plants had their emissions star all ratings publicly disseminated via the website, offline advertisements, and press briefings. (100);

• standard inspections, the probability of inspections significantly influenced plant-level compliance and vice versa, confirming a bidirectional deterrence relationship (101); and

• National Green Tribunals to provide expeditious disposal of environmental cases which can  impose penalties of up to Rs 10 crore and imprisonment of up to 3 years, with continuing daily fines of Rs 25,000 for non-compliance (102).

Environmental regulations focus on industrial pollution from identifiable, licensed facilities with fixed locations. This makes evidence and approaches used here most useful for slaughterhouses, farms, laboratories, and animal markets that are fixed-location operations. The problem is that most of these operations are unlicensed. India has a significant number of unregistered slaughterhouses, and the unorganised market comprising butcher shops accounts for 90% of the fresh meat industry. 

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is in some ways a better analogy for farmed animal welfare enforcement as they directly operate in the food industry and with the same informal market vendors. Here market incentives should naturally be much more in line with the outcome of the agency with direct effects on consumer health or potential to cause illness. Still FSSAI inspections found 20% of food items failed to meet standards (103), and in Uttar Pradesh this figure was as high as 52.8%. Food safety enforcement shares several structural features: a central standard-setting body with state-level enforcement, a vast informal sector, chronic understaffing of inspectors, and penalties that until recently were too low to deter. There have also been efforts to improve enforcement with the Eat Right India program, which trained and deployed more than 300,000 food safety supervisors, and increased testing and detection of food contamination (104). 

Despite enforcement efforts the State Food Safety Index has shown a downward trend with 15 out of 20 large states recording a drop in their 2023 SFSI scores compared to 2019 (105), but this was driven by drops in testing infrastructure and human resources. Inversely the volume of testing has expanded from 107,829 in 2020-21 samples to 170,535 in 2024-25, while non-compliance fell from 26.3% in 2020-2021 to 20.16% in 2024-2025 (106). 

Table 14:  Non-compliance and sample testing for food safety in India

Year	No. of samples analysed	No. of samples found non-conforming	% non-conforming
2020-21	107,829	28,347	26.29%
2021-22	144,345	32,934	22.82%
2022-23	177,511	44,626	25.14%
2023-24	170,513	33,808	19.83%
2024-25	170,535	34,388	20.16%

Some individual states stand out as case studies in effective enforcement. Andhra Pradesh had a 73.5% enforcement conversion rate and its non-conformance rate dropped from 16.4% in 2020–21 to 8.6% in 2024–25 (107). Tamil Nadu had the highest testing volume in South India and reduced its non-conformance rate from 32.8 percent in 2022-23 to 12.4 percent in 2024-25 (107). Although other states show this relationship does not always hold, with Kerala having strong testing and enforcement conversion but non-compliance rising marginally from 12.1 percent to 15.2 percent (107). 

Many enforcement domains such as environment, food safety, and wildlife see similar recurring patterns to animal cruelty; inspector shortages, corruption, the dominance of the informal sector, judicial delay, and trivial penalties (108–110). Yet we still see measurable progress and interventions which appear to be working. Applying the tool kits from these other domains to improve compliance should in principle be possible; the main constraint is resourcing. 

5.8.1.3 Potentially enforceable laws present and future 

Existing regulations have some notable gaps as highlighted in the rest of the report. Still there are some notable regulations that, if followed, would meaningfully reduce the suffering of farmed animals. Unfortunately existing compliance rates for many of these are low in industrial farm settings. This leaves scope for enforcement to increase welfare conditions. It is important to emphasise that this would require amendments to the PCA act prior to any efforts, as under the current act's efforts to enforce a strict interpretation of specific rules, would prove difficult without mention of broader provisions in section 11. 

Table 15: Potentially enforceable requirements in current Indian law

Category	Requirement	Legal Citation	Welfare Impact Assessment	Compliance
Egg Laying Hens	Minimum 550 sq cm floor space per bird in colony enclosures. Enclosures must accommodate 6–8 birds and allow lying down, standing, wing-flapping, turning around, and access to feed/water.	PCA (Egg Laying Hens) Rules 2023, Rule 8	Low. Prevents extreme confinement in conventional battery cages (~375 sq cm). Would require enriched cages to comply with 6-8 birds.	Low. Some farmers overstock their cages so are below minimum floor space. Nearly all of them have enclosures that accommodate only 4 birds. Compliance deadline: 1 Jan 2029.
Egg Laying Hens	Forced moulting prohibited. Withdrawal of feed to induce a moult is banned.	PCA (Egg Laying Hens) Rules 2023, Rule 10(iv)	Acute. Forced moulting starves hens for 7–14 days, causing extreme suffering.	Unknown. No recent numbers.
Egg Laying Hens	Feeding dead chick remains to hens is prohibited. Cannibalistic feed (remains of dead chicks) banned.	PCA (Egg Laying Hens) Rules 2023, Rule 10(i)	Low. Reduces disease transmission risk.	Unknown. No systematic survey data.
Egg Laying Hens	Antimicrobial growth promoters banned. Antimicrobials only for therapeutic purposes under veterinary supervision.	PCA (Egg Laying Hens) Rules 2023, Rule 10(ii)–(iii)	Variable. effects depend on management practises.	High. 2014 sample showed 40% shown any trace may be therapeutic (111).
Egg Laying Hens	Euthanasia of male chicks must follow WOAH (World Organisation for Animal Health) guidelines.	PCA (Egg Laying Hens) Rules 2023, Rule 12	Acute. Requires humane killing methods instead of prevalent practices (drowning, burning, crushing).	Unknown. Investigations found frequent non-compliance (112).
Egg Laying Hens	Spent hens sold to licensed slaughterhouses or registered traders; transport/slaughter per applicable laws.	PCA (Egg Laying Hens) Rules 2023, Rule 13	Low. minimum welfare during end-of-life, slaughterhouse not clearly better.	Low. Most spent hens sold to unregistered traders/markets. Very few poultry slaughterhouses are licensed.
Egg Laying Hens	Mandatory farm registration with the State Animal Husbandry Department and compliance inspections.	PCA (Egg Laying Hens) Rules 2023, Rules 5 & 7	N.A
Cattle & Livestock Husbandry	Castration under anaesthesia only. Must be performed by a registered veterinary practitioner using general and local anaesthetics.	PCA (Animal Husbandry Practices & Procedures) Rules 2023	Acute, low duration. Castration without pain relief causes acute, intense pain.	low.
Cattle & Livestock Husbandry	Dehorning under anaesthesia, at an early age. Must be done by a registered vet with pain relief.	PCA (Animal Husbandry Practices & Procedures) Rules 2023	Acute, low duration. Dehorning without anaesthesia is extremely painful.	low.
Cattle & Livestock Husbandry	Hot and cold branding on live tissue is prohibited.	PCA (Animal Husbandry Practices & Procedures) Rules 2023	Moderate. Branding causes severe burns and prolonged pain.
Cattle & Livestock Husbandry	Nose-roping as a last resort. Humane methods such as face halters are preferred.	PCA (Animal Husbandry Practices & Procedures) Rules 2023	Moderate. Nose roping through the nasal septum is acutely painful and causes chronic discomfort.	Very low. Nose roping remains standard practice.
Slaughter	Stunning before slaughter is mandatory. “shall provide a separate space for stunning of animals prior to slaughter”.	PCA (Slaughter House) Rules 2001, Rule 6	Acute, low duration.  Prevents conscious slaughter which causes extreme pain and distress.	Low. Low compliance and few licensed slaughterhouses. Unclear provision anyway.
Slaughter	Animals must be rested, must not be slaughtered within sight of other animals and stunning is also required.	Schedule IV, Part IV, FSS (Licensing & Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011	Acute, low duration. Slaughter out of sight of conspecifics plus rest.	Low. Few licensed slaughterhouses.
Slaughter	Slaughter only in licensed/recognised slaughterhouses. Unlicensed slaughter within municipal areas prohibited.	PCA (Slaughter House) Rules 2001, Rule 3(1)	N.A	Low. Most slaughtered through informal channels.
Transport of Poultry	Temperature limits: no transport above 25°C or below 15°C. Shelter from sun, rain, and direct air blast required.	Transport of Animals Rules 1978, Chapter VII, Rule 77	Moderate, low duration. Heat stress is a leading cause of death during poultry transport.	Moderate. Temperatures are often above 25°C.
Transport of Poultry	Maximum 6 hours continuous transport for poultry. Then a 30 minute break for water and inspection.	Transport of Animals Rules 1978, Chapter VII	Moderate, low duration. Limits duration of severe confinement.	Unknown. No systematic survey data
General (All Farm Animals)	Section 11(1)(e): confinement cruelty. Keeping any animal in a cage or receptacle that does not permit reasonable opportunity for movement is a criminal offence.	PCA Act 1960, Section 11(1)(e)	Very High. This is the foundational anti-confinement provision.	Low. Depends on species. Basis for battery cage legal challenges.
General (All Farm Animals)	Section 11(1)(F): tethered. Tethering for an unreasonable period.	PCA Act 1960, Section 11(1)(F)	Moderate. Leads to frustration and injury.	Low to high. Unreasonable definitions will affect compliance.
General (All Farm Animals)	Section 11: Broad Cruelty provision. Beating an animal or keeping an animal without sufficient food, drink, or shelter is cruelty.	PCA Act 1960, Section 11	Low-Moderate Basic duty of care covering feed, water, and shelter for all farmed animals. Or active cruelty.	Low. Food is generally provided and active beatings affect a minority of animals.

Notably these provisions also exclude all other potential future improvements. If a battery cage ban is subsequently confirmed, this would dramatically increase the potential welfare improvement for bringing farms into compliance. This makes the value of enforcement reforms or direct work more difficult to model as the total value varies significantly based on future reforms. 

5.8.1.4 Cruelty to Animals Amendments

Improving the existing systems to ensure compliance with the law would require action in multiple areas. First is reform to penalties and offence categorization in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. As has been discussed extensively elsewhere, making offense cognizable and increasing the penalty is a necessary first step for the act to have any ability to be enforced (113). 

Unfortunately, there have already been many failed private members bills to amend the PCA. Every year the act has failed to be reformed, and has seen the real value of penalties fall due to inflation, making reform more necessary over time. Although, each time this has been dropped or not passed, it provides evidence against a high probability of success for the campaign. Examples include:

• Draft Animal Welfare Act, 2011. Added a few more categories of cruelty to animals, prescribed greater penalties for cruelty towards animals by multiplying the fines by a thousand. Not passed (113);

• Draft Animal Welfare Bill, 2014. Substantially higher penalties for animal abuse. Not passed (113); 

• MP Poonam Mahajan, Private Member Bill,  2016. Stringent penalties and making all offences cognizable offences. Not passed. (113);

• #NoMore50 campaign launched, 2016. Launched by Humane Society International/India and People for Animals (114);

• Draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill, 2022. Making several offences cognizable and introducing substantially more stringent punishments (115,116). It also recognises five freedoms and expands on SAWBs; and 

• MP Sudha Murty introduced The Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Amendment) Bill more recently in 2025 (117).

If successful the direct impact of these reforms is likely to be relatively minimal. Current complaints and enforcement measures are mostly being targeted against liminal and companion animals. The number of animals involved is therefore significantly lower even if severity is high. The nature of the offence also makes deterrence more difficult as violent, maliciously or emotionally motivated crimes are less impacted by rational decision making for deterrence theory to apply (118). While systematic failure to provide conditions appropriate for animals in an effort to bolster profits is more analogous to white collar crime that is more responsive to deterrence (119). 

These amendments would, however, act as a necessary step to make subsequent improvements in detection and inspection of farms worthwhile. They are also necessary to ensure any potential future legal progress can be acted on. If any of the important issues outlined in this report are ever covered through policy they will require this amendment to be impactful. 

5.8.1.5 Detection and inspection of factory farms 

If fines are raised and appropriate severity offenses are cognisable the penalties for non-compliance with the law will be severe enough to meaningfully dissuade offenders in theory. Under the current system the probability of animal cruelty being reported and subsequently acted upon are very low. This means even if the penalties are significant the chance of receiving these is negligible for all but the most public cases of cruelty. Appointed government officials including police and SPCAs do have the right to inspect  premises and remove animals subject to cruelty, but no one is systematically inspecting farms for compliance with the law. 

In the context of animal farming, motivations for infractions can be categorised under self-motivated cruelty, neglect, and economic self-interest (118). This is important to understand as the appropriate actions to bring these into compliance varies depending on the motivation. Deterring self-motivated cruelty is more difficult but fortunately it’s on a smaller scale. Neglect or mismanagement support and guidance is likely more effective than penalties as non-compliance may be caused by a lack of resources or other distress, and thus fines will exacerbate the situation (118). Finally, economic self-interest is most susceptible to compliance regimes through frequent detection and penalisation. Although data is poor for animal welfare enforcement and especially in the Indian context, the wider literature does provide broad support for the impact of inspection and detection regimens, alongside enforcement action across a wide variety of contexts and issues (118). See our full report on enforcement for a full articulation of this point.

We have several illustrative routes available to attempt to improve inspection and enforcement, given prior reforms to the PCA act are successful. Each has limitations and requires different prior reforms to the PCA to be at all viable. They include:

• Policy reform:

  • creation of an ‘Animal Police Force’ under designated with funding from the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying or preferably the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change; and

  • give the SPCA inspectors the right to provide warnings, training mandates, and fines on the spot with funds preferably paid directly to the district SPCA. This would require amendments to grant this power through the PCA.

• Direct Movement Investment: 

  • launching a complaint campaign to file more animal welfare complaints against farms to the AWBI. Relying on existing enforcement mechanisms to take these complaints forward. If offences were held in higher regard due to the increased penalties and cognisability, this could potentially lead to greater action from police; and

  • provide funding and talent into SPCAs in key farming districts to inspect and register complaints and document cruelty.

The impact of policy reforms largely depend on the probability of success. Designating a long-term budget for an ‘Animal Police’ would impose a small continued cost for the government. This in and of itself will be a barrier to success. Though the same structure, if properly trained, could be used to enforce several laws, including environmental and labour rights regulations for farm workers. Whether this is feasible at any given moment in time is better determined by well-connected advocates. Prior reforms to the PCA act would have to occur prior to considering any of these routes. Which specific reforms are successful, alongside the political environment at the time, will greatly affect which reforms are most impactful.

The most directly ambitious option is working with state governments to operationalise and provide funding to aligned SPCAs. Many of these SPCAs already exist on paper (23) but in practice are not operating. If reforms to the PCA act take place, making enforcement of existing laws viable in theory, then it would be possible to work with states to establish functional SPCAs with small teams of farmed animal welfare focused staff. While this is in principle a viable approach to establish SPCAs with state conferred authority, this requires working within the existing regulatory system, which itself would take time and expertise to navigate. This alongside political apathy is part of the reason we see very few SPCAs establishing operations organically. 

Each district would have at most a handful of investigators, potentially less if risk-based inspection strategies prove effective at increasing compliance. SPCA Investigators have the legal right to enter and inspect farms if registered under the state government. However, based on their findings they cannot currently launch any legal action or penalties themselves. Ideally reforms to the PCA act would expressly authorise SPCA inspectors to impose monetary penalties for violations but given this is not the case they would instead work with Animal Husbandry officers from the DAHD or other competent authority to provide advice, training, or corrective actions for farmers. 

If targeted at the most intensive farms, with the highest risk of large-scale suffering, such a model could allow one investigator to cover between 480 and 720 farms a year. Given the intensity of poultry production this could easily account for over 20 million chickens on farms inspected by an investigator per year. The welfare benefits of these inspections will be no means as significant as transitioning to cage-free, but even enforcement of existing laws and low expected increase in compliance could be impactful in the Indian context.

5.9 Alternative proteins

Alternative proteins (often referred to as smart proteins in India), are alternative products meant to replace the use of animals in the food system.

Survey evidence suggests unusually high consumer openness to alternative proteins in India. There are tentative signs that these products may reach meat-eaters rather than only vegetarians, and at least one Indian company has demonstrated that cost-competitive alternative proteins are achievable (120). The core animal welfare case rests on preventing the projected growth in chicken consumption as Indian incomes rise, and not as much on displacing current consumption, which is currently low per capita (121). Within this space, we are most excited about R&D and entrepreneurship focused on cost-competitive products adapted to Indian cuisine. We are more cautious about cost-effectiveness comparisons against other interventions, since much of the expected impact depends on tail end scenarios where particularly promising and competitive products compete with and replace significant amounts of animal products. 

India's per capita consumption of non-dairy animal products is currently low by global standards (see section 3), which at first glance seems to weaken the case for alt proteins (there is not much meat to displace). But per capita chicken consumption has grown rapidly in recent decades and is projected to continue rising as incomes grow. This is especially concerning, as chicken consumption is responsible for a huge amount of suffering per gram (122). This means the animal welfare upside of alt proteins in India is less about replacing today's meals and more about shaping what a higher-income Indian diet looks like in 2035 and beyond. Egg and fish consumption are also growing rapidly and are responsible for a great deal of suffering per gram. Though globally it has proven more difficult to break into the market for fish and eggs alternatives, especially for fish.

Early survey-based evidence suggests Indian consumers are unusually receptive to alt proteins. Two cross-country studies found that Indian consumers were more willing to try or consume plant-based meat than consumers in several other countries, including the United States, exhibited lower meat attachment (123), and lower food technology neophobia (124). This fits with the country's high rates of vegetarianism and long history of plant-based dishes that function as meat analogues in their culinary role.

In a discrete choice experiment, Arora et al. (125) found that 93.5% of Indian consumers surveyed reported being "somewhat" to "extremely likely" to pay a premium for plant-based meat. Specifically, Mumbai respondents were willing to pay more for plant-based meat than for conventional meat, and more than for chana (chickpea). Market segmentation in the same study found (a) a substantial cluster of alt protein enthusiasts distinct from "veggie lovers," and (b) meaningful interest among "meat lovers," which is the segment that matters most for our theory of change. Good Food Institute (126) also found high repurchase intent, with “72% of the consumers who bought plant-based meat in the last six months considering buying it again”.

The core animal welfare question is whether alt proteins reach meat-eaters or only serve existing vegetarians. Two pieces of evidence are encouraging. Bryant et al. 2019 (123) found that meat attachment was positively correlated with interest in trying alt proteins. Counterintuitive, but consistent with alt proteins being marketed as meat rather than as vegetarian food. Similarly, the Good Food Institute (126) found that 72% of plant-based meat consumers in India also eat conventional meat. This does not prove displacement but it does rule out the worst-case scenario in which alt proteins circulate only within the vegetarian population and do not reduce animal product demand at all. Limited evidence from Western countries suggests some genuine substitution occurs (127). 

More recent evidence is mixed. A 2025 Ipsos/PBFIA poll (128) found that plant-based consumers generally intended to increase their plant-based consumption and decrease their animal-based consumption. However, the same poll found lower familiarity and trial rates than the earlier studies might suggest: 27.5% of households were familiar with plant-based meat (48.9% for plant-based dairy), and among those familiar households, only 11% had tried plant-based meat (23% for dairy). The Good Food Institute (126) found a similar number: close to 30% familiar with plant-based meat. The gap between headline willingness-to-try figures and actual familiarity or trial suggests that consumer openness has not yet translated into market penetration, which is consistent with cost and availability being binding constraints rather than consumer acceptance. 

Alternative proteins in India are generally positioned as premium products and priced accordingly (123). Consumers with higher incomes and consumers living in Metro areas are substantially more likely to be familiar with alternative proteins (126). Cost-competitive products are what will be bought by meat-eaters, and by rising-income consumers making routine purchase decisions. Whereas, premium products will be bought by smaller numbers. Cost-competitiveness is demonstrably achievable in some cases. GoodDot, India's largest alt protein company, offers some plant-based products (styled as goat meat as this typically has a higher premium) at 20–25% of the animal version (120). This is remarkable and was accomplished through substantial R&D funding, strengthening the case for that intervention.

A key cost barrier is that Indian alt protein companies import roughly 45% of the protein isolates they use - despite India producing large quantities of protein-rich crops - because domestic protein processing capacity is underdeveloped. Imported isolates face high tariffs, significantly raising production costs (129). Building domestic protein isolate production requires identifying local staples that meet functional, quality, and reliability criteria, and developing a network of processors able to supply them consistently.

A further reason to prioritize cost-competitive products is that they unlock institutional food procurement channels that premium products cannot reach. This displaces a large amount of animal product and also secures longer-term stable contracts important for industry growth. 

If plant-based products can match or beat the cost of animal-based equivalents while meeting nutritional requirements, they become eligible for these channels at a scale that direct-to-consumer markets cannot match. Nutritional adequacy therefore, particularly protein content, is an important criterion alongside cost. Outcompeting animal products on these metrics can head off potential criticism that institutional use of these products represents a religious imposition.

India's Mid-Day Meal Scheme would be the most significant target, serving roughly 120 million children. However, the constraints for these meals are tight. The material cost the government allocates for each meal for ingredients above the rice and wheat staple is only Rs 6.19 (130) 450 calories, and 12 grams of protein for primary students, or 700 calories for upper primary students (131). Eggs currently serve as a key protein source in many states, but provision is not universal and can be affected by budgetary pressures, procurement challenges, disease outbreaks among other factors. This suggests potential value in developing low-cost, nutritionally-equivalent, stable and easily accessible plant-based protein options that could complement existing meal programs. Ultimately, leading to improvement in the resilience of school nutrition systems. As this is politically sensitive and there are genuine nutritional risks, this approach should focus on clearly demonstrating nutritional adequacy. This will be a significant victory if it could be achieved, though in the meantime other institutional programs may be more tractable options (see section 5.10) (132). 

This is supported by surveys, with nutritional content listed as both the most important reasons for trying plant-based meats (particularly protein content in this case) and the most important reason for continuing to eat them (126). 

Given the above, we are most excited about R&D, experimental work, and entrepreneurship focused on cost-competitive alt proteins adapted to Indian cuisine and built on local staples. Most funding on alternative protein has focused on Western foods, and more adaptation is required to substitute in Indian dishes. This includes work on domestic protein isolate production, which sits at the intersection of cost reduction and industrial development (128).

We also considered work on improving the regulatory environment. While we think this is important, we think that we are currently more likely to have more leverage helping the industry prove itself technically and commercially now, and more leverage on policy once the industry has demonstrated viability. India's regulatory environment for plant-based alt proteins is already relatively permissive: products using traditionally consumed plants without novel processing do not require special approval. Fermentation and cultivated products do require special approval, which is a real barrier, but these are a smaller share of near-term commercial activity (133).

That said, specific policy opportunities should be taken when they arise, particularly securing clear Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) guidance that products can comply with to reduce regulatory risk, and eventually removing special approval requirements for fermentation and cultivated products as these gain commercial importance.

If the theory of change rests on preventing growth in chicken consumption, this tentatively suggests that R&D and product development should prioritize chicken analogues over beef or pork analogues, which address much smaller shares of Indian animal suffering. We flag this as a weaker suggestion rather than a firm recommendation: we have not systematically reviewed the current product pipeline of Indian alt protein companies, the relative technical difficulty of chicken analogues in the Indian context, or consumer acceptance of specific product categories. Certain products such as goat also have more market premium, so are easier to target for initial displacement to gain market share (120). A more confident recommendation on product prioritization would require dedicated analysis.

The cost-effectiveness of this intervention compared to other inventions discussed in this report is hard to estimate. Much of the expected impact depends on optimistic scenarios, a product seeing high displacement rates, successful cost reduction, and alt proteins capturing a meaningful share of future demand growth, and these are compounding uncertainties.

Alternative proteins attract substantially more funding than animal advocacy because the industry is commercially promising. The Government of India has pledged INR 9,197 crore (~$1.1 billion) for biotechnology R&D, with "functional foods and smart proteins" listed among six priority areas (126), though it is unclear how much will flow to smart proteins specifically. Given this, the highest-leverage role for animal-advocacy-aligned funding may be steering public and venture capital toward R&D that (1) addresses questions critical to the industry as a whole, and (2) produces publicly accessible results. The second criterion is harder to achieve with industry money, which is part of what makes philanthropic or public R&D funding distinctively valuable. 

Finally, advocates we spoke with noted a shortage of strong talent entering the Indian alternative protein space. This makes the field a potentially high-impact career option for entrepreneurs with both commercial ambition and a focus on animal welfare.

5.10 Institutional meat reduction

This section is preliminary. Target prioritisation draws on an internal bounty model whose underlying parameters are first-pass estimates. We have not systematically mapped the Indian institutional landscape. This section would benefit from substantially more work than time permitted. 

Further, we also note that the broader evidence base for meat-reduction interventions is weaker than is sometimes assumed: a recent rigorous meta-analysis of 41 randomised controlled trials finds small overall effects (SMD = 0.07) across intervention types and concludes that "meaningfully reducing consumption of meat and animal products is an unsolved problem", so the results are contested (134).

Institutional plant-based advocacy, engaging institutions that provide meals to the public to reduce animal-product use, can be high-leverage because of the scale of many institutional meal programmes and because it uses an institutional rather than individual frame (127).

India's case is distinctive and extremely promising in some regards, but not straightforwardly favourable as it first appears. Vegetarianism is already normative for a large share of the population, and institutions already serve mainly vegetarian food. This brings some operational advantages from existing infrastructure, consumer familiarity, and kitchens able to produce varied plant-based meals. However, it also brings two complications: the low baseline may mean smaller marginal reductions from successful campaigns than in other countries, and vegetarianism in India carries a political charge that advocates elsewhere do not have to navigate. 

Advocates in India face political complexities regarding institutional veg outreach. There is a concern that vegetarian-only policies at public institutions represent an imposition by the Hindu majority on Muslim, Christian, and Dalit populations. This is a valid concern: the motivation and execution of some such campaigns have reinforced harmful dynamics (135,136).

There are valid secular arguments that should be used instead. Advocates should frame their work in secular terms for animal welfare, environment, cost, nutrition benefits and avoid coalitions with Hindu-nationalist actors which reinforce their talking points, even when short-term campaign goals appear to align. The long-term cost of such coalitions to movement credibility, and the direct cost to minority communities of advocacy that reads as majoritarian, may well outweigh campaign-level wins. Advocates should also expect campaigns against animal-product inclusion to be claimed by such actors regardless of framing.

A "vegetarian by default" framing, with animal products available on request, seems likely to face less pushback than vegetarian-only policies. This has been found to be potentially promising - see for example Ginn and Sparkman (137) finding it to be among the stronger options for reducing meat consumption. Though, please also see the general limitations with this work cited above in Green et al. (134). 

While evidence is limited in the Indian context, we found one study by Bryant Research (138) evaluating a nudge towards vegetarian diets in a Mexican restaurant in Mumbai. They found that sales increased for plant based mains if there was a “free churro” offer with it.

Vegetarian defaults already exist at many Indian institutions (for example Air India meals (139)) and non vegetarian meals may already be labeled “non-veg” in some contexts in broader Indian culture. This may reduce the marginal value of new default veg campaigns while plausibly making remaining wins easier to secure.

Targets below are illustrative and ordered tentatively, combining preliminary modelling for scale with qualitative assessment of tractability and political feasibility. Rankings should be expected to shift with more careful work. 

• Midday meal policy: The PM POSHAN midday meal scheme covers approximately 120 million children across roughly 1.27 million schools. The base of this meal scheme is vegetarian, though roughly 14 states include eggs in some form (140,141). State-level policy on animal-product inclusion is plausibly the largest-scale target we discuss. It is also the most politically difficult and would require careful thought about whether an animal-advocacy campaign can be kept clearly separate from Hindu-nationalist politics as well. We would only recommend campaigns in states where eggs were added specifically because of documented child malnutrition with a credible nutritional-replacement backed by actually-available products. This is a possible point of synergy with the alternative protein work discussed elsewhere in this report, contingent on cost-competitive products existing at the required per-meal price point, which we have not assessed. 

• Large airlines: Preliminary modelling suggests large Indian airlines may be among the strongest per-institution private-sector targets in scale terms, with IndiGo appearing substantially larger than other single targets. Airline advocacy may have advantages: framing can be secular, corporate decision-making is centralised, and international advocacy on airline meals provides a possible playbook. 

• Universities: Large Indian university campuses appear in preliminary modelling to be comparable in scale to top hospitals and potentially large enough to justify the cost of the work. We also note that a university campaign could be a good way of exposing students to animal advocacy at a pivotal age while also offering them the opportunity to contribute by volunteering or working on the campaign. This may be a substantial additional, or potentially the primary benefit.

• Hospitals: Scale per hospital appears modest relative to airlines or state-level work, and advocacy tends to be fragmented.

• Other targets: 

  • Indian Railways serves roughly 1.65 million meals per day (142). 

  • Large catering companies might also be appropriate targets in India. Sodexo serves approximately 1 million meals per day in India and has committed to 33% plant-based dishes by 2025 (143). We have not verified the extent to which this commitment has been honoured. Engagement to check on the status of this commitment would be valuable.

  • Single schools, smaller hospitals, universities, and airlines appear substantially smaller in scale and are unlikely to be the best use of limited advocacy capacity except as pilots or stepping stones.

---

Read the report

• Overview and executive summary.

• Part 1: The scale of animal use in India.

• Part 2: Strategies, and asks for aquatic animals.

• Part 3: Asks for land animals, policy and food systems (you are here)

• Download the full report (PDF)

6.0 References

References are not reproduced here for length. All 419 sources cited across the report are listed in full in the PDF, which you can download above.