Animal Welfare Is Not The Same As Animal Wellbeing. Why Does That Matter?
- Victoria Elsmore
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
When we talk about how animals are treated, two concepts often get used interchangeably; animal welfare and animal wellbeing.
Whilst, at first glance the terms themselves sound similar and the culture surrounding them may be perceived as being similar, the reality is they are two different concepts.
Concerns arise when considering the human cultural associations made with the term "wellbeing".
In the human world "wellbeing" is defined by the World Health Organisation as
"A positive state of living as a result of good physical, mental and social health, not simply the absence of illness and disease."
We are encouraged through cultural media such as television, books, social media and peer culture to take care of ourselves in order that we might optimise our bodies to achieve more mentally and physically and avoid burnout.
Welfare is different
Welfare vs. Wellbeing: What’s the Difference?
Wellbeing is a broad, somewhat subjective idea. It refers to how an overall feeling or state of contenment, an ambiguous sense and idea. It lacks precision.
Make no mistake, Animal Welfare is a science. It is a specific and rigorous scientific discipline grounded in evidence, measurement and repeatable assessment.
Rather than asking simply “Is this animal happy?”, animal welfare science asks structured questions based upon decades of scientific enquiry.
The five freedoms are the foundational principles on which animal welfare is measured. They remove ambiguity around ethical concerns and provide a structure around how welfare can be measured. In short, they provide a framework of practical, testable principles.
Freedom from hunger and thirst
Access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health
Freedom from discomfort
Providing an appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area
Freedom from pain, injury, or disease
Prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
Freedom to express normal behavior
Sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal’s own kind
Freedom from fear and distress
Conditions that avoid mental suffering
Whilst the Five Freedoms has been one of the most influential frameworks within the science, welfare scientists are continually asking further questions within each freedom, constantly refining and redefining what it means (by species) to satisfy each freedom to its optimum level.
This distinction between animal welfare and animal wellbeing matters because welfare is not based on opinion, it is based on scientific data.
The Birth of Animal Welfare Science
Animal welfare as a formal science is young. It was born out of concerns raised by a book written by Ruth Harrison called "Animal Machines" (1964) which detailed the extreme shortfalls in the intensive farming systems. The publication exposed the conditions of factory farming and sparked public debate followed by political action in the form of the Brambell Commitee and the Brambell Report in 1965.
It was the Brambell Committee that introduced what would later evolve into the “Five Freedoms,”
It did not take scientist long to formalise the field. One of the most influential figures was Donald Broom, who in the 1970s helped define animal welfare as a measurable concept, linking it to an animal’s ability to cope with its environment. His work firmly established welfare as a legitimate branch of science, not just ethics. He drew the line that scientists use today between ethics and welfare.
The scientific foundation of welfare rests on empirical research in biology, behaviour, physiology, and veterinary science.
Today, those working with animals should use the research of welfare scientist to better inform the choices we make as to whether an animal is being taken care of to the most up to date standards researched in animal welfare science, not simply a cultural ideal, but something measurable, peer reviewed and rigorous.
Why Representation Matters
Because animal welfare is a science, how we represent it matters enormously.
Every guideline, regulation, or certification standard tied to animal welfare, whether in farming, zoos, laboratories, or pet care is built on scientific research. These are not arbitrary rules or purely moral preferences. They are based on studies measuring stress hormones, injury rates, behavioural indicators, and long-term health outcomes.
For example:
Space requirements for animals are derived from behavioural studies.
Transport regulations are based on physiological stress responses.
When we confuse welfare with vague ideas of wellbeing, we risk undermining this scientific foundations and the many years of research work of meticulous, passionate and dedicated scientists. Decisions may then be driven by sentiment rather than evidence, which can lead to outcomes that feel right but do not actually improve the animal’s condition.
Welfare as Evidence, Not Opinion
One of the strengths of animal welfare science is that it allows for objective assessment. Scientists can compare different housing systems, handling practices, or enrichment strategies and determine which leads to better outcomes for the animal.
As a science animal welfare is constantly evolving. When new research emerges, standards improve. What was acceptable years ago may no longer meet today’s scientific understanding. The more we support our animal welfare scientists and science based stakeholders such as veterinarians and behaviourists the faster the science moves on and the better the world we create for the animals that lean on us for their care and handling.
Why This Distinction Matters More Than Ever
In an era of increasing awareness about how animals are treated, clarity is critical. If we want meaningful improvements in how animals live, we need to rely on frameworks that are measurable, testable, and grounded in science.
So when considering recent conversations in the media, we have to ask ourselves if the questions have been asked of science and has science provided the answers.
Yes they have.
Are the dogs showing signs of discomfort as a result of their physical traits?
Can the dogs perform their full repetoire of natural behaviours or are they restricted due to mobility and conformation
Are the dogs free from pain and disease as a result of their physical traits or are their physical traits a causal factor in their pain or disease?
Are the dogs free from fear and distress or does pain result in amplified experiences of these emotions?
Animal wellbeing may guide our empathy—but animal welfare guides our actions.
My advice to anybody considering the current conversations is the remove the emotion, remove the subjectivity and lean into the science.
Understanding the difference ensures that when we advocate for animals, we are not just expressing concern—we are supporting solutions that have been proven to work.And that is ultimately what animals need most.