Many bills introduced in Brazil’s National Congress, but few aim to improve conditions for farmed animals
World Congress on Bioethics and Animal Law in Manaus exposes a gap in Brazilian legislation: while the country is making progress in recognizing animals as subjects of legal protection, billions of animals subjected to production systems remain largely invisible in the political agenda
When a country begins to legally recognize that animals feel pain and suffering, an inevitable question arises: what does this recognition actually change in practice?
Does it change the way the State formulates public policies? The way it allocates budgets? Legislation? Enforcement? The way we produce food?
Or are we simply expanding the vocabulary of animal protection without actually changing the structures that determine the lives — and deaths — of billions of animals?
This was one of the questions that emerged from the 10th World Congress on Bioethics and Animal Law, held in Manaus from September 2 to 7 under the theme “World Animal Law Post-COP30.” The event brought together researchers, veterinarians, legal scholars and experts to discuss the relationship between Animal Law, climate, biodiversity, public policy and justice.
“The 10th World Congress on Bioethics and Animal Law is the realization of an academic space dedicated to discussing, disseminating and developing Animal Law. Renowned speakers from Brazil and abroad joined us and offered important reflections. It was both a great responsibility and a great honor to hold the congress in Manaus.”
— Denison Melo de Aguiar, Professor at the State University of Amazonas (UEA) and President of the 10th World Congress on Bioethics and Animal Law
And one figure presented during the congress stands out: of the 35 legislative proposals related to animal protection identified in a survey presented by Arthur Regis, Public Policy Specialist at Sinergia Animal, only three focused on farmed animals. In other words, fewer than one in ten proposals.
“This figure is important because it shows how the issue is perceived by members of Congress, which is ultimately reflected in the number of bills currently under consideration.”
— Arthur Regis, Public Policy Specialist at Sinergia Animal
Brazil is making progress. But progress for whom?
It would be wrong to say that nothing is happening.
The survey presented by Arthur Regis identified four recent legislative advances related to animal protection: the creation of Golden July; the Policy for the Reception and Management of Rescued Animals (AMAR); regulations establishing shared custody of companion animals following the dissolution of a marriage or domestic partnership; and the prohibition of force-feeding animals to produce foods such as foie gras.
The latter became Law No. 15,475/2026, which prohibits the production and sale of food products obtained through the force-feeding of animals.
These are important advances.
But they also make the question more urgent:
If we already recognize that animals need legal protection, why does that protection still reach animals subjected to production systems so unevenly?
The proposals presented at the scientific event were divided into five broad categories: general protection and legal reforms; animal cruelty and criminal accountability; community animals, dogs and cats; education; and farmed animals.
There were 15 proposals addressing animal cruelty and criminal accountability; five concerning community animals, dogs and cats; seven focused on education; five addressing general legal reforms; and only three concerning farmed animals.
This is not about establishing a hierarchy among animals.
It is about recognizing a political imbalance.
Who represents the interests of animals who have no one to represent them?
Dogs and cats have guardians, dedicated organizations, strong emotional bonds with the public and growing legal recognition.
Wild animals are increasingly protected within the framework of biodiversity conservation.
But what about the animals who are born, live and die within production systems?
Pigs. Chickens. Cows. Fish. Turkeys. Ducks.
They are among the most numerous animals on the planet and among those most directly affected by the economic, regulatory and environmental decisions of the State. Yet they are still frequently treated — including in legal frameworks — first as units of production rather than as sentient individuals.
“We need to fundamentally rethink the relationship between human beings and all other animals, especially farmed animals. There is no longer a sound basis for maintaining many of the practices used by agribusiness.”
— Arthur Regis, Public Policy Specialist at Sinergia Animal
This is one of the frontiers that contemporary Animal Law is beginning to confront.
And it is not only an ethical issue.
It is also a public policy issue.
The congress program itself included a session dedicated to the relationship between meat, climate, the Constitution, livestock production, and the climate emergency, bringing animal production systems into a discussion traditionally dominated by environmental and economic perspectives.
The climate crisis also has animal victims — but they rarely appear in climate policy
This may be where the debate in Manaus takes on an even broader dimension.
During the opening of the congress, legal scholar Tagore Trajano called for precisely this shift in perspective: it is not enough to speak about biodiversity or forests in the abstract. We need to see animals as individuals.
“The agenda is about integrating the elements of nature — climate, biodiversity, forests, water, people and justice — and understanding that there is one fundamental link still neglected within this framework: the individual animal.”
The next question is unavoidable:
How can we formulate climate policies that recognize deforestation, ecosystem degradation and greenhouse gas emissions while failing to adequately consider the animals who suffer the consequences of these transformations?
Droughts, wildfires, floods, heatwaves, habitat loss, pollution and extreme weather events do not affect only “biodiversity.”
They affect individuals.
And this shift in language matters because what public policy is able to see is also what it is able to protect.
Recognizing sentience must have consequences
This is where Animal Law meets public policy.
Recognizing that animals are sentient cannot remain merely a philosophical or legal statement.
If an animal is capable of positive and negative experiences — if it feels pain, suffering and fear — that fact should have consequences for the policies that determine its existence.
In legislation. In enforcement. In emergency protocols. In production systems. In public funding criteria. In education. In environmental and climate policies.
And this raises another question:
Where are the public policies capable of addressing, at scale, the living conditions of animals within food systems?
Animal production is shaped by public decisions concerning agriculture, the environment, credit, international trade, food security, sanitary regulation, research, innovation and economic development.
Yet animal welfare is often treated as a secondary issue, separated from these broader agendas.
That needs to change.
Because food production policy is also animal policy.
Climate policy is also animal policy.
Biodiversity policy is also animal policy.
We need to change the place animals occupy within the State
This may be the most important political legacy of the Manaus congress.
The event helped advance a debate that challenges a State capable of producing policies that systematically overlook the interests of animals.
That means moving beyond isolated responses to cruelty and beginning to discuss structure, budgets, governance, enforcement, political representation and the design of public policies.
This is where animal advocacy becomes essential.
Arthur Regis's presentation at the congress addressed advocacy as a tool used by civil society organizations to influence the formulation and implementation of public policies, particularly those affecting farmed animals.
“Animals do not vote, occupy positions of power or participate in the decisions that determine their own lives. That is why advocacy is so important: someone needs to bring their interests to the tables where policies are made.”
For Sinergia Animal, this agenda is particularly important because farmed animals are precisely where law, economics, politics and food systems intersect.
The question that remains after Manaus
The Manaus Charter, developed at the end of the congress, points toward a broader agenda by calling for the integration of Animal Law, Environmental Law and Climate Law, and by proposing that animal suffering be taken into account in climate adaptation policies.
“The Manaus Charter brings elements that require attention, development and implementation by the State and society, with the aim of building a more ethical, just and sustainable future for all living beings.”
— Nina Disconzi, Professor at the Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM) and President of the Animal Abolitionist Institute (IAA)
But perhaps the most important contribution of the gathering is not another document.
It is the question it leaves for governments, Congress, companies and society:
If we already know that animals are sentient and are subjects deserving of protection, how much longer will we accept public policies that treat their interests as an exception?
Brazil has already begun to recognize animals in law. The next step is to recognize animals in politics.
And that means giving visibility to those who remain invisible in the policies we are creating.
