Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42164022›Full record

ReviewAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2026

No mention of animal welfare in the United Nations' sustainable development goals? But this may be a good thing!

Jacob Bull, Birte L Nielsen, Anna Silvera, Håkan Tunon, Linda J Keeling

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jacob BullCentre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9579-6157
Birte L NielsenUniversities Federation for Animal Welfare, Wheathampstead, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1371-6329
Anna SilveraThe Swedish Poultry Meat Association, Sweden.
Håkan TunonSwedish Biodiversity Centre, Swedish Species Information Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Linda J KeelingDept of Applied Animal Science and Welfare, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this Opinion Paper, we argue that the absence of animal welfare in the United Nations' sustainable development goals (SDGs) may not be as detrimental as some suggest. We put forward the view that the welfare of animals is an integral part of the concept of sustainability, that development which affects animals cannot be sustainable without due consideration to their welfare, and we give examples in support of this position. Put simply: no mention means animal welfare could be, and potentially should be, anywhere and everywhere in the goals. For livestock species, we submit that the synergies between the SDGs when animal welfare is included greatly outweigh the conflicts usually highlighted. Further, considering animal welfare as both an achievable goal and as a mechanism for sustainable development allows improvement of animal welfare to carry the weight it warrants: an animal with poor welfare is not a sustainable animal. By extension, products from animals with poor welfare cannot be considered sustainable, and animal welfare is necessarily included in a well-functioning ecosystem. Through the paper we argue that the challenge is not to add in animal welfare, but to think sustainability

Indexed as

Animal WelfareDevelopmentFood ProductionSDGsSustainability

Identifiers

PMID42164022
PMCPMC13184563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.