Critics of animal welfare improvements often argue they are prohibitively expensive. The evidence on the actual cost of welfare improvements — and their economic co-benefits — reveals that many improvements are more affordable than commonly claimed.
The economic argument against welfare improvement is frequently overstated. For many welfare interventions, the cost is genuinely small — enrichment provision, improved handling, and pain relief for routine procedures cost less than their opponents suggest. For others, the cost is real but compensated by co-benefits: reduced medication costs, lower mortality, improved feed conversion, and reduced labour for injury management. The cases where cost is genuinely prohibitive — eliminating sow stalls, switching to slow-growing broiler breeds, eliminating battery cages — require either consumer willingness to pay a premium or policy-driven level playing fields that prevent lower-welfare producers from undercutting higher-welfare ones. Trade policy is therefore a critical component of welfare economics: welfare improvements are economically viable if all market participants face equivalent standards.