Preliminary: First Report on Animal Welfare Violations and Regulatory Gaps in Chile
General context
For the past six months we have been conducting research focused on obtaining as much detail as possible on animal welfare infringements in the land animal farming industry along with an in-depth analysis of existing regulation and its shortcomings.
As a preview of our full report set for release in late April, this article presents an in-depth analysis of over 500 pages of official sanction records issued by Chile’s Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG). These records include 15 formal resolutions against companies and individuals involved in the rearing, transport, and slaughter of terrestrial farm animals. Our investigation marks the first large-scale public exposure of widespread animal welfare and sanitary violations in the country.
What emerges from the data is not a series of isolated incidents, but a persistent and deeply rooted pattern of non-compliance. These violations point to a broken system—one in which serious abuses are repeated, normalized, and rarely enforced.
The cases reviewed are governed by Law No. 19.162 and Supreme Decrees Nos. 28, 29, and 30, all issued by Chile’s Ministry of Agriculture. Together, these legal instruments constitute the core regulatory framework overseeing critical stages of animal handling, including confinement, trade, transport, slaughter, and certification.
Legal framework analysed
Law No. 19.162 (1992): Establishes a mandatory system for livestock classification, meat categorisation, and the operation of slaughterhouses, cold storage facilities, and transport systems.
Decree No. 28 (2013): Governs the protection of animals at the time of slaughter in industrial establishments.
Decree No. 29 (2013): Addresses animal welfare in industrial production, livestock markets, circuses, zoos, and exhibition venues.
Decree No. 30 (2013): Regulates the protection of animals during land, maritime, and air transport.
Key mechanisms of animal protection
1. Animal Welfare at the time of slaughter (Decree 28)
This decree regulates practices within industrial slaughterhouses:
Permits specific methods of stunning (electrical, mechanical, gas) in accordance with OIE standards.
Sets strict limits, such as the maximum 60 seconds between stunning and bleeding.
Explicitly bans inhumane practices (e.g. suspending conscious animals, severing the spinal cord, bone fractures).
Requires verification of unconsciousness before proceeding with slaughter.
2. Animal Welfare in production, markets, and exhibitions (Decree 29)
Expands protection to environments where animals are kept or sold:
Mandates adequate facilities with proper space, ventilation, hygiene, and climate control.
Bans harmful handling methods (e.g. striking, dragging, pressure on sensitive body parts).
Requires that any surgical procedures be performed by qualified veterinarians with pain mitigation protocols.
Obliges feeding when animals are held for more than 24 hours in markets.
3. Protection during transport (Decree 30)
Covers one of the most critical stages for animal welfare:
Mandates provision of food, water, and rest when transport exceeds 24 hours.
Requires vehicles to have ventilation, non-slip flooring, temperature protection, and internal partitions.
Applies international standards (OIE, IATA) to maritime and air transport.
Establishes contingency plans and procedures for emergency euthanasia.
Temporal criteria: key timeframes in the regulations
Each decree introduces time-based standards to safeguard animal welfare. However, the level of specificity varies:
Limit between desensitisation and exsanguination:
Decree 28: 60 seconds
Decree 29: Not applicable.
Decree 30: Not applicable.
Maximum fasting or going without food:
Decree 28: 12 hours
Decree 29: 24 hours at fairs.
Decree 30: 24 hours in transport.
Mandatory rest:
Decree 28: Not applicable.
Decree 29: Not applicable.
Decree 30: When transported for more than 24 hours, shall receive at least 8 hours rest.
Frequency of inspection:
Decree 28: Not specified.
Decree 29: “Necessary frequency”
Decree 30: “Frequency required according to travel plan”
The role of public authorities: protection and oversight
All three decrees explicitly designate the Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG) as the competent authority responsible for ensuring compliance and safeguarding animal welfare.
Specifically:
SAG is charged with overseeing facilities, processes, documentation, and transport conditions.
It is empowered to act in emergency situations and to authorise or deny animal entry at borders.
SAG must also approve training courses in animal welfare for staff handling livestock.
However, none of the decrees include explicit sanctions or enforcement procedures in the event of non-compliance.
Sanctions regime: a legal gap in the decrees
Only Law No. 19.162 provides a clear and enforceable sanctions framework:
Fines from 1 to 500 Monthly Tax Units (UTM) for technical or sanitary breaches.
Export bans of up to a lifetime in cases of serious or repeat violations (with a 5-year recurrence period).
Closure of facilities may be imposed in cases of repeated non-compliance.
SAG is authorised to enforce penalties in accordance with its Organic Law.
By contrast, Decrees 28, 29, and 30 operate primarily as preventive regulations without defined enforcement mechanisms.
Reoffending and accumulation of fines
None of the regulations specify the number of fines or infractions that must be accumulated before authorities can order closure or apply heightened penalties.
Only Law No. 19.162 refers to reoffending, but vaguely—without setting a threshold. The exception is for exporters, where the law provides:
“If reoffending occurs within five years of a previous sanction, the party will face a permanent export ban.”
Recognition of the State’s protective role
All three decrees (28, 29, and 30) explicitly assign the State, through the Service of Livestock and Agriculture, SAG in Spanish, a protective function toward animals:
SAG is not only a technical regulator but a guardian of animal welfare, tasked with inspection, approval of facilities, monitoring of transport, and authorisation of procedures in emergencies.
In the case of Decree 30, this role is expanded to international contexts, particularly border control and animal welfare during import/export processes.
Law No. 19.162, however, recognises the role of public authorities indirectly, primarily through the lens of traceability, certification, and sanitary control.
Cases Studied
The 15 cases we studied span the last five years and involve both small operators and large national companies.
Among the most serious findings:
Improper stunning and slaughter: Animals were left conscious during processing, or scalded alive due to faulty or missing equipment.
Fires in facilities with no emergency protocols, leaving animals without food or water for over 30 hours.
Unregulated veterinary drug use, including unprescribed and off-label medication in non-approved species.
Mass mortalities — up to 84% in some poultry sheds — left unreported, and decomposing carcasses found next to live animals.
Animals transported in unacceptable conditions, with injuries, open wounds, or amputations, in unsanitised vehicles often driven by uncertified personnel.
Grave structural and hygiene deficiencies, including faeces in water sources, broken infrastructure, unlabelled medicated feed, and illegal handling of decomposed or condemned meat.
Who is involved?
These infractions are widespread and span the entire production chain. One of the most striking cases involves a leading Chilean agroindustrial company, Sopraval, with USD 79.4 million in national sales (2019) and a capacity of 17,500 tonnes of feed per month. This company alone was responsible for over 200 pages of violations, including:
Use of unauthorised veterinary drugs
Overcrowding, deprivation of water and feed
Improper stunning methods, including the use of electric prods
Failure to report large-scale deaths
Persistent unsanitary conditions in slaughter facilities
Despite this, many of their fines remain unpaid, and no further legal action has been taken by authorities.
Fines imposed by the SAG ranged from 3 to 250 UTM (200 to 18,000 USD), with several companies receiving multiple sanctions across different cases.
In only three cases, the infractions were so severe that SAG referred them to the Public Prosecutor under Article 291 bis of the Criminal Code for potential criminal charges of animal cruelty.
Out of hundreds of resolutions issued by the SAG, this exposé examined only 15 cases— and every single one revealed serious violations.
Company #1 and the legal ambiguity exposed
The lack of regulatory specificity is worrying, as it creates loopholes for companies to defend or excuse improper conduct. This was evident in the case of Company #1, where an improper bird desensitisation procedure was verified by inspectors.
Findings:
90% of birds showed corneal reflex and regained posture after supposed stunning, with two live chickens ultimately entering the scalding tank while still conscious.Sanction:
The company was fined 50 UTM (around 3,600 USD) for violating Articles 17 and 23 of Decree 28.Company’s defence:
“Notwithstanding the above, in its opinion there is still no exact regulation that determines the correct desensitisation, especially the corneal reflex, other signs being defined as safe, such as absence of breathing, position of the wings, neck, etc., not mentioned by the inspector. Decree 28 does not define the corneal sign as a safe sign of desensitisation.”
SAG’s response:
The argument was rejected. SAG confirmed the infraction, citing the following legal basis:Decree 28, Article 17, first paragraph: “The personnel in charge of desensitisation must take the necessary measures when an animal has not been correctly desensitised, in order to avoid unnecessary suffering”.
Decree 28, Article 23: “Bleeding of animals must be carried out immediately after desensitisation and the loss of consciousness and sensibility must be maintained until the death of the animal. In animals which are not exsanguinated after desensitisation, special care must be taken to maintain the loss of consciousness and sensibility until death.
The interval between desensitisation and exsanguination will depend on the method used, as well as the species and category of animal involved. Depending on these factors, the personnel in charge of the process should set a maximum interval between the two stages to ensure that the animals do not regain consciousness. In the case of the use of head-only electronarcosis, this period shall not exceed 30 seconds on average and 60 seconds on average in the case of narcosis with gas, concussion with penetrating and non-penetrating captive bolt, and head-to-body electronarcosis”.
Decree 1375, Technical Norm No. 117, numerals 32, 78 and 81:
32. “Bleeding of birds shall be carried out immediately after insensitisation, by cutting the cervical blood vessels. This procedure can be manual or mechanical”.
However, we found no mention of the corneal reflex. We appreciate the application of criteria by the SAG, but in order to avoid situations like this in the future and to sanction those that are occurring at the moment, further specification is necessary.
This case underscores the urgent need to close legal loopholes, define clear operational standards, and limit interpretative ambiguity that companies may use to downplay animal welfare failures.
Preliminary conclusion
Chile’s regulatory framework for animal welfare in the livestock and meat industry has made notable progress, especially through the decrees 28, 29 and 30 that introduced modern standards for animal handling across different stages of the production chain.
However, significant gaps remain:
The legal framework is fragmented and lacks an integrated vision of animal protection.
The absence of defined sanctions, enforcement procedures, and accumulation thresholds in the decrees weakens their practical impact.
There is no mechanism for automatic updating of technical standards, despite referencing international bodies like the OIE.
A more comprehensive and coherent legal approach is needed—one that consolidates the current decrees, reinforces the protective role of SAG, and brings Chile closer to international animal welfare benchmarks.
Note: This article is a preview of our full report to be released in April 2025.
For enquiries or to share your feedback, please contact us at hello@animallawfocus.org