When we extend our point of view to industrial farming, it inevitably has to be concluded that intensive, industrial farming and the export of its products will have to be given up.
A side-advantage of such a development is that by doing so other (environmental) problems too are finally solved as well (manure surplusses f.e.).
Eating meat in the current quantities is not necessary and we are able to come up with both tasty and healthy alternatives. Therefore it's time for a historical breach in our attitude towards nature and the animal as sources of exploitation.

When animal rights are being established legally, then it must be possible to enforce such rights. Without such a possibility, a right has no value.
Of course an animal cannot and does not have to make an appeal to its rights all by itself. Animal rights exist for people, to enable them to make other people answer for their deeds.

The legal position of an animal ought to be comparable to the position of a child. Some sort of institute that can be compared with the national societies for child protection, should be given the authority to actually intervene when the well-being of the animal is in danger. The legal representatives of animal interests should be able to act more vigorous. Now they have to await developments and prove that well-being is at stake, while the fatal border has since long been crossed. Also when far in advance it can be predicted that the animal will start to suffer as a consequence of an extreme limitation of its freedom, even then it is not permitted to intervene.

  The impression is created that the government wants to withdraw itself from its responsibility.
The government wants two things that are incompatible: on the one hand keep the consumer satisfied by low marketprices, and on the other hand keep the manufacturer happy by letting him earn a high income. By leaving the welfare of animals up to the "self-regulating" influence of the industry, the agrarian community or to the hunting-associations, the government damns the animal.
Only the consumer can, by selective purchases, in fact slightly adjust developments then.
In human administration of justice too, we would shudder at the thought that our rights would exclusively be a matter of money or public opinion.

Of course we realize that handling a notion such as freedom requires further completion and realization before it can become applicable in legal practice. The extensibility of the notion "freedom" is, however, no plea against its inclusion in the law or a reason to call for postponement, but on the contrary it adds a challenge. Once the limitations of animal freedom have been laid down in the law, it becomes easier to confirm any case of depriving an animal of its freedom.

In nature, freedom of movement for animals is innate for several million years. Apart from man there is hardly any other creature that takes away the freedom of an other creature (for such a long period of time and in such extreme ways), in order to make it serve as a consumption-article in the end.
Humanity has an experience of many thousands of years in embedding and defending its freedom on legal grounds. Aren't we ready then to get by something similar for animals?