How The Law Fails Them
.png)
How the Law Should Protect Them — and How It Actually Fails
Every animal in the UK — including rabbits and rodents — has a legal right to good welfare. That right comes from the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which isn’t just a list of rules: it’s a positive duty of care requiring guardians to meet an animal’s essential needs. In practice, though, too many animals are still living lives that fall far short of what science and welfare experts tell us they truly need.
In this section we explore the five legal welfare needs — what they mean in everyday life, why they matter, and where the system is failing animals because enforcement and awareness lag far behind what the law intends.
1. A Suitable Environment
The Animal Welfare Act states that animals must be provided with a suitable environment
For rabbits and rodents, this means more than simply having shelter. Science tells us that they need enough space to move freely, exercise, explore, rest, and feel secure.
Despite this, small hutches, cages and enclosures that restrict movement and limit natural behaviour are still widely sold and promoted as suitable homes. These products do not meet the physical or behavioural needs of these animals, yet they remain readily available and widely accepted.
.png)
.png)
The two enclosures shown here are both legally sold for hamsters in the UK — but they do not offer the same level of welfare.
The enclosure on the left (50 × 36 × 29 cm) is frequently marketed as “extra large”. However, research shows that enclosures of this size do not provide sufficient space for hamsters to move freely, explore, or exhibit normal behaviour. Housing of this scale is associated with increased stress and poor welfare outcomes.
The Bucatstate enclosure on the right (120 × 60 × 60 cm) is one of the few commercially available options that aligns with minimum enclosure sizes recommended by peer-reviewed studies. This scale of space allows for greater movement, exploration, and environmental complexity, supporting significantly better welfare.
Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, animals must be kept in an environment suited to their species-specific needs. When we compare these two enclosures alongside what science tells us about hamster welfare, it raises an important question: why are products that fall so far short of those needs still legally sold and widely promoted?
We have a law that recognises the need for a suitable environment. We have scientific evidence showing what that environment must include.
So why are products that clearly fail to meet these needs still considered acceptable?
2. A Suitable Diet
The Animal Welfare Act requires that animals are provided with a suitable diet, appropriate to their species and their health.
Science gives us a clear understanding of what this means in practice. Diet plays a central role in long-term welfare, influencing dental health, digestion, metabolic function and lifespan.
For rabbits, muesli-style mixes are widely recognised as problematic. They encourage selective feeding and are linked to obesity and dental disease, undermining both physical health and welfare over time.
Many rodent mixes also contain ingredients that are inappropriate for certain species, including high-fat foods such as peanuts and sugary items like raisins. For animals such as chinchillas and degus, these ingredients pose a serious risk, as they are unable to process sugars and fats effectively. Prolonged exposure can lead to severe illness, including liver disease and organ failure.
Treats marketed for small animals are often high in sugar or fat, or contain ingredients that are unsuitable for the species they are sold for, despite being presented as safe or beneficial.
Both of the foods shown here are marketed for rabbits and described as providing a “healthy, balanced diet”. At first glance, the difference between them can be misleading.
Muesli-style mixes are often colourful and visually appealing, which can make them seem interesting or enriching to us as humans. Extruded pellets, by comparison, may appear plain or unexciting. However, appearance is not a reliable indicator of nutritional value — and in this case, the more visually appealing option is also the one most likely to undermine welfare.
Dietary fibre is essential for rabbits. A high-fibre diet supports normal gut movement, maintains a healthy balance of bacteria in the caecum, and plays a key role in dental wear and overall digestive health.
The muesli-style mix shown contains around 10% crude fibre, significantly lower than levels recommended for good rabbit welfare. It also contains grains and dried fruit, which are not a natural part of a rabbit’s diet. These ingredients can disrupt the delicate bacterial balance within the caecum, raising caecal pH and increasing the risk of digestive upset and long-term gut problems.
By contrast, the extruded pellet shown contains approximately 25% crude fibre, supporting more stable gut function and reducing the risk of selective feeding. Extruded pellets ensure a consistent nutritional intake, helping to protect both digestive and dental health.
There is also a notable difference in calcium content. The muesli mix contains around 0.9% calcium, compared to 0.6% in the pellet. Rabbits absorb calcium differently from many other species, with excess calcium excreted through the urine. Diets unnecessarily high in calcium can therefore contribute to urinary issues, including bladder sludge.
We understand the science behind rabbit nutrition. We know the importance of fibre, appropriate calcium levels, and gut health.
So why are diets that undermine these principles still sold and promoted as healthy, balanced foods for rabbits?
3. The Ability to Exhibit Natural Behaviours
The Animal Welfare Act recognises that animals must be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. This reflects a core principle of welfare science: animals need the freedom to behave in ways that are natural and meaningful to their species.
When environments restrict movement or limit opportunities for exploration and choice, animals may develop behaviours that reflect stress or frustration rather than good welfare. These behaviours are often misunderstood as “activity” or “play”, when in reality they can indicate that essential behavioural needs are not being met.
This is particularly clear when we look at species whose natural behaviour depends on complex use of space.
.png)
.jpg)
Gerbils are a burrowing species. In the wild, they create extensive underground tunnel systems used for nesting, food storage, movement, and security. Good welfare depends not just on the ability to dig, but on having enough space and depth to build and maintain connected burrow systems.
The enclosure shown on the left is too small to allow this. While gerbils may dig at the corners or along the base of the cage, this behaviour does not reflect natural burrowing. Instead, it is commonly seen when animals are confined in environments that prevent normal behavioural expression. Repetitive corner digging can be a sign of frustration and unmet needs, rather than enrichment.
The enclosure shown on the right provides sufficient space and substrate depth for gerbils to create tunnels, chambers and escape routes. This allows them to organise their environment, move naturally, and engage in behaviours that are central to their wellbeing.
The Animal Welfare Act requires that animals are able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. Science shows us what normal behaviour looks like for different species, and what they need in order to express it.
So why are enclosures that prevent these behaviours still widely sold and marketed as suitable homes?
4. Appropriate Companionship
The Animal Welfare Act requires that animals are housed with or apart from others as appropriate to their species. This wording is important: good welfare depends on meeting the social needs of the individual animal, not applying a single rule to all species.
Some animals, such as hamsters, are solitary and can experience stress if housed with others. For these species, good welfare means safe, appropriate solitude.
However, many of the species commonly kept as companions — including rabbits, guinea pigs and rats — are highly social. For them, companionship is a fundamental welfare need, supporting emotional wellbeing, confidence, communication and normal behaviour.
Despite this, it remains entirely legal to purchase a single animal of a social species and intentionally keep them alone.
.png)
.png)
Guinea pigs are a highly social, herd-living species. They rely on companionship from others of their own kind for safety, communication and emotional wellbeing. Guinea pigs communicate constantly through a wide range of vocalisations, body language and social interactions, using sound to maintain contact, express emotion and navigate their environment together.
When kept alone, guinea pigs may survive, but welfare evidence and experience show that isolation can lead to stress, anxiety, reduced confidence and abnormal behaviours. The absence of social interaction removes an essential part of how guinea pigs experience and respond to the world around them.
And yet, it remains entirely legal to purchase and intentionally keep a single guinea pig without companionship. This continues not because the social needs of guinea pigs are unclear, but because there is no meaningful mechanism in place to prevent social animals from being kept alone.
The law recognises that animals must have appropriate companionship for their species. Science clearly tells us which animals are social and which are solitary, and what they need in order to experience good welfare.
So why is it still legal to intentionally keep social animals alone?
5. Protection from Pain, Suffering, Injury and Disease
The Animal Welfare Act requires that animals are protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. This includes not only responding to illness or injury, but also preventing harm wherever possible.
Many welfare issues seen in rabbits and rodents are not unavoidable. They are the direct result of environments, equipment or products that increase the risk of injury, discomfort or long-term health problems — even though safer alternatives exist.
When suffering can be prevented through appropriate design and informed choices, allowing harmful products to remain widely sold represents a failure to protect animal welfare.
.png)
.jpg)
Exercise wheels are commonly marketed for small animals, including rats, hamsters, mice and gerbils. Movement and activity are important for welfare — but only when they can be carried out safely.
Many commercially available wheels are too small, forcing animals to run with a curved spine. Over time, this unnatural posture can place strain on the spine and joints, contributing to pain and long-term musculoskeletal problems.
Other wheel designs introduce additional risks. Spoked or barred wheels can trap feet, toes or tails, leading to injuries that are entirely preventable. These risks are well recognised within welfare guidance, yet unsafe designs remain widely available.
Larger, solid-surface wheels that allow animals to run with a straight back do exist, but they are far less commonly available and are often produced by smaller, welfare-focused businesses rather than the mainstream pet trade. The difference in welfare outcome between unsafe and appropriate designs is clear.
The Animal Welfare Act requires protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease. Science clearly shows how product design and size directly affect safety and long-term health across different species — and how inappropriate design leads to preventable suffering.
So why are products that create avoidable risk and suffering still widely sold for animals they can harm?
Where Do We Go From Here?
Across housing, diet, behaviour, companionship and health, a clear pattern emerges.
We have legislation that recognises animals have welfare needs.
We have scientific evidence showing what rabbits and rodents need to live healthy, enriched lives.
And yet, products and practices that actively undermine welfare remain widely sold, promoted and normalised.
The result is preventable suffering — not because knowledge is lacking, but because current laws and guidance do not go far enough to reflect what science now tells us about these species.
Rabbits and rodents are among the most commonly kept companion animals in the UK. They deserve the same level of protection, understanding and welfare consideration as any other animal we choose to bring into our homes.
At Nibbles, we believe it is time for animal welfare legislation and guidance to be strengthened and updated to properly reflect the needs of rabbits and rodents — so that the standards animals deserve are not optional, but expected.
While change at a legislative level takes time, there is still so much guardians can do right now. Our Care Hub is designed to support everyday guardians with clear, evidence-based guidance on housing, diet, enrichment and care — helping ensure the animals they share their lives with have what they need to experience good welfare.
Together, through better understanding, better standards and better protection, we can move closer to a future where rabbits and rodents are no longer overlooked — and are finally given the lives they deserve.
Here at Nibbles, we will continue to fight for the welfare needs of rabbits and rodents to be taken seriously, alongside our rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming work. This advocacy matters — but it is only possible because of public support.
We receive no statutory funding and are entirely reliant on donations to continue both our frontline rescue work and our efforts to improve welfare standards more widely. If you would like to support what we do, you can help through a one-off donation or by becoming one of our monthly supporters. Even a small regular contribution makes a real difference, helping us protect individual animals today while working towards lasting change for many more.
Together, we can ensure rabbits and rodents are not just rescued when things go wrong — but are given the understanding, protection and welfare they deserve from the start.