94 A Nurse However, UK legislation in the form of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 subtly shifts the anthropocentric position in respect of non-human companions by imposing a duty of care towards such companions The UK Animal Welfare Acts3 consider companion animals (non-human animals living in human homes such as dogs and cats) to be protected animals that are legally considered to be ‘owned’ or cared for by a ‘responsible’ person This includes somebody who has accepted some form of obligation to look after them, even if that only means putting out food The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is part of UK criminal law, creating new offences in respect of failure to adequately care for non-human companions (Nurse and Ryland 2014) Schaffner (2011) identifies the UK as having one of the strongest traditions of anti-cruelty laws although a duty of care towards non-human animals exists in various forms within US state anti-cruelty and welfare statutes The Animal Welfare Act 2006, however, retains the offence of causing unnecessary suffering from previous legislation but considerably refines its scope to incorporate both the active and passive nature of an offence (discussed later) Nurse and Ryland (2013) argue that contemporary law provides for a number of ways in which neglect caused by keeping too many animals or keeping animals in poor conditions is actionable For example adverse animal conditions could constitute a nuisance subject to enforcement action by a local authority and/or the Magistrates court in the UK The UK Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) defines nuisance as an act or omission resulting in ‘unacceptable interference with the personal comfort or amenity of neighbours or the nearby community’ (Section 79 of the Act) Noise and odour can constitute a statutory nuisance, thus keeping too many animals with consequential noise or odour problems caused to neighbours would constitute enforceable environmental health problems Local authorities have a duty to investigate and detect any statutory nuisances occurring within their jurisdiction as part of their environmental health obligations UK legislation and case law also defines nuisance in particular contexts containing specific reference to ‘any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance’ (Section 79 (1)(f) of the EPA 1990)4 Schaffner (2011, pp 120–121) similarly notes the public health, safety and welfare concerns of animal neglect in US law, commenting on contrasting challenges to ‘pet limit’ laws in Pennsylvania and Minnesota While the intention of the Act is likely to protect human health, it is worth noting that harm caused to the health of a non-human animal might constitute a nuisance on a strict reading of sections 78 and 79 Section 78 talks about harm in terms of harm to ‘living organisms’ and does not specifically refer to human harm