16 July 2024

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has released a scientific opinion addressing the use of high expansion foam for the stunning and killing of pigs and poultry in situations other than slaughter, such as emergency depopulation purposes. We call on the European Commission to take this latest opinion into account, and also advocate for the continuous improvement and adoption of the most humane methods available in this sector.

Read the scientific opinion here.

The scientific community recognises that farm animals are still stunned and slaughtered with methods capable of negatively impacting their welfare. This new opinion highlights that high expansion foam is an alternative to existing methods for the stunning and killing of pigs and poultry in situations other than slaughter, but also stresses some important animal welfare hazards along with potential mitigation strategies. 

Eurogroup for Animals commends EFSA for this important assessment, which evaluates the welfare implications of using high expansion foam filled with nitrogen to induce anoxia, leading to unconsciousness and death in pigs and poultry. This method involves displacing air in a container with foam and using a nitrogen jet to burst the bubbles, thereby creating an oxygen-deprived environment.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has released a scientific opinion addressing the use of high expansion foam for the stunning and killing of pigs and poultry in situations other than slaughter, such as emergency depopulation purposes. We call on the European Commission to take this latest opinion into account, and also advocate for the continuous improvement and adoption of the most humane methods available in this sector.

Read the scientific opinion here.

The scientific community recognises that farm animals are still stunned and slaughtered with methods capable of negatively impacting their welfare. This new opinion highlights that high expansion foam is an alternative to existing methods for the stunning and killing of pigs and poultry in situations other than slaughter, but also stresses some important animal welfare hazards along with potential mitigation strategies. 

Eurogroup for Animals commends EFSA for this important assessment, which evaluates the welfare implications of using high expansion foam filled with nitrogen to induce anoxia, leading to unconsciousness and death in pigs and poultry. This method involves displacing air in a container with foam and using a nitrogen jet to burst the bubbles, thereby creating an oxygen-deprived environment.

Key findings of the EFSA opinion include:

·       Animal welfare equivalence: The EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) concluded that the use of high expansion foam ensures a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to existing methods, such as exposure to high concentrations of carbon dioxide or electrocution via water baths, especially in whole-house gassing scenarios;

·       Welfare hazards and mitigation: The opinion identifies potential haza

Key findings of the EFSA opinion include:

·       Animal welfare equivalence: The EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) concluded that the use of high expansion foam ensures a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to existing methods, such as exposure to high concentrations of carbon dioxide or electrocution via water baths, especially in whole-house gassing scenarios;

·       Welfare hazards and mitigation: The opinion identifies potential hazards associated with the foam, including the need for proper training and certification of handlers, strict adherence to key parameters, and having backup methods ready to prevent animals from regaining consciousness;

·       Recommendations for best practices: EFSA recommends that procedures should only commence when all critical parameters are met. Animals should be handled calmly to avoid stress, and a reliable monitoring system should confirm death before carcass disposal. Additionally, further research is necessary to validate results and improve monitoring techniques;

·       Extent of application: The current assessment is limited to laying hens, broiler chickens of all ages, and pigs weighing between 15 and 41 kg. 

These findings are of particular importance considering that large-scale depopulation operations are increasing in the EU due to constant outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and African swine fever (ASF). We hope that, in light of the new EFSA study and the recurrent problems encountered by Member States in killing large numbers of animals due to disease outbreaks, ensuring humane depopulation methods will become a priority for the European Commission. 

While EFSA’s opinion supports the equivalence of high expansion foam with current methods, Eurogroup for Animals emphasises that ‘tolerable’ methods are not sufficient. 

We advocate for the continuous improvement and adoption of the most humane methods available.

In the meantime, updating the applicable regulations to reflect the latest knowledge on animal welfare during slaughter – including this latest opinion by EFSA – will help minimise suffering across this sector. We believe that a comprehensive approach is needed to ensure that the equipment used and procedures followed in slaughterhouses do not cause unnecessary fear, pain and distress to farm animals, and call on the European Commission to take the following actions:

·       Replace outdated and less effective stunning methods with more humane alternatives;

·       Ensure all animals are adequately stunned before slaughter;

·       Ban the use of electric prods and high-concentration CO2 stunning for pigs;

·       Ban the use of water bath stunning for chickens.

Learn more about what we are asking for in this industry in our recent white paper. 

 Regards Mark

15 July 2024

Animal Protection Denmark

On June 24 the Danish government, along with several organisations, created an “Agreement on a Green Denmark”: a plan to make the farming sector more climate- and environmentally-friendly. However, several NGOs, including our members Animal Protection Denmark and World Animal Protection Denmark, have pointed out this agreement falls far short in achieving a more sustainable food and farming system, and have signed an open letter calling on the government to rethink its plans.

To make our food and farming systems fit for the future, it’s critical there is a higher uptake in plant-based diets and that less animals are farmed, while only in high welfare conditions. As evidence has repeatedly shown, the issues of animal welfare and sustainability go hand in hand, as poor animal husbandry can lead to the spread of zoonoses, animals being farmed in huge numbers, and more.

Unfortunately, while it does have some ambition, Denmark’s new agreement does not come close to improving the problems of large scale industrial animal production. 

Instead of reducing the size of the livestock sector, the agreement wants to “optimise” how animals are farmed

Denmark produces about 200 million farm animals per year – in a country of only five million people. 

Rather than reducing the number of animals being farmed, however, the agreement suggests the way they are farmed should be revised, and offers funding to explore such “innovations”: for instance, by offering a 60% base deduction and several subsidies for technologies that can reduce emissions from livestock production. 

Not only could this incentive enable farmers to continue farming animals in the same numbers – doing nothing to address the low welfare and unsustainable factory farming model in which billions of sentient beings suffer each year – but it could mean animals suffer even more in these systems:

Animals will be put under even more pressure due to climate technologies and demands for higher productivity. The idea is to make each animal deliver as much as possible, e.g. even more piglets from sows, and even higher milk yields from cows, as is considered good for the climate, and to address specific issues such as methane from cow digestion with feed additives.

Britta Riis – Director, Animal Protection Denmark

Plant-based solutions are being neglected

What is more, an unequal level of support is being offered to farm animal producers in the agreement, while plant producers and innovators are being overlooked.

Whether intended or not, this disparity in incentives sends a clear message: that the animal agriculture sector has a strong role to play in the future of farming, while plant-based products are less important. Really, the opposite is true.

Open letter calls for the agreement to be revised urgently

Several NGOs, including our members Animal Protection Denmark and World Animal Protection, alongside organisations like Greenpeace and the Danish Vegetarian Association, have signed an open letter to the Danish government, arguing that the current agreement does not provide a reliable way forward for a greener farming model. 

The letter states that wanting to optimise animal production is like wanting to optimise the use of oil, coal, and gas – it’s not possible. Such incentives will only draw focus further away from the solutions that will have real impact – chief among them, a big reduction in the number of animals being farmed.  

The urgent climate crisis calls for an ambitious approach to our food and farming systems, with real structural changes required in the sector. Stay posted for updates.

 

Regards Mark