New review on live animal transport echoes our call for change in the industry
18 April 2023
Opinion
We were pleased with the conclusions drawn in the “Transport of live animals in the EU: challenges and opportunities’’ review produced by the European Court of Auditors. Published on April 17, it re-emphasises the need for a serious revision of the Live Animals Transport Regulation – a bold move for animal welfare that we have been campaigning for for years.
It highlights that reducing the number and length of journeys, improving the conditions for live animals during transport, and finding alternatives to transporting them could mitigate the negative impacts of this practice – of which there are many.
What is more, the report recognises that the Regulation is not implemented in the same way by all Member States, resulting in some industry players being able to exploit the different systems enabled by national sanctions.
In addition, the report acknowledges that the quality of animal welfare during transport is not considered in the cost of transport/price of meat – and neither is the environment. The review points out that there is a contradiction between the Green Deal’s call for a transition to a more sustainable food system and the increased amount of live animals that are transported, and further cites studies that show that transporting meat and carcasses is more sustainable than transporting live animals.
Horrible for animal welfare and economically and environmentally worse than the alternatives on offer, it’s clear that live animal transport does not belong in the future of farming in the EU.
Another critical aspect the report addresses is the need for more reliable data on live animal transport. The tracking systems that are currently available do not provide an accurate read on the number and condition of animals transported into, and especially outside of, the EU. In 2018, the Commission estimated that TRACES recordedonly 31.6% of cattle and 3.5% of sheep exported by livestock vesselsfrom Croatia, Slovenia, Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal, and Romania combined. With no insight into what’s happening on these long journeys across Europe, who knows what these poor sentient beings are going through?
So far, decisions in the live animal transport industry have mostly been made based on consumer preferences and economic factors. Based on the review’s findings, and with the European Commission soon to revise its animal welfare and transport rules, the European Court of Auditors urges that they instead focus on:
Promoting the transport of meat rather than live animals, as well as the use of local and mobile slaughterhouses – to reduce the suffering of animals and their time spent travelling
Increasing transparency and harmonisation in meat labelling – for example, through an EU animal welfare labelling system, so consumers can make more considered buying choices and are aware of where their animal products have come from
Harnessing the latest technologies to track all animal journeys – so the EU really knows what’s happening while animals are on the move, and can take clearer steps to protect them.
The report adds to the pile of evidence and conclusions shared in the last couple of years from the ANIT Committee, EFSA, the fitness check of the European Commission and several investigations by animal NGOs that demonstrate live animal transport is causing tremendous suffering to animals. It should give the final push to the Commission to propose a revised Transport Regulation that doesn’t allow for animals to be transported beyond eight hours (or four hours for poultry and rabbits), prohibits the transport of vulnerable animals (like unweaned calves) and bans live exports. We believe no more evidence should be needed for the Commission to make these decisions once and for all.
I started to group together a few articles which Stacey had sent; some of them are below; but I think it best is you go directly to ‘Our Compass’ to get all the latest links and news from Stacey;
Stacey Apr 12 How come the people who need to attempt to challenge veganism with “plant suffering” never admit to or watch actual, factual, documented animal suffering? We know that animals, human and non-human, are sentient and have the capacity to experience emotion, pain, and suffering, but antivegans will double-down on idiocy by suggesting that vegans cannot legitimately be opposed to animal suffering because radishes are oppressed. If you’re honestly traumatized by the thought that terrified celery cannot run from danger because evolution has a cruel sense of humor, just remember that nonvegans eat both animal suffering AND “plant suffering” in copious amounts, more than vegans ever could, based on the massive quantities of plants that the animals, who humans consume, consume. My plant-based food requires ZERO disingenuous, fake, fraudulent, deceptive “humanely processed” labels. This is just, yet again, another example of “human intellectual superiority” from the “intellectually superior species” that also believes in “humane slaughter” and “ethical vivisection”, as well as being unable to understand the difference between cow’s milk and oat milk. (The death industry is taking advantage of humans’ willful ignorance by establishing that humans are really just ignorant, ie., not intelligent.) And I gotta add, I saw many comments praising the interviewer for admitting he’s a hypocrite. Excuse me, what??? Admitting you’re flawed but not changing the flaw, is no different from the people who know animals suffer but don’t care that animals suffer. To the animal victims, both “points of view” cause animal suffering. Vegans have to stop accepting crumbs. I know we are often bombarded with horrible, hateful, cruel rhetoric, so much so that “not being wished dead” seems equivalent to “decent nonvegans”, but the animals would not agree. One more point: to the nonvegans who praise vegans for not being “preachy/righteous/loud/etc”: vegan attitudes aren’t the problem, the problem is your conscience; when you don’t want to hear the fact of animal suffering you effortlessly cause and excuse, rather than admit the “wrongness” of nonveganism, you project that onto the “messenger”. It’s like being awakened by a loud, brash noise that you respond to with anger or denial: it’s not that the alarm is agonizingly loud or painfully irritating, it’s that you don’t want to hear the alarm, and despite being the cause of the alarm. So yes, typical non/antiveganism: anything to desperately deflect from the animal suffering people effortlessly cause but, once again, could easily NOT. SL I’m going to link a couple previous articles that establish the suffering animals are required to endure, in each “phase” of “animal agriculture” as documented via exposes and predominately industry data from the USDA. I suspect that the people who need to read/watch/be educated, won’t, it might disturb their fantasy of “humaneness”, and then what would you do? Do remember that dairy farmers reproductively exploit cows and then deny the maternal bond they facilitated, and then boast that cows love to be milked (versus habit, fear of punishment, desire for relief) but then experience ZERO emotion when being violently killed. Tell me more… One of These Things Is Not Like the OtherIf your god demands unrelenting suffering and death, maybe you should invent another god NOT offended by nonviolence and least harm… Download Your FREE Vegan PDF HERE Order a FREE vegan kit HERE Dairy-Free Info HERE Take the Dairy-Free Challenge HERE Click HERE for more Dairy-Free Fish alternatives can be found HERE Learn about eggs HERE Find bacon alternatives HERE and HERE Take PETA’s Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! The handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance. Order a FREE copy HERE Searching for Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, Personal-Care Products, Vegan Products, or more? Click HERE to search. Free PDF of Vegan & Cruelty-Free Products/Companies HERE Click HERE to find out How to Wear Vegan Want to do more than go vegan? Help others to do so! Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only compassionate route to being an animal friend: PETA HERE Vegan Outreach HERE Get your FREE Activist Kit from PETA, including stickers, leaflets, and guide HERE
So today we’re going to talk about the differences between a SANCTUARY and a SLAUGHTERHOUSE because I’ve come across people (in denial) who want ONE to apply to the OTHER and seem reallyreally confused and say something that only applies to a SANCTUARY but not to a SLAUGHTERHOUSE contradicting their “beliefs” (ie., spreading misinformation or propagandized disinformation because NOT abusing animals is “extreme”).
A notably important distinction is that only ONE benefits animals and only ONE consistently practices a least-harm principal.
If, after the facts, you’re still confused, you let me know and I can see about getting you some helpful flash cards or maybe I can make a colorful flow chart.
“Animals are cared for!”
Question: In which environment will you find dying and dead animals who were/are mass bred and who exist in a state of exploitation for HUMANS’ benefit, versus their OWN benefit, whose “journey” ends in premature and violent death for HUMANS’ benefit and who are often condemned due to illness, disease, and squalor inherent in numbers confined and killed?
Answer: Slaughterhouse
Source
USDA: Millions of animals are “condemned” each year in just the USA because of the diseases and squalor they’re forced to exist with and in. The below link demonstrates ONLY 2 months for just chickens, page 6 includes reasons for condemnation, including leukosis, septicaemia, tumors, contamination, and overscalding (which includes being boiled alive), none of which suggest “care” but rather human apathy and cruelty for cheap flesh requiring incalculable animal suffering:
Question: In which environment will you find animals who are ALIVE, nonexploitatively, for THEIR benefit, who are not abused and not eaten, who receive necessary treatment with the goal of EXTENDING their lives versus destroying them.
Answer: Sanctuary
“Animals get a humane death, quick and painless!”
Question: In which environment will you find animals in fear, where they can see, smell, and hear other animals dying, where stunning is often required to protect employees who are killing animals, employees who aren’t required to have any formal education or experience in killing, but where stunning often fails and animals experience excruciating and terrifying death? And in which environment, the footage of which will not be watched by fragile people who cause the footage, but of which the industry never has, nor will ever, release due to its inherent violent nature, but still calls it “humane”?
Question: In which environment will you see some animals who may be suffering from old age or disease, many rescued from “humane” farms and slaughterhouses, who are in an as-comfortable position and area as possible, with people who genuinely care about them, and who are euthanized by a licensed individual using injectable medications specifically for the purpose of least-pain, efficacy, and quickness?
Answer: Sanctuary
“I don’t pay for cruelty!”
Question: In which environment will you see cats and dogs who are being unwillingly, violently killed, using torturous methods, for people who buy their flesh and body parts?
Answer: Slaughterhouse
Question: In which environment will you see other animals, not cats and dogs, who are being unwillingly, violently killed, using torturous methods, for people who buy their flesh and body parts?
Answer: Slaughterhouse
Let me explain the different format I’ve used in case it was vague: People get unhinged when cats and dogs or other “worthy” animals are violently killed, but they don’t exercise that condemnation when other “unworthy” animals are killed, animals who also all have the capacity for fear, pain, and suffering. Furthermore, when you claim to NOT pay for cruelty, it’s as if you’re saying you’re paying for KINDNESS and CARE, but you really ARE NOT. It’s a SLAUGHTERHOUSE where nothing good happens, do you understand that? It’s not a nice, happy, warm-and-fuzzy place. It’s terror, blood, screams, violence, and pain.
Conversely, when people volunteer for or donate to a SANCTUARY, they’re NOT paying for the animals to violently die, be dismembered, eviscerated, and eaten.
Please tell me if you don’t understand, I know the concept of least-harm can be difficult to grasp by some.
Question: In which environment will you see many animals who are not violently killed for human profit and where money, including donations, is used for animals’ benefit, to feed, shelter, and provide medical care for THEM (and NOT as part of an exploitative scheme where animals are “artificially” bred and rapidly grown using the cheapest ingredients?)
Answer: Sanctuary
“Get animals from small farms where they are treated well!”
Question: In which environment will you find dead animals, violently killed and at a fraction of their lifespans, following brief existences of reproductive exploitation, separation of infant and mother, mutilation, squalor, confinement, and lack of choice, who come from all-sized operations?
Answer: Slaughterhouse
Sources
USDA: It is legally required that animals used for “commercial purposes” in the US are killed in an inspection- regulated slaughterhouse. (Regardless of being from one of the four “small farms” in the US. SL)
Question: In which environment will you find alive animals not required to perform bodily duties for human benefit, who don’t violently die at a fraction of their lifespans, where the goal is their comfort, happiness, longevity, and peace after being rescued from predominantly exploitatively abusive (“farms”, slaughterhouses, zoos, labs, etc.) conditions?
Answer: Sanctuary
“It’s illegal to abuse animals!”
Question: In which environment will you find dead animals, violently killed and at a fraction of their lifespans, following brief existences of reproductive exploitation, separation of infant and mother, mutilation, squalor, confinement, and lack of choice, where all animals are expressly exempt from the (meager) Animal Welfare Act and where ZERO LAWS “protect” them from violent death, including animals from “farms” where historically, people protest anti-bestiality laws because “cheese tho”?
Question: In which environment will you find alive animals not required to perform any bodily “duties” for HUMANS’ benefit, who don’t violently die at a fraction of their lifespans, who have ZERO REQUIREMENTS for “protection”?
Answer: Sanctuary
“So you’re pro-life?”
Question: In which environment will you find dead animals, violently killed as infants, including calves both in utero and as young as three weeks; chicks if they’re male; fetal pigs sold for “science”; males and females reproductively exploited for AI, and mothers following brief existences of THEIR reproductive exploitation, forcibly separated from their infants?
Upwards of 4 million calves, many as young as 3 weeks, are routinely killed because males are considered worthless to the death industry.
USDA: “Male dairy calves are used in the veal industry. Dairy cows must give birth to continue producing milk, but male dairy calves are of little or no value to the dairy farmer.”
USDA, pages 43 and 67, deaths in calves not due to slaughter; second link begin page 20 for sheep and lambs (2015 is most recent date for compiled data):
Question: In which environment will you find alive animals, including infants rescued from the “political pro-lifers”, “political pro-lifers” who think it’s ok to abuse animals including babies because some humans have abortions?
Answer: Sanctuary
“Animals have good lives and one bad day!”
Question: In which environment will you take your kids to see the finality of your dystopian drama “Good Lives and One Bad Day!”
………………………………………………………………
Yeah, I thought so.
Trillions of animals are butchered yearly on Earth, none of whom come from “good lives” that is concluded with unmitigated fear and violence whose realistic nightmare include existences primarily on wretched places of disease, filth, and darkness. Animals are bred to be dead, nobody cares how they “live”; animals are considered disposable objects, I’ve demonstrated the delusion of “care is necessary for them to be profitable” via the fact of condemned and trashed animals.
Animals suffer for human deception.
So, folks, allow ME to tell YOU before the end of this song …
Question: Which is the ONLY option for being humane and causing least harm?
Answer: VEGANISM.
Visit, or donate to, rescued animals on sanctuaries:
The USDA recently released 1000s of pages of slaughter “violations” that proves that animals are relentlessly subjected to torture. Notably, the USDA had to be sued to release these records. Why? Since nobody hesitates to share “humane” information, the USDA acknowledges the utter failure of “humane” slaughter. Even the “quick” – and rare and unproveable – death doesn’t nullify the inherent unethical quality of killing including required animal suffering.
Globally pigs are routinely stunned using CO2, a process that is unarguably torturous; the UK acknowledged more than 2 decades ago the suffering involved but still uses CO2. It’s important to recognize that undercover and whistleblower footage is meaningful because the industry will never release its own footage based on the terror and violence required of animal victims.
Notable: “Former pig industry vet Dr Alice Brough said the footage shows ‘the epitome of squalor and unfortunately represents the norm for a large proportion of Britain’s pig farms.’ “
As part of Eurogroup for Animals’ ‘No Animal Left Behind’ campaign, posters can be found in Brussels’ EU district this week targeting the European Commission in light of the “once in a lifetime opportunity” to change history for farmed animals with its imminent revision of animal welfare legislation.
EU animal welfare rules remain limited, poorly enforced, and plagued by loopholes, leading to widespread suffering in the farming sector. From the cruel handling of broiler chickens to chaining the back legs of dairy cows, our recent exposé reveals how the EU’s farmed animals are being callously treated by those who are meant to care for them.
At the end of March, Eurogroup for Animals launched the second phase of the ‘No Animals Left Behind’ campaign together with its over 80 member organisations around Europe and beyond. The campaign aims to expose existing animal welfare shortcomings in EU legislation and offer feasible solutions to the unnecessary suffering of the EU’s farmed animals that could be incorporated in the revised legislation due by the end of the year.
Posters were strategically placed around Brussels’ EU district to raise awareness about the upcoming revision of the EU’s animal welfare legislation and remind policy makers about EU citizens’ expectations in light of the mass public response to End the Cage Age European Citizens’ Initiative, Fur Free Europe European Citizens’ Initiative and the first No Animal Left Behind campaign.
You know; fighting for the welfare of calves has always had a special ‘box’ within me.
In my 35+ years of live animal transport investigation work, the suffering of these babies on the road really used to get my goat more than just about anything.
“As British calves were being exported to the NL at the time; we took some time out of our schedule to ‘sniff around’ and find out a little more about places they were being sent to.
We shared many hours on the road; laughing, talking and generally trying to have a good time in work that we both knew the live animal export business caused immense suffering to – innocent, sentient beings. Calves“.
With calves, you often hear them long before you actually see the truck – they are babies, and they bellow immensely for the milk produced from the mothers that they have been torn away from at what ?, often ages of just 1 day old. Cow milk is for baby cows, NOT humans; yet the systems today try to make people think that humans are in need of cow milk, not the cow babies.
I took this picture above decades ago of British calves being exported to the veal systems of France and the Netherlands, you can just make out the calves suckling the bars of the transporter; desperate for milk held within their mothers. This is the reality of live animal transport; and just one reason of thousands why it needs to stop now.
In the past calves were held in individual ‘crates’ until they reached slaughter age of around 4 to 6 months. During their short lives in the crates; they were deprived of any iron in their food; to make them anemic and thus make their flesh ‘white’ as required by the gastronauts of Europe. What humans do to animals in the name of ‘food’ just really bums me off.
Anemia is defined as a low number of red blood cells. In a routine blood test, anemia is reported as a low hemoglobin or hematocrit. Hemoglobin is the main protein in red blood cells. It carries oxygen, and delivers it throughout the body. If you have anemia, your hemoglobin level will be low too.
We fought hard for the calves – (above) here I am (with Barb, a hunt sab) at Dover port (where calves were exported from) after we had put the British Prime Minister (at the time John Major) into the crate to get a feel for what he was approving. You can see the liberated calf standing alongside.
Here are some pictures of real calves suffering in the crate systems. Every one a valid reason why I fight tooth and nail for the calves;
Above – an investigation showed British calves were being exported to Hungary and that they were still being crated individually years after the EU ban came into place !
Above – with our tour truck in Holland teaching the Dutch about live veal systems.
Above – great campaigning days in the Netherlands for the calves.
Here – photographs from a PMAF investigation which I used in the compilation of an EU Parliament investigations report on calves being transported to France.
Above – Dover demo with animal buddies fighting live calf exports.
Often it feels like you are running up that hill – but a positive end makes it all worth it:
Regards Mark
EFSA opinions on the welfare of calves
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published today their scientific opinion on calf welfare. The EFSA was mandated to describe the most used systems, their welfare consequences and measures to prevent and mitigate those consequences.
Welfare of calves reared for white veal (including requirements for space, group housing and iron intake),
Risk of limited contact between mother and calf
What type indicators can be measured in slaughterhouses to monitor the welfare on farm.
A species-specific Directive already exists to protect calves in the EU (Council Directive 2008/11/EC), yet it is extremely outdated, and fails to take into account new science published since it was adopted in 2008. Proof of this is that EFSA identified several hazards connected to these systems ranging from respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases to inability to perform natural behaviours or even calves experiencing group stress.
They have advised several solutions that Eurogroup for Animals welcomes:
Group housing from the first week of life (between 2 to 7 calves) and keeping them in stable groups.
Increased space allowance – 20 m² is recommended so calves can express their full behaviour and 3 m³ is the minimum recommended per calf (all in group housing)
In regards to feeding: Good colostrum intake, increased amount of milk provided, and good quality roughage availability from 2 weeks of age.
Several welfare indicators can be collected in the slaughterhouse, but they should be complemented with behavioural ones collected on farm
Regrettably, although the available science already points towards a need for a longer period of cow-calf contact and bonding, EFSA took a conservative approach, only recommending a minimum 24 hours of cow-calf contact. We strongly oppose this conclusion. Cow and calf contact can reduce stress of both adult females and calves, it increases the vitality and resilience of the calves and leads to an increase in body weight gain of the calves. Furthermore, it provides a better social behaviour for the calves in the long run that is prolonged until adult age. It also leads to an increased expression of positive behaviours for both. Eurogroup for Animals recommends that contact between the calf and the mother should be allowed for at least the first eight weeks of age. During this period, calves and cows shall be kept in a half-day contact system – at least – with suckling permitted.
Furthermore, Eurogroup for Animals would like to see a more science-driven, animal welfare approach when it comes to iron levels in the calves’ blood. For acceptable blood levels of iron, we recommend a blood haemoglobin concentration of at least 6,0 mmol/L throughout the life of the calf, as already required by the German Directive 2008/119 (EFSA is recommending 5.3 mmol/L).
The science demonstrates that business as usual for calves is not going to work anymore. We urge the Commission to listen to the science and seriously improve the species-specific legislation to protect calves in the EU and beyond.
Welfare of calves kept for white and rosé veal production
Essere Animali, recently collected footage that exposed the conditions lambs face while being transported during Easter. Their investigation was raised to the Chamber of Deputies at the Italian Parliament during yesterday’s ‘question time’ by Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida.
Poor and ineffective controls. The rules on animal transport in Italy are not respected
This was said by Eleonora Evi, deputy of Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra, who tabled a direct question to the Minister precisely to highlight the dramatic problems that still affect live animal transport, particularly long-distance transport.
‘Italy is a country much affected by the long-distance transport of lambs and young sheep, especially during the Christmas and Easter holidays.
In 2022 – out of a total of 2,199,832 lambs slaughtered in Italy (source: Istat) – 653,303 came from Eastern Europe (mainly from Hungary and Romania). These transports often involve animals that are only a few weeks old, which have to endure traveling up to 30 hours inside trucks.
Last March, Essere Animali, along with members from the police, carried out road checks from Gonars to the province of Bologna and Florence to monitor the transport of lambs arriving from Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. Six out of seven lorries were traveling in violation of the rules, with serious cases of overcrowding, lambs stuck in the partitions of the lorries, unusable watering systems and being generally unsuitable for the transport of this species.
In one case in particular, the lorry stopped near Altedo (Bologna) had 200 animals more than the permitted load, and three lambs were slaughtered by the Italian authorities because they were no longer able to continue the journey. Ultimately, current regulations are inadequate to guarantee the protection of animals during transport, one of the most stressful phases and cause of suffering for animals raised for food’.
It’s time to change the trend – and call for this cruelty to end
The images and complaints collected by Essere Animali and the police once more show how the transport of live animals is a practice that must be overcome, and how important it is to robustly revise the rules that should protect animals during journeys.
When questioned on the revision of the European Regulation on the transport of live animals during the Question Time in the plenary session, Minister Lollobrigida confirmed that he did not support Portugal’s proposal, contrary to what was previously stated. Portugal’s briefing note, strongly contested by many other Member States, in fact re-proposes the status quo and calls for ‘continuing to facilitate intra-EU trade and the export of live animals, without focusing on measures to ban or restrict certain types of transport’.
Evi adds: ‘This position is frankly unacceptable, considering that the current European Regulation is not only incomplete – a condition unexpectedly noted by the Minister himself – but also outdated and very weak as well as constantly violated by the Member States… [it] is disavowed day after day by the incredible amount of analyses and scientific opinions that confirm what we have been advocating for some time: the need for rules that protect animal welfare starting from species-specific needs’.
‘We therefore take note of a possible change of position on the part of Italy, which has until now been ambiguous in its positions at European level, and certainly not vocal against maintaining the status quo unlike many other EU states. We therefore expect to see, in line with what the Minister has said, our country lined up with those countries that play a proactive role at European level in support of ambitious and courageous positions to provide the EU with a transport regulation that seriously focuses on animal welfare, starting with listening to scientific recommendations, greatly reducing traveling hours, banning long journeys and exporting outside the EU, banning the transport of unweaned animals and creating the conditions for a transition to transporting meat, carcasses and genetic material instead of live animals,’ she concludes.
Featherless, panicking laying hens shoved into crates and sent to slaughter; lame mother sows, a spray mark on their backs to indicate that their time is up; and then millions of rabbits, ducks, geese, quails confined for part or all of their short lives in wire cages, in dimly lit warehouse-like barns, inhaling dust and ammonia from their own waste.
I think that by now we are all familiar with the images, the investigations, the scandals, and the misery they inexorably document. What was once considered normal, and even necessary to produce cheap animal products, has become so controversial that European citizens have asked the European Commission to stop it.
End the Cage Age, led by our member Compassion in World Farming, collected the third highest number of signatures in the history of European Citizens’ Initiatives. The request to stop caged farming was not whispered, it was shouted loud and clear.
The message did not fall on deaf ears: with a historical decision, the European Commission, in its official response to the ECI, committed to put forward a legislative proposal by the end of 2023 to phase out cages from animal farming. The proposal was included within the scope of the ongoing revision of the animal welfare legislation, a necessary step to create a level-playing field for farmers throughout and beyond Europe. The transition will require substantial public financial support to enable farmers to invest in cage-free, higher welfare systems: let us not forget that almost half of the EU egg production still derives from caged hens. As for other animals, such as sows, quails and rabbits, over 90% of the production relies on the use of cages.
Change is scary, especially for an industry that is used to getting its own way, holding political institutions hostage with the rhetoric of ensuring food security and bringing home hefty profits from exports. But we know all too well that this is only one side of the story, specifically the one that omits the externalised costs of cheap animal products, including the looming public health threats posed by global pandemics and antimicrobial resistance. The animal farming industry’s lobbying machine is currently focused on dismantling many of the most ambitious objectives of the EU Farm to Fork strategy under the assumption that not only improving animal welfare, but also investing in sustainable food systems, will spell disaster for consumers, farmers, and the EU economic outlook at large.
This is also one of the reasons why, according to some, the cage-free transition should be postponed as much as possible. However, while the time will probably never be right for the industry, for European citizens the time is now. I am saying this as a rebuttal to some parties who are throwing spanners in the wheels of a speedy transition: true, the current economic outlook is not rosy, but farmers can and should be vocal in demanding that, starting from now, Member States allocate as many resources as possible under CAP and national payment schemes to anticipate the legislative change ahead. Stockmanship, human-animal relationships, breeding objectives, feeding strategies, animal health programs, will all need to adapt to the new species-specific cage-free environments; many of these aspects are already eligible for financial support under various EU and/or national payment schemes.
If sufficient financial support is provided, there is agreement among industry stakeholders that most sectors can switch to cage-free farming within 3-5 years. As shown by our recent report investigating industry stakeholders’ views on the practical and economic aspects of the cage-free transition, a staggered approach with different deadlines per sector is possibly the best way forward as it would allow for a gradual adaptation to cage-free farming.
The industry recognises that the impetus is there, and the answers to the most pressing questions – as well as technical solutions – can be found by studying the business models of many European producers who voluntarily and successfully switched to higher welfare, cage-free systems. We do not need to reinvent the wheel: our report illustrates in detail many examples of good and best practices that can be adopted to make the cage-free transition as smooth as possible, while also leaving room for continuous improvement.
For me, these are all reasons to accelerate, rather than delay, the cage-free revolution. Granting a reasonably swift transition period in the legislation can actually even mitigate the risk of creating disparity amongst Member States.
For instance, according to the latest report on the fitness check of the current animal welfare legislation, the long transition period to enriched cages led some producers to wait until the last possible moment before changing their infrastructure, which unnecessarily increased prices and created a situation of unfair competition amongst Member States.
For all these reasons, I hope that the phase-out period to shift to cage-free farming will be as short as reasonably possible and that it will be used wisely, making the most of all the forms of financial support currently available. The animal protection movement will play its part, of course, communicating to citizens and policymakers about the importance of supporting this transition in any way possible.
In my view, however, it will be equally important to promote a shift in mentality, from treating animals as commodities to seeing them for what they are, sentient beings worthy of good lives, however short we decide that these lives should be.
Phasing out cages in the EU: the road to a smooth transition
Across Europe, millions of caged rabbits are living in a real-life horror story. Crammed into tiny prisons with their peers – with no access to things to interact with and nowhere to exercise, play, and rest – their daily lives are filled with boredom, frustration and physical and mental suffering. The European Commission has the power to change that when revising the animal welfare legislation this year, by including specific laws for rabbits that address their needs.
Rabbits are fascinating, complex animals. Curious and social by nature, they love living in groups and socialising with others – but like any sentient being, it’s also important to them to be able to rest and spend time alone. What’s more, their teeth are always growing, so it’s important for rabbits to always have something to chew on.
Unfortunately, these essential needs are far from met in Europe’s current farming systems. Rather than having the space and opportunities to truly be themselves, rabbits are forced into tiny cages – many of which are no bigger than an A4 piece of paper – and, as our recent exposé revealed, forced to spend their days in the most miserable conditions.
Rabbits in cages experience a wealth of problems – some of which are deadly
These poor beings:
Are frequently stressed and frustrated, which can lead to injuries and health issues. In turn, a higher number of antibiotics are often used on factory farmed rabbits, driving the antimicrobial crisis
Are unable to move their bodies properly – many can’t even stand up or stretch out. This is mentally and physically distressing, and can cause painful problems such as frail bones
Struggle psychologically – high cortisol and low dopamine/serotonin levels are commonly seen in factory farmed rabbits, which are major indicators of poor mental health
Often suffer from digestive disorders due to poor hygiene – which can cause high mortality rates with kittens (baby rabbits) in particular
Can’t look after themselves or follow their instincts – with no materials to chew on, rabbits in cages can’t do anything about their ever-growing teeth, resulting in even more pain and difficulty eating.
Europe’s farmed rabbits don’t have to live this way
Many of the problems farmed rabbits face are enabled by existing loopholes and oversights in the European Commission’s animal welfare legislation. What’s more, there are no existing laws that address the welfare of farmed rabbits specifically – which they desperately need.
The European Commission has the power to change all of this when they revise the animal welfare legislation later this year, by including strong, precise, and targeted rules for rabbit welfare that take into account their unique natures.
Farmed rabbits have not been domesticated for as long as other farmed species, and still exhibit the same behaviours and instincts as seen in their wild counterparts. Life in a cage is an unimaginable struggle for them, and having already promised to End The Cage Age following a successful ECI, the European Commission must now consider how to phase out cages for these dynamic beings in a swift and effective manner. We’ve already done a lot of the groundwork by compiling case studies, scientific evidence, and data from across the EU that explores this transition in our new report.
Rabbits deserve better. They need their freedom and space, along with access to good nutrition, clean water, and enrichment materials with which they can play and look after themselves properly. There is no substitute for these basic needs.
We’re trying to change history for farm animals this year through phase two of the No Animal Left Behind campaign. Find out more.
New evidence reveals systematic cruelty of industrial animal farming
23 March 2023
Press Release
Evidence of widespread animal suffering was delivered to the European Commission (EC) today to strengthen its resolve as it prepares the revision of the animal welfare legislation due later this year. We’re calling on the EC to seize the incredible opportunity ahead of us to enact the system change we need for animals.
Thanks to the investigations of our over eighty member organisations in 25 Member States, we at Eurogroup for Animals delivered a video and report today to the EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner, Stella Kyriakides.
EU welfare rules remain limited, poorly enforced, and plagued by loopholes, leading to widespread suffering in the farming sector. From the cruel handling of broiler chickens to chaining the back legs of dairy cows, the new exposé reveals how the EU’s farmed animals are being callously treated by those who are meant to care for them.
The EC has an opportunity to deliver – in line with its ambitions contained in the Farm to Fork strategy – a future-proofed legal foundation for evidence-based standards, that provide the ability for all farmed animals to experience a positively affected mental state and lead lives that are truly worth living. Any farming practices that cannot meet such requirements should, in effect, be eliminated. In doing so, the EU would remain a world leader in animal welfare standards, citizens’ expectations would be met, and no animal would be left behind.
A formal impact assessment on the coming proposals is expected to be finalised by the beginning of April, and all the reasons why the legislation needs to be ambitious are there: in 2021 the EC pledged to end the cage of farm animals by 2027, and EU scientific advisors also say that unweaned calves should not be transported.
Despite the strength of public support shown for the End The Cage Age ECI and the No Animal Left Behind campaign, we at Eurogroup for Animals are concerned that pressure from an array of well-established animal farming interests could weaken the EC’s resolve. Eurogroup CEO, Reineke Hameleers, commented:
The new hard hitting evidence shows once again that the EU is responsible for the biggest animal welfare crisis ever: industrial animal farming. Animals have been decimated into objects as cogs in a big machine whereas the EU legislation is expected to meet their natural needs. This year the European Commission has the once in a lifetime opportunity to turn the page. It is crucial to avoid technocratic changes but to be bold and ambitious.
Uncovering the horrific reality of octopus farming
16 March 2023
CIWF
Eurogroup for Animals and Compassion in World Farming are calling for the world’s first commercial octopus farm to be scrapped, after plans obtained for its development revealed the animal cruelty and environmental consequences it would cause. Furthermore, they are calling on the EU not to use public funds to support octopus farming developments, or any other new industrial animal-based farming in the light of significant and growing scientific evidence that it is killing our planet.
The plans, submitted to the General Directorate of Fishing of the Government of the Canary Islands by the company Nueva Pescanova, and uncovered by Eurogroup for Animals, have raised serious concerns. These include the use of a cruel slaughter method, the confinement of octopuses in small barren tanks, and practices that contribute to the overexploitation of wild fish populations. The campaigners’ concerns over the plans are outlined in the new report Uncovering the horrific reality of octopus farming and confirmed by scientists in the field.
They reveal that around one million octopuses will be reared at the proposed farm in the Port of Las Palmas in Gran Canaria, Spain, producing some 3,000 tonnes of octopus each year.
They also confirm the campaigners’ fears that a number of extremely concerning practices would be implemented, including that octopuses would be:
Slaughtered using cruel ice slurry: a highly aversive and inhumane method scientifically proven to cause considerable pain, fear and suffering as well as a prolonged death.
Confined in crowded, barren underwater tanks that will result in poor welfare and risk aggression, territorialism and even cannibalism due to the octopuses’ naturally solitary nature.
Exposed to round-the-clock unnatural light to increase reproduction, which will cause undue stress given the aversion these animals have to light.
Fed with commercial feeds containing fishmeal and fish oil as main ingredients, which is unsustainable and contributes to the overfishing of wild populations.
Raised within a land-based aquaculture system relating to higher risk of mass mortality due to the overcrowded conditions required for their profitability as well as negative environmental impacts stemming from the excessive use of energy.
In 2021, Compassion in World Farming released the report Octopus Factory Farming: A Recipe for Disaster, arguing that octopus farming is cruel and would cause environmental damage to our oceans. According to the report, experimental trials to farm octopuses suggest that the mortality rate in these systems would be around 20%, meaning that 1 in 5 individuals would not survive the entire production cycle.
Although, if approved, the Canary Islands farm would be the world’s first industrial octopus farm, there are attempts to establish similar octopus farms in other parts of the world such as Mexico and Japan. In February, Washington State in the US signalled a move toward banning octopus farming, which would be the first of its kind. This followed the recent closure of the only active octopus farm in the US, the “Kanaloa Octopus Farm” based in Hawaii, in response to Compassion in World Farming’s campaign.
Octopus has become an increasingly popular food in recent decades, particularly in Spain. As a result, wild octopus numbers are dwindling. In 2015, the number of octopuses caught around the world reached a high of 400,000 tonnes – 10 times more than in 1950.
Blindly establishing a new farming system without consideration of the ethical and environmental implications is a step in all the wrong directions and flies in the face of the EU’s plans for a sustainable food transformation. With the current revision of the animal welfare legislation, the European Commission now has the real opportunity to avoid the terrible suffering of millions of animals. We cannot afford to leave aquatic animals behind. We’re calling on the EU to include a ban on octopus farming before it ever sees the light of day, in order to avoid plunging more sentient beings into a living hell.
Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals
We implore the Canary Islands authorities to reject Nueva Pescanova’s plans and we urge the EU to ban octopus farming as part of its current legislative review. It will inflict unnecessary suffering on these intelligent, sentient and fascinating creatures, which need to explore and engage with the environment as part of their natural behaviour. Their carnivorous diets require huge quantities of animal protein to sustain, contributing to overfishing at a time when fish stocks are already under immense pressure. Factory farming is the biggest single cause of animal cruelty on the planet, and it’s literally destroying our planet. We should be ending factory farming, not finding new species to confine in underwater factory farms. We must end octopus farming now.
Elena Lara, Research Manager at Compassion in World Farming
Uncovering the horrific reality of octopus farming
World Animals Voice 