Unbound the Greyhound: One Kind launches campaign to end dog racing in Scotland
11 July 2023
OneKind
Greyhound racing in Scotland is on its last legs, with just one unlicensed track remaining. The dog racing industry is rife with welfare issues such as deaths, injuries and doping, and OneKind believe it has no place in a modern Scotland.
Together with 8 other animal protection organisations based across Scotland, England and Wales, OneKind is calling for an end to the cruel greyhound racing industry. This outdated form of entertainment causes a range of welfare issues for dogs:
Inadequate kennel conditions
Many greyhounds used by the racing industry are kept in kennels, in conditions which do not allow the dogs to thrive. In the worst instances, dogs can live in dank, dirty kennels, suffer from untreated wounds and injuries, receive inadequate veterinary care, and be shouted at or roughly treated. The dogs may also be constantly muzzled.
Doping
Greyhound Board of Great Britain’s records show that dogs in the racing industry have been doped with performance-enhancing drugs, including class A substances such as cocaine. Research has shown that the adverse effects of cocaine in dogs include neurological and muscular abnormalities, increased heart rate, convulsions/seizures, weakness, vomiting and lethargy.
Overbreeding
Thousands of puppies are bred to supply a racing pool across the UK. However, not all of these dogs will make the racing grade and thus some will be superfluous to the needs of the industry. Not all greyhounds will be passed to rehoming centres. Sadly, some may be killed instead.
It is also clear that the Scottish public do not support this cruel industry. One poll revealed that the majority of Scots (60%) want to see the Scottish Government take action to put an end to greyhound racing.
The EU-New Zealand trade deal includes animal welfare conditionality
9 July 2023
Press Release
On Sunday 9 July, the EU and New Zealand officially signed their Free Trade Agreement (FTA) after five years of negotiation. While the FTA liberalises trade for all animal-based products, thereby further stimulating animal agriculture in the EU and New Zealand,Eurogroup for Animals still welcomes that the beef quota is reserved for grass-fed animals.
This is only the second time the EU negotiates an animal welfare condition in a trade agreement. The controversial EU-Mercosur FTA introduced the first one in relation to shelled eggs. Yet, the volume of shelled eggs imported by the EU from the Mercosur countries is quite low. In the case of New Zealand, the EU managed to obtain an animal welfare condition for one of the animal products most traded between the partners. While New Zealand only had one feedlot built for exports to Japan, recently there has been a push to establish new ones, and this condition in the FTA will ensure EU consumption is not responsible for that.
We welcome the explicit exclusion of meat derived from commercial feedlots from the list of products benefitting from preferential access thanks to the FTA, also based on sustainability reasons. In addition to being a significant source of pollution, feedlots are detrimental to animals as they suffer from respiratory and digestive diseases, which are the main causes for cattle death under such rearing conditions. So far, EU trade policy has been blind to the unsustainable methods of production it can stimulate abroad, including the development of feedlots.
This trade agreement shows that the EU can condition relevant trade flows to higher animal welfare standards. The EU should apply this approach to all animal products in FTAs, and negotiate ambitious animal welfare conditions with all trading partners, including Mercosur countries. Why would it be sustainable to include meat derived from commercial feedlots in the quota granted in the EU-Mercosur agreement, when it’s not sustainable to do so with New Zealand? Especially as feedlots are a much more common method of production in Mercosur countries.
Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals
Apart from this condition on preferential market access for beef, the FTA, like many others, includes a chapter on animal welfare cooperation. Yet, the language used in this chapter remains aspirational and the impact of such wording will only depend on the political willingness of the EU and New Zealand to work on this together. Surprisingly, the language on animal welfare has been separated from the chapter on Sustainable Food Systems (SFS), contrary to most recent EU FTAs. This means that in that chapter, no mention is made to animal welfare or to the close connections between animal welfare and public and environmental wellbeing. This creates silos that can be harmful and create detrimental trade-offs for animals.
The EU-New Zealand FTA has also been praised for being the first EU trade deal integrating sanctions in its Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter. While this is welcome, it does not change the intrinsic issue that if the language used in such a chapter is often non-committal, which is the case for provisions related to wild and aquatic animals, no violation can be found.
Introducing animal welfare-based conditions in FTAs, as the EU did with New Zealand, is one option to avoid that the EU further externalises its animal welfare concerns. However, as negotiations of trade agreements can be long and difficult, Eurogroup for Animals calls on the European Commission to seize the unique opportunity offered by the revision of the EU’s animal welfare legislation to propose the inclusion of all animal products placed on the EU market, regardless of their origin, within its scope.
European Parliament to vote on two major climate and nature laws this July
9 July 2023
Two plenary votes are coming up at the European Parliament that could have a huge impact on the planet; one on the Industrial Emissions Directive and the other on the Nature Restoration Law. It’s critical that policymakers vote in favour of nature, as well as for an ambitious threshold for animal agriculture, so that we can get to work on the urgent task of mitigating our impact on the climate and natural landscapes.
Find out below why these laws are so important, what impact these two plenary votes could have and what we, along with some of our members, have to say about them.
Adopted in 2010, it’s currently the main policy in Europe to regulate pollutant emissions from industry, including from air pollution and wastewater discharge.
In 2022, the Commission adopted proposals to make the IED stronger by including emissions from large cattle farms within its scope, in addition to the large pig and poultry farms that were already covered.
Any installation controlled by the IED is forced to reduce emissions, and needs a permit to operate. The original Commission proposal suggested including more industrial-size animal farms, with a threshold of 150 or more livestock units (LSU). 150 LSU corresponds to, as examples, a large farm with 500 pigs, 150 dairy cows, 10,700 laying hens or 21,400 broiler chickens.
The goal of this revision was to bring the Directive more closely in-line with the goals set out in the European Green Deal, and other relevant policies. The debate around it has also put the intensification of EU animal farming in the spotlight.
On July 10, the European Parliament will vote on the Commission’s proposal. If they vote in favour of it, amazing steps could be taken to reduce our industrial emissions – especially from agriculture.
If they vote against it, however, these systems will continue to cause great damage to nature and the climate – which they’re already doing at an alarming rate.
What is the Nature Restoration Law?
Last year, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Nature Restoration Law, which focuses on how we can recover and protect our ecosystems. Among its targets, the proposal aims to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030 and all ecosystems in need by 2050.
There are plenty of positive examples of where nature restoration strategies have been successful. Deploying these kinds of strategies at EU level, then, would have sweeping impacts on biodiversity, land and marine ecosystems, the health of our soils (which is critical for food security) and more. As with the Industrial Emissions Directive, it’s extremely important that policymakers acknowledge the necessity of this move and vote in its favour.
What are the stakes?
The 2020 State of Nature in the EU report states that only 14% of habitats and only 27% of non-bird species currently have good conservation status. Moreover, the 2021 assessment for the EU Red List of Birds showed that 1 out of 3 bird species declined over the last few decades. These numbers demonstrate that, beyond species’ populations, wild animal individuals in the EU are suffering from a decline in the quality of their habitats. Habitat loss is a major source of stress for wild animals, restraining their movements and threatening their access to food, water and shelter.
These issues clearly can’t be allowed to develop any further. Only action at EU level will help us to mitigate our impacts on the climate and environment in a meaningful way. That’s why we’re working with our members to call on the European Parliament to address these plenary votes with the seriousness they deserve.
It’s time for our policies to meet our planet’s needs!
We’re looking to the European Parliament to redefine ‘climate change’ -by changing the course of the climate crisis, instead of letting it continue – and using their power for the planet’s good.
European scientists continue to support an EU roadmap to accelerate the transition to non-animal science
10 July 2023
In the space of a week, 80 European scientists from 14 EU countries have signed an open letter calling on the European Commission and Member States to commit to establishing an EU roadmap to accelerate the transition to non-animal science.
To achieve improved human health and environmental protection, it is essential to coordinate EU efforts and policies that facilitate and prioritise the transition to non-animal science in all EU research, innovation and education initiatives. Clear short-, medium-, and long-term actions are needed to guide and accelerate the adoption of innovative non-animal approaches while phasing-out animal-based methods. In addition, a coordinated European Research Area (ERA) initiative can revolutionise the scientific landscape by supporting innovation, research infrastructure, and knowledge sharing to train and inspire scientists, educators, students and regulators in the use of non-animal approaches.
The undersigned call on the European Commission and the Member States to establish an EU roadmap and launch an ERA action. This initiative should include concrete milestones, cross-sector support, open science principles, dedicated funding and harmonised education and training initiatives to accelerate the transition to non-animal research, regulatory testing and education.
If you are an EU academic or scientist and wish to sign this open letter, please follow this link.
List of signatories:
Name:
Position:
Affiliation:
Country:
Suggestions:
Martin Paparella
Senior Researcher
Medical University Innsbruck
Austria
Bernard GODELLE
University professor
University of Montpellier
France
Penny Nymark
Assistant Professor
Karolinska Institutet
Sweden
In parallel with development of non-animal methods, known as New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) within chemical risk assessment, it is also paramount that all generated data in science is made Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR)! Besides being a non-animal method in itself, reuse of data is the only way we can move into an era of machine-driven and AI-supported predictive chemical risk assessment without the reliance on animal testing.
Pranjul Shah
Head of the Incubator
University of Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Mario Rothbauer
Group Leader
Medical University of Vienna – Dpt. Ortho Trauma Surgery
Austria
Dania Movia
Assistant Professor
Trinity College Dublin
Republic of Ireland
Prof. Dr. Stefan Dübel
Head, Dept. of Biotechnology
Technische Universität Braunschweig
Germany
Ashwani Sharma
Co-founder
Insight Biosolutions
France
Hello, I agree that we need alternative methods than animal testing as using like human in vitro models can give better results than animal testing.
Janneke Hogervorst, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Hasselt University
Belgium
For many areas of research, animal testing is known to have very limited validity. We don’t need to first develop non-animal methods there; we should just end animal experiments there right now and spend our limited resources on other research. We need more systematic reviews into the validity of animal experiments, rather than treat animal experiments as the gold standard that we need to find replacements for. Ending what doesn’t work is innovation too.
Love Hansell
PhD Researcher
Radboud University
Sweden
Bas van Balkom
Asst Professor
UMC Utrecht
The Netherlands
Margherita Scarpa
Engeneer
Institut Jacques Monod
France
Federica Emiliani
Lecturer
InHolland University of Applied Sciences
The Netherlands
Investing even more in in vitro/silico modelling
Birgit Goversen
Postdoctoral researcher
Amsterdam UMC
The Netherlands
– More funds for the improvement of current NAMs – A focus on understanding, supporting and convincing stakeholders; not on forcing them to use NAMs
Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
Prof. in Evidence-Based Transition to Animal-Free Innovations
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
Setting goals is key, just like we do for the economy. The science and technology ARE here to move to non-animal science. By teaming up with social sciences and key stakeholders we can accelerate and strive towards ending animal testing by 2035.
Rosalinde Masereeuw
Full professor
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
Make sure everybody is on-board, we can only make the transition together.
Mathieu Vinken
ONTOX coordinator/university professor
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Belgium
Koen Kramer
Researcher animal ethics
Wageningen University & Research
The Netherlands
AC van Veen
Postdoc
Radboud University
The Netherlands
Tuula Heinonen
Professor
Tampere University
Finland
Regulators give acceptance criteria for approving non-animal methods to predict safety (all chemicals) for all end points and efficacy (drugs)
Julia D Zajac
Project manager
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Belgium
Sonja von Aulock
Editor in chief, CEO
ALTEX – Alternatives to Animal Experimentation
Germany
Tobias Theska
PhD Student
Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen
Germany
Ingeborg Eva Reihs
Doctoral candidate
Medical University of Vienna
Austria
More specific funding for absolute animal-free and clean science, method establishment. Awards for absolute animal-free approaches and more critical thinking about so-called animal-free research.
Alicia Paini
Senior Toxicologist
esqLABS GmbH
Italy
Eliska Kuchovska
postdoctoral researcher
IUF – Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine
Germany
Marina Garcia de Lomana
Research Scientist
Bayer AG
Germany
Job Berkhout
PhD Student
UU, RIVM
The Netherlands
Domenico Gadaleta
Scientific Consultant
Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri – IRCCS
Italy
Katharina Koch
Postdoctoral Researcher
IUF – Leibniz-Research Institute for Environmental Medicine
Germany
More interaction between researchers, the regulatory bodies and the industry. ECHA for example! More case studies supported by the regulatory bodies and indurtry. More guidance on the use of PBTK in POD estimation.
Erwin L Roggen
CEO and WP6 leader of the ONTOX project
3Rs Management and Consulting ApS
Denmark
Willingness to change and courage to embrace innovation in practice, not only words.
Ellen Fritsche
Professor
DNTOX GmbH
Germany
Establish case studies involving different stakeholders and compare classical risk assessment to NAM-based risk assessment.
Helena Kandarova
ESTIV President, Director of UEFT CEM SAS
ESTIV and Slovak Academy of Science
Slovakia
Please try to harmonize legistlation accorst various sectors so that animal testing is not requested in areas, where replacements are availabe (e.g. medical devices, pesticides, pharmaceuticals)
Alessio Gamba
Postdoc researcher
VPH institute and University of Liege
Belgium
Jeffrey Bajramovic
Director 3Rs Centre Utrecht
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
PD Dr.-Ing. Joachim Wiest
Adjunct professor
Technical University of Munich
Germany
Nicolas Bayer
Master Student
RPTU Kaiserslautern
Germany
ethically based funding!!!
Christiane Spruck
PhD student
IUF
Germany
Florian Caiment
Associate Professor
Maastricht University
The Netherlands
Andreas Schiwy
PostDoc, Teamleader
Goethe University
Germany
The advancement of chemical defined media for culture of cells, replacement of animal derived products like fetal bovine serum as well as rat liver S9 with biotechnological alternatives. The development of physiological media to sustain cell lines that show similar reaction compared to the human body.
Liliana Moreira Teixeira
Assistant professor
University of Twente
The Netherlands
busuqet
ceo
altertox
Belgium
John Grin
Full professor in the governance of transitions
University of Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Huub Schellekens
Emeritus Professor
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
Esther Wenzel
COO
Abcalis GmbH
Germany
Tamara Vanhaecke
Professor
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculty of Medicine & Pharmacy
Belgium
Maria Tsamou
Chief Scientific Officer
ToxGenSolutions
The Netherlands
Emilio Benfenati
Head of Department
Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri
Italy
Wouter Dhert
Professor and Scientific Director Innovation in Life Sciences
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
Daniela Salvatori
Professsor Anatomy and Physiology, Chairperson Animal-free Innovation Utrecht University
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
Education (interprofessioanl education) and creation of a community able to go through the necessary changes
Hanna Dusza
Postdoctoral researcher
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
Annalisa Gastaldello
Project Officer
European Commission
Italy
Konstantina
PhD student
VU Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Allocating funds to research aimed at developing in vitro methods modeling animal testing.
Jakob (Jaap) Heringa
Professor Bioinformatics
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
The Netherlands
FAIR data infrastructure; Digital twin
Jos Joore
CEO
Mimetas
The Netherlands
Victoria Marincheva
Assist. Prof.
University of Forestry Sofia
Bulgaria
Iliyan Manev
Assos. Prof. in Immunology
Faculty of Veterinary medicine, University of Forestry
Bulgaria
Eckhard von Keutz
Consultant
Independent
Germany
A concrete working plan which contains the deliverables and the associated timelines. Leadership and commitment are needed to execute on the roadmap.
Jiayi Yang
PhD candidate
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
Silvia Scaglione
Chief Scientist, President of React4life
React4life
Italy
Kamile Jovaisaite
Scientific Sales Representative
STEMCELL Technologies
The Netherlands
Madalena Cipriano
Senior Scientist
University of Tübingen
Germany
Benoît Maisonneuve
CSO
NETRI
France
4 steps are necessary IMO: 1 – funding to develop and validate NAMs with clinical data, 2 – access to the clinical data (usually confidential), 3 – a regulatory framework to develop NAMs, and of course 4 – a legislative evolution of the European regulation (concerning drug developement etc) similar to what has been done in the USA and in India.
Luiz Ladeira
Postdoctoral researcher
Liège Université
Belgium
Erwin L Roggen
CEO
ToxGenSolutions BV
The Netherlands
Wiilingness and confidence based on scientific data in stead of believe.
Eva Bernet Kempers
postdoctoral researcher
University of Antwerp
Belgium
Line Mathiesen
Associate Professor
University of Copenhagen
Denmark
Ellen Fritsche
Prof.
IUF
Germany
Costanza Rovida
Scientific Officer
CAAT-Europe
Germany
Christian Maass
Principal Scientist, Lead Digital Organ-on-Chip Platform
esqLABS
Germany
Coordination with roadmap on standardization from CEN/CENELEC
Timea Gandek
Phd student
University of Groningen
The Netherlands
Ramiro Jover
Professor
University of Valencia
España
Kathrin Herrmann
Senior Associate
Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT)
Germany
Rafael Gozalbes
CEO
ProtoQSAR SL
SPAIN
Arno Gutleb
Managing Director
INVITROLIZE sarl
Luxembourg
Hubert Dirven
Department Director Chemical toxicology
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Norway
Legislation for chemicals need to be revised
Dr Brett A. Lidbury
Associate Professor
NCEPH – The Australian National University
Australia
We need a centre like ECVAAM to support non-animal innovation for biomedical research.
Thomas Luechtefeld
CEO
ToxTrack Inc
United States
James Rathman
Professor
Ohio State University
USA
Yanitza Trosel
Researcher
Sunnybrook Research Institute
Canada
Start using mimic organ environments to test more basic system, then start increasing the complexity.
Pandora Pound
Research Director
Safer Medicines Trust
UK
Brigitte Franke-Bray
Independent Consultant Pharmaceutical Medicine
Freelance
Switzerland
Pelin Candarliogu
Independent Consultant on the use of NAMS
3D and 3Rs
UK
Standardisation guidelines followed with a qualification framework for specific context of use and independent test centres that will evaluate and qualify different NAMs for regulatory acceptance
Dr Lilas Courtot
Science Manager
Animal Free Research UK
United-Kingdom
Francesca Pistollato
Senior Strategist – Biomedical science
HSI Europe
Italy
The transition towards human-relevant non-animal methods and models will help increase societal impact of funded research, in order to make scientific results really useful and translatable to human diseases and physiology.
Manuela Cassotta
Biologist Medical writer
OSA (Oltre la Sperimentazione Animale)
Italy
Dr. Christiane Hohensee
Subject specialist for Animal-free Research Methods
AGRIFISH: Member States call for a Fur Free Europe
26 June 2023
Press Release
A majority of Member States called today for a ban on fur farming and asked the European Commission (EC) to examine the possibility of a ban on the placement of farmed fur products on the European market, supporting the recently submitted Fur Free Europe ECI.
During today’s Agriculture and Fisheries Council (AGRIFISH), the Austrian, German and Netherlands delegations submitted an information note, supported by the Belgian, Cyprus, Czech, Estonian, Lithuanian, Luxembourg and Slovak delegations, calling for a ban on fur farming and to examine the possibility of introducing a ban on the sale and marketing of farmed fur products. The paper then received the support of seven other Member States during the meeting.
It’s the second time that the Council expressed its favour for an end to fur farming. Indeed back in 2021, the signatories of another information note called on the EC to take action to permanently end fur farming in the EU based on animal welfare, ethics as well as health risks for humans and animals.
The new call comes just after the formal submission of the successful Fur Free Europe ECI which collected more than 1.5 million validated signatures in less than 10 months.
19 Member States have already totally or partially banned or strictly regulated fur farming, sometimes with phasing-out periods. However, the lack of harmonisation in the EU undermines those very measures: fur farming can be “outsourced” with farms moving to other Member States, as a result, distorting the internal market. Moreover, it’s important not only to ban fur farming but the placement of farmed fur products on the European market, in order to ensure that fur produced under similarly cruel conditions in third countries is not sold within the EU.
The Member States called on the EC to uphold its commitment to pay “full regard to the welfare of animals” in line with Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The note also refers to the EC’s commitment to end caged farming systems for other animals and how maintaining these systems for fur farms would be incongruous. They emphasised that under no conditions can the welfare of wild animals on fur farms be protected.
The support for a Fur Free Europe is yet again across the board: citizens, scientists and Member States spoke up against this cruel and unnecessary practice. With the constant decline in fur production since the last decade, followed by a sharp decrease due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the fur industry has had a low impact in the EU economy, and therefore an economic argument holds no ground. There is no way the EC can ignore such clear calls, now it’s the time to turn them into action and include the bans in the new Kept Animals Regulation.
Import and production of horsemeat under cruel conditions must stop
AWF
Investigation
The latest investigations by the Animal Welfare Foundation (AWF), Animals’ Angels USA and Tierschutzbund Zürich (TSB) reveal the mistreatment of horses slaughtered in Canada and Uruguay for European consumption. Thanks to these investigations, and in collaboration with a coalition of animal protection organisations, we are calling for an end to the import and production of horsemeat derived from cruel treatment.
Horsemeat from Canada
Half of the horses slaughtered in Canada come from the United States. EU meat export rules require American horses to be kept in feedlots for six months before slaughter to gain weight. This results in numerous health problems (painful hooves, metabolic diseases, ect.).
“In the course of our on-site investigations we found on several occasions that horses were limping, suffering from laminitis and had died as a result of their illnesses or injuries,” explains Sabrina Gurtner, project manager at AWF. Mares and stallions are mixed. They also take in pregnant animals. “The chances of foals surviving in the feedlots are slim. We have found foals that were sick in summer and froze to death at birth in winter,” recalls Sabrina Gurtner.
Horsemeat from Uruguay
In a recent two-year investigation by AWF and TSB, conducted in parallel with a pre-announced EU inspection, all three EU-certified slaughterhouses in the country were subject to overt and covert observations before, during and after the EU visit. “Our research shows that the EU audits are manipulated through extensive preparations,” reports Sabrina Gurtner.
What is particularly striking is that only a fraction of the horses are in the slaughterhouse pastures during the audits. “They’re placed in green pastures, sheltered from the weather. But that’s not the reality before and after the inspection visits. Once the inspectors have left, the horses are sent back to dusty, dirty fields, often without roughage and sometimes even without water.” Workers were also observed, beating the horses when the audit was over.
Problem: traceability and food safety
Together with AWF and the other members of the coalition, we condemn the inadequate traceability of horses in meat production abroad. There is no identification system for horses. The last owner, usually the horse dealer, provides information on the medication and origin of the horses he sells to slaughterhouses. “People rely on the honesty of the sellers. This paves the way for systematic fraud and puts EU consumers at risk,” criticises Sabrina Gurtner.
These investigations clearly demonstrate that animal welfare and traceability issues remain unresolved for the import of horsemeat from Uruguay and Canada. We therefore call on the European Commission to stop imports of horsemeat from these countries, as well as from all countries that do not comply with EU requirements.
Huge win! Denmark agrees to phase out fast-growing broiler chickens
The Danish government and key Danish political parties have agreed to phase out the state procurement of fast-growing chickens, and vowed to back a ban on the farming of fast-growing broilers at EU level.
This landmark move will significantly improve the welfare of the nation’s broiler chickens. Fast-growing broilers cannot live a good life, as due to their fast-growing nature, they suffer from a range of problems from the moment they are born – from injuries to lameness and heart issues. For this reason, animal protection NGOs across Europe have been campaigning for years to outlaw fast-growing broiler breeds in the EU’s animal welfare legislation.
Denmark proved to be on the forefront of the fight for better animal protection last week when a new political agreement was announced, with four key points to:
Establish a working group shedding light on animal welfare challenges in relation to the production of broiler chickens in Denmark
Phase out the production of fast-growing broilers at EU level
Campaign under the auspices of the State Animal Welfare Label with effect from 2023. The campaign must contribute to promoting demand for slow-growing broilers
Phase out the Danish government’s procurement of fast-growing broilers.
The working group will prepare a report on the animal welfare standards in Danish broiler production, including the conditions for parent animals. The working group’s report is part of the overall effort to phase-out the production of fast-growing broilers.
It’s particularly notable that the Danish government openly declared their support for a ban at EU level and are actively engaged in achieving it, in recognition of the overwhelming majority of EU citizens who wish animals were better protected in the EU.
The initiative to take decisive action on broiler welfare is part of a larger animal welfare package that will be announced before summer this year, according to the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Jacob Jensen.
We welcome this initiative together with our Danish member, Dyrenes Beskyttelse, who has been working towards achieving a ban on fast-growing broiler chickens in Denmark for years (press release available here). This move from Denmark proves a strong commitment to animal welfare from Member States, and strengthens the case for ambitious revised animal welfare legislation. Broiler chickens have – deservedly – been taking the spotlight recently, with Animal Equality securing a vote from the PETI Committee last month to keep a petition on outlawing fast-growing broiler chickens open. Read more here.
Broiler chickens: why are these innocent beings suffering by the billions?
It’s a difficult life for broiler chickens in Europe’s farming systems. Not only are these poor birds reared to grow incredibly fast – so they’re ready for slaughter after just six weeks of life – but they’re subjected to painful stunning practices, arduous journeys and awful habitats, too. As one of the most widely farmed and consumed species in Europe, it’s critical the Commission takes their welfare seriously in their ongoing revision to the animal welfare legislation. Billions of lives hang in the balance.
Broiler chickens are incredible animals. They’re clever, have amazing memories, and can form close bonds with their peers. But to see the way they are farmed across Europe, you’d think they were little more than robots – crammed into dark rooms with nothing to do, no room to move, and raised to be slaughtered in just a six-week timeframe.
It’s a shocking lifestyle to imagine… and an even more shocking one to watch up-close.
What are some of the key issues broiler chickens face in Europe’s farming systems?
Around 90% of the EU’s farmed broiler chickens are raised in intensive systems, which are riddled with problems. Here are just a few of the most concerning issues for this species in the sector.
Broiler chickens are being bred to grow too quickly
95% of the broiler chickens currently being reared on factory farms are ‘fast-growing’ breeds, which means they’re bred to grow very quickly and reach slaughter weight in just five to six weeks.
These poor beings cannot live a good life. Due to their fast-growing nature, they’re in constant discomfort, and commonly suffer from problems such as lameness, heart failure, metabolic disorders, and heat stress. These health problems are a direct result of their genetics, which means the only solution is to phase out the farming of fast-growing broiler chicken breeds entirely.
Broiler chickens are rarely given adequate space or access to the outdoors
Most broiler chickens live in horrible confinement. Thousands of birds are routinely crammed into the same small, dark spaces in factory farms, with the European Commission currently allowing stocking densities for up to 42 kg/m2 in its legislation.
The findings of the EFSA scientific opinion on broiler welfare point to the fact that stocking densities over 11 kg/m2 creates significant welfare problems for broiler chickens, with common issues including they’re more likely to contract footpad dermatitis, will have more difficulties with walking, and struggle to express their natural behaviours. Furthermore, high stocking densities cause chickens to suffer from overheating, as well as subject them to unhygienic conditions that are a threat to their health (as they’re surrounded by a much higher volume of litter than if they lived in smaller groups).
The needs and natures of broiler chickens are being ignored
Broiler chickens are feeling, curious and engaged creatures with a range of physical and emotional needs – just like any other sentient being.
However, these needs are far from being met across European factory farms. Billions of broiler chickens live indoors without any form of entertainment (such as perches or straw bales), and with no room to exercise, play or socialise naturally. Because of this, they have almost no opportunities to have positive experiences in their lifetimes.
Broiler chickens are being transported alive by the billions
Did you know that poultry makes up over 90% of live animal transports each year?
Many are broiler chickens, as they are frequently transported across Europe to reach slaughterhouses. Despite the huge number of them being forced to undergo long and arduous journeys annually, poultry is rarely considered in conversations about live animal transport, meaning these birds are suffering in silence.
Broiler chickens are being slaughtered in horrific ways
Industrially farmed broiler chickens are not granted the dignity of a pain-free death. Countless of them are subjected to a cruel and ineffective form of ‘waterbath stunning’ before they are sent to slaughter, where they often killed by having their throats cut – some while still fully conscious:
Clearly, the welfare laws for broiler chickens need to be heavily updated
Broiler chickens are farmed at a gigantic scale across Europe – yet as the above points show, the conditions in which they’re reared are far from acceptable. It’s absolutely critical that the European Commission focuses on this neglected species, and writes strong and robust laws for their welfare as they continue with their revision of the animal welfare legislation.
Emphasising the critical nature of the changes needed, our members have been campaigning for better lives for broiler chickens for years. Over in Sweden in 2022, Djurens Rätt launched an incredibly popular campaign exploring the issues these birds commonly experience:
This campaign won our award for ‘Best Campaign’ at the Eurogroup for Animals Annual General Meeting this year.
Members including Equalia, LAV and Essere Animali have also published several investigations that shine a light on the horrors industrially farmed broiler chickens are exposed to, sparking outrage and signalling a clear need to adapt the Commission’s laws for their welfare – and enforce them across the EU.
This is amazing progress for broiler chickens, but to change their lives at the kind of scale needed across the entirety of Europe, the European Commission must create standards for their welfare that all Member States must follow.
The European Commission must write species-specific legislation for broiler chickens! Do you agree?
Some of the most important changes they should make to the welfare laws for broiler chickens are:
Banning fast-growing broiler breeds
Banning ‘waterbath stunning’
Limiting stocking densities in farming systems following EFSA recommendations
Ensuring they have access to enrichment materials and the outdoors, so they can lead fulfilling lives
Putting measures in place to make sure all welfare laws for broiler chickens are sufficiently enforced across Europe.
It’s time to ring in a brighter era for broiler chickens in the EU and beyond. Are you with us?
We’re working to ensure all kept species are considered by the European Commission in their update to the animal welfare laws! Learn more here.