From ‘Eurogroup for Animals’.

EFSA opinions on the welfare of laying hens and broilers

23 February 2023

The long-awaited EFSA opinions on the welfare of laying hens and broilers have been published, and it is very encouraging to see that the recommendations confirm that the Cage Age must end.

Laying Hens

For laying hens, the EFSA clearly indicates that cages should no longer be used, and painful mutilations, such as beak trimming, should be abandoned in favour of other preventive measures against injurious pecking (e.g. enrichment materials). 

The recommended maximum stocking density is 4 birds/m2 (as opposed to 9 birds/m2 in the current legislation) and the prospective cage-free systems should also include elevated structures, as well as 1 nest/7 hens. 

The EFSA further stresses that systems that provide daylight, outdoor access or covered verandas have positive effects on behaviour and help to prevent feather damage. Thus, the presence of a covered veranda is recommended for all categories of birds and should always be available (if the climate allows for it). The availability of an outdoor range is also encouraged. In terms of lighting regime, natural light should be provided in addition to artificial light. Both laying hens and breeders should be able to have eight hours of continuous darkness per day (with artificial lights turned off) as well as periods of dusk and dawn. Feed restriction practices cannot be performed except for the time before slaughter, and for no longer than 10 hours. 

The new scientific opinion stresses the importance of systematically measuring animal welfare by adopting harmonised assessment methods and scoring systems across the EU. 

It is important to highlight that several welfare assessment protocols already exist for poultry but are currently only used voluntarily. Among the important parameters to monitor, according to the EFSA, are on-farm mortality, wounds, plumage damage, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnation at slaughter. Implementing protocols to monitor, among others, keel bone fractures and plumage condition will also serve to encourage further progress in genetic selection and to enable producers to choose strains that are more resilient, with a reduced risk of bone lesions and other kinds of injuries. 

We are glad to read that many of these recommendations are in line or close to our position outlined in the Hens’ Asks. 

Broilers

The main recommendations on broiler welfare include a maximum stocking density of 11 kg/m2, which is considered essential for broilers to express natural behaviours, to rest properly and to support health. Considering that, due to the existing derogations in the Broilers Directive chickens are often reared at stocking densities up to 42 kg/m2, this recommendation is extremely welcome. 

Another crucial set of recommendations regard measures to move away from selection for fast growth rates. The EFSA recommends using slower-growing commercial breeds and selecting new slower growing breeds that do not require to be kept on restricted diets to retain better health. Genetic selection should not aim to obtain breeds with even faster growth rates. This will also ensure that broiler breeders are no longer kept on restricted diets that cause chronic hunger. Genetic selection should obtain strains with a growth limited to a maximum of 50 g/day to allow the broilers to maintain better health and be active. The EFSA points to the fact that the slower the hybrid grows, the higher the level of animal welfare. Welfare in broilers and their breeders must be improved both by emphasising these traits in the selection index, as well as using hybrids with lower growth rates. Of course, the EFSA also emphasises that cages cannot be used for broiler breeders. 

All forms of mutilations should be avoided in broiler breeders and all preventive methods should be in place to avoid the potential welfare consequences that could appear when mutilations are not performed.

In terms of rearing environment, the EFSA stresses that on-farm hatching enables newborn chicks to have immediate access to feed and water. This prevents prolonged hunger and thirst. During the rearing phase, covered verandas should be provided to both broilers and breeders to allow birds to choose between different temperatures, light conditions and substrate quality and promote foraging, exploratory and comfort behaviours.

Elevated platforms and dark brooders for broilers and perches for broiler breeders should be provided to create functional areas and environmental enrichment to the birds. Dry and friable litter should be provided from day one and new litter material should be added throughout the rearing period to support comfort and exploratory and foraging behaviour.

Once again, the EFSA stresses the importance of implementing harmonised assessment methods and scoring systems to measure mortality on farm as well as the prevalence of wounds, carcass condemnation, and footpad dermatitis in broilers at slaughter. These iceberg indicators can be useful to monitor the on-farm welfare of broilers in Europe.

The scientific opinion also mentions that as the culling of day-old male chicks has now been banned in some European countries (with more to follow most probably, and with the ambitions of the EU Commission to propose such a ban EU-wide), rearing the males of dual-purpose hybrids (animals bred for meat and egg production) is a good alternative to rearing slower-growing broilers. In-ovo sexing was also mentioned as an alternative to male chick culling in the opinion on laying hen welfare. 

We warmly welcome the ambitious limit to stocking densities at 11 kg/m2 and the emphasis on the importance of the influence of genetics on broiler welfare (which, sadly, was not as pronounced in the opinion on laying hen welfare). 

However, it is concerning that thinning isn’t explicitly discouraged. It is also regrettable that more information on the specifics of higher welfare breeds wasn’t included, as well as a clear recommendation to phase out the use of fast-growing breeds.

Regards Mark

Force-feeding for foie gras: new investigation reveals this inhumane practice still occurs in the EU, despite high sanctions in most Member States

21 February 2023

GAIA

Recently, the European Parliament hosted a meeting of the parliamentary Intergroup for Animal Welfare, in which footage was shown revealing the horrific reality of force-feeding in foie gras production on a farm in France. Ways forward to finally solve this problem in relation to EU law were suggested by attendees.

Olivier Morice, Public Affairs Officer for L214, showed the footage taken at the end of 2022 on a mainstream French farm. The images of the animals during, before and after force-feeding were a shocking and accurate display of the horrible effects of this awful practice, calling to attention why it urgently needs to be addressed by policymakers.

The use of force-feeding for foie gras production in the EU

Force-feeding ducks and geese for foie gras production is a form of animal abuse that has already been made illegal in 22 EU Member States, plus two of the three Belgian regions. As Adolfo Sansolini, Advisor to Eurogroup for Animals and Consultant to GAIA, explained at the Intergroup, sanctions in those countries if animals were force-fed for foie gras production could reach fines of up to €800,000, and imprisonment for up to six years.

Sadly, force-feeding for foie gras production remains legal in France, Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain and Wallonia. It’s difficult to understand why. Not only has scientific evidence shown the practice of force-feeding to be unnecessarily cruel and detrimental to the welfare of animals, but citizens across the EU have called for its end as well through surveys like the ‘Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare’ Eurobarometer (2016), through which 94% of participants said they believed it was important to protect the welfare of farmed animals.

A future without force-feeding: how can the EU move forward?

It’s clear this mistreatment can’t be allowed to go on. EU institutions must ensure that citizen and animal welfare concerns, rather than niche sectoral interests, are represented and defended in legislation. ‘Traditional’ animal-derived foods (an umbrella under which foie gras arguably falls) should not undermine ethical and scientific progress, and currently, the fact that this practice is still enabled by European law undermines the EU’s global reputation for high animal welfare standards. 

Sansolini explained two ways to end force-feeding for foie gras production:

1. Foie gras production can be made possible without the use of force-feeding: To achieve this, the arbitrary requirement of minimum liver weights – introduced in the European Regulation on marketing standards for poultry meat in 1991 (and maintained in the 2008 version) – must be removed. This would generate fairer competition for farmers across the EU, allow consumer choice, and level the playing field for the companies and countries that have adopted higher standards. DG AGRI is responsible for this piece of legislation;

2. Force-feeding can be banned altogether in the EU and without exemptions: Therefore fully implementing Directive 58/98/EC, which states that “No animal shall be provided with food or liquid in a manner (…) which may cause unnecessary suffering or injury”.

Reineke Hameleers, CEO of Eurogroup for Animals, commented that “millions of European citizens look with hope at the work of Commissioner Wojciechowski to make foie gras production without force-feeding possible, giving back choice to citizens and ending the discrimination on the market of higher-welfare producers. The time has come to end the scandal of force-feeding for good, by including a ban in the proposals that Commissioner Kyriakides is preparing on farm animal welfare.”

Regards Mark

With thanks to Stacey at Our Compass

Our Compass | Because compassion directs us … (our-compass.org)

Regards Mark

But if you don’t ignore the violent suffering of animals, kids will get cavities …

FEBRUARY 16, 2023

by Stacey

I’m gonna have to call out some traumatized nonvegans again. On a comment board following a NYT opinion article Rescuing Farm Animals From Cruelty Should Be Legal in favor of a DxE rescue of two chickens from the death industry, some nonvegans had to digitally vocalize why those two chickens should have instead violently suffered death in a “caring, welfare-respectful establishment” – while ignoring that there are zero laws “protecting” “food animals” – in a world where trillions of animals violently suffer yearly for a largely indifferent society that doesn’t experience anger at SUFFERING but rather at people who rescue animals from suffering. I know that was really wordy, but it’s hard summarizing the mass, incalculable violence and pain humans effortlessly inflict, but relentlessly defend, on innocents. (And I’ll just point out here that ALL animal exploitation is cruel, not just “some”.) The comments were eventually closed so I was unable to respond to a couple directly, and while there’s probably a 100% chance of 0 that the original commenters will see my responses here, I think it’s important to make these corrections in general as so many of these excuses are inaccurately-yet-consistently demonstrated by so many non (anti) vegans, whose only change is their name, to attempt to validate injustice. And I can’t just ignore them. Sue me.

This is a favorite of mine: nonvegans demanding vegans make violence against animals more comfortable for nonvegans. So instead of saving chickens, because obviously Michael likes to eat chickens, animal rescuers need to instead concentrate on saving “veal” calves, obviously because Michael doesn’t like the flavor of infant flesh but needs to deflect from his willing participation in chicken suffering and float the idea that because calves violently die due to not being rescued by vegans – versus being killed for and by nonvegans – he can’t be bothered to not kill chickens. (I mean, antivegan’s excuses are like a brain trust in reverse.)

(And they’re not “its”, but I understand that humans have been exploiting speciesist language to distance themselves from their sentient victims since communication was born and it’s just easier for people to refer to boats as “she” and animals as “its”.)

I actually answered this one by factually demonstrating, with USDA data, that “veal” is caused by “dairy”. In other words, Michael, your milk, cheese, and ice cream consumption – because you actually do like to eat those – are responsible for all those poor, sweet baby cows being violently confined and killed as early as 3 weeks of age (of course there are millions who violently die at an even earlier age of 0 in slaughterhouses, too, when their mothers are violently killed and cut open to – surprise! baby here who needs to be killed too).

Michael’s response?

Silence, aka, a hugely silent, “OOOOOOOOOOPS!!! I didn’t know that so will just pretend that I still don’t know and ignore that I personally cause baby cow suffering AND chicken suffering ….”

Of course.

Cruelty is only offensive when you don’t know about or acknowledge that you are directly responsible for said cruelty.

But yes, it’s vegans’ responsibility to help Michael sort his conscience on his self-serving journey to zero accountability….

Just stop the tantrum-blaming, suggesting your cruel actions and violent behaviour are someone else’s responsibility, I’m not here to make you feel better about abusing animals, that’s all on YOU, YOU enable “veal crates” and other suffering via your actions and pathetic welfare “reform” internet support and involvement in an inherently cruel “system” that normalizes a culture of violent animal suffering and death that is ALL RELATED. (And as for those “reforms” I swear I’m going to hurl if I see another person scream, “Yes, pass those regulations, I’m more than happy to pay more for humanely raised animals!!!” while STILL supporting what they admit is cruel NOW. Not to mention – again – that ALL animal exploitation is inherently cruel (if a bigger cage is important, what’s more important than NO CAGE?), it’s just that people have been brainwashed into conformist flesh zombies, believing that unethically and inhumanely violating and violently killing animals is ok because “poor people, male-calves-I-mean-oooops-not-really, a vague future with maybe bigger cages, children’s cavities tho” … :

How about you? Because, you know, instead of spending time criticizing people who spend time helping animals, how many teeth could you have saved by NOT taking time reading and commenting on an article that makes you angsty? (Are you even a dentist or are you implying we all just need to grab some pliers? Seems a bit torturous but I wouldn’t expect an animal abusing apologist to care much about kids anyway.)

But you don’t really care about kids, you care about inventing some fake moral outrage so you don’t have to address the factual suffering and cruelty YOU cause that you could easily NOT.

I mean, imagine feeling so insecure as to suggest that NOT helping animals is required to helping kids while simultaneously ignoring abject animal abuse – animals being boiled alive in this case – because you’re incapable of being a decent human who refuses such cruelties but have to pretend that you’re not complicit because kids get cavities. Desperate much? I can’t even word your illogic logically it’s so bizarre.

But do tell how your violence helps kids with their medical care. And do share also how many sports events, malls, libraries, grocers, theaters, clothing stores, zoos, vet clinics, etc., etc., etc., you’ve visited, screaming at people who shop, play sports, or watch tv, that THEY should instead spend time helping other humans with their dental needs.

Oh. It’s only people who care about animals that you enragingly target: “I refuse to minimize animal suffering so I’m just gonna criticize those who do!!!”

You know why? Because you can’t justify your cruel behaviour, but rather than examine and change it, you have to try to bring others down to your level of indecency and apathy. Indeed, rather than choosing plant-based milk instead of suffering cow’s milk, you have to falsely accuse animal rescuers of being anti-human to deflect from your pro-abuse behaviour.

The hubris irony of “humanitarians” who demand those very humans NOT exercise their rights and ethics to minimize suffering. Honestly, I’ve never been hit with so much hatred than from antivegan “humanitarians” who casually forget that vegans are, you know, human.

And by the way, millions upon millions of animals are condemned (removed from “food supply”) yearly due to disease, neglect, and squalor, do they affect kids’ teeth? Or is it only the animals who are rescued … from you?

And to be clear, the people who spends gobsandgobs of time killing animals, abusing animals, hunting animals, eating animals, cooking animals, using animals, buying animals, wearing animals, breeding animals, impregnating animals, mutilating animals, celebrating animal violence, encouraging more violent exploitation of animals, mocking animal suffering, and mocking people opposed to animal exploitation, are cool, though? As long as a person’s time used to abuse animals aligns with your standard of “legitimate time suckage via animal suffering” they’re good?

So much logic it makes me want to cry ………..

The last comment was correct, but the disinformation machine is alive and violently successful in the first. People say things with zero hesitation because many honestly believe what they’re saying is the truth based on what THEY heard and on and on and on. (Listen to Jem’s They)

You can’t have “empathy” for animals you eat. You have to literally smother your capacity for empathy and instead adopt indifference and word salad justifications overandoverandover to make yourself believe that abusing animals benefits animals. And “humanely raising” is reserved for beings who benefit from a nurturing environment of care and support as they age, not one that exploits and violates your body prior to your body being violently killed and eaten at a fraction of your “normal” lifespan, ffs.

But where are these small farms that slaughter their “own animals” and sell them to community members? I see this “advice” all the time.

Which is really bizarre.

Because it’s illegal.

It’s not a fruit stand, folks, you can’t just “stop by” Farmer Bob’s on your way to bingo and buy a leg and a pound of guts.

In the US, all flesh commercially sold requires inspection and certification via a slaughterhouse. While farmers can kill and consume their “own” animals, it’s illegal to sell their body parts to others.

What’s really (angeringly) interesting is that you’ll NEVER see farmers or industry shills correcting misinformation. No, instead they fuel it with ludicrous, “We love the animals, they’re like our children!!!”

Yikes.

Imagine the absolute betrayal animals experience at the violent hands of their “parents”.

Ah, LB from Minneapolis nobly participates in abject animal suffering because LB is concerned about “poor people”: “I really, really hate abusing animals, but I’m forced to eat dead animals to help poor people…………..”

I wonder if LB smokes and also encourages other people to smoke to sustain tobacco farmers? They have families to feed, too, right?

Honestly.

Caring about poor people doesn’t require animal abuse, that’s just the desperate position you take to garner social approval for being pro-violence. Not one utterance of shock at the violence you cause, LB, just vague references excusing it because “other people tho”; and not actively condemning animal exploitation by being vegan DOES defend factory farming. The entire world loves to object to factory farms on the internet but even with such global condemnation, they still exist “producing” >90% of animals violently killed globally for consumption each year. Someone’s fibbing, LB. Shocker.

And let’s be honest: it’s actually privileged to believe others’ bodies belong to you and abuse and kill them for that belief.

And empathy is free. Use it!

Zero antivegans care about poor people, migrant workers, people who live in food deserts, or quinoa farmers in Peru until vegans enter the room. Then they turn into snot-sobbing humanitarians who boldly sacrifice ethics and exploit other people’s tragedies and negative experiences to (attempt to) legitimatize eating violence (while also ignoring that the largest consumer segment of plant-based food are people who also eat animals).

You can care about animals and humans. At the same time. I do, why can’t you?

A pound of “ground beef” would cost about $35 minus subsidies, how about you stop exploiting animals and use those dollars in a more worthwhile manner? Because rather than admit that you don’t need to support animal abuse, you deflect by instead pretending that violence against animals is ok based on “my (fake) hurty feelings about poor people tho” and criticize people who support animal rescue.

And by the way, when people exploit “poor people” to (attempt to) legitimatize their personal contribution to animal suffering, they’re suggesting that poor people are incapable of being vegan and minimizing animal suffering. And THAT’S offensive. SL

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