https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/eu-organic-day-what-it-could-mean-animal-welfare

EU Organic Day: what it could mean for animal welfare

23 September 2021

News

Today, Eurogroup for Animals joined the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament at the launch of the first EU Organic Day

This launch is part of the European Organic Action Plan 2021-2027, released last March, which follows the objectives set out in the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies of “at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming and a significant increase in organic aquaculture by 2030.”

Eurogroup for Animals particularly welcomes the contribution of the Action Plan to better align animal welfare with the societal demands on higher animal welfare and to further improve animal welfare in organic production. The recognition of the link between aquaculture and animal welfare, as well as the promotion of organic aquaculture are also welcomed. 

The Commission states that organic farming already plays an important role in improving the welfare of animals and that animal welfare is an integral part of sustainable food systems. However, there are still animal welfare issues in organic farming that urgently need to be addressed. 

Today at the launch of EU Organic Day, we used the opportunity to alert the institutions to the need for a comprehensive animal welfare labelling system as well as a need for animal welfare standards to aim higher: the need for stricter criteria to define adapted breeds, a truly compulsory access to pasture for livestock, a ban on mutilations, availability of immunocastration, transport time limitations, and proper enforcement for the existing organic rules for animal welfare. 

Eurogroup for Animals recommends the European Commission to:

• Quantify the target for organic aquaculture by aligning it with the target for terrestrial farming, i.e. 25% of aquaculture sites by 2030.
• Implement concrete animal welfare improvements such as slow-growing breeds in broilers, a ban on surgical castration of pigs and transport time limitations.
• Adopt Methods of Production (MoP+) labelling with one of the top levels integrating organic production.
• Ensure proper enforcement of the existing organic rules for animal welfare, e.g effective stunning of fish at slaughter, before granting the organic logo. 
• In identifying the obstacles for more organic agriculture and aquaculture, the reduction and replacement of animal products and a shift to more plant-based diets, as well as the need to shift to low-trophic aquatic species, should be seen as solutions. 

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the new Organic Action plan and sees the potential of organic production to be classified as the top tier method of production as well as an EU-wide labelling system for animal welfare. However, organic farming should lead the way towards the EU’s sustainable and humane food production model, reflecting the ambitions of the Farm to Fork strategy. While the language in the Organic Action Plan is still vague, we welcome the commitment to improving animal welfare, including farmed fish. We are looking forward to working with the Commission and other stakeholders to ensure organic farming will embrace the highest possible animal welfare standards.

Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals

Animal welfare and food labeling: initiating the transition through high quality consumer information

File

Report – Animal Welfare and food labeling1.84 MB

Regards Mark

Sustainable Food Systems: the intersection of trade and animal welfare

21 September 2021

News

Ahead of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit Eurogroup for Animals and The Good Lobby organised a high level event to discuss the intersection of animal welfare and trade in international policymaking

The COVID-19 crisis has reminded the world of the limits of unconditional trade liberalisation, which tends to favour corporate interests while ignoring the effects of the intensification of animal agriculture on the planet and on the animals. This has contributed to the three key challenges the planet is currently facing: zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance, and the overall climate and biodiversity crisis.

At the moment, international trade and economic policies are fuelling rather than countering the expansion and negative impacts of intensive livestock farming by prioritising profits and free trade above all. For example, the trade deal between the EU and Ukraine has led to a surge in cheap chicken meat imports, and the ones planned with Australia and Mercosur countries are expected to also fuel beef production – mostly on feedlots – according to the EU’s own analysis.

Indeed, there seems to be a disconnection between the conversations on the much needed transformation of our food systems and the international trade agenda. 

Both panels investigated the best ways to ensure that trade agreements and international trade rules not only avoid negative impacts on animal welfare, but also intrinsically contribute to a global transition towards a more ethical and sustainable way of producing. 

The first panel focused on how bilateral trade agreements can help to promote higher animal welfare and thus to move towards sustainable food systems. 

“We want to step up cooperation [under EU Trade Agreements] and make a big difference,” said Claire Bury, Deputy Director-General for Food Sustainability at DG SANTE. She also underlined the importance of developing work programmes for the animal welfare cooperation with each partner country, “so we have concrete plans about what to do with the country. It’s not a talking shop, it’s about making a change”, Bury added. 

Recognising animal welfare has never been as high on the agenda, Pascal Durand MEP called for products derived from animal exploitation – as well as biodiversity and human exploitation – not to be allowed on the EU market. 

The EU is not the only place where trade policy is at the centre of important debates. Chris Sherwood, CEO of the RSPCA, portrayed the tensions reflected by the current UK debate on trade policy. “There are real tensions at the heart of the UK government – between ensuring high standards locally, and wanting to have a Global Britain negotiating trade deals all around the world”.

EU trade policy is also monitored by non-EU Civil Society Organisations. “We need to bring [higher animal welfare and sustainability-related] standards within the [EU-Mercosur] agreement to push up Mercosur standards”, said Maureen Santos, Project Officer at FASE.

The second panel’s focus was on multilateral issues and how animal welfare can be addressed at WTO level and throughout the value chain.

“There is an increasing interest for animal welfare within our members”, said Jean-Marie Paugam, deputy Director-General at the World Trade Organisation.  “The debate can be open, and the WTO is open to support a trade policy enhancing animal welfare”, he added. 

“It is possible to build up a progressive interpretation of [WTO] rules. That would be a huge evolution about how article XX [and its exceptions to trade liberalisation] was being read in comparison to what it was when WTO was created”, said Ignacio Garcia Bercero, Director General for Trade at DG TRADE. “If we are going to [restrict trade based on animal welfare], we will need to have solid, strong evidence to show it is grounded in widely perceived ethical concerns, not tainted by economic considerations”, he added. 

Dr Laura Nielsen also mentioned the role that tiered labelling, intertwined with tariff reductions, could play in incentivising businesses all around the world. 

A key part of the solution to ensure that trade contributes to a transition towards more sustainable food systems is thus to better address the impact of trade policy on animal welfare. 

Asked about his expectations from the UN Food Systems Summit, Pascal Durand concluded that “we must understand that our current production methods are not sustainable for humans nor for animals, and that we must improve the life of all living beings. Once this is understood, policies will follow.” 

Now more than ever, we must seize the opportunity the UN Food Systems Summit presents to leverage the emerging global awareness that the health and wellbeing of humans are inseparable from those of animals and the planet. In doing so, we must break down silos to go beyond the traditional animal welfare and sustainability narratives and rethink trade policy, at both bilateral and multilateral levels.

Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals

Regards Mark

WAV Comment:  we have added a few bits here.

So, a climate conference which debates the issues of global warming.  Vegan eating can reduce Carbon emissions by up to 73%; so we are more than angered to find that at this present time, there is not even a plant based option for food being delivered at the conference !  – Read more:

UK: UN COP26 Climate Summit – vegan eating can reduce food-related carbon emissions by 73%. Eating meat and dairy is part of what got us into this mess. So Why No Vegan Food At the Summit ???? – Take Action Below. – World Animals Voice

We know and understand how the mafia does everything to protect its business; but here we are talking about a global conference and the amount of emissions that animal farming is responsible for – because it is the second-biggest source of damaging global emissions.

If you cannot get the UN to get a grip on these facts, and then do something about it, then where are we going ?

In recent months we have witnessed environmental devastation on (literally) a global basis – wildfires, floods, temperature extremes etc; and yet the light does still not appear to be in the ‘on’ position when it comes to conference debates in the name of ‘UN actions’.

Maybe the UN is happy to protect the meat industry at the cost of everything else, who knows ? – but not currently having even plat based food at the conference just sums it all up really.

Maybe it would be better to call the conference ‘COP OUT 21’.; as that may be a more descriptive term.

Regards Mark

Moby, Joaquin Phoenix and Billie Eilish urge world leaders at climate talks to curb animal farming

Exclusive: Joanna Lumley and Alesha Dixon also among 18 stars warning world will fail to limit disastrous temperature rises without radical changes

A host of stars including Billie Eilish, Moby, Joaquin Phoenix and Stephen Fry are urging the government to get world leaders to debate animal agriculture at the upcoming climate crisis summit because of the environmental damage it causes.

Eighteen celebrities have written to MP Alok Sharma, president of the Cop26 conference, asking him and other delegates to “formally and publicly recognise the role of animal agriculture as one of the largest contributors to climate change”.

Other stars signing the letter are: Ricky Gervais, Joanna Lumley, Deborah Meaden, Harry Potter star Evanna Lynch, singer Leona Lewis, Chris Packham, actors Alicia Silverstone, Alan Cumming and Daisy Ridley, singer-songwriter Alesha Dixon, model Lily Cole, singers Finneas O’Connell and James McVey, and reality TV star Lucy Watson.

They argue that animal farming should be on the Cop26 agenda because it is the second-biggest source of damaging emissions, after burning fossil fuels for electricity and heat.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation says global livestock accounts for 14.5 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions, but other research has concluded it is nearer to 16.5 per cent.

This is similar to levels produced by all the world’s transportation combined – and the proportion is forecast to rise.

The celebrities – all on plant-based diets – warn that without large-scale change to animal farming systems, the world will fail to keep rising temperatures to 2C, as agreed.

The letter, coordinated by Humane Society International/UK and seen by The Independent, reads: “With animal agriculture being such a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, it is impossible to meet goals set out in the Paris Agreement without making changes to our global food system.

“Even if all other major sources of emissions were reformed, we will still fall short.

“Addressing these urgent areas in the Cop26 meeting would help propel governments around the world to take action and would provide world leaders with another high-impact option to add to their toolbox for tackling climate change.

“We call on the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] to formally and publicly recognise the role of animal agriculture as one of the largest contributors of climate change and to open a greater space for dialogue.”

They want Mr Sharma to put three proposals to the summit: shifting subsidies away from animal agriculture to more sustainable agriculture; offering incentives to develop alternatives to animal agriculture and changing government procurement priorities in the public sector.

Moby said: “The science is clear and overwhelming that adopting a more plant-based diet is one of the most impactful actions we can take to avert catastrophic climate change.

“So if we want to protect our planet, we must include intensive animal agriculture in climate change mitigation strategies. Cop26 is one of our last vital chances to reform our global food systems.”

At least 88 billion land animals are bred and slaughtered for food globally each year, taking up nearly 80 per cent of global agricultural land, yet producing less than a fifth of the world’s calories.

Animal agriculture is also a major driver of deforestation, species extinction, land degradation, pollution and exhaustion of water resources because of the vast tracts of land used to grow the crops to feed them on, a system long criticised by experts as highly inefficient.

A series of reports have concluded meat consumption must be reduced to curb CO2 emissions.

World-leading scientists on the IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) even floated the idea of a meat tax.

A 2019 study showed that by 2030, the livestock sector is projected to account for almost half of the world’s emissions budget for 1.5C without radical change.

The campaign for Cop26 has been dubbed The Cow in the Room, a play on the phrase “elephant in the room” because HSI claims the conference is ignoring the second-biggest factor in the climate crisis.

Producing meat, milk and eggs also requires huge amounts of water – up to three times as much as producing cereals, one study found.

The Independent has asked the UNFCCC for their response to the letter’s demands.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/moby-joaquin-billie-eilish-climate-animal-farming-co2-b1922455.html

Regards Mark

This is a 3 page post.

Greenhouse gases released by New Zealand’s 6 million-cow dairy industry have hit an all-time high. Agriculture made up more than half of the country’s total industry and household emissions. The increase continued a longer-term rise in emissions from New Zealand agriculture, up 5.5% in the past decade.

Emissions from cows on New Zealand dairy farms reach record levels | New Zealand | The Guardian

Emissions from cows on New Zealand dairy farms reach record levels

This article is more than 1 month old

Calls for further regulation after latest data after latest data from Stats NZ shows greenhouse gas emissions rose another 3% in 2019

Greenhouse gases released by New Zealand’s dairy industry have hit an all-time high, according to the latest data.

Data from Stats NZ, just released for the years 2007-2019, showed dairy emissions rose 3.18% in 2019, to a total of 17,719 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent that year. That rise helped drive an overall increase across the agricultural sector, which released almost 42,000 kilotonnes that year.

Agriculture made up more than half of the total industry and household emissions measured by Stats NZ, with most of that split between dairy, sheep and beef farming. The increase continued a longer-term rise in emissions from New Zealand agriculture, where emissions were up 5.5% in the past decade.

The emissions created by the digestive systems of New Zealand’s 6.3m cows are among New Zealand’s biggest environmental problems. Agriculture is one of the country’s biggest producers of the greenhouse gases that cause global heating and the climate crisis.

Greenpeace spokesperson Steve Abel said it was “no surprise that when you let corporations and industries regulate themselves, they basically maintain the status quo of their pollution profile”.

“You have to step in and regulate and legislate to lower greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.

New Zealand is one of the world’s worst performers on emission increases. Its emissions rose by 57% between 1990 and 2018 – the second greatest increase of all industrialised countries. Earlier this year, data showed that New Zealand’s emissions had increased by 2% in 2018-19.

The president of Federated Farmers, Andrew Hoggard, said: “Food isn’t a nice-to-have, it’s a must-have, and New Zealand farmers are amongst the best in the world at producing food in a very low footprint.”

“For New Zealand to go off on some virtue signalling crusade to shut down its agricultural sector, just to say ‘Hey, we’ve reduced a heap of emissions’ hasn’t solved anything,” he added.

The sector is hopeful that new scientific developments, such as methane inhibitors, breeding, and using different forms of feed would continue to reduce methane emissions, Hoggard said.

In 2019, New Zealand passed multipartisan climate legislation setting a net zero by 2050 target for CO2 emissions, and set up the Climate Change Commission to map out a pathway there. The government is legally bound to formulate a policy response to the commission’s report, which was released in June – but has not outlined what those policy steps will be. The commission’s report found that some of the work to reduce methane emissions could be done through improved farm practices and breeding animals that produced less gas – but it would also require a drop in the number of total herd numbers by 10%-15%.

Hoggard also said methane emissions were down from 2006 – although data shows methane emissions spiked particularly high that year. Methane emissions since 2008 have been trending mostly up.

Abel said Thursday’s data release should be considered a conservative estimate, because it did not include emissions from transport, coal used to dehydrate milk powder, or the emissions of palm kernel imported for food.

“All of the promises of the dairy industry that it will self regulate and take charge of the problem are clearly not working, and that is borne out by the actual emissions data,” Abel said.

“We need farming, but farming needs to stop being this industrial polluter – it needs to move to making the land healthy, keeping our rivers healthy, keeping our fresh water healthy and not driving extreme weather events through climate change.”

Continued on next page