Put MEP’s and Commissioners in a Cage for 24 hours; and then see how quickly things would change !
Mark – WAV.
WAV Comment: I (Mark) am getting on my soapbox here about this; sorry if I have different views to others, but knowing the EU and how it operates; I don’t think we will see that much in the way of change. Nice words and PR’s; and a pile of EU ‘officials’ working day and night to dress it all up; for basically nothing – which means nothing being done in the way of progress for the welfare of animals in Europe.
Have animal welfare / rights organisations across the EU been saying this for years – that ‘conventional rabbit cages have worst welfare score’; and have they not supported this attitude with vast amounts of evidence / proof of the cruelties involved ?. We note that this report says that ‘conventional cages have the worst overall welfare impact score’ – it says nothing about banning them, just simply that ‘it includes recommendations to improve the welfare of these animals in all the systems currently available in the EU’.
In other words; and in my opinion only for this article, the EU ‘policy’ has basically no intention of ‘ending the cage’ as proposed by campaigns by animal welfare groups across Europe. At best, it is regarded by us as a kind of ‘tinkering round the edges’ strategy; which largely keeps current systems; whilst saying to citizens and the welfare groups that ‘improvements have been made’ !. Oh yeah, like what ? – Rabbits; the most farmed animal throughout Europe, we suggest, rabbits we still be kept in cages throughout the EU, and really the EU will have masses of new ‘yukspeak’ legislation that does very little, changes very little; but keeps the farmers and their lobbyists happy – and that for them is the main thing.
Have we not seen the ‘EU approach’ to all this in the past ? – ‘battery cages’ for chickens suddenly take on the new EU name of ‘enriched cages’ – and they move from each bird in an enriched cage now having at least 750 square centimetres of space rather than the old minimum for ‘battery’ cage systems, which was 550 square centimetres; or in other words, roughly the size of one A4 sheet of paper per bird, for their entire lives !
Read – Enriched cages condemned – CIWF – one of the UK’s leading farm animal welfare organisations:
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2010/08/Enriched-cages-condemned
Lets move on to another ‘farm animal welfare’ issue that the EU is involved with and ignores the wishes of its citizens on – Live Exports (live animal transports). Have a look at all the people in Europe calling for change:
https://stoplivetransport.org/
.. and the European Parliament demands 8 hours !!!- https://animalwelfareandtrade.com/european-parliament-demands-8-hour-limit
Well, the reality is that despite the ‘demands’ of the European Parliament; the EU Commissioner(s) have the final say; and again in this case, they ignore the wishes of the EU citizens in favour of what is best for them; their own nation, and their lobbyists – and that in a nutshell means ‘NO Change’.
Here we are in January 2020 and nothing has changed regarding live animals being transported across / or from the EU to third countries since the Regulation (1/2005) of yes, 2005.. Reg 1/2005 is still the antiquated ‘bible’ which transporters never adhere to, and now we see the EU trying to invent new words and policies to make ‘live animal transport’ things a bit better, whatever that means ! – basically; the EU does not change to the wants of its citizens; it ignores them and does only what it wants at the demands of the un elected Commissioners.
Another example; Tell me about Monsanto / Bayer and the grip that lobbyists have within the EU – you can read a lot of this in our past posts in the subject. In Austria last month, we had:
Austrian leader blocks ban on weedkiller glyphosate, citing technicality
VIENNA (Reuters) – Austria’s caretaker leader on Monday made clear she would not sign into law the European Union’s first national ban on the weedkiller glyphosate due to a technicality, infuriating environmentalists while delighting farmers’ groups.
A large majority in parliament and, polls suggest, the public support banning the chemical because of fears it causes cancer. Austria, a popular tourist destination for its Alpine landscapes, also devotes the largest share of its farmland to organic agriculture of any EU member state.
We call the ‘technicality’ another name; and that is ‘lobbyists’. All the time the EU sucks up to them and the industry, there is no chance of change, despite what the citizens want. You could say that this is enough to make people want to wave goodbye to the EU; for all its inactions – and you know what, wow, yes, that is exactly what the UK will be doing at the end of January this year. Taking back control; away from all the EU cow poo.
Not a Happy Bunny – like most in the EU;
Regards Mark.
From the ‘Eurogroup for Animals’:
EFSA concludes conventional rabbit cages have worst welfare score
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published three scientific opinions on the welfare of rabbits kept in the EU for meat consumption. The conclusions show the need for the European Commission to use this scientific evidence to enact long overdue legislation for rabbits and end caged systems. At the same time, the opinions demonstrate the urgent need for better training of staff during stunning and slaughter of rabbits.
Rabbits are the second most farmed species in the EU in terms of numbers, but there is no species-specific legislation protecting their welfare in the EU. EFSA assessed and compared the welfare of rabbits in different production systems – organic, outdoor, floor pens, elevated pens, enriched cages and conventional cages – and concluded that conventional cages have the worst overall welfare impact score.
The overall welfare impact scores suggest that animal welfare in organic systems, on the other hand, is generally good. EFSA’s Opinion includes recommendations to improve the welfare of these animals in all the systems currently available in the EU. To facilitate the assessment of the welfare of rabbits kept in different systems it also recommends standardizing the use of validated welfare assessment protocols suitable for on-farm use throughout the EU.
Secondly, in response to two mandates, one from the European Parliament and one from the European Commission, EFSA also assessed the welfare problems like to occur in rabbits during slaughter and killing operations. In its Scientific Opinion ‘Stunning methods and slaughter of rabbits for human consumption’, the Authority identified ten welfare consequences resulting from 32 hazards that rabbits can be exposed to before and during slaughter (i.e. during pre-stunning, stunning and bleeding). These are consciousness, not being dead, thermal stress, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress, and respiratory distress. 25 out of 32 of the hazards originated from staff, with most being attributed either to a lack of appropriate skills or to fatigue.
EFSA concluded that the preparedness and performance of staff also plays a crucial role in the case of on‐farm killing for purposes other than slaughter, such as disease control operations, and assessed this scenario in another dedicated Scientific Opinion. It identified 14 hazards which result in five welfare consequences: not being dead, consciousness, pain, fear and distress. Again, the staff were identified as the origin for all the hazards, either due to a lack of skills needed or due to the high kill rate that characterizes these operations and results in fatigue.
For both these opinions EFSA linked the hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins and preventive and corrective measures, and also proposed mitigation measures to minimize welfare consequences. In assessing preventive measures, the crucial role played by the staff was also acknowledged.
