Farm Animals

Stacy escapes on the way to the slaughterhouse – and finds a new home!

New York (USA) – It was a last-minute rescue when this little calf suddenly decided to flee during transport in New York.
The Hereford cow, which was only nine months old, was actually supposed to be taken to a slaughterhouse.
But as if it had suspected something, the animal escaped and ran straight into Flushing Meadows Park in the New York borough of Queens.

Park rangers who spotted the free-roaming cow in the park in the middle of the city called the police.
This was later announced by a special unit of the New York Police Department (NYPD) on Twitter.

Stacy

The rangers quickly caught the calf and, together with the police officers, took care of finding a new home for the young animal.
They christened the cow Stacy and contacted Wantage, New Jersey Animal Rescue.
She immediately made her way to New York to pick up the foundling.

In their Twitter post, NYPD police officers spoke of a “sentimental mood” among the rangers.
And Mike Stura, the founder of the animal rescue that Stacy eventually took on, described the rescue to World Animal News (WAN) magazine as particularly heartwarming.
It was very emotional to see how happy the rangers and police officers were and how they smiled when the calf was safe.

And Stacy?
After her fateful escape from the slaughterhouse, she found a new, loving home.
“The little one is safe with us. Today is a very good day,” the animal rescue team posted on Facebook shortly afterwards.
Right from the start, rescuers found Stacy to be an exceptionally calm and lovable calf.Stacy

After about ten days of quarantine, during which Stacy was examined and cared for, she was finally allowed to join the other cows on the farm – and immediately made new friends.
The calf is perfectly healthy and can now enjoy life to the fullest

Around 450 animals live at the animal rescue.
They have all been rescued by animal rights activists from slaughterhouses, from cattle markets or farms, from extreme neglect and abuse, from religious ceremonies or from the streets, as the organization describes on its website.

Nice that the clever calf from New York has found a new home here. (iwe)

https://www.hna.de/welt/rettung-zuhause-kuh-kalb-hereford-entwischt-weg-schlachthaus-schlachter-tod-polizei-new-york-usa-nypd-zr-91367036.html

There is still… the good news!
All the best in your new home Stacy, we wish you a long life

regards, Venus

Fur and Fur Farming

The end of the cruel fur industry is near! ??

Success for the Latvian animal welfare movement!
After years of illegally polluting the sewage,the second largest fur farm in Latvia is empty and at a standstill.

This company dumped manure into Latvian waters for 8 years and avoided liability. Animal Freedom has repeatedly urged the country to end it.

Latvia-2021

In March they documented the pollution around the farm and again brought this to the attention of the control authorities. Well, the fur farm is finally closed.

As on every fur farm, the conditions for the mink were catastrophic, as research from 2018 shows!
In addition, the Latvian parliament is discussing a complete ban on all fur farms that still exist.

Text: VgT (Association against animal factories ) Austria

For info: Fur farming is prohibited by law in Austria, Great Britain, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Macedonia.

The Swiss Animal Welfare Act stipulates that wild animals such as mink and foxes must be kept under zoo standards. These requirements are so high that there are no more fur farms in Switzerland.

A ban on fur farming came into force in the Czech Republic in 2019
In the Netherlands, the second largest mink producer in Europe, keeping chinchillas and foxes is already banned. The last mink farms should close in 2024, because of the corona virus the farms are already closing this year.

Fur farming in Belgium will end in 2023.
Farming of fur animals has been banned in Luxembourg since 2018.

Slovakia passed a law in 2019 banning fur farming from 2025.
Norway passed a law in 2018 banning fur farming from 2025.

In Germany, in March 2019, no more animals were kept on the last German fur farm in Rahden (NRW). Due to the high legal requirements that will apply from 2022, no more new animals will be used. The penultimate farm in Döhlen (Saxony) was closed in 2018.

In the EU, import and trade in seal skins, as well as dog and cat fur have been banned since 2019.
According to the European fur association Fur Europe, there were 4,350 fur farms in Europe in 2018, with a production of almost 38 million furs.

At the end of October 2021, the Irish government confirmed it again – the three remaining mink farms are to close by the end of the year, and the construction of new fur farms will also be prohibited.
This makes Latvia the 18th country in Europe where all fur farms will be closed.

The next step must therefore be that all countries in the European Union ban the keeping and killing of animals for the purpose of fur production, then the way is clear for an EU-wide ban on the trade and production of fur.

Nobody needs fur, only the animals who dress it.

My best regards to all, Venus

Environmental, General News, Hunting

UK: Petition – Make the use of free-running snares illegal for trapping wildlife. Please add your signature now !

Here is the petition link for you to add your signature – so please get on and do it.

Make the use of free-running snares illegal for trapping wildlife – Petitions (parliament.uk)

Petition

Make the use of free-running snares illegal for trapping wildlife

The Government should prohibit the sale, use and manufacture of free-running snares under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, putting them in the same category as self-locking snares, which are already illegal.

We believe that people setting free-running snares cannot ensure animal welfare as required under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, that such snares cause unnecessary suffering to mammals, are indiscriminate and should be banned.

Currently 74,144 signatures

So lets get it past 100.000 for a debate in Parliament.

Government responded

This response was given on 13 January 2022

The Government recognises that some people consider snares to be an inhumane and unnecessary means of trapping wild animals and will launch a call for evidence on the use of snares.

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

Get signing folks !

INFORMATION:

Click to access snares_report_2013___league_against_cruel_sports.pdf

Come on you Heroes, sign !!

Regards Mark

Farm Animals, General News, Vegan Recipes

Yes, Cultivated Meat Is Real Meat. 

Cultivated meat is real meat but more beneficial for public health

24 February 2022

In a series of 5 videos, we will address and debunk the most important myths surrounding cultivated meat. In today’s video we explain why cultivated meat is real meat and why it is beneficial for public health.

Yes, cultivated meat is real meat. 

As long as cultivated meat has the same characteristics and nutritional value as conventional meat it is real meat.

The name ‘meat’ is culturally and individually determined. In the past, meat used to be rather a general term for simply food. And, even today, asking consumers living in the same region whether certain products are meat or not, would provide a variety of answers. A steak is definitely meat, but nuggets and hybrid products could be a matter of debate. Some people do not even consider chicken meat as true meat.

On the question about cultivated meat, the American Meat Science Association (AMSA) came to the following conclusion:

Ultimately to be considered meat, in vitro meat must be originally sourced from an animal cell, be inspected and considered safe for consumption, and be comparable in composition and sensory characteristics to meat derived naturally from animals. In particular, the essential amino and fatty acid composition, macro- and micronutrient content and processing functionality should meet or exceed those of conventional meat.’

Yes, cultivated meat is beneficial for public health.

The cultivated meat production process has a great advantage over livestock: it is performed under sterile and closed conditions, so the risk of pathogens is far less. This is important because of the concerns about antibiotic resistance and infectious diseases.

After all, current meat production is by far the largest consumer of antimicrobial agents. 

Moreover, industrial farming is a breeding ground for pathogens and COVID-19 has made very clear to the wide world that zoonoses pose an existential risk.

Studies in other sectors show that in sterile and closed conditions, the incidence of contaminations via bacteria and fungi is very low. This aspect is also important considering foodborne illness. Due to the lack of enteric food pathogens, the risk for foodborne diseases is much lower and it potentially increases shelf lives and reduces spoilage (which means less food wasting).

A final advantage of cultivated meat concerning public health is the absence of trace chemicals. Pesticides, antibiotics, veterinary drugs, heavy metals, among others, are a matter of concern for conventional meat.

These residues are unlikely to appear in cultivated meat. 

Regards Mark

Farm Animals, General News

EU legislation on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence misses out on animal welfare.

23 February 2022

Press Release

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the Commission’s proposal aiming at further embedding sustainability into corporate governance. However, we call on the European Parliament and Member States to explicitly include animal welfare within the scope of the future legislation.

The Commission’s proposal lays down obligations only for big companies with more than 500 employees and a turnover of €150 million. The obligations and potential sanctions are about how the companies’ operations and value chains can have an “actual or potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts”.

The proposed mechanism would nevertheless apply to medium size companies (i.e. between 250 and 500 employees and more than €40 million worth of annual turnover) operating in high risk sectors. Interestingly, the high risk sectors, which are based on existing sectoral OECD due diligence guidance, cover among others “leather, […] agriculture, fisheries (including aquaculture), the manufacture of food products, and the wholesale trade of agricultural raw materials, live animals, food, and beverages”. 

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the recognition of the above animal-based sectors as high-risk for human rights and environmental concerns, and calls for the introduction of a comprehensive due diligence mechanism explicitly encompassing animal welfare. 

Indeed, animal welfare is closely linked to environmental protection and human rights as suggested in the annex of the proposed legislation mentioning the violations to human rights (i.e. Annex part I A, point 18 and 19). For instance, highly industrialised and intensive farming systems have devastating effects on the welfare of farmed animals, but they also lead to high levels of water, air and ground pollution, to deforestation and biodiversity loss. 

Poor animal welfare is also linked to systemic human rights abuses troubling the global animal agriculture industry, including the abuse of farm and meat industry workers, child labour, and human slavery within the commercial fishing industry.

The upcoming legislation should explicitly recognise that the health and wellbeing of humans are inseparable from those of animals and the planet. Improving animal welfare by helping to reduce the risk of food-borne diseases and zoonoses and to lessen the use of antibiotics in animal productions, would benefit the right to health, which is a fundamental part of our human rights as recognised by the WHO. Improved animal welfare is also a leverage to fight the violations of human rights in the animal agriculture industry, and is a key element to deliver on the EU Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy, which calls for an urgent need to “improve animal welfare to achieve a fair transition towards sustainable food systems.

Stephanie Ghislain, Trade and Animal Welfare Programme Leader, Eurogroup for Animals

Finally, including animal welfare in the scope of the future Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence legislation would be relevant and consistent with actual trends. Existing international standards already recommend companies faced with animal welfare risks to address them in their due diligence policy, and many companies – especially in the food and textile sectors – already include animal welfare in their due diligence efforts. 

All eyes are now on the European Parliament and Member States to adopt a comprehensive Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence legislation responding to the high expectations of EU citizens and consumers. 

Regards Mark

General News

MEAT IS MURDER! A message from Mexican ALF

Claim of responsibility for the sabotage action against a McDonald’s restaurant in Barrio de San Antonio, Puebla, during the night of the 3rd of February 2022.

MEAT IS MURDER!

We claim responsibility for this action.

We oppose ourselves politically and morally against a system of intensive production that for long enough has exploited animal bodies, human and non-human, and that has oversaturated us with the death it produces, covering the stench with artificial aromas and bright colours, making us unable to choose or imagine an alternative that doesn’t involve exploitation and death.

We oppose them with direct action because it directly confronts the system, because it creates and strengthens complicity and because it brews political rage in more people, so they also start taking action.

This is not an isolated action.

We add to the hundreds of actions taken every year around the world with the aim to harm and threaten businesses that build their economic empires on death and suffering. Those actions also aim to liberate non-human persons enslaved and systematically tortured.

Those individuals, violently born in this world with the only purpose of being a consumer product, or entertainment, or work, are never recognised for the key role they’ve played in the evolution of the human society. For that reason we believe this violence against animals cannot be analysed or combated without understanding it as systemic violence.

The animal question is a social problem, deeply rooted to colonialism and capitalism, specially in countries contaminated by neoliberalism like Mexico is.

Since its inception, McDonald’s has been part of every imperialist war that the USA has taken part of around the world.

Its political, economic and cultural connections to the wars add to the pillage and exploitation of nature, humans and animals in all the territories oppressed by imperialism.

It has also contributed to the destruction of culture in most countries around the world, imposing and influencing towards a lifestyle of aggressive consumption.

For all those reasons we believe it is completely legitimate to attack and sabotage McDonald’s as an act of resistance; human and non-human alike.

https://animalliberationpressoffice.org/NAALPO/2022/02/18/mexican-alf-cell-damages-mcdonalds-restaurant-mexico-2/

And I mean…McDonald’s helped start this whole killing industry.

McDonald’s uses around 40,000 tons of beef every year for its burgers in Germany alone.
This meat comes from various slaughterhouses that work with devastating conditions.
The animals are mistreated there every day, up to 170 electric shocks in a few minutes, even in the face and anus.
Disused skin-and-bone cows are McDonald’s preferred burger meat.

Footage from 12 chicken farms owned by a McDonald’s supplier in Germany shows shocking footage of chickens deliberately bred to grow as big as possible as quickly as possible, suffering horrific leg injuries as a result.
Her legs are simply unable to support the weight of her oversized body.

In the US, where there are no federal laws regulating chicken farming, much of this cruelty to animals is not only standard, but legal.

Yet as one of the most recognized brands in the world, McDonald’s has the power to improve the lives of the hundreds of millions of chickens raised for its restaurants every year.

But McDonald’s hasn’t done anything for too long and remains indifferent to animal suffering.

We show solidarity with the courageous animal rights activists in Mexico and say thank you very much.

My best regards to all, Venus

Live Transport

Luxembourg bans exports of live animals for slaughter in third countries

LUXEMBOURG. As the Luxembourg Ministry of Agriculture has announced, from March 1st the Grand Duchy will ban exports of live animals for slaughter in third countries – a year earlier than planned by the EU.

With this decision, Luxembourg is becoming a European pioneer when it comes to animal welfare.

According to the Luxembourg Minister of Agriculture Claude Haagen, the ban serves to improve animal welfare on the one hand, and on the other hand it also meets the expectations of the population and the agricultural sector itself.

The Grand Duchy hopes other states in Europe will follow suit and enact restrictions before the European Commission presents its revised rules for live animal transport next year.
Among other things, the transport routes to the slaughterhouses should be limited.

https://lokalo.de/artikel/254298/beschraenkung-von-tiertransporten-luxemburg-vorreiter-in-der-eu/

Please sign and share the petition: https://help.four-paws.org/…/stoppt-grausame…

And I mean…In 2019, over 1.6 billion live animals (sheep, cattle, birds and pigs) were transported across and beyond the EU borders.
97% of the animals are birds (chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese).
Cattle, pigs, sheep and goats are mostly transported for fattening or slaughter purposes.

In June 2020, a committee of inquiry exclusively for animal transport (ANIT) was therefore set up, which, after eighteen months of work, made its recommendations to the European Commission in December 2021.
557 MPs (an overwhelming majority) agreed, but only for part of the recommendations.

The EU Parliament is asking the Commission to limit the transport time for “animals for slaughter” to eight hours.
No limit is required for “breeding animals” and animals in intermediate fattening, so they may probably be transported for up to 29 hours in the future.

And so the agonizing transports to third countries should remain permitted – Parliament only voted for the introduction of a control system for animal transports to third countries.
Both the EU Parliament and the EU Commission know very well that as soon as the transports leave the EU border, control is not possible.
In this respect, this vote by the EU Parliament was a betrayal of the animals; we reported about it: https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2021/12/04/anit-committee-vote-an-anti-animal-welfare-work/

Luxembourg is sending an important signal, but a ban on animals for slaughter is absolutely not enough, because many animals are officially declared as breeding animals.
They too are usually slaughtered cruelly after a very short time. The transport for breeding or slaughter animals is also no different and is always painful.

Germany’s new Minister of Agriculture, Cem Özdemir, supports an EU-wide ban on long-distance transport and wants his ministry to “solve the problems of animal welfare during transport to third countries”.
And yet animals are still being transported from Germany to third countries.

We don’t judge politicians by what they say, but by what they do.
And as long as there are no actions, we do not trust anyone.

My best regards to all, Venus

Farm Animals, General News, Vegan Recipes

Horse Meat Labelling – Still Not Mandatory – Take Action Now, Demand Change For Clear Labelling.

23 February 2022

Despite the 2013 horse meat scandal, it is still not mandatory for operators and authorities to provide and control information on the origin of horse meat. As a result, to put it simply, there is no certainty on where your meat is coming from.

For the past 10 years, alongside BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, we have been demanding mandatory country of origin labelling for horse meat regardless of its shape and form.

Today, the European Commission runs a public consultation on the revision of food information to consumers (FIC) Regulation and we call for the inclusion of horse meat within the scope of the regulation introducing mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (COOL).

In 2020, around 60 million horses were registered as livestock worldwide by the Food and Agriculture Organisation for the United Nations (FAO), and just over 5 million of them are slaughtered every year.

The same year, the EU imported 16,340 tonnes of horse meat, mostly from Argentina, Uruguay, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. 

Below we present to you three reasons in favour of mandatory labelling requirements on horse meat.

Labelling to empower EU consumers

In 2013, the horse meat scandal exposed that numerous food in the EU sold as beef actually contained horse meat. Despite the public outcry, the situation has not changed as in 2021, Europol and Interpol investigations identified horse meat sold as veal. Mandatory COOL requirements would constraint industry stakeholders to give accurate information so that consumers can make informed decisions. Such requirements are already in place and indicate country of origin, raising and slaughter, for beef, swine, sheep, goats and poultry demonstrating the feasibility of the measure. Furthermore, investigations conducted by a consumers’ association show that origin-labelling provisions for these types of meat were implemented without unnecessary burdens on the meat supply chain and on national administrations.

Labelling to recognise production standards

Investigations conducted by animal welfare organisations have revealed shocking conditions and maltreatment of horses at assembly centres, during transport and at slaughterhouses in Argentina, Uruguay, USA and Canada. Some animals are kept in horrifying conditions in open-air feedlots, without any protection from the weather or veterinary care for six months until they can be slaughtered. The introduction of COOL requirements in the EU giving the possibility for EU citizens to choose local meat will incentivise horse meat industry operators to improve the living conditions of these horses so that they comply with EU animal welfare standards.

Labelling to enhance public health

Consumers build an association between the origin information of meat and a perceived level of food safety. Consumers also question the safety of their food and are particularly concerned about antibiotic residues and hormone levels in meat. Recent investigations have revealed the presence of EU banned chemicals in horse meat samples such as diclofenac or thiabendazole. In addition, issues around traceability and horse passports, as well as  number of horses slaughtered for meat and not registered as livestock raise a question of veterinary medicines in human consumption. These consumer concerns are therefore legitimate and it is essential to improve labelling and traceability of horse meat to ensure food safety for EU citizens.

What can you do?

You can reply to a European Commission public consultation on the food information to consumers Regulation until 7 March 2022. Raise your voice and demand the horse meat labelling.

*According to the French report, the argument of higher food prices due to traceability does not hold, since the impact on the price is minimal.; it represents only an additional cost of + 0.7% or only + 0.015 Euro for a tray of lasagna, for instance. Indeed, these increases are much smaller than the price differences usually observed between retail chains.

Regards Mark

General News

“Dogs in Distress”-a documentary of the Canadian CTV W5

Animal activist Francis Métivier spent nearly a year flying drones across Canada to film how dog-sledding operators treat dogs when they don’t know they’re being watched.

He found roughly 2,000 dogs tied to metal posts for most of the day—freezing, desperate for attention, and pacing so intensely that the ground under their paws was wearing away.

With this gripping footage along with a thorough investigation and many expert interviews, CTV W5’s Dogs in Distress paints an accurate and heartbreaking picture of what life is like for the intelligent and loyal dogs used for sledding.

Former Dog-Sled Insiders reveal extreme cruelty in ‘Dogs in Distress’.

Acting on a tip that she received from a former employee, the director of the groundbreaking documentary Sled Dogs, Fern Levitt, recounts the horror of finding a homemade gas chamber reportedly used to kill dogs along with a freezer full of dead puppies so still and small that they looked as though they were sleeping.

“Euthanasia” methods such as gas aren’t uncommon, and in many places, they’re legal (!!)

The dogs rarely get to run

There’s no such thing as a “sled dog.”
Dogs used for sledding are just like the ones we share our homes with: They love to run and play, enjoy attention and affection, and have physical limits to what they can endure.
But they rarely get to engage in their favorite activity—running—even though they’re used for pulling sleds.

The Dogs in Distress reporter spoke with Chantal Dostaler, a former dog-sled tour operator of a now-defunct kennel, who revealed that during the summer off-season, dogs were given only one hour per month off their chain.

They spent every other day, all day, tethered to one spot, prevented from moving more than a few feet.
Most dogs used for sledding suffer in this way—chained, depressed, and neglected for days at a time.

Dostaler added that to save money, she was instructed to feed the dogs as little as possible, to hide sick dogs away from public view, and that when money was too tight to hire the biannual hit person to shoot “surplus” dogs, the operators had staff kill the dogs themselves.

The former employee explained that she took a dog named Hope, who had been sick for four days, outside and shot her in the back of the head point-blank.
No one had told her how to euthanize a dog properly, and the killing “broke part of her spirit.”

“…took the gun, took the bullets, went to the yard.
I brought Hope … I walked her down to the pit.
And nobody had instructed me how to euthanize a dog with a gun, so I shot her in the back of the head point-blank.
It definitely broke my heart, it broke part of my spirit ….
Who am I, who am I to have euthanized a dog for my employer?”
—Chantal Dostaler

How does ‘Dogs in Distress’ relate to “Dog-Sled Racing”?

As revealed by this investigative report along with the documentary Sled Dogs and PETA’s own investigation, all dog-sledding operations are cruel—whether they use dogs for tourism or racing or both.

Many dogs used for tourist sled rides are also forced to participate in races like the deadly Iditarod, during which more than 150 dogs have died.

This death toll doesn’t include dogs who were considered unsuitable for racing, became sick, or grew too weak to be of use to the industry and were killed—or those who died during the off-season while chained up outside, just as Dogs in Distress exposed.

https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-watch-dogs-in-distress/

Petition: https://headlines.peta.org/iditarod-race-will-leave-you-outraged/

And I mean…Thank you W5 for bringing the truth of the suffering of these dogs to the forefront for Canadians and the world at large.
It is very important to document the widespread exploitation and abuse of the animals in the commercial dog sledding industry because unfortunately very few people are aware of their suffering.

The dogs need all hands on deck and if we all take some action against this cruel multi-million dollar business, we can change the fate of these animals

Please share this video and continue to advocate for these worthy and forgotten beings who need us to share their story and fight for their liberation

My best regards to all, Venus

Farm Animals, General News, Live Transport

EU: Study About EU-Mercosur Agreement Wrongly States That Animal Welfare Standards Apply to Agri-Food Trade.

17 February 2022

A study requested by the International Trade (INTA) committee of the European Parliament analyses the trade aspects of the EU-Mercosur agreement and recognises that the animal welfare provisions foreseen in the agreement are weak. However, the study wrongly states that imports of animal products must comply with EU animal welfare standards.

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the study published in November 2021 as far as it recognises that animal welfare “is closely linked to sustainable development” and that the current deal “gives rise to questions as to whether [it] fully responds to the EU’s strong stand on the issue of animal welfare as such and its potential trade implications”. As long stated by Eurogroup for Animals, the EU-Mercosur agreement is a bad deal for animals, nature and people.

However, the study misunderstands the requirements that imports of animal products need to comply with, and hence wrongly concludes that the conditional liberalisation for egg products included in the deal is “closing a gap” for imports of animal products. Indeed, the study argues that in the EU, “animal welfare standards are quite ambitious”, and that given the ongoing revision of the animal welfare legislation and the European Citizen Initiative “End The Cage Age”, these standards “are likely to be defined even more strictly in the future”. As a consequence, the study suggests trade implications “since exporters are often required to conform with EU legislation by way of a certificate on equivalence to be presented on importation (calves, pigs, slaughtering, transports)”. Furthermore, the study, while analysing the liberalisation of agri-food trade, wrongly states that “in general, all products need to fulfil animal welfare standards”.

This seems to be a confusion between animal welfare standards and general import standards. Imports of animal products, which are often produced under poor animal welfare standards, do not need to comply with EU-equivalent animal welfare standards (on farm practices or transport), except for those at the time of slaughter. And imports of live animals, which are low, need certification mainly on health issues. Import standards are for instance, veterinary controls and maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides.

This misunderstanding possibly led the study to assume a “notable exception” for egg products that would not need to comply with animal welfare standards. This “notable exception” would be “addressed by the preferential scheme on eggs, as the EU attached a condition to its liberalisation offer in view of compliance with relevant EU standards”.  However, the conditional liberalisation on shell eggs, far from “closing a gap”, is merely a step in the right direction with the first animal welfare-based condition in a trade agreement. 

Eurogroup for Animals calls on the EU to uphold the objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy, and to take the opportunity of the revision of the animal welfare legislation to include a trade aspect in the future EU legislation on animal welfare. In parallel, the EU could extend the conditional liberalisation of the trade in shelled eggs, and to agree on animal welfare and sustainability-based conditions required to access tariff-rate quotas or liberalisation in all animal products, including the respect of EU-equivalent animal welfare standards. 

Regards Mark

Standards – What Standards ?