Has animal welfare in the EU gone too far?

Two MEPs discuss animal welfare.

Jeffrey Titford

As with almost everything to do with the EU, one size must fit all. This applies just as much to animal welfare standards that are being introduced in the EU, as part of its much vaunted ‘Improving animal welfare: EU action plan’.

In coming up with such grandiose plans, they neglect the real world in which some countries have much lower standards of animal welfare. If they are not in the EU, they are quite happy to exploit their commercial advantage in this regard. They also take no account of countries such as the UK where standards of animal welfare are in some instances much higher than those stipulated by the EU.

This is a particular problem for pig farmers in the UK who are no longer allowed to use sow stalls and tethers, which were banned by Westminster in the late 1980s. But the UK has been powerless to prevent the import of pig meat from other EU countries where these items are widely used. They are only just being phased out in Denmark, which has been flooding Britain with pig meat products. Non-EU countries such as Canada continue to use sow stalls and tethers freely.

Another example is in the free-range egg sector, where the EU has set its own standards but the UK has opted for a higher voluntary standard.

Therefore, the assumption that because animal welfare is controlled by the EU it is automatically better, is arrogant and delusional. In fact, because of the emergence of the World Trade Organization (WTO), our problems cannot all be blamed on Brussels as food can now be imported from all over the world virtually tariff free. The levels of hygiene, animal health and welfare, soil conservation, wages and safety are well below our own. This creates a considerable competitive advantage and large inroads have already been made into our poultry, beef and horticultural sectors as a result.

The European Parliament’s environment committee is proposing to make matters even worse for European farmers with new measures on pesticides that will hit British farmers particularly badly. It is seeking a 50% reduction in the use of substances of very high concern and those classified as toxic or very toxic.

It all sounds very grand and idealistic but with the EU population healthier and living longer than at any time in history, where is the justification and upon what science is it based? The environment committee, in its deliberations, refuses to acknowledge any benefits derived from the use of pesticides, such as higher yields and more reliable and affordable food supplies, which is just plain daft.

The proposals contain requirements for ‘substantial’ buffer zones around water courses and public areas including residential areas. The problem for the UK is that we are a small country and these buffer zones will wipe out thousands of acres of arable land at a time when demand for food from a substantially increasing population has never been greater. Naturally, non-EU countries will not be subject to these onerous new rules.

In short, EU policy on animal welfare and agriculture in general is a mess because it is dominated by idealism generated by politicians and powerful lobby groups and does not belong in the real world. The UK would be far better off as an independent nation, managing agricultural policy to its own advantage and it would certainly have the funds to replace the EU’s horribly flawed Common Agricultural Policy. It would still have to deal with the WTO but at least it would be free to negotiate matters on its own behalf and would not be represented by the EU, whose interests are by no means one and the same.

• UK Independence Party MEP Jeffrey Titford is a member of Parliament’s committee on agriculture and rural development.

Liam Aylward

The issue of animal welfare must be a central element in the world trade talks process.

Animal welfare is a very important political issue for myself, for EU governments and for the members of the agriculture committee in the European Parliament.

But globally, the issue of animal welfare is not met with the same rigorous level of regulation as rightly exists within the EU. In other words, animal welfare legislation is weaker in other continents around the world.

As recently as January, a new EU regulation came into force which deals with the issue of the transportation of live animals.

Key elements of this regulation include:

• cattle can only travel from approved assembly points and these centres must be approved by both national governments and by the European Commission. Animals must be allowed rest at these centres for a period of six hours before they begin their travel journey over land or by sea;

• the people who transport the cattle must have a specific authorisation given to them by a host national government so that they can carry out this activity. These authorisations relate to Type 1 approvals which regulate journeys of less than eight hours in duration or Type 2 approvals which concern journeys lasting for more than eight hours. These transporters must demonstrate to the authorising authorities that they have worked out contingency plans if there is a vehicle breakdown, veterinary treatment is needed or encounter bad weather;

• cattle can travel up to a period of 14 hours, but they then must be allowed rest for one hour before they can travel on a second journey which can last only up to a maximum of 14 hours;

• in the case of unweaned cattle (animals which are still on a milk diet), these animals can travel up to nine hours but then they must rest for one hour and they can only travel again for a second period of nine hours.

There are many animal welfare groups in Europe which contend that the European Union is not doing enough in this policy area. I reject these arguments because I believe that the European Union is the political entity taking this issue most seriously in the world at present.

Two years ago Mariann Fischer Boel, the agriculture commissioner, took the decision to abolish refunds for the export of live cattle to Lebanon. As a result of this decision, European cattle exporters withdrew from the Lebanese marketplace.

Many animal welfare groups lobbied the Commission to take this decision concerning Lebanon, but the net effect of this decision is that Brazilian cattle exporters have now filled this void. They are now shipping live cattle from cities such as Santos in eastern Brazil to Lebanon.

The political point I am making is that animal welfare groups who supported the ban on live EU cattle exports to Lebanon have now ended up with poorer animal welfare conditions than was previously the case.

I would urge European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson to ensure that animal welfare matters are a central element of the non-trade issues that are being discussed in the context of world trade talks.

European and other international veterinary groups are lobbying the EU negotiators on this specific issue. I fully support their case and in my capacity as a member of the agriculture committee in the Parliament, I will continue to press this important policy issue in the future.

• Irish Union for Europe of the Nations MEP Liam Aylward is a member of Parliament’s environment, public health and food safety committee and a former agriculture minister of Ireland.

Two MEPs discuss animal welfare.

• Primary Source