European Parliament Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals

Cloning of Farm Animals

The Issue
The cloning of animals is a controversial subject that raises a number of ethical concerns. With regards to animal welfare, cloning creates several problems that lead to increased suffering and mortality. The European Commission is currently considering whether to approve animal cloning for food production. The US Food and Drug Administration has already approved the safety of meat and milk products from cloned cattle, pigs and goats.

Parliamentary Action
The issue of cloning was discussed by the Intergroup in June 2008. Members agreed to support a Parliamentary resolution opposing the cloning of animals reared for food. Intergroup President Neil Parish gained the support of his colleagues on the Agriculture Committee and the resolution was adopted by the full Parliament in September 2008 with 622 members voting in favour. At the Intergroup meeting on 24 September 08, Michel Barnier, French Minister for Agriculture, expressed personal reservations about cloning.

The results of a Eurobarometer survey on consumers' attitudes towards animal cloning for food were published early October 2008. The results showed us that 58% of the respondents (from all 27 Member States) believe that animal cloning for food production should never be justified and that 43% find it not at all likely that they will buy food from cloned animals. 41% would simply not consider purchasing products from the offspring of cloned animals.

The Next Step
We are currently still awaiting a decision of the European Commission. The issue was discussed at the College of Commissioners on 13 January 2009, but no decision was taken. On 25 March 2009, an overwhelming majority of MEPs voted against the cloning of animals for food production in the vote on the novel foods dossier. The MEPs also took the opportunity to call on the European Commission to take immediate action and legislate to ban the cloning of animals.

Background Information
The US Food and Drug Administration stated in January 2008 that "meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones and the offspring of any animal clones are as safe as food we eat every day". The cloning of animals for food is not at such an advanced stage in Europe, but at some stage in the near future, US farmers may wish to export these products to Europe. This development would raise many issues similar to those already witnessed with the use of hormones in US beef production.

The European Group on Ethics produced an opinion in January at the request of Commissioner José Barosso. In it the group said it doubted whether the cloning of animals for food supply is ethically justified, and that it does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring.

The European Food Safety Authority confirmed these concerns in an opinion published on 24 July 2008 stating: "It is clear there are significant animal health and welfare issues for surrogate mothers and clones that can be more frequent and severe than for conventionally bred animals." However, they also stated cloned animals for food and their milk are deemed safe to eat.

EU agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boel expressed her personal opposition to animal cloning in an interview with a Danish reporter.

EU legislation also puts legal constraints on cloning for food as European Directive 98/58/EC states that "natural or artificial breeding procedures which cause, or are likely to cause, suffering or injury to any of the animals concerned shall not be practiced (Annex, point 20)".

Last updated: 30 March 2009

Slaughter

Issue
Hundreds of millions of animals are slaughtered each year for food production in the EU. Existing legislation requires that animals are humanely stunned prior to slaughter. Numerous concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of this legislation and whether it is being properly implemented and enforced. In September 2008, the European Commission published a new proposal to revise Directive 93/119/EC regarding the slaughter of animals to take into account new scientific and technological developments.

Parliamentary Action
The Intergroup has discussed the issue on several occasions, voicing concerns about all aspects of the problem, including the religious exemptions which allow millions of animals to be slaughtered without any pre-stunning. The issue was most recently raised at the Intergroup meeting in September 2008 with Michel Barnier, the French Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and again in mid-January 2009, after the publication of the report by the rapporteur in the Agriculture Committee, Janusz Wojciechowski.

On 16 March 2009, MEPs in the Agriculture Committee adopted the Wojciechowski report. Although many amendments that will improve the welfare of animals sent to slaughter were adopted, the vote also allowed for the inclusion of a number of amendments that have weakened to initially positive proposal drafted by the European Commission and the rapporteur (Wojciechowski). Negative changes include the allowing for exemptions to the requirement of having an Animal Welfare Officer present in all slaugherhouses ans the requirement for all abattoir personal to be trained and in possession of a certificate of competence.

The Next Step
The text will now be presented to the Parliament. The plenary vote is scheduled for 7 May 2009.

Background Information
Much can still be improved in the slaughter process to help minimise the suffering of animals. For animals it would be best to kill and slaughter them as near as possible to the place of rearing. However, many smaller slaughterhouses which are closer to the point of production have now closed in favour of fewer but larger-scale establishments better placed to meet the increased hygiene requirements. A special effort should be made to help small abattoirs comply. The more industrial nature of modern slaughterhouses is not necessarily good for animal welfare. They have been set up to produce meat as quickly and efficiently as possible, and this can make it more difficult to ensure the welfare of animals. However, larger slaughterhouses can be better for animal welfare if they have to comply with specific standards including welfare requirements demanded by retailers.

The enforcement of current legislation also needs to be improved. Often member states allocate very few staff to enforcement with the result that inspections of animal welfare are rare. The Commission can also conduct inspections through its Food and Veterinary Office. Official reports have highlighted problems in various member states. Investigations by animal welfare groups have exposed some serious problems in individual slaughterhouses.

Proper training and certification of slaughterhouse staff would help to minimise the pain and stress experienced by animals, but there is currently no legal requirement for staff to be trained. There is also no requirement for a designated member of staff who carries the responsibility for dealing with animal welfare issues.

New technologies should be examined before slaughterhouses are allowed to use them. One example of a technology that severely affects the wellfare of animals is live-shackling. It involves hanging birds upside down in a shackle and is by far the main method used by industry. Currently poultry are shackled on automated lines whenever electrical waterbaths are used for stunning. Shackling puts pressure on the birds' periosteum, a very sensitive tissue. This causes the birds to suffer stress, pain and injuries.

Hundreds of millions of unwanted male animals are routinely slaughtered by the egg and dairy industries. These slaughtering processes are not currently regulated and the issue has not been addressed in the new proposal. Following a discussion at its meeting held in July 2008, the Intergroup has pledged to support efforts to promote research designed to reduce the number of unwanted male offspring and help to promote viable rearing of male calves.

Last updated: 30 March 2009

Green public procurement

Issue
Green Public Procurement (GPP) is a specific method where public authorities consider sustainability factors when buying products or services. This could include animal welfare considerations. A new Commission communication highlights how EU member states could use their purchasing power to help create a better world.

As part of its Sustainable Development Strategy the EU also hopes to encourage companies to produce to higher environmental and animal welfare standards and to increase the demand for more sustainable goods.

Parliamentary Action
The Parliament is yet to designate a rapporteur to write a report on GPP within the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). The Committee for Environment and the Committee for Industry and Research will also prepare an opinion.

Background Information
Modern society is becoming increasingly aware of the importance of a sustainable lifestyle that meets concerns relating to society, environment and animal welfare. With its revised Sustainable Development Strategy, the EU has taken up this challenge. One of the strategy's pillars is the policy relating to sustainable consumption and production.

In July 2008 the Commission came up with a set of proposals on sustainable consumption and production. Among these is a communication on public procurement for a better environment, which is accompanied by a working paper and an impact assessment. Under the Commission's plans bidders will have to comply with minimum specifications known as "core" GPP criteria. There are also "comprehensive" GPP criteria which will allow authorities to go further to support environmental and animal welfare related innovation goals.

The criteria apply to products and services in 10 priority sectors, which include food and catering services as well as cleaning products and services.

For food and catering, the minimum criteria specify that a given percentage of products such as diary, meat and vegetables will need to be organically produced. Bidding companies will also need to prove that their products have been certified as organically produced. The optional criteria (the comprehensive GPP criteria) include higher standards for animal welfare, the absence of GMOs, and integrated production processes.

Currently criteria for cleaning products do not require the use of animal test free detergents.

Last updated: 30 March 2009

Novel Foods

Issue
Novel food refers to any food produced by a production technology which has not been previously used. This could include non-traditional breeding techniques such as cloning, and foods modified by new production processes such as nanotechnologies. The existing legislation, which lays out detailed rules for the authorisation of novel foods and novel food ingredients, is currently being revised.

Parliamentary Action
The Commission proposal for a regulation on novel foods COM(2007)872 has already been discussed in several different committees. The Parliament will finalise its position with a vote in plenary. In the light of the Parliament's recent resolution on cloning, amendments have been tabled to strengthen the draft position.

The Next Step
The report by Kartika Liotard MEP was adopted in the Environment Committee on 2 December 2008 and was presented in Plenary on 25 March 2009.This resulted in an overwhelming majority of MEPs voting against the cloning of animals for food production in the vote on the novel foods dossier. The MEPs also took the opportunity to call on the European Commission to take immediate action and legislate to ban the cloning of animals.

Background Information
To protect people's health, all novel foods must undergo a safety assessment before being allowed on the EU market. This safety assessment includes animal testing. Under the current regulation novel food or ingredients must not pose a danger to people, mislead the consumer, or be of a lower nutritional value than the food or ingredients they set out to replace.

Most novel food comes from plants, and includes transgenic foods, cholesterol-lowering foods, or foods that would be less expensive to produce.

The Commission proposal is an attempt to improve the access of new and innovative foods to the EU market while still protecting consumers and ensuring food safety. The revision was needed because genetically modified food no longer fell under its scope, and the Commission also wanted to stimulate innovation and trade within the food industry.

At present, this proposal includes food from cloned animals. However, it does not include offspring from cloned animals as these are considered as food derived from "traditional breeding techniques".

Under the proposal, all novel foods will have to be assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) before the Commission can authorise their placement on the EU market.

Last updated: 30 March 2009

Issues

Transport

Issue
The European Commission is currently revising Regulation EC 1/2005 which relates to the transport of farm animals. Health Commissioner Androula Vassiliou has promised to publish a new proposal on journey times, stocking densities and the use of a satellite navigational system to facilitate the enforcement of the Regulation before the end of 2009. The proposal will take into account animal welfare, economical, environmental, social and administrative aspects.

Background
The issue of live animal transport was first brought to the Parliament's attention in the 1970s and it remains a contentious issue to this day. Each day about one million animals are transported in Europe. Some of these journeys can take over 40 or 50 hours (and this is only for transport within the EU). Exports to third countries may take several days. Often animals are packed into overcrowded trucks and given little or no access to food or water or allowed any rest. Although conditions in modern vehicles are much better than before, it can still occur that animals become exhausted, dehydrated and stressed during their journeys. Animals can also suffer injuries, such as lameness, broken legs, broken horns, and broken pelvises. They can also collapse due to exhaustion or inadequate vehicle management, and are then at risk of being trampled by the other animals. In the summer the temperature in some overcrowded trucks can reach 50° Celsius. The Parliament has received a substantial number of petitions on this issue, signed by millions of citizens. Infringements occur on a regular basis as shown by the Food and Veterinary Office, NGOs, and competent authorities.

A single market in meat products and the enlargement of the EU have meant increased possibilities to move animals for long distances across borders. Many small slaughter houses have had to close because they could not cope with the cost of new health, hygiene or welfare requirements. This has resulted in animals moving longer distances. Live exports for fattening before slaughter also permit countries to claim "nationality" with a view to obtaining associated premiums in the local market. Some countries outside the EU have retained a preference for the import of live animals rather than refrigerated carcasses, sometimes for religious reasons.

The Parliament tends to support the imposition of a maximum journey time of eight or nine hours, a position supported by campaigners and some member states. However, current legislation allows only for a maximum journey period between resting points, where animals can be fed and watered, rather than a maximum total journey time. This means there is no limit on how long animals can be transported, provided they are given regular rest.

In January 2009, MEPs urged the Commission to ensure the rules regarding the transport of live animals are properly enforced by tabling an oral question in the European Parliament. MEPs subsequently asked the Commission to increase the number of controls carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) in addition to publishing a new proposal for the transport of farm animals.

In February and March 2009 two sets of global coalitions of animal welfare organisations met with EU health commissioner Androulla Vassiliou to direct her attention to animal welfare issues during live animal transport.

The Next Step

Commissioner Vassiliou reiterated her commitment to improving the plight of animals transported over long distances, promising to have the transport proposal published by spring.

Last updated: 30 March 2009

Animal Testing

Issue
The use of animals for conducting research is a matter of high public concern due to the pain and distress the animals have to endure over the course of their stay in testing facilities. This is why the European Union has committed itself to the principle of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement): wherever possible, tests using animals should be Replaced by viable non-animal alternatives, the number of tests that require the use of animals should be Reduced, while the remaining tests should be Refined to ensure their suffering is reduced as much as possible.

The EU is currently revising council Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and scientific purposes. It has been left unchanged since 1986, so updating is urgently needed to incorporate new scientific developments and facts on ethical aspects and improved housing of laboratory animals.

Parliamentary Action
In September 2007, the European Parliament adopted a written declaration calling on the European Commission to phase out the use of great apes and wild-caught non-human primates, as well as urging it to set up a timetable to replace the use of primates with alternatives.

In 2002 an own initiative report by MEP Jill Evans on directive 86/609 was adopted.

Background
In recent years the number of animals used in research has been increasing due to the the rise in importance of genetic engineering and biotechnology. In addition the number of tests is also about to increase substantially in the next few years as a consequence of the new EU chemicals legislation REACH. It is expected that millions of additional animals will be used for these purposes.

The Commission established the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) in 1991 to validate alternative methods and to act as a focal point for the exchange of information on the development of alternative test methods. The centre plays a vital role and more resources are needed to ensure more alternative methods can be developed and validated.

After much anticipation, the Commission published a proposal for the revision of the animal experimentation directive in November 2008. It includes higher standards for housing and care of laboratory animals, greater scrutiny on the necessity of particular experiments, intensifying efforts on alternatives.

In response to a written declaration signed by an overwhelming majority of MEPs, the Commission also proposed a prohibition on the use of great apes but continued to allow the use of other primates.

The Next Step
The proposal is currently being debated in Parliament as part of the co-decision procedure. It is important that the directive covers all animals, including those used in safety testing, education and training. Enforcement should be improved to ensure compliance with the directive, (this also includes the obligation to use alternatives when available). Also the use of all non-human primates should be phased out.

The Agricultural Committee will lead the discussions. The rapporteur is Neil Parish MEP. The dossier is currently being fast-tracked through the European Parliament's committees (Environment, ITRE and Agriculture). The most anticipated vote is that in the lead committee, Agriculture, to take place on 31 March 2009. The first reading of his report may be expected in May 2009.

Last updated: 30 March 2009

Plant Protection Products

Issue
Plant protection products are routinely tested on animals to assess their safety. Stricter safety requirements can lead to an increase in animal testing. In 2006 the Commission published a proposal for a regulation on plant protection products.

Parliamentary Action
The rapporteur for this issue is Hiltrud Breyer (DE- Greens/EFA). At first reading the Parliament adopted amendments promoting alternative methods to animal testing and calling for mandatory date sharing to avoid duplicate animal testing by setting up a database. The common position includes minimal references to animal welfare improvements without taking into consideration the amendments of the first reading vote and even not those supported by the Commission.

Mrs Breyer has retabled most of the amendments which were adopted in first reading in the second reading report.

The key issues are: avoiding duplication of animal testing, obligatory data sharing, inclusion of non-animal test methods, and limiting the suffering for the target animals.

The Next Step
The second reading report was adopted within the Environment Committee on 5 November 2008. The vote in Plenary took place on 13 January 2009.
The vote led to the adoption of the so-called "pesticides package" by 527 votes to 61 (11 abstentions). The text will now go to the Council of the EU.

Background Information
Although the introduction of new plant protection products requires safety testing, the aim should be to minimise animal testing and to promote alternative test methods. An obligation to keep animal testing to an absolute minimum would be consistent with the general approach adopted in the directive on animal experimentation..

According to a study by the European Crop Protection Association's Toxicology Expert Group the number of animals needed to generate the human safety information required to register a new active ingredient is about 6,500. By adopting flexible step-by-step non-animal testing strategies this number could be reduced to 2,250 animals. The idea is re-evaluate at each step if the use of animals will be needed. For example, a simple chemical test could be used to see if an ingredient is harmful to humans. If it is, there would be no point to any further tests carried out on animals as it has already shown to be harmful.

Obliging companies to share data from their research would help to avoid duplicate animal testing. A central database could enable manufacturers to easily find the necessary information about animal tests that have already been carried out by others.

In June 2008 the Council adopted its political agreement under the Slovenian presidency which includes minimal references to animal welfare improvements.

Last updated: 30 March 2009

Seals

Issue
The Commission published its proposal in July 2008 for an EU-wide ban on the placing on the market and the import, transit or export of seal products. However, this proposal still allows for exemptions for countries that can demonstrate that the seals have been killed humanely. Experts confirm it is very difficult to kill seals humanely on ice and to effectively monitor seal hunts as they take place over vast areas in harsh weather conditions.

Parliamentary Action
The European Parliament has always been committed to improving the welfare of seals. In 1983 when the Parliament had only limited powers, it was able through force of argument and the support of public opinion to persuade both the Commission and the member states to propose and implement legislation banning the importation or marketing of the skins of whitecoat pups of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) and of pups of hooded seals (Cystophora cristatata).

Ever since, members of the European Parliament have been active in maintaining pressure against the seal hunt, often visiting the ice flows to witness the problem at first hand.. The issue has been discussed on numerous occasions at the Intergroup with representations made from all sides of the debate. Throughout its history, the Intergroup has remained strongly opposed to the Canadian seal hunt.

In 2006 the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling upon the European Commission to propose an EU-wide ban on seal products.

In early 2009, parliamentary committee deliberations got underway to discuss the EU trade ban in seal products. Three committees were tasked to present an opinion. The first draft opinion by David Martin was very positive with regard to animal welfare, but was rejected by the Environment Committee. The second committee to put forward its opinion was the Agriculture Committee led by Véronique Mathieu. The last opinion by Diana Wallis was finally presented in early March 2009. Mrs Wallis proposed a labelling scheme for seal products. This idea was fortunately rejected by the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committee.

The Next Step
The European Parliament is scheduled to hold its plenary vote on 2 April 2009, though it is likely the vote will be postponed until the end of April.

Background Information
Despite the European ban launched in the 1980s, the killing of young seals persisted with support from the Canadian Government. The practice continues today and each year it is possible to view the same scenes as those which prompted the initial ban.

The European Food Safety Authority's Animal Health and Welfare Panel adopted a scientific opinion on the killing and skinning of seals in December 2007. They prepared the study at the request of the European Commission.

Failure to make progress through dialogue has resulted in a new initiative to ban the sale and importation of all seal products. In response to initiatives already taken by Belgium and the Netherlands, the Commission presented in July 2008 a new proposal to ban the sale and importation of all products derived from inhumanely killed seals. A ban on seal products also already exists in Croatia, Slovenia, Mexico and the US.

Last updated: 30 March 2009

current issues

other issues

There are many issues relating to the protection of animals that pass before the Parliament. In this section you can read more about some of the main topics currently under debate. More detailed information can be obtained by clicking on the links associated with each item.

You will also find more detailed information about other issues that have been discussed or may be discussed in the European Parliament in the future. You will find these by clicking on Other Issues to your right.

The parliamentary agenda is constantly changing and so to will the issues presented in this section. It is worth visiting this section from time to time to keep up to date with legislative developments.

CURRENT ISSUES

cloning - slaughter - transport - seals - plant protection products -
novel foods - animal testing - green public procurement