civ2-gb-vf by Centre d'information des viandes

Hélène CHARDON Hubert BRUGERE Pierre-Michel ROSNER Animal Société Aliment Association

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE: TitreStyle 1 : Titre Basic Principles and Regulatory Compliance style 2 : Chapo tyle 3 :: Body

ANIMAL WELFARE

Dossiers

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Centre dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Information des Viandes Tour Mattei 207, rue de Bercy 75012 PARIS Layout: Jean-Baptiste Capelle jeanbaptiste.capelle@gmail.com

Published in July 2015/Translated in February 2016 Translation: Lara Andahazy-Colo laracolo@gmail.com

FOREWORD Animal welfare is currently a major concern among livestock sector professionals and citizens. Despite this interest, information is for the most part scattered or poorly known. This is, for instance, the case with initiatives by sector professionals, the role of research, the involvement of veterinarians and the government, and even current regulations. With the aim of facilitating knowledge and understanding of social issues relating to the livestock and meat sectors, the Centre d’Information des Viandes (CIV) decided to devote, for the first time, one of its Dossiers to the topic of animal welfare from farm to slaughterhouse. In line with the scope of the collection, this Dossier offers a range of information allowing anyone interested in the subject to build or deepen his or her thinking on the subject. To do so, it relies on scientific and legal publications, regulatory texts, and reports by institutions and official bodies. In Part One, this Dossier covers the progressive elaboration of France’s current animal welfare laws applicable to livestock operations. First, it retraces how humankind’s perception of animals has evolved over time and the consequences that these ideas have on our relationship with animals. In connection with these mental images, it shows how the legal status of animals was progressively determined. Finally, it presents the elaboration of the regulatory arsenal on animal welfare. Part Two explores the role and missions of the main stakeholders involved with animal welfare in France, from livestock operations to the slaughterhouse. Professionals in animal production sectors are especially involved, although other stakeholders also participate in the implementation of laws and regulations and in the ongoing improvement of the conditions determining the welfare of farm animals: government agents, veterinarians, researchers, animal welfare associations, etc. This Dossier is the result of close collaboration by a multidisciplinary group of experts from the Animal Société Aliment (ASA) association and Ms Hélène CHARDON, veterinarian and health safety and animal health project manager with CIV, Mr Hubert BRUGERE, research professor for health safety and the feed industry at the École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse (ENVT), and Mr Pierre-Michel ROSNER, director of CIV.1 CIV would like to extend its special thanks to the following people for their feedback on this Dossier: Mr Dominique-Pierre PICAVET, research professor in infectious diseases, law and ethics at ENVT, and Ms Marion RENSON and Ms Lalia ANDASMAS, lawyers specializing in animal rights and PhD students in animal law at the University of Limoges.

Pierre-Michel ROSNER Director of CIV

1. This collaboration was launched in 2014 as part of a research project with the École Nationale des Services Vétérinaires (ENSV). At the request of CIV, a group of students studying to be public veterinary health inspectors conducted a sociological study on farm animal welfare as part of a Master’s degree on feed policy and health risk management. The results of this study were presented at the ‘Bien-être animal. Pratiques et perceptions’ [animal welfare practices and perceptions] Symposium on 27 March 2014 at ENSV.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

CONTENTS Part One: The Origins of Legislation Governing Farm Animals in France

1. T he Issue of How We Perceive Farm Animals 8 1.1. The Weight of Technical and Socioeconomic Structures in Our Perceptions 8 1.2. The Major Philosophical and Cultural Shifts 12 2. T he Status of Animals: Societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Expression of its Concept of Human-Animal Relations 2.1. F rom Prehistory to the 19th Century 2.2. In the 20th Century 2.3. A t the Start of the 21st Century

16 16 19 22

3. Animal Welfare and Regulatory Oversight Today 24 3.1. The Influence of Changes in Animal Status 24 3.2. A Paradigm Shift 26 Part Two: Livestock Welfare from Farm to Slaughterhouse

1. O n Farms 1.1. Premises and Equipment 1.2. Feeding and Watering 1.3. H ealth Monitoring 1.4. Training 1.5. G overnment Inspections

32 33 33 34 35 36

2. Transport 2.1. A nimals Fit to Travel 2.2. Training 2.3. O rganizing Transport 2.4. Material and Equipment 2.5. Government Inspections

38 39 40 41 41 44

3. Assembly Centers (Markets, Grouping Centres and Fairs)

4. Slaughterhouses 4.1. A nimal Housing 4.2. I mmobilization and Stunning 4.3. Bleeding 4.4. G overnment Inspections

47 49 50 53 53

Conclusion

Appendices

Bibliography Glossary Acronyms Useful Links

56 59 60 61

Notes

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

PART ONE

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

THE ORIGINS OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FARM ANIMALS IN FRANCE 8

1. THE ISSUE OF HOW WE PERCEIVE FARM ANIMALS Is it possible to examine the relationship between humans and animals objectively, that is to say without introducing the bias of anthropomorphic projections? This is what many scientific disciplines attempt to do, for example by defining objective indicators of animal wellbeing and corresponding measurements, or by analysing the neurological mechanisms of pain [35].2 Yet, no matter how useful and necessary these approaches are, they are only partial. They shed a purely physiological, and notably behavioural, light on a question that, ultimately, is equally a matter for politics and ethics3 and is therefore fundamentally human: What relationships do we allow ourselves to have, as people, with animals? And, first and foremost, what are animals and what does it mean to be human? And therefore what is the relationship between people and animals? These questions may seem surprising as an introduction to a document on animal welfare from farm to slaughterhouse that aims to provide technical, scientific and regulatory

information. Nevertheless, they clearly deserve to be asked as a preamble to the subject. Indeed, human-animal relationships and the notion of animal welfare depend on how we see and think about this or that animal and the mental images we have of it. In other words—and this is the goal of this first section—before we can even look at the status of farm animals and how this status was conceived legally and operationally, it is useful to look at how humankind conceives of and imagines animals, how these mental images are built, how they have evolved, and consequently how humankind perceives its own relationship to animals and their wellbeing. The conceptual framework for human-animal relations necessarily depends on the filter of humankind’s idea of what an animal is. Let us note that our mental images have throughout time influenced language and etymology. Thus, in French as in English, we habitually talk about rearing or taking care of livestock using positive language that displays the attention we pay to these animals, as opposed to more neutral expressions that might merely speak of the work involved.

These animals form the farmer’s herd, or in other words all the head (caput in Latin) that he owns, but we could also speak of his capital because this word also derives from the same Latin root. Economically speaking, the aim of capital—particularly livestock—is to cause it to grow or reproduce. In Europe, similar etymological parallels can be found in both Latin and Anglo-Saxon languages.4 We can also note the oldest Indo-European root that links cattle (peku) and wealth (pecunia, money in Latin). Through these examples, we see that language portrays very deep-seated and extremely old relations between farmers and their animals, while offering them as models. These relations are not lacking economic considerations, but attention and care form a central aspect of desired and demanded practices. A few examples reveal how mental images evolve over time and within societies (cf. Sidebar 1).

1.1. The Weight of Technical and Socioeconomic Structures in Our Perceptions Given the influence that our mental images have over how we see animals

2. T he numbers between square brackets correspond to the bibliographic reference listed on page 56. 3. H ere, ethics designates how moral rules and pragmatic considerations regarding action are combined; politics refers to the way in which a society is organized and makes decisions. 4. For example: cabeza (head) in Spanish, cap (type of hat) and capitulum (a small head or rounded extremity of bone in medical terminology) in English, kopf (head) in German, and (k)capital in each of these three languages.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

and our relationships with them, it is appropriate to examine the factors that determine how these

images are elaborated. Without citing all technical and socioeconomic determinants that have influenced

this elaboration, a few key elements are presented here.

Sidebar 1

EXAMPLES OF OBSERVATION BIAS OR PERCEPTION IN IDEAS ABOUT ANIMALS Artistic Renderings: With horses, our first thought is of an animal that stands 1.5 to 1.6 m at the withers. Yet, on an ancient Danish cauldron,a we see a Gallic

rider seated on a small horse with his feet touching the ground. Analysis of the bones of Gallic horses proves that the image on the cauldron is accurate and therefore (Cont. p. 10)

Evolution of Cattle Size [33] 140

135 130 125 120 115 110

La te L

17 t h

15 t h

14 t h

10 t h -11 th 11 th -13 th En

aT èn

6 th - 9 th

4 th -5 t h

1 st

2 nd -3 rd

d io eP er

16 t h

centuries

105

Méniel 1984, Lepetz 1997, Clavel 2001, Lepetz and Horard-Herbin 2012 & 2013. AUROCHS

1.80 m 1.35 m 1.25 m

1.30 m 1m

1.50 m

1.15 m

NEOLITHIC / IRON AGE / ANTIQUITY / MIDDLE AGES / CONTEMPORARY PERIOD / CHAROLAIS CATTLE J.D. Vigne & M. Coutureau

a. Celtic Gundestrup Cauldron (National Museum of Denmark): http://www.cndp.fr/archive-musagora/gaulois/documents/ gundestrup.htm).

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

Sidebar 1 (cont.)

that our current mental image is inappropriate to that time. The same is true for cattle. The Figure here shows changes in the height at withers of cattle since aurochs were domesticated: from 1.8 m during the Neolithic era to barely 1 m during the Iron Age and 1.6 m today. These comparisons between imagery and bones show that the animals of the past do not correspond to our mental images of them based on our relationship with the animals of today. As a result, we must be aware that we conceive our relationship with animals through images that are but partial and conditioned by a set of historical and social determinants. Sources of Information: For a long time, written documents were the only sources of information deemed worthy (because available) by historians and archeologists. These ‘ancient’ sources, written by clerks for the religious or economic authorities, above all reported on the animal husbandry and consumption practices specific to those social groups. Lacking alternative sources, it was assumed that the animal husbandry and consumption practices of other social groups were relatively similar. The combination of computing and new testing capacities (study of skeletal remains, material composition, signs of

wear, etc.) provides new sources of information. These new sources are now beginning to testify directly to a history of animal husbandry practices among small farmers and village butchers that is different from what we have until now known in Europe from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. This example shows that even when we rely on scientific knowledge, our ideas about animal husbandry and our relationships with animals are to be viewed with precaution because they depend on our awareness of biases in the scientific methods used.b Animal Species: Indeed, the relationship that humankind maintains with animals is mediated by the idea that each person has of these animals and their species. This mediation introduces observation biases (we do not look at what we should in the animal) or perception biases (we look at what we should, but through deforming lenses: anthropomorphism, current knowledge, etc.) that influence how we think about the animals. In reality, the expression of animal welfare may vary depending on the species considered. For example, periods of play in young animals may reveal a state of dietary well-being and sufficiency as among calves or, inversely, dietary stress as may be the case among kittens practicing hunting.c

b. H ere, we refer to all the discussions on the papers presented during the ‘La viande : fabrique et représentations’ [making meat: practices and representations] symposium [34]. The various cases discussed notably covered ancient Egypt, Greece, the Roman world, and Western Europe. c. S uzanne Held: ‘Play as an indicator of good welfare: why, why not and how?’ [49].

During the Paleolithic Era, humans were hunter-gatherers who collected plants and insects and hunted animals. Organized in clans or tribes, humans often referred to totemic animals of a sacred or taboo nature. According to S. Reinach, totemism would partially explain some food taboos, such as pigeons and doves among Slavic populations and hares among the Celts [47]. More generally, other animals may be killed and eaten but, in an animistic context where every ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

living being has a soul, their killing is the subject of rituals. This ritualization probably parallels the commodification of animals when they are killed, that is to say their transformation from living being to thing(s): meat and other products. Currently, the term ‘commodification’ is often used to emphasize the consequences of industrialization on livestock farming conditions. However, one must not forget that slaughter has long been the first form of commodification.

In any case, slaughter was never seen as insignificant, and this non-insignificant nature can be found throughout nearly all of human history. Humankind, out of respect for the animal as much as out of economic considerations has made use of nearly all of it: skin, meat, fats, ligaments and bones. During the Neolithic Era, humans developed farming by domesticating plants and animals. According to J.P.

Digard, this ‘man the domesticator’ is not simply a user of animals; he is also a producer of these domesticated breeds that are not natural because they come from a selection of animals of other species such as wolves, aurochs, mouflons, etc. [14]. Humans thus begin to distinguish between wild animals and animals that have been acclimated for their labour or company. Until then, humans used all parts of animals, but starting with this period, humans begin little by little to derive two additional resources from domesticated animals: energy (carrying and draught power, etc.), and manure as a source of fertilization. Among other things, animals were assigned a function of live savings—reproducible and easy to mobilize—that, progressively, would give rise to the notion of capital (cf. Sidebar 1). The resources provided and functions fulfilled by domestic animals would serve humankind until the contemporary era and thus define a relationship based on utility. Indeed, it would take until the invention of the steam engine (at the end of the 17th century), then synthetic fertilizer (19th century) and finally refined petrochemicals (20th century) for animal traction, waste, hides and non-food raw materials to find substitutes. The relationship based on usefulness would then be reduced nearly to the provision meat, eggs and dairy products.5

Starting in Antiquity and continuing relatively continuously into the contemporary era, humankind’s mental images of animals—and notably domestic animals—have therefore been marked on the material level by usefulness. However, during this same period, philosophical and cultural changes played a decisive role in the evolution of these mental images (cf. §1.2). The contemporary era constitutes a break in the human-animal relationship. According to J.L. Guichet,6 until this date, the human and animal worlds were intimately enmeshed. These two worlds were functionally, economically and technically, emotionally and morally intertwined [10]. They were embedded in landscapes and activities, all professions were present everywhere, including in urban areas: slaughterhouses, butcher shops, tanneries, transport, etc. This intertwining existed even in the senses with the omnipresence of smells of hay, manure, leather, bodies, etc. Contemporary breaks are to be understood in opposition to this enmeshed nature. For this author, the contemporary world is therefore marked by a progressive ‘de-animalization’ that sped up starting in the mid-20th century—a period specifically marked by the rise of agricultural motorization (replacing animal power), the use

of fertilizer (loss of the imperative need to have manure) and the use of textiles and other synthetic products from petrochemical industries (loss of the role of raw materials other than milk and meat). ‘De-animalization’ must be understood on different levels [10]: Separation of Spaces and Species: Livestock are relegated to rural areas and disappear from the urban landscape (closing of slaughterhouses, loss of their role in traction, etc.). Pets become more numerous in cities and are almost exclusively confined to the domestic sphere. Dequalification of Human-Animal Relations: With a few rare exceptions (seeing eye dogs, horses), animals no longer have vital technical functions to perform compared to human activities. Their role is now to be present, but without a shared task to accomplish. Depending on the case, they are therefore reduced to being only a source of raw materials (for food, industry, science, medicine, etc.) or a backdrop for emotions or the imagination. Revaluation of Animal Sentience: As human-animal relations have lost their main material supports and as they are now marked by separation and dequalification,

5. This is a voluntary simplification of the current situation. Value chains continue to utilize co-products and by-products. But this use is now more one of opportunities that the supply side takes up, whereas before it was a response to a demand that had no alternatives. 6. J.L. Guichet is a philosopher. During the symposium ‘Evolution des relations entre l’Homme et l’animal’ [evolution in human-animal relations], he proposed a summary of societal changes leading to or revealing the break in the human-animal relationship in the contemporary era [10].

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

they tend by default to enter more and more strongly into the field of ideology, imagination and fantasy. The question of animal’s sentience, previously secondary to uses and material ends, has thus become primordial. This revaluation is said among other things to benefit from the increased sensitivity of humankind itself, the growing importance given to rights, and the separation of roles according to the responsible party/victim pair. Deconstruction and Breakdown of Mental Images: The last components of this break, while having become primordial, are the ideas that humankind has about animals; these ideas have lost all connection with the animal world previously embedded in the human world (cf. supra). This concept has become deconstructed and splintered into three clearly distinct components: the utilitarian animal (livestock or laboratory animal, but in any case invisible to most people), household pets (which are highly anthropomorphized), and wild animals (which are deformed and idealized by the media). It is now through the image of the household pet, rather than that of the farm animal, that relations with the other types of animals are approached, even though these three images are in reality irreconcilable.

This de-animalization of the contemporary world is the source of an ultimately highly paradoxical situation, two traits of which J.L. Guichet underscores here: Animality now seems to be thought at two levels: level one, the ‘visible, sentient, familiar or wild, always comforting or positive’ animal; and level two, the farm animal, a ‘“lower” animal, invisible [and having a] ghost-like [existence], [...] faceless and even completely un-imaginable, about which we generally prefer not to think’ [10]. According to N. Vialles, humans have shifted from being zoophagous, knowing eaters of animals, to sarcophagus, or flesh-eaters, unaware of its animal origin [48]. This idea has also been taken up by F. Burgat [4]. The deconstruction of the relationship with animals has caused this relationship to be the subject of increasingly intense thinking from the 1950s onwards, with the goal of understanding it from the standpoint of ethics. On this point, J.L. Guichet cites the writings of Ruth Harrison7 on Animal Machines [32] and the—better known in France—writings of Peter Singer on La libération animale (1975), and of Tom Reagan on La question des droits des animaux (1983). While very summary and necessarily partial, this review of a few key stages

that marked animal husbandry and human-animal relations clearly shows how the evolution of technical and socioeconomic conditions has influenced the elaboration of our mental images. Three major eras in human-animal relations can thus be defined: the Palaeolithic period with an animist relationship and the ritualization of killing; the Neolithic Revolution with the domestication of animals: animals became indispensable for the functioning of societies, and the relationship with animals was intrinsically marked by their usefulness (cf. Figure 1); and the contemporary period, characterized by both the drastic drop in livestock utility due to technical progress (motorization, rise of chemistry, etc.) and the marginalization and breakdown of concepts pertaining to human-animal relations in favour of positive images projected on pets and wild animals. 1.2. THE MAJOR PHILOSOPHICAL AND CULTURAL SHIFTS

From Antiquity to the contemporary period, the role of livestock was central to how societies were organized and

7. R. Harrison was a precursor on this question of ethics because as early as 1964 she denounced the effects of the industrialization of livestock farming that, according to her, was relegating animals to the rank of production machine. In the French context, this work deserves to be mentioned to underscore the ambiguity of the expression ‘animal machines’ employed by R. Harrison and today by many authors, without knowing whether these authors refer to Descartes’ reflections on ‘animal-machines’ (cf. §1.2.2) or those of Harrison (given that there is every indication that she did not know of Descartes’ writing on the subject; personal communication of Marina Stamp Dawkins, 03/09/2014 [49]).

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

shifted very little. Indeed, beyond technical changes, animals were still suppliers of food, non-food goods and energy. They were also a key element in soil fertility management methods and therefore in food systems (cf. §1.1). However, throughout this lengthy period, ideas about animals were influenced by different philosophical and cultural currents that took an interest in human-animal relationships. 1.2.1. From Antiquity to the Middle Ages

Let us note here the uncertainty surrounding human-animal relations until the Middle Ages, notably because sources of information are often ‘religious’ (cf. Sidebar 1). Sources are, what is more, sometimes contradictory, as is the case for sources from Antiquity. According to the Old Testament and Hebrew exegesis, Adam and Eve seem to have been vegetarian. Permission to eat animals seems to have come only after the Flood8 [41]. The purpose of the Hebrew Kashrut9 would then have been to separate blood from body during religious slaughter, thus aiming to preserve the animals’ souls. During Antiquity, in Egypt, Greece and the Roman world, herds were mainly owned by the dominant classes (leaders, clergy, etc.) and eaten during religious sacrifices [34]. However,

in Greece during the same period, various philosophical movements advocated for vegetarianism with various justifications: condemnation of sacrifices, pity for animals and respect for life, the search for asceticism and purity, belief in the transmigration of souls, etc. Today, it seems difficult to appreciate the real importance of these practices and know whether they went beyond philosophy circles given that, in the theatre of the time, mocking vegetarian characters was a recurrent theme in plays [41]. What about the rest of the population? Did these practices and lines of thought influence human-animal relationships or not? In the end, it does indeed seem that people at the time were already asking questions that we ask ourselves today. What differences are there between people and animals? What is the nature or degree of these differences? Or, should one see continuities? Finally, how does all this translate into human-animal relations? In the 4th century B.C.E., Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) gave particularly strong answers to these questions. For him, Man was half-way between gods and beasts and must therefore be seen as the final purpose of other living species: plants were for animals, and animals were for Man. All of nature was therefore at the service of Man because, based on Aristotle’s

zoological observations, Man has all the faculties of living beings, including reason—that is to say the capacity for rationality. Man was therefore a rational animal. But he was not, for all that, equal to the other animals; his rationality justified his domination of them [50]. This concept of humankind and, consequently of animals, would mark how the human-animal relationship was understood until nearly the modern period. It notably had a major influence over how Catholi cism viewed behaviour towards animals and, in particular, the fact that because of their inequality they were entirely at the service of humankind. In his Curiosités judiciaires et juridiques [courtroom curiosities] published in 1858, Emile Agnel thus reported several examples of animals put on trial during the Middle Ages, such as a sow condemned to have its snout cut and be hanged for having mutilated and killed a child, a bull hanged for goring a man, or even field mice and caterpillars excommunicated for damaging harvests [5]. 1.2.2. Cartesian Thinking

In the 17th century, Descartes (15951650) adopted a perspective comparable to that of Aristotle: identify what constitutes the essence of humankind. Like Aristotle, Descartes defined humans in relation to God

8. According to the Old Testament, the Flood was a universal punishment of humankind by God, as humans had become bad and systematically broke God’s laws. Among people, only Noah and his wife were seen as worthy of surviving the 40 days and 40 nights of rain caused by God’s wrath, and were tasked with saving one mating pair of each animal species. After the Flood, God set down new rules. 9. The Kashrut is the Jewish dietary code that specifies which foods are allowed and which are forbidden, as well as acceptable modes of preparation. These include specific rules on how animals are to be slaughtered.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

and other living things. But here, the position mid-way between the two must be understood as being between the infinity of God and the finite nature of the body. In other words, Descartes was not operating within a unitary approach to the living whereas that had been Aristotle’s objective in that, according to F. Wolff,10 for him the challenge was to provide a philosophical foundation for zoology. Descartes, on the other hand, placed himself within a dualist perspective that sought to understand body and soul, mind and matter. Why this dualistic approach? Ultimately because his challenge was to provide a foundation for physics, with on one side work by the mind (mathematical calculations) and on the other the work by the body (use of materials). In this context, unlike Aristotle, humankind was no longer the object of knowledge but had become the subject of knowledge. Humankind is mind and awareness, and this awareness is what allows one to know the rest of nature.

At the same time, humans are also (only) bodies—that is to say complex machines made exclusively of organs, or the equivalent of clockwork mechanisms, pumps and other mills [12]. According to F. Wolff, this concept of the body reduced to the mechanical interplay of its organs is a response to another of Descartes’ preoccupations: giving a philosophical foundation to human medicine, and notably physiology. This mechanical concept authorizes humans to act on their bodies: they can and may—that is to say, they are capable of doing so and have the right to do so. In this context, nature—which includes animals—is reduced to its physicality. Having a soul—that is to say not only reason but awareness of the self and one’s relationship to God—humankind is, for its part, also a moral subject. Between the two, nothing. Descartes’ oft cited formula of ‘animal machine’ must be understood within this line of thinking in which, because of their bodies, humans are

themselves thought of as machines, but they also have a mind, whereas animals have remained body only. It must also be understood in its epistemological11 logic accompanying a twofold scientific revolution, physics and medicine.12 The ‘animal machine’ concept was later taken up by other philosophers who took it out of its epistemological field of application to make it a concept in its own right. For instance, according to Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715), pain was punishment for sin. As animals did not have souls, they were not responsible, could not sin, and therefore did not know any pain. Animals were therefore indeed machines that could not suffer. 1.2.3. The Emergence of Animalism

The emergence of neurosciences and cognitive sciences13 over the past thirty to forty years has been the source of a revolution of an entirely different nature [6]. These branches

10. Unless otherwise stated, this section (§1.2.2) and the following (§1.2.3) deal with the theses developed by Francis Wolff in his book Notre humanité – D’Aristote aux neurosciences [our humanity: from Aristotle to neuroscience] [50]. This work is interesting because of several specificities: Its main goal is not to examine the relationship between humans and animals but rather human nature. It is therefore in the framework of these reflections—on humans, how they think of themselves and represent themselves—that F. Wolff secondarily examines this human-animal relationship. He also offers an analysis of four major philosophers or philosophic movements (Aristotle, Descartes, structuralism, and congitivism), each of which proposes what he calls a ‘figure’ of mankind and (except for the third) a specific relationship to nature or animals (cf. §1.2.3). Beyond the presentation of each of these philosophies, the comparative nature of his approach and the fact that he does not favour any of these movements a priori and does not seek to promote a specific posture in regard to animals but rather seeks primarily to understand what characterizes humans deserve to be underlined in particular. Finally, one will note that F. Wolff associates the emergence of these different human figures with the development of specific scientific disciplines. In this way, he provides understanding of the evolution of human-animal relations in the light of scientific progress and advances in knowledge, rather than from an exclusively moral perspective. 11. Underlined words can be found in the glossary on page 59. 12. W e should note that Elisabeth de Fontenay develops a point of view that is comparable to that of F. Wolff: the challenge of Descartes’ thinking was indeed to provide a philosophical foundation for the scientific revolutions underway. The notion of an animal machine must therefore be understood based on this intent, and not in an exclusively literal way [11]. 13. T he expression ‘cognitive sciences’ is used to designate disciplines that make it possible to understand how thought operates. They notably include psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence and neurosciences, biology, ethology, anthropology, sociology and social psychology, neuropsychology, psycholinguistics and psychophysics. We also call on mathematics, neurobiology, computer models and simulations, studies on the role of the social and cultural environment, analogies between the brain and computers, between human beings, animals and robots, etc.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

of science directly challenge previous concepts of the human-animal relationship. Indeed, according to the cognitivist paradigm, humans are considered to be animals like the others; and knowledge is seen as a natural process that can be addressed through biological disciplines. Humans have in a way been re-naturalized, that is to say that we believe that there is not a specific essence that would distinguish humans from other animals. Humans must be seen as a population in the genetic meaning of the term—a collection of individuals, able to evolve and adapt, and that shows inter-individual variability. According to F. Wolff, this approach tends to blur the line between human and animal. It leads him to speak of animalism, on the same footing as we speak of transhumanism for the blurring of borders between humans and machines. Behind the word ‘animalism’ is the aim of emphasizing that animals are the object of moral attention and compassionate ethics, and benefit from a theory of rights. Animalism thus arose from a set of external evolutions: the development of the cognitive sciences, the rise of productivism and its excesses, the increased urbanization in megacities, the loss of contact with nature and the idealization of nature, the development of the moral of care,14 visions of humankind as a hyper-predator and the main cause of risks to the biosphere, and even the reduction of policy to ecology, that is to say

the management of the balances among living organisms.

Each of these movements also has its own advantages and limits, notably in regard to the moral and political norms that it legitimizes and the practices it justifies, for example:

Pushed to its extreme, animalism believes that there is no essential difference between living beings, but mere differences of degree, notably when it comes to intelligence, aptitude, communication or sentience. In which case, there is no longer any moral reason to differentiate treatment between species, which would amount to practicing speciesism. Animalism therefore advocates for anti-speciesism, a position whose nature could seem contradictory. If all definitions of what constitutes an animal are debatable, the least poor is probably to consider that any heterotrophic living being—that is to say one that obtains its nourishment from organic substances—is an animal. And if humans are animals like the others, why require them to behave differently than other animals?

Aristotle’s inegalitarianism;

Descartes’ mechanistic and utilitarian vision of nature reduced to its corporality; and the anti-speciesist approaches deriving from the cognitivist movement. However, compared to each other, none of the concepts of humankind and its relationships with animals developed by these philosophical movements appears to be good or bad, either scientifically or morally. Ultimately, according to F. Wolff, science is unable to say what makes a human a human (instead of an animal) and what humans must do. At most, we can say that unlike other animals, humans are capable of scientific knowledge (cf. Sidebar 2). Or, in other terms, that humans live in the possibility of incompletion (cf. Sidebar 3). The impossibility of defining humans scientifically has several consequences. The way in which we may define humankind results, ultimately, from a philosophical concept, a vision of the world. The way humans conceive their relationship with animals therefore also derives from a vision of the world. This necessarily involves the image mankind has of itself, of animals as

How should these three philosophical movements be understood? And how should one interpret the major changes they introduce in terms of how we see animals and the relationship between humans and animals? F. Wolff notes that each of these philosophical movements accompanied and consolidated a scientific revolution: the emergence of zoology with Aristotle, physics and medicine with Descartes, and the neurosciences and cognitive sciences in the 20th century.

14. C are is protection as the principle behind action rather than, for example, responsibility.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

compared to itself, and finally of its relationships with animals.

A lapidary expression can perhaps summarize this: when it comes to humankind’s relationship with animals, it is ultimately much more a matter of knowing how to be (be human, be or behave with animals) than it is a matter of knowing something (what a human is, what an animal is, and what their relationships are).

2. THE STATUS OF ANIMALS: SOCIETY’S EXPRESSION OF ITS CONCEPT OF HUMANANIMAL RELATIONS The weight of concepts of the world and mental images has a heavy influence on the relationships between humans and animals (cf. §1). Legislation is a way to codify and institutionalize these relationships by giving them a legal expression. This section uses a few representative examples to cover the main evolutions in the legal status of animals in connection with ideas about what humans are, and humans’ concept of

Sidebar 2

HUMANKIND AS BEINGS CAPABLE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE [50] The capability of a living being to develop scientific knowledge is associated with two characteristics: Awareness: having the capacity to feel, emotionally, the state of one’s surroundings (phenomenal consciousness); being able to form judgements distinguishing true from false and share them (language); thereby being

animals and their own relationships with animals. More than providing an exhaustive view, the goal here is to understand the progressive shift in this status and how it has lead to the social and judicial notions defined in the laws of the 19th and 20th centuries. 2.1. FROM PREHISTORY TO THE 19TH CENTURY

Figure 1 shows some of the evolutions in the status of animals from Prehistory to the 19th century.

capable of knowledge (which allows one to justify that which is true or false); and being able to compare these justifications with others. Morality: being able to take intentional action; being able to freely choose one’s actions; subjecting them to a value judgement; and submitting these values for discussion.

2.1.1. Until the 17th Century

Humankind’s relationship to farm animals and the relationships developed with these animals are presented in §1.1 and §1.2 (pg. 8-12). Let us recall, however, that while Aristotle had a decisive influence over how humans and their relationship with animals have been conceived until the modern period, throughout the Middle Ages, biblical texts (the Old and above all New Testaments) were the reference for social organization

Sidebar 3

COMPLETION AND INCOMPLETION Completion: Only seeing details, only deriving short-term consequences from them, not predicting the long term, not knowing how to elaborate multiple scenarios to prepare for different circumstances. This is the fate of even the most evolved animals that have behaviours that indicate some capacity to master incompletion, which is still only experimental. Animals live in a state of completion.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Incompletion: Knowing that reality is not all that exists, knowing how to imagine and invent what does not yet have a visible and concrete existence, dialoguing with the invisible may exist or may be inexistent or simply imaginary. Humans are capable of incompletion, and the human species is the only one that is aware of this. Humans live in the possibility of incompletion.

Figure 1

A Few Examples of Evolutions in the Status of Animals from Prehistory to the 19th Century Totem Animal Killing Rituals (commodification of the animal)

Prehistory

Domestication Utility-Based Relationship

Animal Sacrifices

Antiquity (-3000 to the 5th C)

Man = Rational Animal (Aristotle, 4th C B.C.E.)

in the West and notably for behaviour in regard to animals. 2.1.2. 17th and 18th Centuries

The 17th and 18th centuries were a break with the past. In its dualism, Descartes’ reflections on nature and animals marked a turning point with the publication of his Discourse on the Method in 1637 [12]. But this shift was above all intellectual and philosophical. It had few concrete effects on the Biblical references that continued to govern people’s behaviour towards animals. On the contrary, he was part of a debate about ideas that developed progressively over these two centuries, notably with the Enlightenment philosophers. Little by little, new spaces for thinking would be opened and distance themselves from religious texts. The bulk of the reflection focused above

Influence of Catholicism

Middle Ages (5th - 15th C)

Animal Trials

Animal-Machine Theory (Descartes, 17th C)

Animals = Goods (Civil Code of 1804) Animal Welfare Societies (SPCA in 1824, SPA in 1845)

Modern erA (15th - 18th C)

ConteMPorAry Period (19th C)

Animal Suffering (Bentham, 18th C)

all on the concept of humankind, its construction as a political subject, and the forms of political organization that would be adequate. However, the question of the relationship between humankind and animals was also a central concern. This question was addressed in regard to morality: What attitude should one have towards the animals that one welcomes, uses, rears and slaughters to eat? These adjacent reflections in the centre of the philosophical-political debate mobilized nearly all the major thinkers of these two centuries. Malebranche took Descartes’ expression of ‘animal-machines’ (cf. §1.2.2) to the extreme. Arguing that pain comes from sin and, given that they are not responsible because they are machines, animals cannot sin and therefore they cannot suffer, Malebranche went so far as to assert, horribly, that animals ‘cry without

First Animal Welfare Laws (Martins’ Act in 1822, Grammont Law in 1850) Emergence of Animal Sentience (French Law of 21 June 1898)

pain’ and therefore we should not pity them [42]. Other philosophers, however, defended different positions at the time. Buffon, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire, Condorcet and others vigorously debated vegetarianism, hunting and animal rearing with arguments based sometimes on human physiology (which had progressed since Descartes’ time, cf. §1.2.2) and sometimes on the issue of animal suffering. This debate also reached the rest of Europe, and at the end of the 18th century, English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) strongly challenged the negation of animal suffering. For him, the question was not to know if animals are rational beings or if they can speak, but rather whether they can suffer and feel sensations. This capacity to feel and suffer would be considered to be necessary ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

and sufficient to define animals’ own ‘interests’—which humans should take into account when reaching decisions. This philosophical approach to human-animal relations would strongly influence dominant thinking in the 19th and 20th centuries [5]. 2.1.3. 19th Century

In France, plans to assemble simple, clear and appropriate laws in the form of a Code of Law had been under study since the Ancien Régime. France’s civil code, called the Napoleonic Code and which inspired many civil codes in other countries (Belgium, Italy, Latin America, Spain, etc.) during the 19th century, was created in 1804. In this Civil Code, animals were viewed only in function of their usefulness for humankind, as a means of traction and source of energy and manure. Animals were, thus, one element of farms, and were not treated any differently than other production ‘tools.’ They were therefore classified as property in Book II, devoted specifically to goods and property. Depending on the case, farm animals were seen as either immoveable property because associated with farmland, or as moveable property. Article 524 specifies: ‘Thus immoveables by destination, having been placed by the proprietor for the use and management of his farm, are: beasts required for agricultural purposes [...].’ Other domestic animals are covered by Article 528: ‘Moveables in their nature are bodies which may be transported from place to place, whether they move themselves like animals, or whether like inanimate things, they are incapable of changing their place, without the application of ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

extrinsic force.’ In both cases, animals are indeed things that, even though they can move by their own devices, are no different from inanimate objects. In 1810, under the first Empire, the Penal Code was created. In it, animals are seen as goods that are part of their owner’s property. The ‘destruction’ of animals may be punished with the single goal of repairing the harm done to the owner’s property [3]: Book III, Title II, Chapter II, Section III, Article 454—‘Whoever shall, without necessity, kill a domestic animal, in a place of which the person to whom such animal belongs, is proprietor, tenant, cultivator, or farmer; shall be punished with an imprisonment of not less than six days, nor more than six months. If there has been a breach of enclosure, the maximum of the penalty shall always be awarded.’ At the dawn of our modern era, animals were thus seen only as things placed at their owner’s discretion for the owner to use, maltreat or enjoy as the owner wished. During the 19th century, mentalities evolved progressively with the advances in science and technology. This slow maturation led, in Europe, to the creation of schools of thought and then structures federating animal defence. Thus, in 1822 in England—the cradle of moral protests regarding the animal cause—the British Parliament voted in the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act called ‘Martin’s Act’. This was one of the first laws aiming to establish animal rights. It covered oxen, cows, heifers, steers, sheep and other livestock

(cattle); the text did not include bulls. It was only in 1835 that the new law (the Cruelty to Animals Act) included them. This law was itself was repeated in the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1849 that levied fines for the poor treatment of animals. In 1824, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was created. Sponsored in 1850 by Queen Victoria, the SPCA then became the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). These ideas spread very widely during this period in other countries: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and even the United States. In France, consideration of animal welfare was speed up by the intervention of Sir John de Beauvoir (a member of the RSPCA Committee and British Member of Parliament) who helped spread English schools of thought. Thus, in 1845, the Société Protrectrice des Animaux (SPA [animal protection society]) was created with the aim of establishing a legislative framework punishing maltreatment of animals. On 2 July 1850, the first French law on ill-treatment of domestic animals, called the Grammont Law, was passed. This law only concerned domestic animals (dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) and only punished ill-treatment in public (prison sentence and fine). Rather than aiming to protect animals, this law aimed to protect human sensibilities [5]. Indeed, at this time, some coachmen beat coach horses, which could generate a climate of urban violence. The dangers of the ‘contagion’ of this violence to peo-

ple were non-negligible. Quelling ill-treatment of animals also made it possible to limit the risk of an escalation of violence (cf. Sidebar 4). Only ‘public morality’ could justify this impediment to property rights. Despite the limits of this law—which applied only to domestic animals and their public ill-treatment (without other precisions)—was at the time a real turning point in French laws on animal welfare. Indeed, the owner’s right to use and maltreat animals was no longer absolute and, from that date forward, could be punished by law.

measures to ensure that animals enjoy good conditions during transport to slaughter facilities. Consideration of animal sentience emerged through these articles. In this, the Law of 1898 was the first recognition of animal sentience in which animals began to be protected for themselves, rather than solely to protect people or people’s sensibilities.

Articles 68 to 72—formerly Articles 279 to 283 of the Rural Code— covered the cleanliness of premises, At the end of the 19th century, the Law equipment and housing for domestic of 21 June 1898, long unremarked, animals. They notably set forth: was a major turning point: the role of public health veterinarians in charge of inspection Article 65—formerly Article 276 of and, when appropriate, the sanitary the Rural Code—prohibits the serious measures to be taken; maltreatment of domestic animals. By the responsibility of Mayors in prohibiting ill-treatment, without any charge of hygiene rules for fairs and mention of it occurring in public, this markets; and law marked a turning point compared the shared responsibility of Prefects to the Grammont Law of 1850. However, and Mayors in charge of implementing as no penal measures were provided the measures prescribed by the public for, only infractions of the Grammont health veterinarians as needed. Law could be punished with fines or imprisonment. Mistreatment in 2.2. IN THE 20TH CENTURY private was forbidden, of course, but not punished. Its success shows that A series of laws completed and animal welfare—a moral imperative amended the Civil and Penal Codes before being a technical one—could throughout the course of the 20th only become reality in Penal Law. century. Among other things, the Rural Code was created in 1955; it Articles 66 and 67—formerly consisted of a set of laws on goods Articles 277 and 278 of the Rural and property in the countryside. Code—covered animal transport. Article 66 obliged the transporter Figure 2 thus presents a few key to water and feed animals during elements in the consideration of the journeys of more than 12 hours. evolution of the status of animals in Article 67 obliged Prefects to set up these different legal codes during the

course of the 20th century, including among these main texts: The French Decree of 7 September 1959 Decree No. 59-1051 was a step forward in the animal welfare regime: ‘Article 12 – Those who, without necessity, publicly or not, have maltreated domestic or tame animals or animals held in captivity [...].’ This text marked the abandonment of the public nature of ill-treatment. It therefore completed the Law of 1898 but above all—and this difference is crucial—punished ill treatment by a category four fine. This decree thus marked the end of the ‘human-centric’ concept of animal welfare (to preserve morality) in favour of an ‘animal-centric’ concept that takes into account the animal’s own interests. In addition, this text extended the protection previously afforded only to domestic animals to all animals kept by people. Only wild animals, towards whom people have made no commitments, remained uncovered by any rules. This distinction therefore authorized hunting and set limits necessary for animal welfare (fighting pests was, for example, allowed). This decree thus modified the Penal Code directly and the Rural Code indirectly (via the Law of 1898). The largest shift in this text is found in the reversal of the burden of proof brought about by the replacement of the word ‘abusively’ in the Law of 1850 by the word ‘unnecessarily’ in 1959. Under the Grammont Law, the ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

Figure 2

Grammont Law (1850)

Law of 1898

re ill p re w i - t re ssi o l b u d at m n o ju rd e anim e n f p u dg n t m of als) of a blic e n p / r ll o t s ro o ev a n r p f in e r s ima r i v a a t h l o l s ( te e e f t ex v e h e ce p nt t of cr ea ti o no ft he cr im eo fo u fa in n d ct sp a of e c ti o cr ti o n ue n of a lt y ni m al we cr lf a c r e at re r e e at i i o n co o n o f gn o th i ti f th e c on e ri of cr i m e an m e of im o ab al f s e an s e ve d o nt r e n du ien m m ty ce a l t e n t of re / ca at re m fo en rk t ep t an an im im a ls a ls = li v in an gc im re a ls at = ur p es riv cr at m e at i ep alt o n ro re o pe at f t m he rty en c t r im e re of co se gn xu i ti al on of an im al se nt ien ce

re d o p re m ssi es on tic o an f p u im b a ls li c ill tre em at m se er en g nt e to ien nc f ce e o fa ni m al

Consideration of the Evolution of the Status of Animals in French Law

Decree of 1959

Law of 1963

Law of 1972

Law of 1976

Decree of 1980

Decree of 1994

Law of 1999

Penal Code

party prosecuting ill treatment of animals had to prove to the judge that the acts in question were abusive. With this new decree, the opposite is true: the person who committed the acts needed to prove, in order to be cleared of the offense, that the acts were necessary. Three criteria are used to define a state of necessity: a present or imminent threat to a person or property, the need to commit the offense to save the person or property, and proportionality between the means used and the severity of the threat.15

was illegal in principle, except when the committing party could prove its necessity. Unobtrusively, the ‘status’ of beatings given to animals evolved: no longer an everyday occurrence, they must now be justified by need. Unnecessary maltreatment thus covers a more diverse range of situations than abusive maltreatment. Although not expressly recognized in this decree, animal sentience does seem to be the basis for these new provisions.

Prior to 1959, only maltreatment was punished; starting in 1959, ill treatment

Law No. 63-1143 amended articles 453 and 454 of the Penal Code by intro-

French Law of 19 November 1963

Law of 2004

Law of 2015

Rural Code

Civil Code

ducing the notion of ‘act of cruelty’ for which it institutes a prison sentence. ‘Maltreatment’ corresponded to the suffering caused in animals, sometimes without the intent to do so, through negligence or greed. An ‘act of cruelty’ corresponded to the intent to cause suffering out of pleasure to do so ‘because of the satisfaction derived from suffering and death.’16 It seems that maltreatment founded on a violation of public morals, as understood in the Grammont Law, was similar to the act of cruelty in the Law of 1963. A distinction was therefore drawn based on the severity and intentional nature of the maltreatment of animals, and a level

15. Under these criteria, it is for example possible to kill threatening animals that have entered private property and are devastating a pear orchard (St-Denis-de-la-Réunion court of appeals, 31.05.1985). 16. Official Journal of France – Proceedings – National Assembly – 1st session of 12 July 1961.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

of penal punishment is correlated to this (cf. Sidebar 4). French Law of 15 November 1972 Law No. 72-130 defined the categories of government agents (veterinary inspectors, technical agents and sanitation officers) authorized to report violations of the former Articles 279 through 283 of the Rural Code (cf. supra). In addition to the usual law enforcement officers such as police officers and gendarmes, other government representatives were

acknowledged as legally authorized to enforce the Penal Code in regard to animal welfare.

French Law of 10 July 1976

Law No. 76-629 marked a major shift in the history of animal welfare laws by declaring a fundamental principle: ‘Article L 214-1 – Every animal, as a sentient being, needs to be placed by its owner in conditions that are compatible with the imperative biological requirements of its species.’ Animal sentience, which until then had been merely implicit, was

henceforth asserted. Three centuries of philosophical debate of the utmost importance to define humankind were officially closed: the position of the French Republic was clear. Nevertheless, the legal and practical interest of this declaration—with which no punishment for non-compliance was associated—remains to be established. Among other things, Article 13 introduced the notion of ‘severe maltreatment’ in order to expand the scope of Article 453 of the Penal Code, as ‘act of cruelty’ was deemed overly restrictive (cf. supra). Everything beyond severe

Sidebar 4

FOUR MAJOR TRENDS IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE STATUS OF ANIMALS Commodification of the animal: Under the influence of Catholicism throughout the Middle Ages, then Descartes’ animal-machine theory that marked the 17th century, and despite the criticisms of the Romantic Movement in the 18th century (cf. §1.2 and §2.1.2), it would take until the Law of 1898 and in particular the Law of 1976 for animal sentience to be recognized. Finally, the Law of 2015 put a definitive end to the commodification of animals by creating a category between things and people: animals. Animals had progressively acquired a unique legal status: not things, not people, but still property (cf. §2.3).

out further clarification, whether in terms of pain or the perpetrator’s intent. The creation of ‘acts of cruelty’ in 1963 made it possible to differentiate between facts, and the Decree of 1980 clarified the duty of care that fell on people who keep animals. In the space of 130 years, a shift happened, from banning beatings or excessively heavy loads (1850) to an obligation to provide animals with care (1980). Finally, the Law of 1976 imposed duties and obligations on people: abandoning an animal was henceforth punished with the same severity as acts of cruelty.

The maturation of the concept of animal welfare: The initial purpose of animal protection in the Grammont Law was ambiguous: Was the aim to protect animals or instead people from their own violence? This ambiguity was resolved by the laws of 1898 and 1959, by eliminating the public nature of maltreatment. Finally, in 1963, a distinction and hierarchy were applied to the notions of ‘maltreatment’ of and ‘act of cruelty’ towards animals.

Expansion of animal welfare to the protection of living beings: Animal welfare originally concerned horses, draft animals or livestock (Grammont Law, 1850). In 1959, animal welfare was extended to cover all animals kept by people (with the exception therefore of animals living free in the wild). Among other things, the Penal Code evolved in 1994 and henceforth took an interest in animals as living creatures, rather than simply as sentient beings. The duty to treat animals well was henceforth completed by a duty to respect the lives of animals.

Emergence and definition of maltreatment: This notion emerges in 1850 with the Grammont Law, with-

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

maltreatment is considered to be an act of cruelty. Henceforth, it is not a matter of restricting oneself to the perpetrator’s wilful misconduct or his or her attempt to cause animal suffering to qualify the act. The intensity of pain felt by the animal is in this way taken into account. However, as the law lacks further precisions, it is up to the judge to make a determination. Finally, this law modified Article 453 of the Penal Code by creating the crime of abandonment for all animals kept by people.

Decree of 1 October 1980

Thanks to the Law of 1976, the French administration now has the means to define—more than a century after the aborted attempt in the Grammont Law—what can be called ‘maltreatment.’

Nevertheless, regulatory provisions remained vague and did not impose specifics.

Decree of 1 March 1994

The Penal Code was reformed in 1994 (Decree No. 93-726), and many provisions were revised at the time. A major shift thus occurred: a move was made from protecting sentient animals to protecting living animals. Indeed, unnecessarily killing an animal is now forbidden, even if the animal belongs to the person doing the killing and regardless of whether or not suffering was caused. Protection no longer applies to either goods belonging to other people or even to sentient beings that suffer from maltreatment, but to the living creature that will die unnecessarily.

Prior to Decree No. 80-791, ill treatment of animals was only associated with blows given to make them move. Under this Decree, the maltreatment of animals is also manifest in less obvious actions such as using hitching or immobilization equipment that is unsuited to the species or likely to injure the animal, keeping them in inadequate shelter, depriving them of food or water, or even failing to provide treatment for illness or injury, etc.

The 1994 reform also made it possible to take animals out of the ‘property’ category, which was a major step towards their legal protection.

It is now the responsibility of the person holding the animals to implement all useful means to prevent animal suffering. A ban on maltreatment has thus been replaced, through the description of the means used, by a near-obligation to treat animals well (care, feeding, appropriate shelter).

This law also modifies the Civil Code of 1804. Animals are henceforth different from objects (Article 524) and bodies (Article 528). They are no longer seen as things but are also not seen as people. The distinction between animals and things or bodies does not call into question their legal qualification

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Law of 6 January 1999

Law No. 99-5 modifies the Penal Code with Article 521-1 by eliminating the notion of ‘necessity’ in the commission of acts of cruelty towards or serious maltreatment of animals.

as property and therefore objects of law. Animals are seen, rather, as special property for which specific protections exist in law (Penal and Rural Codes). At the time, the Civil Code merely admitted that animals are a special type of property, without recognizing their sentience.

Law of 9 March 2004

Law No. 2004-204 amended Article 521-1 of the Penal Code by adding sexual maltreatment to acts of cruelty and severe maltreatment. 2.3. AT THE START OF THE 21ST CENTURY

In France, the status of animals is currently defined in various codes.

Civil Code

Until the end of 2014, animals were seen in the Civil Code as property (Articles 524 and 528, cf. §2.2). Since the passing of Law No. 2015-177 of 16 February 2015 modernizing and simplifying law and procedures in the areas of justice and home affairs: ‘Animals are living sentient beings. Under reserve of the laws protecting them, animals are subject to the regime governing property’ (Article 514-14). The purpose of this change in the Civil Code is to better reconcile the legal qualification of animals and their emotional value, while harmonizing this code with the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code and the Penal Code (cf. infra). Animals are no longer seen as moveable property. They remain classified

in the property category, but in a primordial position that recognizes their sentience and distinguishes them from other forms of property. There are three fundamental legal categories: things, people and— now—animals. Animals do not have subjective rights, but are recognized as having a sentience to which people must pay attention.

in the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code. It should be noted that there is no legal definition of what constitutes a ‘sentient being.’ This same code also stipulates: ‘Article L. 214-3 – It is forbidden to maltreat domestic animals and any wild animals that have been tamed or are held in captivity.’

Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code

Maltreatment of animals is punished: ‘Article 521-1 – Serious maltreatment, or sexual maltreatment, or the commission of an act of cruelty, whether in public or not, towards a domestic

Since the Law of 10 July 1976, animals have been defined as sentient beings

Penal Code

animal, or tamed animal, or animal held in captivity, is punishable by two years of imprisonment and 30,000 euros in fines.’ In so doing, it implicitly recognizes and confirms that animals are indeed sentient beings. Among other things, Book VI of the Penal Code, titled ‘Minor Offenses’ clearly distinguishes between offenses against people, property, the Nation, the government or public order, and ‘other offenses’ exclusively devoted to offenses against animals’ lives. This is additional proof that, in the Penal Code, animals are no longer

Sidebar 5

THE STATUS OF ANIMALS IN EUROPE [3] In 1957, the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community was signed. In this Treaty, farm animals are seen as agricultural products on equal footing with meat, butter or eggs, for example (cf. List F, tariff headings in the common customs tariff).

‘Desiring to ensure improved protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient beings, have agreed upon the following provision [...].’

In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty, through a Declaration on the Protection of Animals, invited the European Parliament, Council and Commission, along with the member States, to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals when drafting and implementing Community legislation on the common agricultural policy (CAP), transport, the internal market and research. Because of its non-binding nature, this declaration had only symbolic impact.

In 2004, the European Constitution was adopted in Rome. It contains an article taken from the Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam: ‘Article III-121: In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the requirements of animal welfare [...].’ The member States therefore pledged to recognize the sentience of animals and meet the requirements of their welfare.

In 1997, the Treaty of Rome was modified by the Treaty of Amsterdam. In force since 1999, this Treaty states in its 10th Protocol annexed to the agreement on the protection and welfare of animals that the ‘Community and the Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals [...].’ This protocol replaced the Declaration in the Maastricht Treaty. Among other things, in this Protocol, the sentience of animals is recognized:

In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon modified the founding treaties of Europe. The provisions of a new Article 13 place animal welfare on equal footing with the other fundamental principles—the promotion of equality between men and women, the guarantee of social protection, the protection of human health, the fight against discrimination, the promotion of sustainable development, and the protection of consumers and personal data.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

assimilated with property (Articles R 653-1, R 654-1 and R 655-1).

3. ANIMAL WELFARE AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT TODAY 24 The evolution of laws on animal welfare, as in other areas such as health safety, is the result of an ensemble of scientific, economic, political, social, etc. data. Close interdependency exists between social phenomena and the production of legal standards carrying new ideas [3]. In Europe, animal welfare principles grew out of both recognition that animals are sentient (cf. Sidebar 5 and Figure 2) and ‘definitions’ of animal wellbeing and protection (cf. Sidebar 6). In France today, animal welfare rules are founded on national codes and European regulations. Implementation of these laws, from farm to slaughterhouse, is described in Part Two of this Dossier. 3.1. THE INFLUENCE OF CHANGES IN ANIMAL STATUS

When the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was established in 1962, animals were seen as agricultural products (Treaty of Rome, 1957, cf. Sidebar 5). Evolutions in society and in agricultural and industrial systems led, at the same time, to the emergence of farm animal welfare associations (cf. Sidebar 7). This was the case in France with the Œuvre d’Assistance aux Bêtes d’Abattoir ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

(OABA [association for assistance to slaughterhouse animals]), founded in 1961. Animal welfare became a topic of growing interest for society, which was becoming increasingly sensitive to respect for animals, notably in livestock farming modes. European agreements entered into force starting in the 1970s: the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes of 10 March 1976 and the Protocol of Amendment dated 6 February 1992;

Note: European conventions do not cover only farm animals. Specific conventions on pets and animals used in scientific research also exist.

Since 1997, animals have been seen as sentient beings by the Treaty of Amsterdam (cf. Sidebar 5). Community policy in the areas of agriculture, transport, the internal market and research have since evolved to take into account this change in animal status. European directives and regulations have been issued regularly since then:

Council Directive 91/629/EEC the European Convention for the laying down minimum standards for Protection of Animals During Inter- the protection of calves, amended in national Transport of 13 December 1997 and 2003, rescinded by Council 1968, revised 6 November 2003; and Directive 2008/119/EC; the European Convention for the Council Directive 91/630/EEC Protection of Animals for Slaughter laying down minimum standards for of 10 May 1979. the protection of pigs, amended in 2001 and 2003, rescinded by Council We should note that laws and regu- Directive 2008/120/EC; lations governing animal protection during transport are among the Council Directive 91/628/EEC oldest European regulatory provisions on the protection of animals during in this area. Indeed, the first Council of transport, amended in 1995 and Europe Recommendation adopted in 2003, rescinded in 2005 by Regulation this area dates from 1961. It resulted 1/2005; and in a first Convention, which entered into force in 1971 and already laid the Council Directive 93/119/EC on foundations of current regulations the protection of animals at the time [46]. of slaughter or killing, amended in 2003 and 2005, rescinded in 2990 These standards formalize the good by Regulation 1099/2009. practices that respect animal welfare at each stage of the value chain. Only Since its origin, this legislation has those European countries that have aimed to place animals in conditions ratified these conventions are obliged that meet the biological imperatives to apply them. of their species. It differentiates rec-

ommendations in light of animals’ life stages, living conditions, and in some cases species (cf. Part Two). In France decrees and orders have clarified certain points in European regulations and completed the articles in the Rural Code and the Rural and

Maritime Fisheries Code. They set technical, reporting and organizational requirements specific to each stage (cf. Part Two): Order of 25 October 1982 on livestock farming, the keeping and the holding of animals;

Decree No. 95-1285 of 13 December 1995 and Order of 5 November 1996 on animal welfare during transport; Order of 12 December 1997 on immobilization, stunning and killing procedures for animals and animal welfare conditions in slaughterhouses;

Encadré n° 6

ANIMAL WELFARE In the United Kingdom in 1965, the British government commissioned Professor Roger Brambell to investigate the welfare of animals in intensive livestock systems. Based on the Brambell Report, the British government created the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in 1967, which became the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FWAC) in 1979. The Committee recommended that farm animals be able to turn over, groom themselves, stand, lie down, and stretch their legs. The five fundamental freedoms of animal welfare, which define animals’ ideal state of wellbeing, were taken from this report. They are:

physiological: freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition;

environmental: suitable shelter, freedom from weather-related or physical stress;

health-related: freedom from pain, injury or illness;

behavioural: freedom to exhibit normal behaviours specific to each species; and

psychological: freedom from fear or anxiety.

Current European and French regulations are based on these five principles.

on these five principles in its international animal welfare recommendations (cf. Sidebar 8): ‘Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and appropriate veterinary treatment, shelter, management and nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter or killing.’ Neither animal protection nor animal welfare are defined in European and French legislation. According to the Veterinary Academy of France, animal well-being corresponds to the ‘state’ of the animal; good treatment corresponds to a set of practical actions furthering animal welfare (improving the status of animals), and animal protection corresponds to a set of defined protective measures that prevent animals from feeling undue pain, suffering and stress (cf. Sidebar 10, Part Two) [1]. Note: In English, the expression ‘Animal Welfare’ generally covers three separate concepts: well-being (the state of the animal), actions contributing to this well-being (proper or good treatment), and animal protection measures. In French, however, separate expressions are used for each of these concepts: bien-être (wellbeing), bientraitance (good treatment), and protection animale (animal protection).

Readers should note that, as in regulations, we deal mainly with animal protection in Part Two.

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) also relies

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

Decree No. 2011-2006 and Order of 28 December 2011 on the conditions authorizing slaughter facilities to obtain waivers regarding the obligation to stun animals; and 26

Order of 31 July 2012 on the conditions for the delivery of certificates of competence regarding animal welfare in the framework of their killing.

3.2. A PARADIGM SHIFT

European food safety regulations underwent comprehensive reform in 2006, leading to a set of regulations called the ‘Hygiene Package’ (Regulation Nos. 178/2002, 852/2004, 853/2004 and 854/2004). While these regulations govern food safety, they refer several times to animal welfare. Beyond preventing the spread of animal diseases, some of which are zoonoses (infectious or parasitic

diseases that can be transmitted naturally between animals and humans), the assurance of animal health and wellbeing also contributes greatly to food quality and safety. Among other things, Regulation No. 178/2002—foundation of the Hygiene Package, also called the ‘Food Law’—provides for the creation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). As set forth in consideration 36, the EFSA ‘should provide a com-

Sidebar 7

FARM ANIMAL WELFARE ASSOCIATIONS These associations emerged starting in the 1960s in France with the aim of ensuring better consideration of animal welfare at all stages of their lives (on farms, during transport, at the slaughterhouse). Their main missions are to: Work with industry professionals in an advisory and support role. For instance, OABA works alongside market operators to improve animal handling and build facilities that offer them proper working conditions while maintaining animal welfare before, during and after they are sent to market. Ensure proper enforcement of regulations, notably by providing their assistance and expertise to law enforcement and the various government offices concerned. For instance, the associations Protection Mondiale des Animaux de Ferme (PMAF [global farm animal protection]) and Animals’ Angels jointly publish a guide on live animal transport. Destined for inspection personnel, this guide summarizes the main points to examine during inspections. Disseminate knowledge among professionals and the general public (through websites, newsletters, etc.), such as on animal welfare laws. For instance, the association Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) offers

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

species-specific factsheets on its website that cover applicable regulations and research and provides technical and organizational tips to improve farm animals’ living conditions. Lobby to improve French and European animal welfare regulations (cf. Figure 3, Part Two). Eurogroup for Animals thus federates flagship animal welfare organizations in the European Union. A favoured interlocutor of European institutions, this group has run information campaigns, held press conferences and originated TV coverage with the aim of obtaining decisions by the Council of Ministers. Foster the care and housing of farm animals that have been victims of maltreatment or acts of cruelty, either as intermediaries or within their own shelters. Other associations, whose activities do not concern farm animals alone, also help improve their living conditions. We should note that Law No. 94-89 of 1 February 1994 allows any animal welfare association that has been duly registered for at least five years to exercise civil party rights in regard not only to the offenses of severe maltreatment and acts of cruelty but also the lesser offenses of poor treatment and voluntary killing of animals.

prehensive independent scientific view of the safety and other aspects of the whole food and feed supply chains, which implies wide-ranging responsibilities for the Authority. These should include issues having a direct or indirect impact on the safety of the food and feed supply chains, animal health and welfare, and plant health.’ In the European Union in the 2000s, the question of animal welfare became a major preoccupation, on equal footing with food safety. The many regulations were revised during this period; they impose various obligations regarding equipment, documentary traceability, inspections, etc. (cf. Part Two), notably with the aim

of ensuring respect of FWAC’s ‘Five Freedoms’ (cf. Sidebar 6). At this time, the European Commission wished to consolidate existing animal welfare measures and ensure compliance with these measures throughout the member States. Among other things, an overhaul now seems necessary in order to harmonize the various regulations applicable within the European Union. In the future, a common legal package on animal welfare—the Welfare Law—could replace the many current directives and regulations in this area. In the same spirit as the Hygiene Package of 2006, the objectives of the Welfare Law would no longer be based on what people

keeping animals must do (shelter, feed, equipment, etc.), as is currently the case, but on an obligation to achieve certain results, specifically: place animals in conditions that prevent undue pain, suffering or fear at all stages in the value chain (cf. Sidebar 10, Part Two). The responsibility of professionals will be central to the scheme: all professionals will need to avail themselves of the means they deem necessary to attain the results targeted by these future regulations. Animal welfare indicators will need to be identified so as to determine whether or not the targeted results are attained. There are therefore many European and national research projects underway to identify the most relevant indicators and criteria

Sidebar 8

THE WORLD ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH’S INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS In the framework of its 2001-2005 Strategy, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) set animal welfare as a priority field of action for the first time. Thus, the 180 member countries mandated the OIE, as the international organization of reference for animal health, to elaborate recommendations and guidelines on applicable practices in the field of animal welfare, reaffirming the key role of animal health. The OIE’s first recommendations were adopted in 2003, and the guiding principles were integrated into the OIE’s Terrestrial Code in 2004. Since May 2005, the OIE’s World Assembly of Delegates, which represents the 180 member countries and territories, has adopted ten animal welfare standards with the aim of integrating them into the OIE’s Terrestrial Code, as well as four others destined for the OIE’s Aquatic Animal Health Code. These standards cover, for instance:

the transport of animals by land/sea/air;

the slaughter of animals;

the killing of animals for disease control purposes;

animal welfare and beef cattle production systems/broiler chicken production systems;

welfare of farmed fish during transport; and

the welfare aspects of stunning and killing of farmed fish for human consumption. These standards are regularly updated to take into account the newest scientific discoveries. They are not regulations and are less binding than European legislation. Nevertheless, these standards are indispensable because they oblige OIE member countries to take into account the issue of animal welfare in their practices and to do so in a harmonized manner.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

One

to utilize for each animal species (and even for each physiological stage)

at every step in the value chain (cf. Part Two).

Sidebar 9

INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS 28

In 2012, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) signed an official cooperation agreement with the OIE regarding the elaboration of technical specifications for animal welfare that comply with OIE standards (cf. Sidebar 8). An ISO standard for ‘food products – welfare of animals used in food production’ is currently being elaborated. This standard will also make it possible to harmonize the

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

requirements of the various references currently available worldwide when it comes to the welfare of animals used in food production. In this context, the Standardization Commission brings together the crucial expertise necessary to elaborate standards and reference documents and appoints national delegates in European and international standards structures.

PART TWO

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

LIVESTOCK WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE 30

During the second half of the 20th century, a regulatory framework for animal welfare was progressively set up in France and within Europe (cf. Part One). The legislation was drawn up specifically in function of categories of animals: pets, wild animals, animals used for scientific purposes, and farm animals. In this Dosser, we cover only cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses reared for meat production. In the 1970s, regulations on farm animal welfare were driven by the Council of Europe through agreements covering all value chains from farm

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

to slaughterhouse. They were then taken up by the European Union in the form of directives and regulations, and then inscribed in French law as decrees and orders. Arising out of notably economic objectives such as trade harmonization, internal market regulation and rational production growth, this regulatory framework aims to reconcile farm animal welfare and the needs of farms. As indicated in the legislation on the subject, regulatory requirements are based on the available scientific data. They are consequently likely to evolve based on advances in research, as

has already been the case in the past (cf. Part One). Various stakeholders in the animal production industries, civil society, research, government, etc. participate in and/or ensure implementation of regulations and the on-going improvement of farm animal welfare conditions at every stageâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;on farm, transport, grouping centres, slaughterhouses (cf. Figure 3). Mandatory for industry professionals under current regulations, protecting and ensuring farm animal welfare is also necessary to produce safe, quality products.

Figure 3

The Main Farm Animal Welfare Stakeholders in France European Commission

European Parliament and Council elaborates European regulations

(Directorate-General for Health and Consumers â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FVO)

helps elaborate European regulations verifies application of European regulations

risk assessment

OIE elaborates international standards

French Ministry of Agriculture

(EFSA, ANSES)

(DGAL, DGPAAT)

issues scientific opinions

elaborates French regulations verifies application of French and European regulations

research and development

research institutes technical agricultural and agro-industrial institutes

lead multidisciplinary research projects on animal welfare (physiology, sociology, ethology, etc.)

animal welfare associations monitor and promote consideration of animal welfare throughout the lifecycle

French livestock and meat industries livestock

marketing animals

processing

(private companies and cooperatives)

livestock traders processors butchering and preparing

livestock farmers

slaughterers

veterinary practitioners verify the health and welfare of farm animals

health protection groups contribute to the preservation of farm animal welfare

marketing meat

hypermarkets and supermarkets (traditional products counter/self-service)

food service (municipalities or private)

consumers

meat wholesalers (wholesale butchers) livestock farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cooperatives

traditional butcher and tripe shops

Key Interactions

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

1. ON FARMS

A livestock farming nation, France holds 23% of European cattle, and in particular 34% of European suckling cows—making it the largest producer of beef. It is also the largest producer of butcher calves in Europe. In addition, the country is ranked third in lamb and pork production, and fifth for horsemeat production [24; 25] (cf. Table 1).

mals’ living conditions. Starting in the 1970s, the first animal welfare measures for farm animals appeared in Europe and a fortiori in France (cf. Part One, §3.1).

Council Directives 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves and pigs respectively; and

Currently, the regulations applicable to animal welfare in livestock farming are based in particular on:

the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code, and in particular articles L 214-1 and following (cf. Part One, §2.2).

the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes of 10 March 1976 and the Protocol of Amendment dated 6 February 1992;

Immediately following World War II, the need to increase production and thereby meet the political imperatives of supply and cost caused farmers to modify their livestock farming practices and, consequently, ani-

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes;

The goal of this legislation is to avoid causing animals any undue pain, suffering or harm through the conditions in their habitat, feeding and care (cf. Sidebar 10). It takes into account the specific characteristics and needs of animals (species, age and farming method) and determines different levels of requirements. For instance,

Table 1

Key Livestock Figures in France for 2013 [9; 24; 36; 37; 38] Cattle Sector

Sheep Sector

Goat Sector

Equine Sector

Pig Sector

Number of Livestock Farms in France

218,000

73,840

5,120 (C)

34,500

18,150

Average Number of Livestock per Farm in France

50 cows

80 ewes

150 goats

1 to 2 mares

100 to 200 sows 50 to 400 fattening pigs (2010)

French Herd (in million head)

19.1 (A)

7.2 (B)

1.2 (D)

1 (E) (2011)

13.4 (F)

European Herd (in million head)

84.7

7 (2011)

145.2

Global Herd (in million head)

1,040.1

1,173

996

59 (2011)

802.3

A: 5.45 million male and female bovines under the age of 1 year / 0.91 million male bovines aged 1 year / 4.52 million heifers / 0.41 million steers and bulls / 4.1 million suckling cows / 3.7 million dairy cows B: 1.7 million lambs / 5.5 million ewes / 6,100 rams C: f arms with more than 10 goats D: 867,000 goats / 333,000 male and female kids E: 58,000 plough horses / 82,000 donkeys / 185,000 race horses / 230,000 ponies / 445,000 saddle horses. These numbers cover horses raised for meat production as well as horses used for sporting and leisure activities. F: 1 .1 million sows / 12.3 million fattening pigs

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

specific regulations were adopted for pigs and calves (cf. Sidebar 11). Note: Today, this differentiation only concerns certain types of farm animals (nothing exists for lagomorphs and fish farming, for example).

Regulations thus mandate compliance with many requirements at different areas of livestock operations, such as premises and equipment, animal feed, health monitoring, and even professional training. They are based on respect for the Five Freedoms, fundamental in animal welfare: physiological, environmental, health-related, behavioural and psychological (cf. Sidebar 6, Part One). 1.1. PREMISES AND EQUIPMENT

Animals must be kept in an environment that meets the biological imperatives of their species (cf. Sidebar 6 and Sidebar 10). Environmental conditions must thus be suited to their physiological and ethological needs [16]: air circulation, dust levels, temperature, humidity and gas concentrations kept within limits that are not harmful; lighting that is appropriate for the species in duration and intensity (no constant darkness, no uninterrupted artificial light); and sufficient space to allow the animal to exhibit normal behaviour for its species and age. The materials used for buildings and stables (floors, walls, partitions) and

the equipment with which animals may be in contact must have the following characteristics:

1.2. FEEDING AND WATERING

No matter what farming method is used, animals must receive healthy not be harmful to the animals feed appropriate for their age and (no sharp boards or slippery floors, species. It must be provided in for example); sufficient quantity and quality at intervals that correspond to their be cleaned and disinfected physiological needs in order to keep easily and regularly; them in good health and meet their nutritional requirements. Among be designed so as to limit con- other things, to avoid all risk of cross tamination risks (impervious floors contamination, the regulations set with sufficient slope to ensure the specific labelling requirements for all runoff of liquids and evacuation of feed bought by farmers and destined waste, for example); and to feed their animals. Farmers keep these labels in their herd registers be verified daily and maintained, (traceability). especially in the case of automatic or mechanical equipment such as In France, more than 80% of the feeding and watering systems. feed ration for cattle and sheep is fodder (mainly grass, either pasture Animals kept constantly outside must or conserved) and nearly 90% of this be protected from weather, predators feed is produced on-farm [13; 40]. and any health risks. Pigs raised in the open air, for example, will be Feed for calves must contain enough given antiparasitic treatments. Pens iron to ensure an average blood and enclosures must be designed to haemoglobin level of at least 4.5 prevent escape. mmol/l, and a minimum daily ration

Sidebar 10

PAIN, STRESS AND SUFFERING Pain: an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential damage or described in terms of such damage (Baumans et al., 1994; Le Bars et al., 2001). Stress: a negative emotional experience caused when an individual

is faced with a situation that the individual perceives as threatening (MormĂ¨de et al., 2007). Suffering: a psychological or physical experience designating in both cases pain felt more or less strongly by an individual as a reaction to real or potential trauma (Larousse).

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

of fibrous food for each individual over the age of two weeks. This quantity must be increased regularly, from 50 to 250 g per day for calves aged eight to twenty weeks. It must be progressively supplemented by fibrous plants such as hay to respect the normal physiological development of their digestive systems. Finally, animals must have access to an appropriate quantity of adequate quality drinking water, that is to say clean water, especially when animals are ill or the weather is very hot.

1.3. HEALTH MONITORING

Farmers verify their animals’ health every day (twice daily for housed calves), they know how their animals behave and the care they need. Any animal that seems ill or wounded must receive treatment without delay, and a veterinarian must be consulted immediately if necessary. Accommodations with dry bedding must be available to isolate ill or wounded animals if necessary. Any ill animals and all medical treatments administered must be recorded in the

herd registry, which is maintained for at least three years on the farm and kept available to inspection services. The same holds in the event that an animal dies on a farm. By supervising the health of animals on farms, veterinarians also help protect animals’ wellbeing and health: anti-parasite treatments, vaccination to prevent the appearance of diseases, hoof care to prevent limping, etc. During these visits, veterinarians verify that animal welfare obligations are met (cf. Figure 3). When necessary,

Sidebar 11

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR PIGS AND CALVES For pigs, given their needs for exercise and investigatory behaviour, specific measures have been set, for example [21]: standards for the size of pens and crates, the layout of the facilities and equipment for each category of animal: boars, sows and gilts, piglets, weaners, and rearing pigs; access to a sufficient quantity of material to enable proper investigation activities, such as straw, hay, wood, etc.; specific environmental conditions: sound levels (< 85 dB, no constant or sudden noises), light intensity (>40 lux for a minimum of 8 hours), comfortable lying area; and for sows and gilts, who enjoy social interaction, kept in groups (without tethers) during a period starting from four weeks after the service to one week before the expected time of farrowing (with an exception for farms with fewer than ten sows provided that they can turn around easily in their boxes). Among other things, given their need to chew, sows and gilts must have constant

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

access to materials such as cord or pieces of wood, for example. They must also receive a sufficient quantity of bulky or high-fibre food as well as high-energy food. For calves, with the exception of farms with less than six calves and calves kept with their mothers for suckling, we can cite the following specific measures [20]: calves shall not be kept in isolation after the age of eight weeks, unless a their health or behaviour requires them to be isolated in order to receive treatment; standards for pens or crates regarding size, layout and equipment in order to allow calves to move about and have visual and tactile contact with other calves (perforated walls in the case of individual pens); and a ban on tethering calves, with the exception of group-housed calves which may be tethered for periods of not more than one hour at the time of feeding milk/ milk substitute. All tethers must be inspected regularly and not harm the calves.

they advise farmers on what actions to take to improve animal welfare. Finally, health protection groups (HPGs) monitor proper herd health on departmental level (cf. Figure 3). Composed of farmers and at least one veterinarian, they organize the prevention and monitoring of animal diseases in conjunction with veterinary services (cf. infra). In this framework, they also play an advisory role for farmers when it comes to animal welfare. 1.4. TRAINING

Farmers and livestock technicians are trained to have the skills, knowl-

edge and professional capacities appropriate to ensure animal welfare. The basics of animal handling and restraint are part of the syllabus in their initial and on-going education. For example, the Institut de l’Élevage trains 1,500 to 2,000 farmers every year in cattle handling and restraint [23]. The objective is to acquire both theoretical and practical abilities regarding cattle behaviour, master handling techniques and know the material that will allow them to do their work safely, for themselves and the animals. Among other things, farmers and livestock technicians are authorized to perform some veterinary procedures

and surgeries. These acts are listed in the Decree of 5 October 2011. With pigs, for example, this is the case for tail-docking, tooth-clipping and tooth-grinding. Given the pain that these procedures may cause, these interventions are strictly governed by regulations. They must be done under appropriate hygiene conditions by skilled and experienced people. Decree No. 2011-1244 of 5 October 2011 thus defines the required minimal skills. Fulfilment of these conditions may be shown by the possession of a diploma or certificate attesting to the completion of appropriate initial or on-going training. In addition, the owners or keepers of livestock are considered to

Sidebar 12

INITIATIVES BY LIVESTOCK PROFESSIONALS Livestock professionals have elaborated tools to master their practices, going well beyond strict compliance with animal welfare regulations. Production charters and ‘professional’ quality approaches exist in all sectors [23]:

This tool allows farmers to examine their practices with the aim of entering into a process of improvement. Specifically trained technicians have distributed 20,000 of these guides (for 23,000 farmers with more than 50 ewes).

Charte des Bonne Pratiques d’Élevage: This charter of good animal husbandry practices has existed since 1999. In France, 94,000 cattle farms adhere to it—that is 62% of cattle farms representing 77% of the cattle reared and 92% of the milk produced. On a voluntary and individual basis, farmers’ practices are evaluated by a technician who then proposes suggested improvements. Animal welfare is included through commitments covering the Five Freedoms (cf. Sidebar 6). More than 97% of adhering farmers comply with the criteria from the technician’s very first visit.

Code Mutuel de Bonne Pratiques en Élevage Caprin: This mutual code of good goat rearing practices has existed since 2004. More than 2,500 farmers adhere to it in France—more than 45% of all goat farmers. It is similar to the guide for the sheep industry.

Guide des Bonnes Pratiques Ovines: This guide to good sheep handling is built around seven major sheep rearing challenges taking into account animal welfare.

The Fédération Nationale du Cheval [national horse federation] is preparing a horse welfare charter to optimize farmers’ know-how and professionalism.

Guide de Bonnes Pratiques d’Hygiène en Élevage de Porcs: The main purpose of this guide to good hygiene practices for pig rearing is above all to guarantee the safety of foods marketed while respecting other regulations such as those on animal welfare.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

have the necessary skills when they have at least one year of professional experience in the livestock industry [27; 28].

Animal welfare regulations change regularly. To stay abreast of these changes, farmers have many sources of information: training courses from (departmental or regional) Chambers of Agriculture and HPGs;

inter-branch newsletters;

the professional press;

informative documents and websites from animal welfare associations, professional structures, the administration, etc.; and initiatives by livestock professionals (cf. Sidebar 12). 1.5. GOVERNMENT INSPECTIONS

Within France

Since 2005, the European Union has set up cross compliance measures to ensure more sustainable agriculture and thus foster better acceptation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) by all citizens. The cross compliance system subjects the payment of certain EU aid to compliance with basic requirements when it comes to the environment, good agricultural and environmental practices, health (public

health, animal health, plant health) and, since 2007, animal welfare [31]. Compliance with these requirements in connection with animal production is verified during inspections conducted by government agents. Cases of non-compliance are defined for each area of inspection, that is: the state of livestock buildings (inspection point 1), injury prevention (inspection point 2), animal health (inspection point 3), feeding and watering (inspection point 4), and animals kept outside (inspection point 5). Based on the severity, extent and persistence of non-compliance, aid is reduced by a predetermined percentage. Some anomalies of little importance and without direct consequences for human and animal health may be qualified as minor when they are easily remedied using the methods and within the deadline specified in the technical factsheets produced by the Ministry of Agriculture. When a farmer remedies the anomaly within the given deadline and compliance is validated by the inspection body, it is not taken into account in the calculation of reductions linked to cross compliance. Refusal to submit to an inspection, however, triggers the complete cancellation of all aid subject to cross compliance conditions for the inspection year. Among other things, in accordance with Article L 214-23 of the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code, veterinary

services are in charge of verifying application of the measures set forth in Articles L 214-1 and following, and L 215-10 to L 215-11 of the same code in regard to farm animal welfare (animal identification, farm premises and equipment, no maltreatment, etc.). When necessary, government agents issue official notice which may result in financial or penal sanctions. Thus, non-compliance with regulations is punished by fines ranging from 450 to 1,500 euros. Finally, the Article 521-1 of the Penal Code punishes harm to animals as sentient beings, acts of cruelty and severe maltreatment with sentences that may reach two years of prison and 30,000 euros in fines.

Within Europe

The 2008 Directives stipulate that, every two years, the member States shall inform the European Commission of the results of the inspections conducted during the previous two years. These inspections must cover, every year, a statistically representative sample of the different livestock farming systems of each member State. In addition, the Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s veterinary experts may inspect livestock farms to verify uniform application of regulatory requirements within the European Union. These experts are members of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) (cf. Figure 3). Their inspections are conducted in collaboration with the appropriate authorities17 in the member States. When required,

17. A ppropriate authority: the central authority of a member State in charge of ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, or any authority to which said central authority has delegated this task.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Sidebar 13

THE CURRENT STATE OF ANIMAL WELFARE RESEARCHa ‘Animal and Society’ Meetings were held in 2008 and brought together animal production industry professionals, scientists, elected officials, public authorities and associations around the issue of animal welfare. In this context, INRA conducted an expertise mission in 2009 on pain in farm animals; this expertise identified priority needs for research [35]: improve knowledge of pain mechanisms and evaluation in certain species;

identify sources of pain for farm animals;

take into account farm animals’ pain and assess the socioeconomic impact of measures to prevent and treat pain; evaluate a modification in the regulatory system and legal status of animals (cf. Part One). There is also the Réseau Mixte Technologique (RMT [combined technology network]) on animal welfare and livestock farming systems. In particular, it brings together research institutes and laboratories (INRA, ANSES), technical agricultural and agro-industrial institutes (IDELE, IFIP, etc.) and animal production industry institutes. The RMT’s purpose is to set up a lasting structure for discussion and sharing among these different stakeholders so as to ensure a continuum between applied research, development, teaching and livestock professionals. It is a favoured arena to grasp the diversity of research projects underway, such as: The analysis of animal welfare assessment systems: the goal is ultimately to define reliable, measurable indicators for each species, notably for farm animals. These indicators may be of two natures: resource mastery indicators, that is to say environmental parameters and animal husbandry practices that condition animal welfare; or indicators that measure outcomes for animals [43]. Whatever their nature, these indicators may be

behavioural (e.g. observation of animals laying down), or relating to health and production (e.g. mortality, drop in production), available resources (water, feed, shelter) or human-animal resources. Note: Tools aiming to elaborate a livestock welfare assessment standard already exist. One such is the method developed within the framework of the European Welfare Quality project. Its use is currently limited by its feasibility and cost.

Helping farmers better manage pain: the goal is to define pain management procedures on farms and adapt training units. The organization of information and reflection days with other known networks such as AgriBEA (INRA, CNRS, universities, agronomic and veterinary schools, etc.). Agricultural and agro-industrial technical institutes are also conducting studies that are more species-specific and/or specific to a given subject. For instance [23]: Identification of conditions that encourage tail biting on pig farms. The aim is to identify possible initiatives to avoid cutting the tails of piglets (IFIP). Setting up methods to detect boar taint in pig carcasses at the slaughterhouse. The aim is to overcome a dual challenge: no longer castrate piglets, while still offering consumers meat that does not give off an unpleasant odour during cooking due to metabolites of male sexual hormones (IFIP). Dehorning of cattle in France: current state of practices and ideas. Surveys have been conducted to identify and quantify this practice, identify the ideas farmers have regarding them, and possible levers for change (IDELE, 2009). Research institutes are participating in many European research projects along the lines of ProHealth

a. T he examples given in the field of research on farms, during transport and at the slaughterhouse are not exhaustive.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

Sidebar 13 (cont.) (2014-2019). This project centres around exploring new paths to improve animal health and the quality of production, and limit its impact on the environment while

maintaining farm and value chain profitability. Although not at the heart of the project, improved animal welfare is one goal (INRA).

38 the appropriate government authority takes any necessary measures to take into account the inspection results.

Animal transport is a solution notably to the following situations: the need to gather animals from all farms (small farms are the most numerous type in France);

Decree No. 99-961 of 24 November 1999 on animal welfare during transport.

Imports

To be imported into the European Union, farm animals from outside countries must have been treated at least as well as animals from within the EU. To prove this, they must be accompanied by a certificate delivered by the appropriate authorities of that country [20; 21].

2. TRANSPORT Animal transport is an inescapable stage in animal production value chains. Fattening, grouping, reproduction, slaughter and transhumance require the transport of more than a million animals within the European Union every day. In Europe, 90% of live cattle trade and more than 97% of live sheep and goat trade takes place via transport by road [7]. Most movement happens within the national borders of the member countries. In France, animal transport concerns nearly 380,000 farms (all species combined) and 1,550 livestock dealers, of which 840 companies selling more than 100 animals per month [39]. ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

the specialization of breeding and fattening farms, linked to geographical and weather differences between regions; and

the expansion of animal collection territories because of the reduction in the number of slaughterhouses and slaughterhouses’ specialization for economic reasons [7].

The regulations in force regarding animal transport are based in particular on: The European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport of 13 December 1968, revised 6 November 2003 (cf. Sidebar 15). This was the first European convention on animal welfare (cf. Part One, §3.1). At this same time, in France, the first farm animal welfare associations were born (cf. Sidebar 7, Part One).

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations.

Order of 5 November 1996, amended by the Order of 24 November 1999 on animal welfare during transport.

The primary objective of these regulations is to avoid causing animals undue stress, pain, suffering or harm during transport (cf. Sidebar 10). They take into account animals’ unique characteristics (species, age) and the type of transport (by road, sea, rail, air), and determine different levels of requirements. In this way, they impose compliance with many requirements regarding animals’ fitness for travel, professional training, the necessary administrative authorizations, and finally the specific equipment and materials for each means of transport (lorry, boat, etc.). Note: Farmers transporting animals using their own vehicles for the purposes of transhumance or transporting their own animals over less than 50 km are only concerned by the following regulations [46]:

• Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005: ‘No person shall transport animals or cause animals to be transported in a way likely to cause injury or undue suffering to them’;

• Article R 214-52 of the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code that forbids the transport

of ‘unidentified and non-registered’ animals; and • Article 521-1 of the Penal Code: ‘Serious maltreatment, or sexual maltreatment, or the commission of an act of cruelty, whether committed in public or not, towards a domestic animal, or tamed animal, or animal held in captivity, is punishable by two years of imprisonment and 30,000 euros in fines.’

enough health to travel—can be transported, provided that transport conditions will not cause undue injury or suffering (cf. infra). Before travel begins, the animals’ fitness is systematically verified by the transporter or attendant, taking into account the length and mode of travel (by road, sea, rail, air). Annex I

2.1. ANIMALS FIT TO TRAVEL

The elements described in the rest of this Dossier apply to all other types of for-profit transport.

Only animals deemed ‘fit’—that is to say properly identified and in good

Figure 4

Key Figures on the International Live Animal Trade in 2013 [9; 24] France’s Animal Trade by Species in 2013 (within Europe) Cattle Sector

Sheep Sector

Goat Sector

Equine Sector

Pig Sector

Exports (in thousand head)

1,180

605

0.540

4.8

Imports (in thousand head)

373

7.8

(A)

(B)

(C)

A: 128,000 calves / 64,000 large cattle for butcher’s shops / 988,000 large cattle for fattening B: 39,500 calves / 30,000 large cattle for butcher’s shops / 1,500 large cattle for fattening C: 13,000 horses are exported but only 4,800 of them are for slaughter

Intra-EC Cattle Trade in 2013 in thousand head

1 400 1 200 1 000 800 600 400 200 0

Exports

p. an S l ia ov ak ia

d an

Po l

lan

It a

Li t

d lan

e I re

Fr a

a -L ux

tr i

iu m

Au s

lg Be

an y

Imports

Sp a

Given the importance of transport by road in France and within the European Union, we shall focus more specifically on this type of transport (cf. Figure 4).

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 specifies that animals that are injured or that present physiological weaknesses or pathological processes shall not be considered fit for transport, especially if:

and receive appropriate treatment from a veterinarian rapidly. If necessary, it may undergo emergency slaughter or killing to prevent any unnecessary suffering.

the animals are unable to move independently without pain or to walk unassisted;

2.2. TRAINING

they present a severe open wound, or prolapse;

they are pregnant females for whom 90 % or more of the expected gestation period has already passed, or females who have given birth in the previous week;

they are new-born mammals in whichthenavelhasnotcompletelyhealed;

they are pigs of less than three weeks, lambs of less than one week and calves of less than ten days of age (unless they are transported less than 100 km).

However, in strictly regulated cases, sick or injured animals may be transported. This is the case, for instance, with cattle, horses and pigs of all ages injured less than 48 hrs. before transport. Under the supervision of the treating veterinarian, these animals may be transported to the nearest slaughterhouse if they are accompanied by a veterinary certificate and provided that they be caused no additional suffering during the journey. Finally, when an animals is injured or shows signs of illness during transport, it shall be separated from the others ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

In compliance with regulations, all persons responsible for handling livestock during transport or loading-unloading operations— whether on farm, in grouping centres or at slaughterhouses—must receive ad hoc training. Such training is dispensed by bodies that have been approved by the appropriate authorities. In France, this training is manifest by the delivery of a Certificat d’Aptitude Professionnelle au Transport des Animaux Vivants (CAPTAV [certificate of professional competence for the transport of live animals]). In Annex IV, Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 stipulates that the field of application of certificates of competence or of professional competence may be limited to a specific species or group of species.

animal behaviour and the concept of stress; the practical aspects of handling of animals (Trained personnel must perform this task with care: prods or other pointed instruments must not be used on the animals, animals must not be hit, they may not be lifted or dragged by any part of their bodies, pressure must not be placed on especially sensitive areas, etc. Among other things, personnel must minimize excitement by separating animals of different species or those showing signs of hostility, or even by isolating individuals of different size/ age/sex, etc. Finally the personnel must not use methods likely to scare animals, injure them or inflict undue suffering.);

the impact of livestock transport mode on the welfare of the animals transported and on the quality of meat when these animals are destined for slaughter;

animal first aid; and

the organization of transport (documentary, technical and route planning aspects – cf. §2.3);

safety for animal handlers. Indeed, studies have shown that handlers’ safety is one of the major factors contributing to animal welfare. Controlled and coordinated behaviour among the personnel involved (drivers, herders, etc.) as well as the presence of protective systems are among the best guarantees of appropriate conditions in compliance with animal welfare regulations.

animal physiology and in particular drinking and feeding needs,

Note: In the special case of transport over less than 65 km, operators are not required to have a transport authorization (cf. infra),

The training must cover the technical and administrative aspects of Community legislation and in particular the following items:

animals’ fitness to travel;

train their personnel in animal handling, or use attendants holding CAPTAV certificates. This is, for example, the case when animals are transported by farmers using their own vehicles from one farm to another or to the nearest slaughterhouse.

2.3. ORGANIZING TRANSPORT

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 greatly increased the administrative requirements for animal transport. Transporters must have the following documentation: The CAPTAV certificate of each member of the team handling livestock during transport (cf. supra).

Transport documents specifying notably the species, number of animals transported and their owners, the location-date-time of departure, the destination, and the scheduled duration of the journey. Transporter’s registers are conserved for three years.

Transporters’ authorization to conduct short (type 1 authorization) or long (type 2 authorization) journeys

(cf. Table 2). This authorization is delivered for a period of five years by the appropriate authority on condition that the transporter in question proves that he or she has sufficient and appropriate personnel, equipment and operational procedures.

animals’ needs during the journey. Animal welfare must in no case be compromised due to insufficient coordination between the various parties involved in the journey.

As a general rule, the length time cattle, sheep, goats, horses and pigs The transport vehicle’s certificate may travel must not exceed eight of approval for long journeys. This hours. However, for long journeys, this approval is delivered for a period of time may be extended if additional five years by the appropriate authority, provisions regarding material and with a unique identifying number in equipment are followed (cf. §2.4). The the member State. watering and feeding times, travel times, and rest times for this specific The journey log in the event of case are given in Figure 5. long intra-Community and international transport. This log consists of the 2.4. MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT journey plans (animal characteristics: species, number, estimated total In order to limit animals’ stress as much weight, etc. & journey characteristics: as possible, the vehicle must comply planned duration, list of rest/transfer/ with a certain number of provisions: exit stops, etc.), the departure site and destination, the transporter’s Separate animals of different declaration, and the incident report. species or even animals of the same species that present significant differAll the necessary measures must ences in size or age, with or without have been taken in advance by the horns, sexually mature males and transporter to limit the duration of the females, or that are showing hostility journey as much as possible and meet towards other animals. Standards on space allowances for each animal species and each category according to type of transport. They were set based on the results of several studies and tests done in real journey conditions. Indeed, when the space is too small it is bad for animal welfare but if there is too much space, animals may fall during transport (cf. Table 3).

Table 2

Short and Long Journeys [19] Short Journeys

Long Journeys*

National Transport

< 12 hrs.

> 12 hrs.

International Transport

< 8 hrs.

> 8 hrs.

* With the exception of young animals accompanied by their mothers, long journeys are only authorized for horses above the age of 4 months, calves above the age of 14 days, and pigs weighing more than 10 kg.

The regulations also impose strict requirements regarding material and ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

equipment. They must, for example, be designed, built and maintained so as to: limit trauma and risk of injury to animals during transport (e.g. solid non-slip vehicle floors) and during loading-unloading operations (e.g.

lateral protection able to withstand the animals’ weight so they cannot escape, species-appropriate ramp slopes).

faeces, litter or feed can not leak or fall out of the vehicle. In addition, they must be cleaned and disinfected after every transport.

Ensure that animals and the environment are clean. Vehicles are designed in such a way that the animal

Ensure suitable environmental conditions (temperature, ventilation, lighting, etc.).

Table 3

Space Allowances by Animal Species (Transport by Road) [19]

Species

Surface Area/Animal (sq. m)

domestic Equidae adult horses

Species

Surface Area/Animal (sq. m)

cattle 1.75 (0.7 x 2.5)

small calves (55 kg)

0.30-0.40

young horses (6-24 months) for journeys < 48 hrs. for journeys > 48 hrs.

1.2 (0.6 x 2) 2.4 (1.2 x 2)

medium-sized calves (110 kg)

0.40-0.70

ponies (< 144 cm)

1.1 (0.6 x 1.8)

heavy calves (200 kg)

0.70-0.95

foals (0-6 months)

1.4 (1 x 1.4)

medium-sized cattle (325 kg)

0.95-1.30

heavy cattle (550 kg)

1.30-1.60

sheep / goats shorn sheep and lambs 26-55 kg > 55 kg

0.20-0.30 > 0.30

very heavy cattle > 700 kg

unshorn sheep < 55 kg > 55 kg

0.30-0.40 > 0.40

pigs

heavily pregnant ewes < 55 kg > 55 kg

0.40-0.50 > 0.50

goats : < 35 kg 35-55 kg > 55 kg

0.20-0.30 0.30-0.40 0.40-0.75

heavily pregnant goats < 55 kg > 55 kg

0.40-0.50 > 0.50

> 1.6

All pigs must at least be able to lie down and stand up in a natural position. In order to comply with these requirements, the loading density for pigs of around 100 kg should not exceed 235 kg per sq. m. The breed, size and physical condition of the pigs may mean that the minimum required surface area given above has to be increased; a maximum increase of 20% may also be required depending on meteorological conditions and journey time.

Note: These space allowances may vary depending on the size and physical condition of the animals, weather, and journey time.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Allow access to the animals to inspect them and provide treatment if necessary.

Not hinder the natural movement Calves must not be muzzled. of animals when animals need to be Vehicles must be clearly and visibly attached. marked indicating the presence of live animals.

Figure 5

Long Journeys (water, feed and rest) [based on 46] unweaned calves, lambs, kids, piglets and foals

Transport 9 hrs.

unloading, rest, water, food for at least 24 hrs.

hrs 9hrs 19 MAX

9hrs 1hr

24hrs

rest + water Transport 24 hrs. + permanent access to water pigs

non-registered horses and Equidae

unloading, rest, water, food 24 hrs.

24hrs

hrs

Transport 8 hrs.

hrs water

Transport 8 hrs. unloading, rest, water, food 24 hrs.

hrs

hrs 24 8 MAX

Transport 14 hrs.

24hrs

hrs

water

cattle, sheep and Transport 14 hrs. goats

hrs

24hrs

MAX

unloading, rest, water, food 24 hrs.

hrs

29hrs MAX

24hrs

rest + water

Note: Animals are fed as necessary during breaks.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

For long journeys, additional provisions apply, for instance:

free access to drinking water;

a light-coloured, properly insulated roof;

a satellite navigation system to track and record vehicle movements. The data recorded by these two systems must be kept for three years.

or targeted basis. In the event of long journeys between member States and other countries, verification that animals are fit to travel is done before loading at the site of departure.

2.5. GOVERNMENT INSPECTIONS

As a preamble, one should recall that the Penal Code punishes maltreatment of animals as well as severe maltreatment and acts of cruelty with fines and prison sentences (cf. Part One). In addition, transporting animals without the mandatory authorization to do so is punishable by six months of prison and a fine of €7,500 (Article L 215-13 of the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code). Throughout the journey and on arrival in France or Europe, verifications and inspections of animal transport conditions may be conducted by the veterinary services, on either a random

Inspections mainly cover: animals: verification of their identification, health status, physical status and stress levels; documentation: CAPTAV certificate, transporter’s authorization, vehicle approval, etc.; and means of transport and equipment: space allowance, ventilation, watering, etc.

bedding material appropriate to the species, number of animals, journey time, and meteorological conditions;

individual stalls for horses, except for mares traveling with their foals;

a ventilation and temperature recording system (an alert warns the driver when the temperature in compartments containing animals reaches the maximum or minimum temperatures); and

Within France

Within Europe

At border inspection posts and exit points (sites set up specifically to

Sidebar 14

INITIATIVES BY ANIMAL TRANSPORT PROFESSIONALS Since European legislation on animal welfare during transport (Directive 95/29) entered into vigour, professionals have elaborated operational tools: Vademecum sur la protection des animaux vivants lors du transport: This vade mecum on the welfare of live animals during transport provides practical information on the regulatory obligations for professionals in the cattle, sheep and goat industries at every stage of transport (administrative formalities, equipment, skills, etc.) (INTERBEV, IDELE, 2007). Guide de non-transportabilité des bovins: This guide on the non-transportability of cattle to the slaughterhouse offers transport stakeholders (farmers, transporters, attendants, veterinarians, etc.) simple and illustrated

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

rules to determine whether cattle are fit to travel. This document is a practical and transparent transcription of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 (INTERBEV, IDELE, OFIVAL, 2007). Le guide de transportabilité des porcs vers l’abattoir: This guide on the transportability of pigs is a decision-making tool for farmers and transporters when loading pigs for transport to the slaughterhouse (INAPORC, Coop de France, IFIP, UGPVB, 2009). Research and development projects at the heart of industry concerns. These projects cover tools and equipment as well as operating modes and methods during transport (cf. Sidebar 16).

allow animals to rest for at least 12 hours), the member States’ official veterinarians verify in particular: animals’ physical and healthrelated fitness to travel; the information in the journey log: it must be realistic and transmitted to the appropriate authority at destination; the validity of the transporter(s) administrative paperwork delivered by the appropriate authority in the departure country: authorizations, certificates of fitness or professional competence; livestock transport means (cf. supra), including for example: the certificate of approval; the materials and equipment must be appropriate for the

number and type of animals to transport; the equipment specific to long journeys: ventilation and satellite navigation systems; and maintenance, cleaning and disinfection of equipment. The appropriate authority takes all necessary measures to prevent or minimize delays during transport. If needed, animals may receive care, or even be fed, watered, unloaded and rested. In addition, when the appropriate authority observes non-compliance with regulatory requirements, corrective measures must immediately be taken by the transporter. Examples

include: changing drivers, repairing vehicles, transferring all or some of the animals to another means of transport, returning them to their point of departure by the most direct route, unloading and resting them in adequate premises, etc. The appropriate authorities in the country of departure are also notified of any infractions. Among other things, the certificate of competence or of professional competence of the driver or attendant at fault may be suspended or revoked. Finally, in the event of serious or repeated infractions, a member State may temporarily ban the transporter, or the means of transport in question, from transporting animals within its borders.

Sidebar 15

TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS OUTSIDE THE EUROPEAN UNION [17] The European Convention on the Protection of Animals During International Transport of 6 November 2003 applies to transport between member States and non-member States and to transport between two member States when transiting through third countries. One of the fundamental principles is that animals must, to the extent possible, be transported without delay to their place of destination. When the journey time exceeds 8 hours, the arrangements foreseen for the journey must be written down: the places of departure, transfer, rest and destination of the animals transported are thus recorded and kept available to the appropriate authorities. Transport is entrusted to personnel who have received adequate training. Most of the transport of animals from French farms to countries outside Europe takes place by sea (from Europe to the Americas or Africa). When loading

onto ships, the inspections cover animals (fitness, identification) and transport equipment (forced air ventilation system with alarm, freshwater distribution system, lighting, space allowance, etc.). Among other things, loading and unloading are supervised by an official veterinarian. The ship’s equipment must be appropriate for these operations: suitable and lighted gangways, ramps and walkways between quayside and the ship’s livestock decks. For all modes of transport, drinking water must be available at the point of destination (or feed and rest area if needed). Health certificates, health status and animal welfare conditions at destination must also be systematically verified. In the event of any noteworthy issues regarding animal welfare during the voyage, the appropriate authority of the country of destination must report to the appropriate authority of the country of origin.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

Sidebar 16

THE CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH INTO ANIMAL WELFARE DURING TRANSPORT

Until the early 1990s, the main subject of research was the impact of transport on the quality of meat after slaughter. The entry into force of European regulations (Directive 95/29/EC) imposed stocking densities based on animal species, transport stages, and rest, watering and feeding times. Since then, research has focused mainly on the welfare and comfort of animals during transport: RMT (cf. Sidebar 13) has notably studied animal welfare evaluation systems. The end goal is to define indicators of animal welfare during transport for each species (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, poultry and rabbits). Technical agricultural and agro-industrial institutes (IDELE, IFIP-ITAVI, ADIV) in partnership with inter-branch organizations have done research in diverse areas, such as: L ong distance transport of cattle: impact of variations in space allowances and/or group size on physiological

As on farms, the Commission’s expert veterinarians, members of the FVO, may verify that the regulatory requirements for animal transport are applied uniformly within the European Union (cf. Figure 4). When required, the appropriate government authority takes any necessary measures to take into account the inspection results.

and behavioural indicators of stress. The conclusions show that increasing the space available per animal does not significantly improve the welfare of grass calves during commercial transport, and may even be risky for the animals (IDELE, 2009). D rawing up a list of animal welfare indicators for cattle (adults and calves) and sheep during transport. This study’s goal was to create a self-monitoring tool by offering a selection of indicators of animal welfare during transport. Two tools for transport operators were ultimately elaborated: a methodology guide describing the chosen monitoring points, and three prototype observation matrices for these points for adult cattle, calves and lambs (IDELE, 2010).

The European Commission and the European Parliament are financing a study aiming to draw up best practice guides for animal transport, with the participation of specialized technical institutes. The guide on pigs should be published in 2018, for instance.

different farms are grouped together to form consignments or be sold. Every year in France more than two million animals are shown and sold in nearly 120 cooperatives and 50 livestock markets. These places through which animals pass and are sold are obliged, like the rest of the industry, to comply with animal welfare regulations.

3. ASSEMBLY CENTERS (MARKETS, GROUPING CENTERS AND FAIRS)

Grouping centres are subject the same requirements as farms when it comes to the accommodations, feeding and health monitoring of animals (cf. Part Two, §1.1-1.3).

Assembly centres are defined as premises on which animals—cattle, goats, sheep, pigs or horses—from

In addition, public establishments such as fairs and markets must comply with additional provisions [26]:

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Materials and facilities that allow the safe unloading, movement, holding and loading of animals. For instance, in animal holding sites, the floor must be hard, impermeable and non-slip with a slight slope to allow the evacuation of slurry and rainwater. Loading and unloading docks must be properly lighted, have grooved floors to prevent slips, and be correctly maintained. In addition, the slope of ramps must be appropriate for each species and category of animal: 20° for calves, pigs and horses, and 26° for sheep, goats and cattle [19].

When cattle or horses must be tethered, tethering bars or tie rings must be available and suitable for the

There must be enough personnel with the appropriate professional knowledge and skills (animal housing and handling in calm conditions) both within these establishments and during transport (cf. supra, notably regarding the fitness of animals for transport). On arrival at public establishments, the accompanying documentation is presented by animal keepers and verified and recorded by market staff. The animals’ welfare and state of health are also verified. Only animals in good health can enter (no lame, ill, injured, or psychologically suffering animals). According to Article L 214-23 of the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code, this is monitored by a veterinarian with the appropriate health authorizations.

sheep and goats: third place behind the United Kingdom and Spain, with 86,500 Tcwe, nearly 14% of European production;

pigs: third place behind Germany and Spain, with 1,950,000 Tcwe, nearly 10% of European production;

horses: fourth place behind Italy, Poland and Spain, with 5,800 Tcwe, 10% of European production [24].

In 2013, with the slaughter of nearly 1,230,700 tons of carcass weight equivalent (Tcwe) of large cattle and 181,000 Tcwe of calves, France was the largest producer of beef and veal in

Slaughterhouses make it possible to house animals, slaughter them,

Figure 6

Global Beef Production in 2013 [24]

12,000

in thousand head

10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 St at es Br as il EU 27 Ch in a In A r d ia ge nt Au ina s tr ali M a ex i Pa co kis ta Fr n an ce Ru ss C a ia n Co ada l o Ne m b w Ze ia ala nd

Animals are fed at least every 24 hours and watered every 8 hours.

The slaughter of animals—that is, the killing by bleeding of animals destined for human consumption—is done in slaughterhouses. France has nearly 280 slaughterhouses for butcher animals called ‘slaughterhouses for domestic ungulates’ in the regulations.

France also ranks near the top of the list in Europe for the slaughter of other livestock species:

Adjustments in materials and facilities are regularly studied to keep animals in the best conditions for their welfare.

4. SLAUGHTERHOUSES

Europe. It also ranks second worldwide with nearly 2.4% of production (cf. Figure 6) [24].

ite

For sheep, goats and pigs, animals are usually kept loose in enclosures, as are groups of calves and foals not accompanied by their mothers. Attaching the legs of kids and lambs is strictly prohibited.

Opening and closing hours for markets and fairs are set by municipal by-law. The maximum amount of time animals can be brought before opening and stay after closing are set by regulations [26].

animals in question. The associated tethers must be in good condition, not force animals to lower their heads, and allow the animals to lie down. Animals may not be shackled. Calves or foals accompanied by their mothers are, however, kept freely by their sides.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

hygienically process the carcasses, and finally refrigerate (as required) carcasses and offal declared fit for consumption by the veterinary inspection service (cf. Sidebar 17). They must therefore comply with European and national regulations regarding animal welfare and food safety. The health safety regulations applicable to slaughterhouses are described in a dossier published by CIV [8]. In this Dossier only those aspects relating to animal welfare, from their accommodations in the slaughterhouse to the bleeding station.

The legislation in force regarding animal welfare at the time of their killing is based in particular on:

Decree No. 2011-2006 and Order of 28 December 2011 on the conditions authorizing slaughter facilities to obtain waivers regarding the European Convention for the the obligation to stun animals; and Protection of Animals for Slaughter of 10 May 1979; Order of 31 July 2012 on the conditions for the delivery of cer Council Regulation (EC) No. tificates of competence regarding 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 animal welfare in the framework of on the protection of animals at the their killing. time of killing; The main objective of these regu Order of 12 December 1997 lations is to avoid causing animals on immobilization, stunning and any avoidable stress, pain, suffering, killing procedures for animals distress or fear (cf. Sidebar 10). This and animal welfare conditions in legislation therefore imposes many slaughterhouses; requirements regarding how the

Sidebar 17

THE VARIOUS STAGES IN THE SLAUGHTER OF BUTCHER ANIMALS AND CARCASS PREPARATION The slaughter of butcher animals involves the following main stages:

Carcass preparation for its part involves the following stages:

Reception of animals at the slaughterhouse: Animals from farms or assembly centres are unloaded from the transport vehicle. They are housed in stalls.

Dressing for ruminants and horses, and scalding/ dehairing for pigs. Dressing is the removal of the skin. For pigs, scalding carcasses in water at 62Ë&#x161;C makes it easier to remove hairs during dehairing.

Immobilization of animals: Procedure applied to the animals to limit their movements and thereby facilitate their stunning and efficient killing. Stunning animals: Procedure applied to the animals in order to cause them to lose consciousness and not feel pain until they die. In the event of religious slaughter, waivers may be granted to the stunning requirement under certain conditions (cf. Sidebar 18). Bleeding animals: The incision of at least one of the two carotid arteries (supplying blood to the brain).

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Evisceration: Removal of intestines and internal organs from the carcass.

Splitting into half-carcasses if necessary.

After these steps have been done, the entire carcass and viscera are inspected closely by the veterinary services. Following this post mortem inspection, the fiscal weighing is done to determine the economic value of the carcass. The carcass and viscera are then placed into a cold room as rapidly as possible to be properly refrigerated [8].

facilities are organized, the materials and equipment used, professional training, and workflow in the slaughterhouse to prevent animals from waiting longer than necessary. 4.1. ANIMAL ACCOMMODATIONS

Animals from farms or other assembly centres are, to the extent possible, unloaded from lorries immediately and then kept at the slaughterhouse. As with animal markets, the unloading equipment and docks must be appropriate for the species and size of the animals to ensure the protection of animals and slaughterhouse personnel (cf. supra). Once unloaded, the animals are stabled in a calm area to rest after transport. Depending on species, needs and age, animals may be housed in groups (for example lambs or calves) or individually (large cattle, horses). In slaughterhouses where several species of butcher animals may be slaughtered, animals of different species are housed separately. In addition, any animal showing hostility towards other animals is immediately isolated. In all cases, animals must have enough room to exhibit normal behaviour, stand and lie down. The facilities must be designed in such a way as to minimize as much as possible the risk of injury to animals (falls or slips) and sudden noises that could stress them. Animals are kept safe and in physical comfort, notably by being kept clean and in acceptable thermal conditions (air quality, humidity, temperature). Finally, they have constant access to clean water so they can drink ad libitum.

On their arrival and then at regular intervals, animal welfare and health conditions are verified by slaughterhouse employees with the appropriate skills. In addition, the veterinary service agents perform ante mortem inspections of the animals within 24 hours of their arrival at the slaughterhouse and less than 24 hours before their slaughter [18]. They check that they are in good health and clean and that the slaughterhouse professionals have verified their identity. Stressed or tired animals may be identified at this time. Specific measures may in this case be taken such as delaying slaughter for 24 hours and resting the animal. Normally, animals must be slaughtered without unnecessary delays. However, animals that have not been slaughtered within 12 hours of their arrival must be fed at regular intervals. They must also be provided with an appropriate quantity of bedding to ensure that they are comfortable during the wait. In slaughterhouses, animal welfare depends greatly on proper daily management of operations. In compliance with European regulations, the personnel in contact with animals must be trained and qualified to ensure their own and the animals’ protection during unloading, the various handling activities, and movement to the bleeding station. Handlers may hold certificates of competence in ‘animal welfare’ for one or several operations and for one or several categories of animals. The delivery of this certificate is conditional on successful

completion of an examination (with the exception of people who have several years’ experience and have been granted an equivalency). It may only be delivered if the applicant has not committed any serious infraction of national or European animal welfare legislation in the three previous years. These certificates are delivered by the appropriate authorities themselves or by an independent body designated by the appropriate authorities. Finally, since 1 January 2013, Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 has required the presence of an animal welfare officer (AWO) in every slaughterhouse except for those slaughtering less than 1,000 livestock units per year. Appointed by the slaughterhouse operator, the animal welfare officer receives additional training over and above that given to all slaughterhouse staff. The officer holds a certificate of competence for all operations and all categories of animals present in the slaughterhouse. This certificate is issued by the appropriate authorities of the member States and the officer’s duties are regulated. These duties are to [15]: ensure that all personnel have received adequate training in animal welfare;

provide guidance to the personnel working on the slaughter line and check that the guidance is put into practice;

keep a log of measures taken in the event of dysfunctions and record corrective action (this log must be

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

kept for a minimum of one year and made available to official services); advise the operator on new animal welfare investments (notably equipment); and

act as the point of contact between official authorities and the slaughterhouse operator for animal welfare issues.

In particular, the AWO draws up standardized modes of operation based on a risk assessment at each stage of the slaughter line. In compliance with regulations, each operating mode must have clear objectives, one or more designated responsible parties, a modus operandi, measurable criteria, monitoring and recording procedures, and finally corrective measures in the event of dysfunction. These documents must be made available and clearly explained to operators. They contribute to good operational planning and, consequently, animal welfare at each step in the slaughter process, in particular during immobilization, stunning and bleeding (cf. infra). 4.2. IMMOBILIZATION AND STUNNING 4.2.1. Transit to Immobilization and Stunning Stations

The corridor between the animal holding pens and immobilization and stunning station must be cleaned regularly to prevent any risk of slipping due to animal faeces. Animals are driven to the stunning station at a regular pace without jostling or panic and with a minimum of human ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

intervention and consequently with maximum safety for the personnel. In order to limit agitation, animals are moved in small groups, for example 4 to 6 cattle, 15 to 20 calves, or 8 to 18 pigs. Sheep walk side-by-side, two at a time at most, given their gregarious instincts. In all cases, the path must be lighted uniformly and non-aggressively so as to avoid stressing the animals. Similarly, noise must be kept to a minimum. Facilities are provided for the circulation and safety of slaughterhouse personnel: human passageways, corridor crossings, refuges and protective equipment. With sheep and pigs, the width of the corridor to the stunning station must narrow, channelling animals one by one at the end [44; 45]. As is the case for animal transport, a certain number of practices are forbidden in slaughterhouses. Animals may not be struck or kicked, prods and other pointy instruments must not be used to move them along, they may not be lifted or dragged by any part of their bodes, pressure cannot be applied to sensitive areas, etc. Electric shock may be used on adult cattle and pigs under certain conditions: they refuse to move, there is enough space to move forward, if the shock last less than one second and is applied only on the muscles of hind legs [22]. If the animal does not react, it may not be shocked again. 4.2.2. Immobilization and Stunning Operations

Effective immobilization of animals prior to stunning is a guarantee of

safety for slaughterhouse personnel and a way to protect animals by preventing injury caused by sudden violent movements. Stunning, for its part, renders the animals unconscious and stops them from feeling pain until their death. The combined use of these two procedures minimizes animal suffering at slaughter. To reduce animal stress, these steps must be done rapidly and efficiently. Thus, animals are immobilized only once the people in charge of stunning and then bleeding are ready. Currently, the types of equipment most frequently used in French slaughterhouses are: Immobilization: crush pens for cattle, restrainers for sheep, and conveyors for pigs. Animals must be positioned calmly, without brutality. The restraints must be suitable and adjusted to the animalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size (adjustable walls). Certain practices are strictly forbidden, such as immobilizing animals by hanging or suspending them while conscious, squeezing or attaching their legs or feet using a mechanical system, or damaging their spinal cords [22].

Stunning: Penetrative captive bolt device for cattle (Matador): A metal bolt perforates the skull and destroys the frontal lobe. This destruction causes the animal to lose consciousness and sensibility. Electronarcosis for sheep: Application of an electric current to the brain with the help of two electrodes placed on either side of

the head. This triggers a massive depolarization of neurons and, as a result, a loss of consciousness and sensibility. Carbon dioxide exposure for pigs, causing oxygen depletion and therefore a loss of consciousness and sensibility in the animal.

Regulations mandate the definition of key stunning parameters in each operating mode (position and speed for penetrative captive bolts, for example, or tension and intensity of the electric current for electronarcosis).

In order to offer an environment most favourable to animal welfare, manufacturers must provide detailed instructions regarding the conditions in which immobilization and stunning equipment should be used (species, categories, quantities and/ or weight of animals, settings) and equipment maintenance. Indeed, intensive use of the equipment may require the replacement of certain parts, and equipment used only occasionally may be less effective due, for example, to corrosion. Similarly, some types of equipment must be precisely calibrated. In the event of breakdown or malfunction,

replacement equipment must be available. Slaughterhouse procedures and equipment may evolve, taking into account new scientific knowledge and based on opinions issued by the EFSA (cf. Figure 3 and Sidebar 20). Slaughterhouse personnel are specifically trained to perform the operations they are assigned (species and categories of animals, equipment, practices, etc.). For instance, the person in charge of stunning regularly verifies the efficiency of this stage by checking to ensure that there are no signs of consciousness or sensibility (cf. Sidebar 19).

Sidebar 18

RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER Religious slaughter is the killing of an animal, by bleeding, without prior stunning. This type of slaughter complies with the dietary requirements of the Jewish and Muslim religions. The meat from religiously slaughtered animals is called ‘kosher’ in the Jewish religion and ‘halal’ in the Muslim religion.

Ministry of the Interior: the Great Mosque of Paris, the Mosque of Lyon and the Mosque of Evry for halal slaughter, and the Chief Rabbinate of France for kosher slaughter.

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 contains exceptions for religious slaughter under very specific conditions.

Animals must be immobilized before bleeding using compliant immobilization equipment; cattle, sheep and goats must be immobilized using a mechanical system (MAAF website).

Religious slaughter must take place in certified slaughterhouses that have been explicitly granted a derogation regarding the stunning requirement (suitable equipment and procedures, all personnel trained).

In France, this regulation was strengthened by the Decree and Order of 28 December 2011 that obliged slaughterhouses practicing religious slaughter to set up systems to record animals killed without stunning. The goal is to verify that use of the derogation does indeed correspond to commercial demand for halal or kosher products [29; 30].

Note: Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 repealed Directive 93/119/EC which already authorized religious slaughter by way of derogation.

Religious slaughter personnel must hold certificates of competence. They must be authorized by religious bodies accredited by the Ministry of Agriculture on proposal of the

According to data from a survey conducted by the DGAL in 2010, religious slaughter represented, in tons of carcass weight equivalent, 14% of slaughtering in France (49% for sheep and goats, 12% for adult cattle, and 12% for calves).

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

Sidebar 19

INITIATIVES BY SLAUGHTER PROFESSIONALS

In response to European regulations, guides on best animal welfare practices at slaughter have been produced by inter-branch associations for cattle, sheep and pigs. These tools are the result of collaborative work with technical agricultural institutes. Validated by professionals, these guides were submitted to the Direction Générale de l’Alimentation (DGAL [French general directorate for food]) for acknowledgement by the public authorities before their application in slaughterhouses. These guides contain recommendations on managing and designing facilities. They also propose standardized operating modalities for each stage, to be adapted by facilities based on their organization and equipment. For example, the best practices guide on cattle welfare at the slaughterhouse contains instructions for operators in charge of evaluating cattle stunning (loss of consciousness and sensibility) (cf. following page) [2]. These guides are updated regularly to take into account technical, scientific and regulatory changes.

Stunning Signs of Consciousness and Sensibility

MON INST 7.3

Stunning loss of control of the body by the brain loss of perception of the outside world and loss of feeling In general, stunned cattle: fall down and close their eyes

stop breathing

open their eyes after about 4 seconds

extend their forelegs

tremble

pedal their hind legs

The main signs of continued or recovering consciousness are: tracking of surroundings with eyes

reaction to noise

reaction to nose pinching

presence of the corneal reflex

reaction to threats

not having open eyes and a fixed gaze

maintaining a ‘standing’ posture or getting up in a ‘oriented’ way

tongue resistant to traction

rhythmic respiration

A stunned bovine is a living animal that must be treated as such. A stunned bovine is a living animal that could be dangerous.

Inter-branch bodies are also conducting many research and development projects in partnership with technical agricultural and agro-industrial institutes. For instance, in 2012, 30% of the cattle and meat inter-branch body’s research and development budget was invested in animal welfare by financing studies on, notably:

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

lowing or mooing

en W h ub t , . in do in aga n s tu

the drafting of technical documents for slaughterhouse personnel; and the identification of most relevant behavioural and physiological indicators to best evaluate loss of consciousness and sensibility following stunning or the death of the animal following bleeding.

Sidebar 20

STATE OF RESEARCH INTO ANIMAL WELFARE AT SLAUGHTER In the context of the 2008 ‘Animal and Society’ Meetings, the Ministers of Agriculture and Research formulated a request for collective scientific expertise on the perception of pain by animals, notably at slaughter (cf. Sidebar 13) [35]. One of the priority areas identified for research was therefore the definition of specific sensitive physiological indicators of unconsciousness that would be operational in slaughterhouses. It also appeared necessary to clarify the links between the criteria of unconsciousness and absence of pain. Generally speaking, the roles that emotions and consciousness play in the expression of pain need to be clarified in animals.

An animal’s state of consciousness mainly consist of its ability to feel emotions and control voluntary movement. An animal my thus be assumed to be unconscious when it loses its natural standing position and closes its eyes, stops breathing and extended its forelegs [2].

An animal’s sensibility corresponds mainly to its ability to feel pain. Thus, an animal may be assumed to have lost sensibility when it has no reflexes or does not react to stimuli such as sounds, smells, light or physical contact. In this way, an animal may be assumed to have lost sensibility when the corneal reflex is absent or if it does not react when its nose is pinched [2].

These verifications must be made on a representative sample of animals. The frequency of such checks is determined by the results of previous verifications and any factors likely

Diverse research structures are working to meet these needs and objectives: RMT (cf. Sidebar 13) is studying animal welfare evaluation systems. The end goal is to define indicators of animal welfare at slaughter for each species (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, poultry and rabbits). Technical agricultural and agro-industrial institutes (IDELE, IFIP, ITAVI, ADIV) in partnership with inter-branch organizations (cf. Sidebar 19) and France AgriMer are also conducting research.

to influence the effectiveness of the stunning process (change in equipment or person at the stunning station, or change in the category of animals, for example). In compliance with regulations, the procedures used to verify animal stunning notably specify the names of the people in charge of the verification, the indicators chosen to evaluate the animals’ state of consciousness and sensibility, the criteria determining whether the results of the indicators are satisfactory, and the number of animals in each sample. In the event of non-compliance, appropriate corrective measures are immediately taken and then recorded by the AWO in a log. 4.3. BLEEDING

The animal immobilization and stunning station is separated from the bleeding station and carcass

conveying system to lower animals’ stress. As in every step prior to bleeding, ambient noises must be kept to a minimum. A given operator may stun the animal, attach the stunned animal’s body, lift it onto the transport rail and bleed it. In this case, the operator performs these operations one after the other as rapidly as possible for a given animal before repeating them for the next. Bleeding must be done as soon and as rapidly as possible so that the animal dies as quickly as possible after stunning. Among other things, bleeding must be as complete as possible for sanitary and organoleptic reasons. Accordingly, there is a waiting period before the dressing operations are done for ruminants and horses and before scalding/dehairing for pigs. This waiting period is set in professional best practice guides ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Part

Two

(cf. Sidebar 19). It takes into account the transport of carcasses from the bleeding station to the dressing or scalding station. 4.4. GOVERNMENT INSPECTIONS

Within France

Veterinary service agents regularly verify animal welfare compliance in slaughterhouses. For this, they have inspection checklists drawn up by the Direction Générale de l’Alimentation (DGAL [French general directorate for food]). The main inspection points deal with: slaughterhouse design (e.g. circulation corridor width, animal accommodations on arrival and at slaughter) and the equipment and materials used at each step of the process; the provision of instructions for workers regarding animal management and slaughter;

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

t he training of personnel and their behaviour towards animals at every stage; and t he practices used with animals from unloading at the slaughterhouse until killing (handling, care, management of animal suffering, etc.).

In the event of non-compliance with a regulatory requirement, corrective measures may be imposed on the operator immediately. Such measures may be a slowing or complete stop of production, increased self-verification, the suspension or withdrawal of certificates of competence, etc. Finally, for veterinary services, animal welfare inspection missions are complementary to the health inspections that allow them to verify the conditions under which slaughterhouses are certified, and the safety of meat sold on the market [8].

Within Europe

As on farms and during transport, the Commission’s expert veterinarians, members of the FVO, may verify that the regulatory requirements on the killing of farm animals are applied uniformly within the European Union (cf. Figure 3). When required, the appropriate authority of the member state concerned takes any necessary measures to take into account the inspection results.

Imports

Meat from farm animals from non-European countries must be accompanied by a health certificate and an affidavit certifying that the animals were slaughtered under conditions at least equivalent to the mandatory requirements within the European Union. These documents are both delivered by the appropriate authorities of the country in question [22].

CONCLUSION

As part of a new Collection published by CIV, this Dossier offers technical, scientific and regulatory information to help readers form or deepen their thinking on the welfare of farm animals. A few of the stages that marked animal husbandry and human-animal relations over the course of history were reviewed, showing the influence of changes in technical and socioeconomic conditions on the construction of our ideas. These ideas have, among other things, been marked by various philosophical and cultural movements. Starting in the 19th century, legislation has been a way to codify and institutionalize these relationships by giving them a legal expression. The status of animals is thus an expression by society of its concept of human-animal relations. As a result of the changes in this status and recognition that animals are sentient beings, animal welfare rules were elaborated in Europe starting in the second half of the 20th century. Following this review, the current regulatory framework aiming to reconcile the welfare of

farm animals and the needs of farms is presented. From farm to slaughterhouse, the main roles and missions of major animal welfare stakeholders in France are covered: those of professionals in these industries, and those of veterinarians, government representatives, animal welfare associations, etc. Each of them helps implement the laws and regulations as well as contributes to the on-going improvement of farm animal welfare conditions. Finally, many lines of research currently being pursued should lead to progress in this area. Given the major shifts currently underway in regards to technology (precision livestock farming), science (emergence of the neurosciences) and society (progressive erasure of the lines between humans and animals, global economy paradigm as a source of decision-making), human-animal relations will undoubtedly continue to evolve even further and, as a result, so will the status of farm animals and the regulatory framework surrounding them.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

APPENDICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Académie vétérinaire de France, 2007. Rapport sur l’utilisation du néologisme « bientraitance » à propos de la protection des animaux.

13. Devun J. et al, 2012. In Coll. Résultats, Alimentation des bovins : rations moyennes et niveaux d’autonomie alimentaire. Institut de l’Élevage.

2. Adiv, Idele, 2013. Guide de bonnes pratiques. Maîtrise de la protection animale des bovins à l’abattoir.

14. Digard J.P., 1990. L’Homme et les animaux domestiques. Anthropologie d’une passion. 2009 reprint. Fayard, Paris.

3. Antoine S., 2005. Rapport sur le régime juridique de l’animal.

15. European Commission, 2012. The Animal Welfare Officer in the European Union

4. Burgat F., 1995. L’animal dans les pratiques de consommation. PUF, Paris.

16. European Union, 1998. Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Official Journal of 08/08/98.

5. Centre d’études et de prospective, 2013. Note d’analyse n° 58. Statut et droits de l’animal d’élevage en France : évolution, enjeux et perspectives. 6. Changeux J.P., 1983. L’homme neuronal. Fayard, Paris. 7. CIV, 2004. Transport et bien-être des ruminants. 8. CIV, 2012. Micro-organismes et parasites des viandes : les connaître pour les maîtriser, de l’éleveur au consommateur. 9. CNE, Idele, 2014. Chiffres clés 2014. Productions caprines. Lait et viande. 10. Conseil général de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et des espaces ruraux (CGAAER), 2011. Actes du Colloque ‘Évolution des relations entre l’Homme et l’animal’ [evolution in human-animal relations]. 27/11/2011, OIE, Paris. 11. De Fontenay E. Consulted in June 2015: http://www.franceinter.fr/article-l-animal-machine 12. Descartes R., 1637. Discours de la méthode – Pour bien construire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les sciences. Édition électronique La Gaya Scienza – La Gaya Scienza – Philosophie digital issue; June 2012 (PDF version). ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

17. European Union, 2003. European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport. Official Journal of 13/07/04. 18. European Union, 2004. Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. Official Journal of 30/04/04. 19. European Union, 2005. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 1255/97. Official Journal of 05/01/05. 20. European Union, 2008. Council Directive 2008/119/ EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves. Official Journal of 15/01/09. 21. European Union, 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/ EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of 15/02/09. 22. European Union, 2009. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Official Journal of 18/11/09.

23. FNSEA, 2014. Bien-être des animaux. Recueil des actions des partenaires agricoles. 2014 Edition.

animaux. Official Journal of the Republic of France of 29/12/11.

24. France Agrimer, 2014. Les filières de l’élevage français. Les cahiers de France Agrimer.

31. French Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood, and Forestry, 2014. Fiches conditionnalité 2014 – Domaine « Protection animale ».

25. France Agrimer, 2015. La production de viande chevaline en France. Les cahiers de France Agrimer. 26. French Ministry of Agriculture, 1982. Arrêté du 25 octobre 1982 relatif à l’élevage, à la garde et à la détention des animaux. Official Journal of the Republic of France of 10/11/82. 27. French Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, Rural Affairs and Spatial Planning, 2011. Arrêté du 5 octobre 2011 fixant la liste des actes de médecine ou de chirurgie des animaux que peuvent réaliser certaines personnes n’ayant pas la qualité de vétérinaire. Official Journal of the Republic of France of 25/02/14. 28. French Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, Rural Affairs and Spatial Planning, 2011. Décret n° 2011-1244 relatif aux conditions dans lesquelles certaines personnes peuvent réaliser des actes de médecine et de chirurgie vétérinaires. Official Journal of the Republic of France of 07/10/11. 29. French Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, Rural Affairs and Spatial Planning, 2011. Arrêté du 28 décembre 2011 relatif aux conditions d’autorisation des établissements d’abattage à déroger à l’obligation d’étourdissement des animaux. Official Journal of the Republic of France of 29/12/11. 30. French Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, Rural Affairs and Spatial Planning, 2011. Décret n° 20112006 fixant les conditions d’autorisation des établissements d’abattage à déroger à l’obligation d’étourdissement des

32. Harrison R., 1964. Animal machines. Reprint by CABI, Oxfordshire, 2013. 33. Horard-Herbin M.P., 2014. Herding Practices and Livestock Products in France for 6000 years : Contribution of Archeozoology. In : The 65th Annual meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science; Nantes, 26-30 August, 2014. 34. IEHCA, 2012. Symposium ‘La viande : fabrique et représentation’ [making meat: practices and representations] 29.11-01/12/2012, CCI de Tours. Proceedings forthcoming. 35. Inra, 2009. Douleurs animales. Les identifier, les comprendre, les limiter chez les animaux d’élevage. Summary of the expert report produced by INRA at the request of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing and the Ministry of Higher Education and Research. 36. Interbev, 2014. L’essentiel de la filière viande bovine française 2014. 37. Interbev, 2014. L’essentiel de la filière viande équine française 2014. 38. Interbev, 2014. L’essentiel de la filière viande ovine française 2014. 39. JBG Consultants et al, 2014. Analyse de la représentativité de l’activité et de la santé financière des entreprises de négoce de bestiaux.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

APPENDICES

40. Jousseins C. et al, 2014. In Coll. Résultats, Alimentation des ovins : rations moyennes et niveaux d’autonomie alimentaire. Institut de l’Élevage.

45. OABA. Guide de recommandations relatives à la protection animale dans les abattoirs de porcs.

41. Larue R., 2015. Le végétarisme et ses ennemis. Vingtcinq siècles de débats. PUF, Paris.

46. PMAF and Animals’ angel, 2011. Transport d’animaux vivants. Mémento de la réglementation. Un guide pour le contrôle sur route.

42. Malebranche N., 1674-75. De la recherche de la vérité. Flammarion, Paris.

47. Reinach S., 1996. Cultes, mythes et religions. Coll. Bouquins Laffont Ed.

43. Mounaix B. et al, 2013. L’évaluation et la gestion du bien-être animal : diversité des approches et des finalités. Communication 3R 2013. http://idele.fr/presse/ publication/idelesolr/recommends/levaluation-et-lagestion-du-bien-etre-animal-diversite-des-approcheset-des-finalites.html

48. Vialles N., 1988. La viande ou la bête. In: Des hommes et des bêtes, p 86-96.

44. OABA. Guide de recommandations relatives à la protection animale des ruminants à l’abattoir. http:// www.oaba.fr/pdf/reglementations/Guide%20Audrey.pdf

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

49. WAFL, 2014. Symposium: 6th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. from 3 to 5 September 2014, Clermont-Ferrand. 50. Wolff F., 2010. Notre humanité – D’Aristote aux neurosciences. Fayard, Paris.

GLOSSARY Attendant: A person directly in charge of the welfare of animals who accompanies them during a journey. Conveyor: Equipment used to move pigs to the stunning box at the slaughterhouse.

The coefficients are calculated based on animal feed. The all-feed LU compares animals based on total feed consumption, including grass, fodder and concentrates.

Crush Pen: A construction designed to limit the lateral and vertical movement of an animalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s head, commonly used to immobilize cattle at the slaughterhouse.

Milk Substitute: Feed for suckling calves, generally sold in powder form, that replaces milk from mother cows on calf breeding operations. It is composed of milk powder to which animal or vegetable fats, starch, vitamins and minerals are added.

Epistemology: The branch of philosophy that critically examines the postulates, conclusions and methods of a given science, viewed from the standpoint of its evolution, in order to determine its logical origins, value and scientific and philosophical scope.

Prolapse: A genital or genitourinary prolapse is characterized by the downward slippage of one or more pelvic organs (located in the pelvic girdle). The slipped organs push on and deform the vaginal walls or even bulge out beyond the vulva.

Grouping Center: Private site akin to livestock operation and managed by a dealer or cooperative where animals of bovine, ovine, caprine or porcine species or domestic Equidae from different farms are grouped together to form consignments, or batches, of animals.

Restrainer: Equipment used to immobilize animals at the slaughterhouse before they are stunned; they are frequently used with cattle.

Livestock Fair: Public event where livestock (cattle, goats, sheep, pigs or horses) from different farms are gathered to be sold. Livestock fairs do not have permanent buildings or staff. Livestock Market: Public or private place where livestock (cattle, goats, sheep, pigs or horses) from different farms are gathered to be sold. Livestock markets have permanent buildings and staff. Livestock Unit (LU): Unit used to compare and aggregate populations of animals of different species or categories.

Shackle: Prevent an animal from moving, hinder its movement. Tail Biting: An abnormal behavior among piglets wherein they bite the tails of other piglets. Ton of Carcass Weight Equivalent (Tcwe): Unit of measurement used to aggregate data on live animals and meat in all its forms by weight: carcasses, cuts (on bone or de-boned), etc. A coefficient specific to each type of product is applied to the gross weight: 1 for a whole carcass by definition, 0.5 for a live large bovine, and 1.3 for de-boned cuts, for example.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

APPENDICES

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

ANSES: Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail [national agency for food, environmental and labour safety, France] AWO: Animal Welfare Officer CAP: Common Agricultural Policy CAPTAV: Certificat d’aptitude professionnelle au transport des animaux vivants [professional aptitude certificate for the transport of live animals, France] CIWF: Compassion In World Farming DGAL: Direction Générale de l’Alimentation [general directorate for food, France] DGCCRF: Direction Générale de la Concurrence, de la

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes [general directorate for competition, consumption and fraud prevention, France] DGPAAT: Direction Générale des Politiques Agricole, Agroalimentaire et des Territoires [general directorate for agricultural, agrifood and territorial policy, France] EFSA: European Food Safety Authority FAWC: Farm Animal Welfare Council FVO: Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission

IFIP: Institut du Porc [pig institute, France] INRA: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique [national institute of agronomic research, France] OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health, formerly the Office International des Epizooties RMT: Réseau Mixte Technologique [combined technology network, France] RSPCA: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

HPG: Health Protection Group

SPA: Société de Protection des Animaux [animal protection society, France]

IDELE: Institut de l’Élevage [livestock institute, France]

Tcwe: ton carcass weight equivalent

USEFUL LINKS Anses: Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail www.anses.fr/

Directorate-General for Health and Consumers: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/ health_food-safety/index_fr.htm

CIV: Centre d’Information des Viandes www.civ-viande.org

EFSA : European Food Safety Authority www.efsa.europa.eu/fr

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/index_fr.htm

FAM : FranceAgriMer http://www.franceagrimer.fr/

French Ministry of Agriculture  http://agriculture.gouv.fr/ Interbev : Association interprofessionnelle du bétail et de la viande http://www.interbev.fr/ OIE : World Organisation for Animal Health www.oie.int/fr

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

APPENDICES

NOTES

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Hélène CHARDON Hubert BRUGERE Pierre-Michel ROSNER Animal Société Aliment Association

The Centre d’Information des Viandes is a non-profit association under French law of 1901. Its mission is to contribute, on a scientific basis, to knowledge and the debates on societal issues related to livestock and meat value chains (beef, veal, lamb, mutton, goat, pork, horsemeat and offal products). It pays particular attention to issues of health safety, animal health and well-being, human nutrition and food, and environmental and societal impacts. On these subjects, CIV produces expert information based on monitoring and analyzing technical, scientific and social trends, and through collaboration with public, private and civil society stakeholders that have been recognized for the rigor of their approaches. This information is destined for professional or well-informed audiences interested in or concerned by the societal impacts of meat production and consumption. In this way, CIV publishes scientific documents, keeps an up-to-date website serving as a documentary resource center, runs discussions, and takes part in conferences, congresses and scientific events. Created in 1987 at the joint initiative of INTERBEV (the French national inter-branch association for cattle and meat) and a public establishment, FranceAgriMer, CIV conducts its activities under the patronage of a Scientific Steering Board. For more information visit www.civ-viande.org