Free trade and animal welfare by Schweizer Tierschutz STS

FREE TRADE AND ANIMAL WELFARE A COMPARISON BETWEEN SWITZERLAND AND THE EU SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

Free trade and animal welfare: a comparison between Switzerland and the EU

Contents

Two years ago, the Swiss Federal Council made a proposal to the EU for a wide-ranging loosening of the restrictions on agricultural trade. Switzerland would also adopt the EU directives on food. By taking this action, the Federal Council hoped to achieve lower food prices for Swiss consumers and better access to the EU market for Swiss farmers. In order to gauge the impact of a free trade agreement on animal welfare, the Swiss Animal Protection SAP organisation compared Switzerland’s animal protection legislation and notably animal-friendly livestock management practices with those of the EU. To put it bluntly: Is this free trade agreement a vehicle by which Switzerland can encourage the type of freerange livestock management desired by the majority of consumers and tax-payers? Or will it eventually and inadvertently encourage intensive farming and inhumane transportation, as well as reduce the level of animal and environmental protection and nature conservation? If the focus is to be on animal welfare, SAP has come to the conclusion that any free trade agreement between Switzerland and the EU must be treated with considerable scepticism. Read this brochure and judge for yourself.

Agriculture today – a status report 3

Dr. Hansuli Huber, dipl. ing. agr. ETH Divisional Managing Director

The SAP position

Glossary and links

Ever cheaper food – livestock pays the price

The key differences between animal welfare legislation in Switzerland and the EU 7 Comparison of animal husbandry practices

Labelling made all the difference

Rural livestock management or factory farming 10 Backward step in animal transportation and slaughter

A law is only as good as its execution 14

Published by Swiss Animal Protection SAP Dornacherstrasse 101, POB 461 4008 Basel Tel. 061 365 99 99 Fax 061 365 99 90 sts@tierschutz.com www.tierschutz.com www.animal-protection.net Author Dr. Hansuli Huber, dipl. ing. agr. ETH Divisional Managing Director Swiss Animal Protection SAP Photographs Michael Götz (3), iStockphoto (2), Keystone (3), Reuters (1), soylent-network.com (3), STS (2), Deutsches Tierschutzbüro (3), Fonzi Tromboni (Front)

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

Agriculture today – a status report at all – or monitored in practice.

Our farmers are facing enormous chal-

ing operations came into being. This drew

lenges. Swiss consumers and taxpayers

criticism from inside and outside the

Swiss tax payers and consumers are

insist on an agricultural policy that re-

farming profession. As a consequence of

willing to invest considerable tax reve-

spects the natural environment, is an-

this opposition to agro-industrialisation,

nue in integrated and organic production,

imal-friendly and has a rural character.

comprehensive animal protection legis-

and in farms with a particularly animal-

The Swiss Federal Council has specified

lation came into force in 1981 to com-

friendly approach. They will also pay pre-

animal welfare as one of the five pillars

bat particularly extreme forms of live-

mium prices for the quality products of

of its agricultural policy and, in its report

stock husbandry. At the same time, the

those farms, e.g. organic and free-range

on the realignment of the direct payment

maximum number of animals that could

eggs or producer-labelled meat. However,

system, calls for significant participation

be kept on any farm was reduced in or-

the following dilemma cannot be ignored:

in the animal welfare programmes known

der to prevent the emergence of intensive

even the most animal-friendly, nature-

as BTS (Besonders tierfreundliche Stall-

farming. Various additional regulations

loving farmer has to make a living from

haltung, translated as “Particularly Ani-

affecting livestock were ratified between

rearing his or her live-stock, while even

mal-Friendly Stabling”, PAS) and RAUS

1990 and 2005, under pressure from ani-

the most responsible consumer will nei-

(Regelmässiger Auslauf ins Freie, trans-

mal protection organisations. New, com-

ther want nor be able to pay an unlimited

lated as “Regular Outdoor Exercise for

pletely revised animal protection legisla-

amount of money for food.

Livestock”, ROEL). The new animal pro-

tion came into force in 2008.

No more short-term thinking

tection legislation that came into force in

Outside Switzerland, on the other

2008 will also require many farmers to

hand, the specialisation and intensifica-

Fifteen years ago, Swiss farming associ-

make changes to their livestock housing

tion of livestock husbandry that started

ations fought against this trend at first,

systems within the next few years. Now,

in the 1960s continued practically una-

but many farmers (producer-labelled, or-

however, the proposal by the Federal

bated, with scant attention to animal wel-

ganic and integrated production farmers)

Council for a free trade agreement with

fare. In Europe, at least criticism has only

and farming organisations now embrace

the EU will put pressure on Swiss agricul-

been levelled at the exploitation of farm

this type of quality production. There is

ture. According to the Federal Council, in-

animals and the trend towards the agro-

an increasing recognition in the farming

come from farming will fall from the cur-

industry and factory farming methods in

industry that a strategy based on quality

rent 3 billion Swiss Francs to 1.6 billion

recent years; this has forced Brussels to

is necessary for reasons of sustainability,

Swiss Francs if the agreement is ratified.

enact specific animal protection regula-

environmental protection, nature conser-

In the 1970s, a rapid, visible change

tions with regard to poultry, calves and

vation and animal welfare; the produc-

took place in Swiss farming methods –

pigs, as well as in respect of the transpor-

tion of food will continue to depend on

cows steadily disappeared from the mead-

tation of animals. Nevertheless, they have

fertile soil, clean air and unpolluted water

ows and intensive, industrial-scale farm-

never been implemented adequately – if

in future. Economic considerations also

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

However, this is still difficult; apart from Coop and Migros, retailers such as Spar, Lidl, Aldi and Volg have hitherto only offered a very limited range of producer-labelled meat and organic products, as has the hospitality industry. Swiss farmers face an enormous challenge in their desire to fulfil the demands and wishes of consumers, taxpayers and the government for an increase in animal protection and more animal-friendly livestock management – though the industry is determined to take on the task. Nevertheless, we can foresee that a free

From Swiss idyll to globalisation – at the animals’ expense?

trade agreement (FTA) would put severe pressure on Swiss farm prices, and that the volume of domestic production would

play a part: the products offered by Swiss

created additional or long-term opportu-

fall as the result of an increase in feed

farmers are more expensive than im-

nities, or an increase in prices for their

and foodstuff imports. According to gov-

ported products, and it will only be pos-

particular type of livestock. One clear in-

ernment sources, income from farming

sible to continue selling these products on

dication of this is the fact that the PAS

would diminish from the current 3 billion

the market and safeguard direct income

and ROEL take-up rates and the rates of

Swiss Francs to 1.6 billion Swiss Francs.

in years to come if they maintain a high

conversion to organic farming have now

From SAP’s point of view, we ques-

standard of animal protection and nature

stagnated for years, after increasing rap-

tion whether an FTA would inspire or

conservation.

idly in the early stages.

stifle the current efforts with regard to

Higher market share for “animal-friendly” products

Farmers face enormous challenges

tegrated production/organic farms; en-

Animal-friendly products (barn and free-

There is no doubt that the close-to-nature,

servation measures, quality and safety of

range eggs; producer-labelled meat) cur-

animal-friendly livestock management

foodstuffs). Up to now, these efforts have

rently generate a revenue of about 2 bil-

methods required by taxpayers and con-

been desired by consumers and taxpayers,

lion Swiss Francs in the market. This rep-

sumers demands a great deal from farm-

and have become accepted in the mean-

resents roughly 50% of the retail trade

ers. Quite apart from acquiring additional

time by the majority of farmers To put it

turnover. They have therefore grown out

expertise and skills, they must also accept

bluntly: Is an FTA a fit vehicle for Swit-

of their niche position, and have almost

a number of fundamental changes in the

zerland’s intended role as a pioneer of in-

become the standard for the two major

way they grow crops and keep their ani-

tegrated/organic and free-range produc-

Migros and Coop supermarket chains in

mals, including the resultant investment

tion, or would it simply encourage inten-

Switzerland. As a consequence of this wel-

in buildings, equipment and machinery.

sive farming, cruel forms of transporta-

come consumer development, the farming

For example, the cost of a new but rea-

tion and a reduction in environmental

industry has made good progress with re-

sonably-priced building to house dairy

protection and nature conservation?

gard to environmental protection, nature

cattle or pigs can easily exceed one mil-

conservation and animal welfare in recent

lion Swiss Francs. Many farmers therefore

years. Nevertheless, the ecological and an-

find themselves faced with difficult deci-

The whole world needs to catch up

imal welfare targets are a long way from

sions and huge challenges. They can only

The farmers of the world would proba-

being achieved (diversity of flora and

manage these successfully if they are re-

bly be able to feed the world’s population

fauna; clean air, unpolluted water and

lieved of the need to take on additional re-

given a “fair” distribution system, care-

fertile soil). In the case of animal welfare,

sponsibilities and burdens, and if the state

ful management of reserves, reasonably

for example, the only farmers who have

and its citizens provide them with the ap-

profitable production methods – which do

converted to animal-friendly systems are

propriate level of support. It is of vital

not in any way exclude integrated pro-

those whose added investment would be

importance that farmers are able to sell

duction or organic farming methods –

low because their circumstances were al-

their quality products (free-range eggs,

and a diet containing little meat. There

ready favourable, or for whom the market

labelled meat) over a long period of time.

would be no need for one sixth of the

quality production (animal welfare; in-

vironmental protection and nature con-

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

population to be under-nourished or mal-

intensifying the above shortage process.

stay at its present level. The demand for

nourished. However, increasing prosper-

There is no question of a further doubling

food (and especially for foodstuffs derived

ity always leads to a change in demand.

of milk, meat and egg production per ani-

from animals) will increase further, and it

The increase in the demand for meat, eggs

mal, as was experienced during the past

will not be possible to offset this demand

and dairy products is a global phenome-

fifty years.

by further rises in productivity and effi-

non by now; it is crystal-clear that this is

The agricultural land that is already

ciency. It is certainly no coincidence that

linked to positive economic development

workable can no longer be expanded to

the Chinese, South Koreans, Gulf States

in many countries that were previously

any significant extent. In fact, long-term

and Americans are buying up agricultural

poor. However, the expansion of global

mismanagement has lead to a decline

land, chiefly in Africa. African land own-

animal production creates new problems

in soil fertility and a submission to ero-

ers whose only concern is a short-term

as far as ecology and animal welfare are

sion in many corners of the globe. Like-

profit are already reputed to have sold

concerned. Still, we are hardly in a posi-

wise, the deforestation of (virgin) forests

almost 20 million square metres of land.

tion to criticise this development, when

for land reclamation has also come up

This is equivalent to a quarter of all the

our society has already experienced this

against ecological, ethical and political

agricultural land in Europe.

prosperity and its consequences. By the

limits. The situation is further aggravated

The scarcity of farming land will re-

mid 1980s, average meat consumption in

by the increased planting of crops for en-

sult in world-wide price increases for ag-

Switzerland reached a peak of over 80 kg

ergy production. These arable areas and

ricultural products, possibly causing the

per person. It started to decline from that

the crops growing on them have now be-

trend of the past decades towards ever

point, and is currently around 50 kg per

come unavailable for the production of

cheaper food to go into reverse. We will

head (excl. fish and game). \Meat con-

food for man and beast.

then be obliged to spend a greater pro-

sumption is now relatively moderate in

Globally, agricultural land to feed hu-

Switzerland, and is certainly about 30 to

manity will become ever scarcer – even

50 kg per head lower than in the EU and

if the population of the world were to

portion of our household budget to feed ourselves.

America. The global average is currently about 40 kg, whilst developing countries consume 20 kg meat per head on average. In a nutshell: the level of intensive farming has fallen in recent years in Switzerland, whilst it is increasing at a breathtaking pace around the world. Global meat production has doubled within 30 years, whilst the production of chickens has increased by a factor of five. Milk and pork production is accelerating in Russia and China and chicken farming is booming from Brazil to the Arab states and on to Asia. 1.4 billion head of cattle and 1 billion pigs are now being kept world-wide – and the trend is increasing. If all these animals were tethered side by side, they would encircle the world sixty times. Agricultural land will become a much sought-after commodity as a result of this demand-based expansion of animal husbandry.

Shortage of agricultural land puts up the prices The increase in the production of agricultural crops and animals (with or without genetic engineering) has reached biological, economical and ethical limits, thus

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

Fortunately, the prognoses made by the Club of Rome and other pessimists in the 1970s and 1980s have failed to materialise. Global population has grown much less dramatically than was forecast. Agricultural scientists, consultants and farmers have been extremely successful at providing food, and continue to be so. As a result of rationalisation (e.g. specialisation in a particular part of the sector such as fattening beef cattle, running dairy herds or keeping egg-laying hens, and the introduction of spacesaving, labour-saving forms of livestock manage-ment), mechanisation and intensification (e.g. advances in feed production and feeding meth-ods, plus the introduction of selective breeding for performance), it has been possible to reduce the production costs for animal products dramatically in Switzerland since the 1960s. Consumer expenditure on food has fallen from 30% of income to its current level of 8%. This has happened hand-in-hand with the democratisation of meat consumption. Daily consumption of meat was once the privilege of the wealthy few, but it soon became a matter of course as it became affordable to everybody. The most extreme change has taken place in fat-

tening hens: 50 years ago, chicken was the most expensive of meats, whereas it is now the cheapest. Incredible improvements in performance have been achieved in the meadows and the live-stock stalls of Switzerland and other western countries. Since 1960, the potato harvest has doubled to 400t per m2, while corn production has tripled to 7.6t per m2. Average milk production has risen from 4,000 to 8,000 litres average per head of cattle per year within just a few decades. A laying hen now produces 300 eggs a year instead of 150, and fattening hens are slaughtered after just 40 days rather than 3 months as in the past. Chicken carcasses now consist mainly of breast and leg muscle. Pigs are also fattened to provide ever more meat, so that two-thirds of the carcass now consists of “prime” cuts. Thanks to advances in science and technology, 4.5 people can now be fed from a single square metre of arable land. In 1975, at a time when the “Club of Rome” report enjoyed a cult status, the equivalent figure was 2.8 people, while it was only 1.8 in 1950. These days it is estimated that one square metre of arable land will have to be able to provide food for between 5.5 and 6 people by 2050.

Ever cheaper food – livestock pays the price

cific regulations and detailed dimensions. Anybody failing to comply with these requirements is open to prosecution. However, those who do fulfil the requirements may be far from providing their animals with animal-friendly management. In

Whilst farmers, butchers, the retail trade

tethering cattle permanently without pro-

general, we can state that the threshold

and consumers in Switzerland benefited

viding straw, muzzling calves and cag-

for animal cruelty is more restrictive in

from the growing meat market and ever

ing piglets. The Swiss legislation quickly

Switzerland, i.e. on the whole, the Swiss

cheaper production between 1965 and

gained worldwide recognition because of

minimum regulations bring greater ben-

1985, farm animals had to foot the bill.

its ban on battery hens.

efit to the animals.

This was because the space-saving, la-

After the transitional period expired,

bour-saving forms of husbandry and se-

various other animal protection regula-

lective breeding for performance propa-

tions were ratified under pressure from

gated by scientists and consultants almost

animal protection organisations between

completely neglected the nature and the

1991 and 2005. A ban was put on the teth-

biology of the animals. Their needs were

ering and crating of sows during gesta-

reduced to food and water, i.e. even less

tion, as well as on slatted, perforated and

than has to be provided for a plant. At that

gridded floors in new housings for cattle

time, pigs and chickens were even denied

and swine. The regulation stipulating that

any daylight!

farm animals (other than piglets) could

Four distinctions are of particular interest with regard to animal welfare 1. While Swiss animal protection legislation specifies detailed regulations and minimum dimensions for all farm animals, EU directives ignore aspects such as the keeping of cattle, turkeys, ostriches and other types of bird (except for chickens), sheep, goats and horses. This means that millions of farm animals in the EU have no legal protection whatsoever.

In Switzerland, unlike other coun-

no longer be castrated unless pain-killing

tries, opposition to this form of farming

drugs had been administered also origi-

was swift, powerful and effective. As a re-

nates from this period. Nevertheless, these

sult of the resistance to agro-industriali-

regulations were not always implemented

sation, comprehensive animal protection

with equal rigour: during the 1990s, the

legislation was enacted in 1981, banning

control committees of the Swiss upper

2. The EU does not appoint a technical in-

some particularly extreme forms of live-

and lower parliament were preoccupied

stock management. These included keep-

with the inadequacy of the implementa-

ing farm animals in continuous darkness,

tion of the animal protection legislation

spectorate for animal protection. In Switzerland, in contrast, any mass produced housing systems and livestock buildings offered for sale must be checked and approved for compliance with animal protection requirements and suitability. This benefits the farmers when they buy systems of this nature and, of course, it also benefits the animals housed within them.

in many cantons. New, comprehensively revised animal welfare legislation came into force in 2008. This included a 6-hour limit on animal transportation journeys, a ban on extreme breeding and a prohibition on the castrating of piglets without pain relief. For the first time, specific regulations on the welfare of goats, sheep and horses were also enacted. These kinds of farm animal were not previously covered by the animal protection legislation. The proposal for the additional training, education and information of animal owners was another new feature.

3. In Switzerland, the vast majority of painful procedures are banned, whereas young bullocks, kids, piglets etc. may, for example, be castrated without any form of pain relief in the EU. With certain restrictions, beaks may also be clipped, tails may be docked and piglets’ teeth may be pulled out, none of which are permitted in Switzerland.

Neither the five EU farm animal directives (protection of farm animals; calves; pigs, laying hens, battery hens) nor the new Swiss animal welfare legis-

Slatted floors: a wretched “life” in their own excrement

lation define optimum animal protection standards; instead, they simply define the threshold for cruelty to animals, with spe-

Whilst there is no restriction on the transportation of animals in the EU – and journeys lasting 40-60 hours are in no way exceptional – animals may not be transported for more than 6 hours in Switzerland.

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

The key differences between animal welfare legislation in Switzerland and the EU In Switzerland, the keeping of all farm an-

land or in the EU. The EU plans to ban

imals is regulated specifically and in detail

slatted floors from 2013 onwards whilst

in the animal protection legislation. In the

Switzerland will continue to allow these

EU, there are no binding guidelines for the

until 2018. The lot of sows is much better

following species:

in Switzerland than in the EU. In the EU,

Fattened chickens:

suckling pigs may be kept permanently in

light and at least 8 hours of darkness are

crates, whilst those in gestation may be

obligatory in Switzerland, whilst artificial

kept in crates for up to four weeks follow-

lighting and alternating light programs

ing mating. In Switzerland suckling pigs

are permitted in the EU. In Switzerland,

are allowed to roam freely. Sows in ges-

raised areas are required for stretching

Cows, beef cattle for fattening, turkeys, ostriches and other types of fowl (except chickens), sheep, goats and horses.

Battery cages: banned in Switzerland for the past 20 years; still permitted in the EU

natural day-

tation may only be caged for a maximum

and resting, whereas fattening chickens

Calves: in Switzerland, calves must be

of ten days following mating and must

have to rest on the floor of the stalls in

kept in groups from the second week they

thereafter live in group housing systems.

their own excrement in the EU. The maxi-

are born. In the EU, this regulation only

Tail-docking and tooth-clipping are for-

mum density of occupation is 30kg/m2 in

applies from the eighth week. The require-

bidden in Switzerland; they are not per-

Switzerland, while it is 42kg/m2 in the EU.

ment to keep animals in groups only ap-

mitted routinely in the EU, but may be un-

In other words: if Swiss chicken farmers

plies to larger stocks of animals in the EU.

dertaken in justified cases.

were able to produce in accordance with

Smaller holdings of six or fewer calves

EU directives, they could cram 50% more

may be kept individually. In Switzerland,

Laying hens:

calves can also be kept alone if they have

requirement for straw bedding so that the

a free run outside. Only in Switzerland

hens can scratch, pick or take dust baths;

are straw-bedded areas specified for the

in Switzerland, this is mandatory. Beak

calves to lie down. In the EU, calves may

clipping is forbidden in Switzerland; in the

be housed in bays with slatted floors.

EU, this is permitted. In spite of a ban on

in the EU, there is no

birds into their hen houses.

Pigs: multi-tier piglet cages are permit-

cages and large cages will still be permit-

ted in the EU, in contrast to Switzerland.

ted in the EU, though the eggs will have

The same pattern applies to the castration

to be declared as “cage eggs”. In Switzer-

of piglets without pain relief. From 2010,

land, these forms of husbandry were au-

pigs for fattening will have more space in

dited by the state’s technical inspectorate

Switzerland than in the EU (9m2 instead of

for animal protection (TÜV). Since they

0.65m2). However, straw bedding for pigs

were found to contravene animal protec-

to lie down is not stipulated in Switzer-

tion standards, they were forbidden.

Conclusion: although the minimum dimensions and requirements of the Swiss animal welfare legislation only define the threshold to animal cruelty, and are no guarantee of optimum, animal-friendly husbandry, Swiss farm animals still enjoy better legal protection than their counterparts in the EU*. Switzerland has concrete, detailed regulations that apply to all farm animals, and the Swiss regulations are also stricter for those four categories where EU directives do exist (calves, pigs, laying hens, fattening chickens).

* The new 2008 Swiss animal protection legislation provides significantly more protection for farm animals than the old law. However, it still contains a number of clear failings that disadvantage animal welfare. Take dairy cattle, for example: they can be tethered for 275 days every year. The owners are only obliged to grant the animals a few hours exercise on the meadows on 90 days (in winter). This means

that cows can be kept tethered for more than 90% of the time. The electric cow trainer is also permitted. Or take the example of pigs: gestating sows may be kept in narrow boxes similar to crates (gestation stalls), where they can only just turn around. It is perfectly legal to keep porkers weighing 100kg in a space of only 0.65m2/animal on a fully perforated, hard floor, with no straw and no outdoor run. From 2018

onwards, all porkers will be entitled to an area of 0.9 m2, with a non-perforated lying area (but this may be nothing more than concrete without any straw bedding). Beef cattle: these may be kept in a space of 3m2/animal (up to 500 kg in weight!) on a fully perforated, hard floor without straw or an outside run. A small lying area made of hard rubber will be specified for all beef cattle from 2013 onwards.

battery cages from 2012 onwards, shaped

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

Pasture-grazing, outdoor runs and free-range animal husbandry:

ture-grazing, exercise, outdoor and or-

Switzerland leads the way now, and for the future

The questionnaire was sent to national or-

ganic animal husbandry) in EU countries. ganic and labelling organisations, agricultural authorities, scientists and animal welfare organisations. They were asked to estimate the distribution of grazing pasture and outdoor runs for cattle, pigs and chickens. The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) was also kind enough to provide important information about organic animal husbandry within the EU countries. A total of 32 replies from 12 EU countries were evaluated and compared with the distribution of the PAS and ROEL husbandry methods in Switzerland. The information provided by FiBL and ten national organic organisations on the extent of organic livestock husbandry in the EU and in individual EU countries was also evaluated and compared in a similar way. It emerged that Switzerland was ei-

Swiss cattle enjoy a better life than their counterparts in the EU

ther ahead of other countries or shared first place for animal-friendly husbandry in practically all the species under investigation. Taking all animal categories into

The standard of protection for farm ani-

erable impact on livestock management

account, Switzerland exhibits by far the

mals in any country is primarily defined

in practice, and can influence husbandry

highest percentage of particularly ani-

by that nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s animal welfare legisla-

standards so that they are raised beyond

mal-friendly forms of farming (pasture-

tion. However, Switzerlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s example

the minimum requirements of the animal

grazing/outdoor runs/free-range/group

shows that consumer demand (for labelled

protection legislation.

husbandry) in comparison with the rest

meat and free-range eggs) can join gov-

SAP therefore carried out a survey of

ernment programmes for the promotion

the distribution of forms of husbandry

of animal protection to exert a consid-

that are particularly animal-friendly (pas-

of Europe.

The survey in detail CH

Pasture-grazing dairy cattle

20-40

60-80

Beef cattle with outdoor run

5-10

Gestating sows with o/door run

5 -10

Porkers with outdoor run

5 -10

5-10

Free-range laying hens

20-40

10-20 10-20 20-40

10-20

100

20-40

60-80 10-20

40-60

Gest. sows, group husbandry

FIN

80* 20-40

60-80*

40-60

60-80 60-80 20-40

80*

5-10

60-80* 60-80

80 10-20

60-80 40-60 60-80

5-10

<5 40-60

5-10

10-20 40-60 5

100

IRL

5-10

EST

5-10

20-40 20-40

20-40

5-10

40-60 20-40

20-40 40-60

* The high figures for Sweden and Finland only apply to the growing period, as the animals are kept in their stalls in winter. In Switzerland, the ROEL programme gives cattle outdoor access in winter and summer. In Turkey, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Iceland, Belgium, Finland, Estonia, Germany and Austria, the respective organic organisations quoted their proportion of organic animals in the overall population as less than 1% for almost all categories. Higher percentages were, for example, noted for dairy cattle in Austria (16%), Denmark (10%), Estonia and Germany (each 3%); for fattening pigs in Greece (5%), Great Britain (3%) and Denmark (3%); for laying hens in Germany (4%) and the Netherlands (4%) and for fattening chickens in France (12%) and Belgium (5%). In comparison: organic eggs account for 17% and organic meat 2% of market share in Switzerland.

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

However: in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In absolute terms, PAS and ROEL livestock husbandry is still subject to below-average distribution for several categories of animal in Switzerland: PAS (GVE): Very low (less than 20%): Bullocks Low (20 to 40%): Dairy cattle, beef cattle, bulls, calves, goats, broody hens. ROEL (GVE): Very low (less than 20%): Fattening calves, rabbits, brooders, pullets, fattening chickens. Low (20 to 40%): Bullocks, rearing calves, calves less than 4 months old. In other words: Even in Switzerland, millions of farm animals are unable to go outside regularly, as their nature dictates, and are forced to spend their life in their stalls. The relative superiority of Switzerland in the distribution of animal-friendly farming methods is not based on its animal protection legislation, except in the case of the group husbandry of calves and gestating sows. In fact, it is attributable to two measures that were launched in the 1990s; by now, we can see that these measures have created an almost ideal form of co-operation between the market and the state, to the advantage of animal-friendly livestock management. One scheme is a labelling programme known as “Coop-Naturaplan” and “Naturafarm” or “TerraSuisse” launched by Migros and IP-Suisse, with requirements that clearly exceed the minimum provisions set out in the animal protection legislation. The other is the PAS/ROEL direct payment system, whereby the state makes annual payments to farmers who use particularly animal-friendly housing or outdoor or free-range husbandry These payments provide an incentive to convert or invest in farming methods of this type, whilst offering some compensation for the additional expenditure often associated with systems of this nature.

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

“Labelling made all the difference” How animal welfare entered the stalls The introduction of labelling programmes

ganic products. As in Switzerland, how-

in Switzerland can be attributed to the an-

ever, they only represent a few percent of

imal protection organisations KAGfrei-

overall consumption – if they are avail-

land and Swiss Animal Protection SAP,

able at all – and are thus extreme niche

which began to name and market barn

products. In contrast, free-range eggs and

eggs and free-range eggs at the end of the

labelled meat from non-organic farms in

1970s. In the 1980s, SAP helped to propa-

Switzerland have escaped from the niche

gate the management of mother cows and

corner, thanks to the retail giants Mi-

nursing cows and their products (“Natu-

gros and Coop, where they are practically

rabeef”) and launched the “Agri-Natura”

standard products.

label with fenaco (the Swiss agricultural

The situation is less satisfactory in the

organisation) in 1989. Meat and eggs

case of Aldi, Lidl, Spar and Volg, where

were sold under this label in branches of

animal protection/labelled meat is rare

the K-3000 supermarket chain, and the

or even non-existent. The role played by

husbandry methods were monitored by

the catering sector is even more worry-

SAP. In turn, this prompted Coop and Mi-

ing for the further development of ani-

gros to back the animal protection label

mal-friendly methods of farming and the

with conviction from the 1990s.

spread of the corresponding quality prod-

The result has been impressive: by to-

ucts – roughly 50% of the meat consumed

day, labelled meat and barn/free-range

in Switzerland flows through this chan-

eggs generate around CHF 2 billion an-

nel. With a very few laudable exceptions,

nually, which is about 50% of the retail

customers will mostly seek free-range

trade. Animal protection labelling on meat

eggs and animal protection/labelled meat

and eggs has not achieved a significance

in vain here, even at highly acclaimed res-

anywhere near that of Switzerland in any

taurants. Imports from intensive farming

EU country. In the EU, the animal welfare/

systems predominate by some distance.

meat segment is mainly dominated by or-

The emergence of labels has contributed significantly to improved farm animal husbandry

Rural livestock management or intensive farming?

High animal densities do not necessarily act against the interests of the animal. However, examples such as free-range arrangements of 50,000 or more laying hens and broiler chickens cannot be justified for ethical, ecological or hygienic reasons.

Switzerland has maintained the rural

mals had to reduce their herds during the

It is a fact that chickens will never stray

character of its farming industry for var-

1980s. Ever since, repeated attempts have

more than 50 to 100 metres from their

ious reasons (tradition, organic/closed-

been made in parliament to abolish or di-

base location, even under the most fa-

loop philosophy, agro-policies). Its farms

lute the stocking density limits, but these

vourable conditions for cover. These huge

often feature several kinds of animal,

have (so far) been rebuffed by a majority

animal numbers will therefore congregate

moderate stock densities per stall and a

of politicians.

around the shed, resulting in the corre-

balance between the feed-growing area

sponding over-fertilisation, excess slurry

and the yield of farm manure. Switzer-

Opposing trend abroad

land held a serious public debate from

In contrast, the specialisation and con-

the end of the 1970s, in contrast to other

centration process continued unabated

mark as many as 1510 pigs per farm. Simi-

countries, strongly questioning single-

in other countries. Intensive and factory

lar variations can be found in farms keep-

sided specialisation and the management

farms with tens of thousands of pigs and

ing laying hens and broiler chickens. Even

of livestock in industrial/commercial en-

hundreds of thousands of chickens are not

in Austria, which is dominated by rural

terprises on land that did not belong to

just common practice in the USA, Brazil

farms, they keep an average of 20,000

those enterprises (tenant farmers). Leg-

and other countries – they also exist in

broiler chickens compared with 6,000 in

islators reacted to these discussions by

various regions of the EU. By way of com-

Switzerland. In Germany, a single hold-

instigating a number of measures; they

parison: a pig owner in Switzerland keeps

ing will keep an average of 50,000 broiler

regulated the required grazing area and

an average of 160 animals. In Germany,

chickens. The seven largest owners of lay-

limited the number of animals per square

the average is 300; a third of all the pigs in

ing hens in the German state of Sachsen-

metre; more particularly, they also set

Germany live in the federal state of Lower

Anhalt alone keep almost as many laying

the maximum permitted stocking den-

Saxony, where each farm keeps an aver-

hens as all the Swiss egg producers put

sity for animal husbandry. Holdings that

age of 600 swine. A farm in the Nether-

together, i.e. 2.3 million animals.

previously housed larger numbers of ani-

lands has an average of 1160 and in Den-

and danger of vermin.

There is no question that a litre of milk, a kilogram of meat or a dozen eggs can be produced more cheaply on holdings of this size. However, this is usually at the cost of the animals and all those unfortunate farmers who can no longer keep pace with events. In 2009, the German magazine Der Spiegel ran an article entitled “Life on the Hamster Wheel – German dairy farmers have never had it so bad”. Structural change has certainly had a rapid effect: three-quarters of all dairy farmers have given up over the past 25 years. Yet even giant farms with 2,500 head of cattle in eastern Germany are out of pocket at the current milk price of 40 cents per litre.

Export subsidies lead to price dumping in other countries After milk quotas were abandoned, pro-

Turkey fattening in the EU: for economic reasons, the animals are denied a life that is appropriate to their species

duction increased beyond the previouslyrestricted volumes within the EU, as it did in Switzerland; this led to an imme-

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

diate, drastic fall in prices. According to Der Spiegel, the EU wants to renew export subsidies for butter and powdered milk as a way out of this problem. This will create a situation where price dumping will cause hardship for producers in other countries (in Africa, for instance). It is almost unbelievable how naĂŻve or callous the EU Commission have been in their use of this misguided policy, ruining first domestic and then foreign dairy farmers â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not to mention the consequences for animal welfare.

Human-animal relationships sacrificed in the drive for maximisation In general, large holdings of animals containing several thousand pigs and tens of thousands of chickens lead to a high level of animal traffic and trade. This increases the transmission risk for epidemics and

Backward step in animal transportation and slaughter

illnesses, and causes enormous economic damage if such a case occurs. However,

Both Switzerland and the EU have de-

tle for slaughter to North Africa, Lebanon

the greatest objection to intensive farm-

tailed regulations for transportation.

and Egypt is a particular animal welfare

ing from the point of view of animal wel-

The major differences affecting the ani-

problem; after a long journey by road, the

fare is the fact that the relationship be-

mals are the rules governing the limits on

animals are shipped by sea to their des-

tween man and beast suffers, as do the

transportation times and the implementa-

tination to be killed in accordance with

care and supervision of the animals. We

tion and enforcement of the regulations.

religious rites.

must surely know that the most modern

In Switzerland, the maximum transporta-

free-range housing and the most gener-

tion time allowed from the point of load-

ous outdoor animal husbandry will al-

ing to the slaughterhouse is 6 hours, and

Transportation encourages the spread of epidemics

ways be only as good as the owner look-

through-transit of animals destined for

Luckily, Switzerland has had to face only

ing after the well-being and health of his

the slaughterhouse is now also forbidden

a fraction of the animal epidemics famil-

or her animals. Apart from keeping the

by law.

iar to the EU. This situation has been aided

animals properly, the essential element of

In the EU, long distance transporta-

by costly health and prophylaxis pro-

any form of livestock management is an

tion lasting several days and crossing

grammes, and the fact that there has not

intensive relationship between man and

national borders is permitted, as long as

yet been any intensive cross-border trad-

animal. This is only possible with rural

suitable vehicles are used and there is

ing in farm animals. Without doubt, the

husbandry methods in units that can be

compliance with rest times. For example,

ban on the cross-border transit of cloven-

properly monitored.

it is acknowledged that pigs and horses

hoofed animals, which has been in force

are carted about for up to 40 to 60 hours.

for decades, has also contributed.

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

Official bodies and animal protection or-

The Federal Council tried to rescind

ganisations all confirm that the long dis-

this ban in 2006, under pressure from the

tance transportation of animals for the

EU, but the animal protection and farm-

slaughterhouse often fails to comply with

ing organisations put up a furious fight

the regulations, and that there is a lack

against them. The national and state

of controls and sanctions. Overcrowd-

parliaments then incorporated a ban in

ing, lack of water, failure to comply with

the animal protection legislation on the

rest times and a lack of necessary animal

through-transit of animals for slaugh-

rest and feeding stations appear to be the

ter (incl. horses and poultry). Experts

norm. The export of thousands of EU cat-

agree that the ban on the transit of ani-

in two weeks as are slaughtered in the whole of Switzerland in a year. The PHW Group alone slaughters almost a million chickens every working day, whilst all the Swiss poultry slaughterhouses put together require two weeks to deal with the same volume. “Wiesenhof”, the German exporter to Switzerland, belongs to the PHW Group.

High slaughtering frequency raises questions Straight out of the box, head first onto a moving conveyor – more than 10,000 animals an hour in the larger slaughterhouses

The slaughtering frequency for heavy livestock amounts to 60 to 70 animals per hour in large abattoirs in Switzerland and the EU. All three major pig slaughtering facilities in Switzerland use CO2 gas

mals would come under pressure if a free

in abattoirs in Switzerland will be very

as an anaesthetic, with the animals be-

trade agreement was concluded, and that

similar to those in the EU. Whether this

ing led singly or in groups to the stun-

it would inevitably be rescinded in the

similarity on paper will apply in practice

ning facility. Between 240 and 300 ani-

medium term. There is no sign that the

mainly depends upon the quality of the

mals are slaughtered every hour. The EU

EU will ban long-distance transportation,

controls carried out in slaughterhouses.

uses CO2 gas as an anaesthetic, plus elec-

with its resultant cruelty to animals, or

There are considerable differences in size

trical stunning incorporating a restrainer,

that it will adopt the Swiss 6-hour trans-

and processing capacity between abat-

achieving significantly higher slaughter-

portation time ruling.

toirs in Switzerland and the EU. The three

ing frequency than in Switzerland. With

largest abattoirs in the EU (Vion, Smith-

gas stunning, the capacity is around 350

Clear rules governing slaughter

field and Tönnies) slaughter as many pigs

to 600 animals per hour, while it is up to

In the new animal protection legislation

The slaughtering process involves one important difference from the perspective of animal protection. In Swiss abattoirs, advance stunning is mandatory for mammals. In contrast, sheep, goats, calves and beef cattle may be ritually slaughtered in the EU. This means that the animals are tethered and their carotid arteries are cut without prior stunning so that they will bleed to death. In 2002, the Federal Council wanted to allow this practice in Switzerland, and to revoke the ban on ritual slaughter that has been in place since 1893. However, this idea was dropped after vehement protests from vets and animal protection organisations. Nevertheless, Switzerland does allow imports in order to supply devout Jews and Muslims with kosher and halal meat. According to SAP’s discussions with Muslim authorities, devout Muslims in Switzerland are permitted to eat meat from animals even if they have been previously stunned. This is on condition that so-called “momentary electrical stunning” has been used.

ratified in 2008, Switzerland included regulations for the slaughter of animals in relative detail, particularly the duty to anaesthetise and the permitted methods. The technical regulations governing implementation are expected to come into force in 2011. The EU has had a directive on slaughter since 1993. Discussions are currently taking place on a proposal from the EU Council about the protection of animals at the time of slaughter. It is intended that this should consider new findings and that its technical implementation regulations should control aspects such as important animal protection details (e.g. the duration of stunning and the currents applied when using electrical stunning equipment), in the same way as is planned for Switzerland. Apart from this highly significant difference in animal protection provision, all other indications are that the regulations governing the protection of animals

600 animals per hour for electrical stunning with a restrainer. The large poultry slaughtering plants in Switzerland are still using electrical stunning, whereby 8,000 birds can be killed in an hour, or 10,000 birds with two stunning lines in operation. The first poultry slaughtering plant in Belgium with gas stunning/slaughtering went into operation in 1996. After a familiarisation phase, it became possible to increase the initial slaughtering frequency of 9,000 animals per hour to 12,000 animals per hour. In contrast to Switzerland, slaughtering and butchering takes place in shifts over 20 hour per day, so that this slaughtering plant alone kills 240,000 broiler chickens a day to be processed for food. Electrical stunning is also the preferred method for poultry in the EU, but the slaughtering frequency is considerably greater here than in Switzerland, at 12,000 to 13,000 birds an hour.

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

The consequence of lengthy transportation within the EU

2 million pigs) die during transporta-

an outbreak of foot and mouth disease

tion in the EU. For poultry, the estimate

in the United Kingdom in 2001, the vi-

• In Great Britain, up to 30% of laying

is in the order of 10 million birds. The

rus was transported to the Netherlands

hens suffered fractures and dislocated

financial loss resulting from the death

through the trade in animals. The re-

limbs as they were caught and loaded.

of animals in this way is about 300 mil-

sult: 6.5 million head of cattle had to

The figures for turkeys and broilers were

lion euros every year. Yet deaths dur-

be slaughtered and the financial loss

10% and 7% respectively. The stresses

ing transportation are just the tip of the

amounted to 23 billion euros. In 2003,

of the journey and dense loading con-

iceberg; these harsh transportation con-

avian flu broke out in the Netherlands

ditions weaken the chickens’ immune

ditions also compromise the quality of

and northern Italy. 31 million chickens

system, quickly leading to a powerful

the meat. Every fourth pig slaughtered

had to be slaughtered and the finan-

spreading of salmonella germs via ex-

in the EU displays PSE (pale, soft, exu-

cial loss was in the order of 500 million

crement and soiling. The problem of

dative: watery meat). This represents a

euros. There was a further outbreak of

salmonella is insignificant in Switzer-

total of 45 million animals, resulting in

avian flu on a farm in the United King-

land, thanks to a sophisticated system

an estimated economic loss of 1.5 bil-

dom in 2007. Another 160,000 turkeys

lion euros.

had to be killed. This virus didn’t come

and animal-friendly farming, but it was

• Transportation is not checked with any

from a migratory bird – it came from a

40% of the poultry houses in the EU.

degree of seriousness, and it contrib-

lorry that had been in contact with in-

• Experts assume that up to 0.5 to 1% (i.e.

utes to the spread of epidemics. During

fected flocks in Hungary.

found to be present in between 20% and

Piecework with an error rate

contravenes animal protection rules. Hav-

are transported fully conscious for fur-

Compared to the situation thirty or forty

ing been stunned by gas or an electrical

ther processing (the scalding plant). This

years ago, Swiss abattoirs are also run-

device, the animals must be stabbed as

horrific scenario could be affecting 2.5

ning at a relatively high slaughtering fre-

quickly as possible so that they bleed to

million of the roughly 250 million pigs

quency. This depends on the optimum lay-

death and don’t regain consciousness. At

slaughtered in the EU. Even though these

out and organisation for both equipment

such extreme frequencies, abattoir per-

abuses are known to the operators and

and processes (from the animal’s point of

sonnel have just 6 seconds to stab the

the regulatory authorities, experts main-

view, this would include: animal deliv-

animal correctly with a hollow knife. It

tain that nothing has hitherto been done

ery/transport, unloading, driving, accom-

is therefore hardly surprising that 1% of

within the EU to combat the cruelty to

modating, calming, driving to the stun-

the animals are not stabbed correctly and

animals.

ning plant, stunning, slaughtering). As far as animal welfare is concerned, it can be said that accountability is better than it was in the past, in spite of the increase in throughput at modern plants in Switzerland. On the other hand, an increasing number of small, regional slaughtering plants are disappearing because, for example, they would have to invest heavily to achieve equality with the EU meat regulations. This will extend the duration of transportation for animals from the Alps and outlying regions. Slaughtering frequencies are almost twice as high in the larger EU abattoirs for pigs, and they present a problem. Current studies show that, in electrical stunning plants with a restrainer and slaughtering frequencies of 600 animals per hour, the required animal conveyance can only be achieved on single file stunning chutes by using electrical prods on a regular basis. This is very painful for the animal and

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

Large EU abattoir: extremely high slaughtering frequencies lead to animal cruelty

SAP inspection in operation: checks only bring results if they are unannounced

(Animal-protection) law is only as good as its execution Statutory and private-law animal welfare

for animal protection. Organic and “IP-

ject to additional inspections. For exam-

regulations are only successful if they are

Suisse” farms are checked on an annual

ple, the Coop Naturafarm label requires

implemented and monitored by farm-

basis, whilst “ÖLN” (ecological perform-

that farmers keeping pigs, broiler chick-

ers. Swiss animal welfare legislation was

ance certified) farms are examined every

ens and calves are visited at least once

hardly ever enforced by veterinary offic-

three years, including for their compli-

every year by experts from Swiss Ani-

ers until the 1990s. For example, a can-

ance with animal protection legislation.

mal Protection SAP, and – in contrast to the government and most other labelling

tonal vet who was also president of the

inspections – that these visits should al-

sent farmers a paper tape measure as a

End advance notice for inspections

means of enforcement with the request

Farmers who fail to comply with the animal

tion service comprises a team of ten peo-

to: “Now take measurements!” Only after

protection regulations and are sentenced

ple, including farmers, agricultural en-

direct payments were started in the mid-

for their offence risk a substantial reduc-

gineers and vets; it is accredited by the

1990s (when the enforcement of animal

tion in their direct payments. However, the

government and is subject to an annual

protection laws was also transferred to

crux of the matter is that the majority of

audit by these authorities. Sanctions for

the Federal Office for Agriculture and the

government inspections are announced in

unsatisfactory farms are set by the label

cantonal agricultural authorities), were

advance (with the exception of a very few

owner and client rather than the monitor-

regulations implemented properly and

cantons, where PAS and ROEL farms are

ing service. Such sanctions could range

more consistent controls and sanctions

checked on a random basis, without prior

from a ban on deliveries to a termination

introduced. This arrangement excludes

announcement). There are good reasons for

of the cooperation agreement. Further-

livestock management in farms not enti-

this approach, and it is completely accept-

more, the SAP monitoring service under-

tled to direct payments, e.g. cheese-mak-

able for crop production, for example. On

takes animal transportation and abattoir

ers keeping pigs for fattening/breeding,

the other hand, it makes it more difficult

inspections throughout Switzerland on

hobby farmers and businesses managed

to make a qualitative assessment of animal

behalf of Coop and Migros/IP-Suisse, for

by those aged over 65. In these cases, the

protection (i.e. the care provided for the an-

the “Naturafarm” (Coop) and “TerraSu-

veterinary authorities would continue to

imals and the provision of straw bedding or

isse” (Migros/IP-Suisse) labels.

be instructed.

outdoor exercise) because a crafty farmer

Association of Swiss Veterinary Surgeons

Interestingly, agricultural officers, who are more closely associated with

ways be unannounced. The SAP inspec-

will have quickly cleaned up his/her act be-

Superficial controls in the EU

fore the inspector’s visit.

In places where the EU has enacted spe-

farmers, have achieved more than those

On the other hand, farms that partici-

cific and binding guidelines for the pro-

veterinary authorities who are responsible

pate in the labelling programme are sub-

tection of farm animals (welfare of farm

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

animals, laying hens, broilers, calves, pigs), the EU Commission pointed out in 2007 that the animal welfare standards are only superficially monitored in the majority of countries. There are considerable differences between the different countries, many of which did not systematically maintain records of the controls, the survey methods were not standardised and the events were not notified to Brussels within the deadlines stipulated. These facts are reminiscent of the Business Audit Commission’s reports on the enforcement of animal protection in Switzerland at the beginning of the 1990s. One can’t help coming to the conclusion that the enforcement of animal welfare in the EU

A Swiss farm that looks after the needs of the animals

today is at the stage where Switzerland was 20 years ago. In 2006 the EU Commission drew up a detailed report on experiences made fol-

(50%) and Germany (31%). In contrast,

ous picture. Of 2,625 farms visited in Aus-

lowing implementation of the guidelines

there was not a single violation in Greece

tria 12,000 infringements were registered.

on the protection of farm animals. This

and only 2% in Italy. The picture is simi-

France (89%), Great Britain (82%), Den-

report highlights the results of the checks

lar for calves: for 9,378 farms visited in

mark (70%) and Ireland (58%) also dis-

undertaken in the 15 member states. These

Austria, 26,700 transgressions were iden-

played high complaint rates. In contrast,

clearly illustrate that in many farms and

tified. Even France (78%), Great Britain

all 403 pig farms checked in Greece were

member states implementation of the reg-

(51%), Finland (57%), Belgium (35%) and

supposedly found to be in order. In Italy

ulations and controls is lacking.

Germany (28%) were responsible for a rel-

142 violations were found in the 10,868

Austria obviously takes the controls

atively high rate of non-compliance. In

stalls examined, corresponding to 1.3%.

very seriously: on 1,543 laying hen farms

Greece, in contrast, only a single animal

that were monitored an unbelievable 7,000

welfare offender was found among 1,100

The European “Compassion in World

infringements were identified! Relatively

calf establishments visited. The complaint

high complaint rates were displayed by

rate at 1% in Italy was also very low. The

Farming” welfare organisation for farm

Great Britain (52%), Ireland (70%), Spain

control of pigs presented an equally dubi-

animals visited 74 pig farms in Denmark, Hungary, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in 2008 and 2009. It looked closely at the EU guidelines governing the enrichment of pigs’ environment and the ban on routine tail-docking and tooth-clipping: Country DK D H NL E UK

Occurrence Tail-docking/ Tooth-clipping 100% 79% 70% 100% 100% 54%

Environmental enrichment 67% 89% 70% 88% 100% 36%

The study came to the conclusion that these EU animal welfare regulations were

In spite of a ban, pigs’ tails are regularly docked in the EU

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

only practised by a very small minority of farms.

The position of Swiss Animal Protection SAP with regard to the Swiss-EU free trade agreement Let us return to the question we posed at

(quality products/environmental protec-

materials (e.g. milk, meat and eggs). In

the beginning: will a free trade agreement

tion/animal protection on the one hand,

this sector, unrestricted free trade is an

(FTA) tend to inspire or stifle the current

free trade on the other) simultaneously

option that usually leads to losers and un-

wish of consumers and taxpayers for ef-

and implement them successfully, unless

desirable dependencies, and would open

forts surrounding quality production (an-

we accept that Swiss agriculture will only

the door to speculation involving food-

imal welfare, integrated production (IP)

play a subordinate role in the provision

stuffs. Every country should be able to

and organic farming, environmental pro-

of food for the population in future. Most

secure the highest possible contribution

tection and nature conservation meas-

food would have to be imported, and only

towards feeding its own population, sub-

ures, and the quality and safety of food)?

a few farms would be kept and managed

ject to ecological and animal protection

By now, these desires have also been ac-

as especially animal-friendly examples,

constraints.

cepted by the majority of farmers. Is an

in natural surroundings – as models of

FTA a suitable vehicle to achieve Switzer-

the “good old days”, as it were.

This requirement arises to a significant extent from the fundamental differ-

land’s goal of a pioneering role in IP/or-

We cannot have it both ways, as the

ences between the production principles

ganic and free-range farming methods, or

Federal Council would dearly prefer. As

and locations of farms compared with

would it encourage factory farming, cruel

far as SAP is concerned, the priorities

those of Sectors 2 and 3. In contrast to a

transportation methods and a reduction

are clear: to start with, Swiss agriculture

factory or a service organisation, arable

in environmental protection and nature

and its upstream and downstream stages

land and livestock holdings cannot sud-

conservation?

must strive for quality production, as de-

denly be raised from the dead once they

manded by the taxpayers and consumers.

have been closed down. Humans have

We can’t have our cake and eat it too

In view of the major challenges ahead,

little or no influence on factors (climate,

agricultural policy must not make con-

weather, quality of the land, emergence

Swiss Animal Protection SAP detects

tradictory demands for both quality pro-

of epidemics in animals) that play an im-

signs that the latter outcome will prevail

duction and free trade. Instead, it must fo-

portant role in the production of food.

– Swiss farmers are hardly in a position

cus intently on IP, organic and free-range

A farmer is tied to his farm, whereas the

to take on both of these major challenges

husbandry, with the aim of creating an

owner of a company can relocate his busi-

independent farming culture with a high

ness (almost) anywhere.

The FTA will put pressure on the high quality of Swiss farming products

level of self-sufficiency – subject to ani-

Whilst an air of scepticism towards

mal-friendly management and near-nat-

the EU is dominant in the Swiss popula-

ural cultivation.

tion, the Federal Council sees great eco-

SAP agrees with the Federal Council

nomic and healthcare opportunities for

that the elimination of tariffs and the ex-

our country through closer collaboration.

pansion of the free traffic in goods, mer-

Two years ago, therefore, and to the sur-

chandise and services have historically led

prise of the EU Commission, the Federal

to continuous economic progress, innova-

Council proposed an extensive liberalisa-

tion and an increased standard of living.

tion of agricultural trade, including the

Switzerland, as a small country lacking

adoption of the EU law governing food

raw materials, has always encouraged and

and public health. Brussels agreed without

benefited from these developments. How-

further ado – and with very good reason: it

ever, SAP is of the opinion that the pos-

is hardly a secret that several EU countries

itive consequences of free trade mainly

have long hoped for such a radical open-

apply to goods and merchandise in Sec-

ing of the market so that they can let their

tors 2 and 3, and that it should only be

over-production of dairy products and

carried over in a limited manner, with the

meat flow off into Switzerland. After all,

utmost caution – if at all – to global trad-

the high purchasing power of our country

ing in foods and the corresponding raw

is a real attraction to EU exporters.

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

Weighing up the disadvantages The possible benefits for Switzerland from the proposed agricultural free trade agreement with the EU are by no means clear. The EU farming industry over-produces; it now supplies halves of pork and chickens to countries as far as China, and powdered milk as far as Africa – with consequences that are often negative for local farmers, who cannot compete with the dumping prices subsidised by the EU. In contrast, Switzerland hardly competes

The FTA will change Swiss agriculture radically

at all with foreign farmers, except for a few exports of cheese. Roughly a third of

ence – on the basis of animal-friendly

ception of barn, free-range and organic

the food consumed in Switzerland is al-

management in natural surroundings.

eggs). This demand can currently easily

ready being imported, and our farmers are

However, the consequences of the

be satisfied by organic and producer-la-

therefore not exactly ecstatic about the

planned free trade agreement with the EU

bel farmers within the EU. In the case of

planned liberalisation of the market and

act against this idea; farmers’ incomes

meat exports in particular, only a very few

huge increase in imports. They fear in-

would fall by around 50%, and declining

selected Swiss specialities could possibly

creased pressure on producers’ prices, a

domestic production would be compen-

make any headway abroad.

fall in production volumes and the end of

sated by additional imports that fail to

Quite apart from this, we question the

the domestic fodder production that ac-

meet Swiss standards from an ecological

sense and ecological impact of an increase

counts for roughly 10% of the value of

or animal protection point of view. This

in imports of foodstuffs that can be pro-

farmed products (since imports of maize,

would result in increasing dependency –

duced just as well in Switzerland, and the

forage cereals and soya would become

on the one hand, consumers would de-

proposed export of Swiss products and

cheaper and increase dramatically). The

pend more on imports, while on the other,

raw materials (dairy products, meat, eggs)

Federal Council’s scenario indicates that

the farmers and the downstream sectors

to the EU, where farmers are presumably

these fears are justified. This assumes that

would depend more on exports, and thus

just as happy to produce them as here. The

income from the agricultural sector will

on relatively unpredictable international

increase in imports and anticipated ex-

fall drastically from 3 billion Swiss Francs

markets and agricultural policies.

ports would quite clearly have a negative impact on the environment. However, this

to 1.6 billion Swiss Francs if a free trade agreement is introduced.

Additional exports are pie in the sky

is the paradox: the same country that jus-

Abandonment of an independent farming industry

SAP does not share the Federal Council’s

tion and enacts strict regulations is none

view that any additional imports resulting

other than the country now encouraging

Food production is about to be concen-

from a free trade agreement could be com-

cross-border trade in foodstuffs, though

trated abroad, just at a time when the ag-

pensated by exporting more Swiss prod-

these can be produced in sufficient quan-

ricultural land needed to feed mankind

ucts (cheese, meat and eggs) or animals.

tities abroad just as well as here. Instead

is becoming increasingly scarce, and it

It is true that the EU is home to the proud

of Swiss farmers producing within their

is clear that the prices for agricultural

figure of 490 million consumers, but at

region and for their region, they are now

commodities and foodstuffs will rise. The

least some of the EU countries have highly

supposed to breed and fatten animals for

trend towards cheaper and cheaper food

intensive and extensive animal produc-

the EU market, whilst the EU, in return,

at our latitudes over the past few decades

tion industries, which are not ecological

is supposed to supply Switzerland with

will reverse, and household expenditure

and animal-friendly. These industries al-

meat, milk and eggs.

on food could once again increase. SAP

low those countries to satisfy the demand

is of the opinion that Switzerland would

for conventional, cheap products of ani-

be well advised to strive for its own sep-

mal origin by themselves. In contrast, the

Lower prices, higher subsidies

arate farming industry in these troubled

demand for organic products and prod-

The Federal Council believes that con-

times, with a focus on maximum self-suf-

ucts from animal-friendly husbandry (la-

sumers would benefit from a free trade

ficiency. In providing food for its popula-

belled meat) is still in its infancy in the

agreement because they would spend less

tion, it should acquire a certain independ-

majority of the EU countries (with the ex-

on food. This may well be true. However,

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

tifiably promotes environmental protec-

Animal welfare must not be forgotten

Growing pressure on farmers

to rise in order to keep the politically highly-organised Swiss farming commu-

Apart from purely strategic, consumer

ment with the EU will be the livestock.

nity happy and ensure their survival. Sup-

and environmental issues, it is the ani-

In order to compete on cost with inten-

porting measures running into billions are

mal welfare issue in particular that makes

sive farms abroad, Swiss farming meth-

already under discussion to tempt farm-

SAP view the planned free trade agree-

ods (which are hitherto still dominated by

ers into giving up their farms prematurely.

ment in a highly sceptical light. For ex-

rural farms) would have to give way to

Any financial gains the consumers may

ample, the FVO study released in the sum-

large concerns. Small and medium-sized

make in one pocket as a result of the free

mer of 2008 and entitled “A Comparison

farms would come under severe financial

trade agreement will quickly disappear

of Animal Welfare in Switzerland and the

pressure and would either have to give up

from the other if the State has to draw

EU” concluded that adopting the EU di-

or try to convert to organic/label niche

higher taxes from them. An agricultural

rectives in the animal welfare area would

production. Opportunities here are lim-

free trade agreement would therefore end

not lead to any improvement, but that it

ited, however, as only Coop and Migros

up being an exercise with no winners and

would represent a step backwards for ani-

have seriously considered products from

no losers for consumers and taxpayers,

mals. This clear conclusion was also pos-

animal-friendly farming in larger quanti-

and the only profit would be made by im-

sibly the reason why the study was sub-

ties up to now.

porters and exporters.

sequently designated as an FVO working

Whilst the Swiss parliament has con-

direct payments and subsidies would have

The biggest losers in any free trade agree-

The downside of the lower food prices

paper and not publicised. The SAP organ-

sistently rejected all attempts to revoke

in the EU is highlighted by scandals in-

isation’s ears pricked up when it heard

the ruling on maximum stocking density,

volving rotten meat and other foodstuffs,

the response from the Federal Council

the Federal Council repeatedly attempts

the vastly greater number of cases of sal-

on the postulation presented by Maya

to water down this ordinance. Intensive

monella in laying and fattening hens

Graf, a member of the National Coun-

farming in stalls containing thousands

and the high frequency of epidemics in

cillor, on the “Impact of the EU agricul-

of pigs and tens of thousands of chick-

animals. The foot and mouth epidemic

tural free trade agreement on the level of

ens is not just viewed with abhorrence

in the United Kingdom and the Nether-

animal protection and animal husbandry

by taxpayers and consumers, given the

lands in 2001 and the bird flu epidemic

in farms”. The Federal Council refused to

quality strategy promoted by the govern-

in the Netherlands and northern Italy in

draw up a report on the consequences of

ment for Swiss farming. It also endan-

2003 caused losses amounting to 23 bil-

the FTA for the protection of livestock

gers the welfare and health of the animals.

lion Swiss Francs. A free trade agree-

and for the hitherto rural nature of Swiss

As far as SAP is concerned, it makes lit-

ment could therefore also have a nega-

animal husbandry on farms (no intensive

tle sense to provide fabulous conditions

tive impact on the safety and quality of

farming).

for a few farm animals in niche produc-

our food.

tions, whilst most production is relocated to large stalls that can never meet the interests of animal welfare. The aim of SAP is clear: all livestock within Switzerland should be kept in accordance with the PAS and ROEL guidelines, and the number of farm animals should reflect the need to feed the Swiss population, thus keeping imports to a minimum.

Existing laws will be watered down Even though Swiss animal protection legislation only specifies minimum dimensions and regulations for defining the borderline with animal cruelty, and therefore fails to guarantee optimum, animalfriendly husbandry, Swiss farm animals

Pigs in the shower: animal welfare is taken seriously in Switzerland

still enjoy better legal protection than their counterparts in the EU. On the one hand Switzerland has concrete and de-

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

tailed regulations for all farm animals; on

ment) when every species is taken into

The same applies to the catering trade.

the other, the Swiss regulations are also

account. Nevertheless, in absolute terms,

Up to now, the majority of establishments

more robust in each of the four catego-

the distribution of PAS and ROEL live-

have remained “animal-welfare resist-

ries of animal where EU directives do ex-

stock husbandry is still below average for

ant”, mainly preferring to consider prices

ist (calves, pigs, laying hens and fattening

a number of categories of animal in Swit-

rather than concentrating on quality.

chickens). Since the EU does not have the

zerland too. Even in Switzerland, millions

The tentative projects launched in recent

will to fill in the gaps in animal protection

of farm animals are still denied the right

years with the aim of capturing the imag-

(e.g. cattle, goats, sheep and horses) or

to regular outdoor exercise and a lot still

ination of the catering channel for Swiss

to strengthen the regulations for calves,

has to be done for farmers before we will

products, and for environmental conser-

chickens and pigs, the Swiss farm ani-

be able to talk about Switzerland as a

vation and animal protection (the WWF

mal protection regulations will come un-

free-range country.

“Gôut mieux” project, advertising for the

der political pressure should a free trade

A free trade agreement could put an

efforts of Proviande and the SAP “Essen

agreement be adopted. No doubt farming

end to developments such as the PAS and

mit Herz” project) would have practically

groups and parts of the industry in this

ROEL animal husbandry programmes. One

no chance of becoming more widespread,

country would soon be calling for a “level

the one hand, free-range husbandry will

and would still stay as a small niche in-

playing field”.

be increasingly difficult where there are

terest.

large numbers of animals on each farm,

Backward step for animal transportation

and will become an environmental prob-

Grab the chance

lem. On the other hand, many farmers

Given that a free trade agreement would

Switzerland would, with virtual certainty,

will consider carefully where they want

result in the arrival of more cheese, meat

have to rescind the current ban on the

to make their investments if a free trade

and eggs from the EU – and that these

through- transit of EU animals destined

agreement is concluded. Many will (have

would often be products of intensive

for slaughter. There would also be an ex-

to) invest in measures to reduce costs and

farming, cruel forms of transportation

pansion of trading in slaughtered animals

in large concerns rather than in quality

and environmental pollution – Switzer-

across the current borders. Depending on

measures such as improving animal wel-

land would then be supporting animal

demand, price and the capacity of abat-

fare.

cruelty and ecological offenders in other countries. It would make more sense to

toirs, animals from Switzerland may also be exported and EU animals imported

Quality has its price

promote animal-friendly husbandry and

for slaughter. This would put automatic

It is clear that quality production with

natural management at home.

pressure on the unique Swiss maximum

an emphasis on animal welfare is a ba-

SAP’s clear conclusion: animal-

six-hour transportation time, because the

sic requirement for Swiss farmers to be

friendly management of livestock and a

domestic transport industry would be at

able to sell their high-priced products on

high level of animal welfare can not be

a disadvantage compared with EU lorry

the market. Yet there are limits in this re-

provided by command. The main require-

drivers. The increase in animal trade and

spect, too. Consumers are willing to pay

ment is for well-motivated animal owners

traffic would introduce epidemics into

a little more, but the difference in price

who possess the necessary skills and ex-

the country; these have hitherto been

between imported and labelled prod-

pertise, and who have animal protection

kept successfully at bay thanks to pre-

ucts must not be too great. The conclu-

close to their hearts, in so far as that makes

vention programmes costing millions of

sion of a free trade agreement will place

financial sense. In the end, however, the

Swiss Francs, and supported with taxpay-

the price argument at the forefront at all

most animal-friendly farmer still has to

ers’ money. That would be the end of the

levels (farming, processing, retail trade

make a living from the yield produced

Swiss “island of health” as it still currently

and consumers), at the expense of qual-

by his animals or he might as well shut

exists in comparison with the EU.

ity. Everybody takes care of their own in-

up shop. Equally, even the most animal-

terests when times are hard – when they

friendly consumer cannot hand out un-

An end to ROEL and PAS?

are under financial pressure. Consumers

limited amounts of money on food. With

Compared with the rest of Europe, Swit-

will become even more price-conscious

an eye towards the free trade agreement,

zerland either shares first place or is the

when they shop, and will demand more

Economics Professor Mathias Binswanger

leader with regard to animal-friendly

imported products. Retailers, especially

quite correctly asked “How much market

husbandry in practically all the catego-

Aldi and Lidl, have hitherto been virtu-

can the farmer stand?” …. and then pro-

ries investigated. Switzerland is far ahead

ally obliged to stock a wide range of Swiss

vided the immediate answer: “Free trade

in its share of particularly animal-friendly

cheese, meat and eggs, but a free trade

will not lead to free farmers. On the con-

farming practices (pasture-grazing, out-

agreement would allow them to turn in-

trary, it will free Switzerland of farmers.”

door runs, free-range and group manage-

creasingly to imports.

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

Glossary and links Bio-Suisse umbrella association for organic farming organi-

Naturafarm Meat and eggs from animal-friendly farms where

zations in Switzerland.

the livestock can roam freely and exercise outdoors. Obtainable from Coop.

Club of Rome The Club of Rome is a not-for-profit organisation. It is a global think tank that deals with a variety of inter-

ÖLN Ecological Certificate of Achievement. ÖLN is supported

national political issues.

by direct payments from the government.

CO2 Carbon dioxide is a chemical compound composed of two

PAS Particularly animal-friendly housing. The stall must sat-

oxygen atoms bound to a single carbon atom. Carbon diox-

isfy the natural requirements of the livestock. Each animal has

ide is poisonous in high concentrations, and can lead to death

permanent access to two separate areas, e.g. one area for feed-

by suffocation.

ing and one where it can rest. The rest area must be equipped with suitable litter material. PAS is supported by direct pay-

Compassion in World Farming is a European organisa-

ments from the state.

tion for farm animals based in England. It mainly campaigns against factory farms.

PHW PHW Group Lohmann & Co. AG is the biggest German poultry breeder and processor (including “Wiesenhof”).

Essen mit Herz (Eat with a good conscience). A project run by Swiss Animal Protection SAP to sensitise consumers shopping

Proviande Sector organisation for the Swiss meat produc-

behaviour. www.essenmitherz.ch.

tion industry. “Schweizer Fleisch” is a registered trademark of Proviande.

fenaco supplies farmers with the means of production, accepts their products, which are then processed and marketed. fenaco

ROEL Regular Outdoor Exercise for Livestock. The decree gov-

also operates the retail chains Volg and LANDI.

erning regular exercise in the open air for farm animals regulates access to the pastures during the growing season and

FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, founded in

outdoor exercise during the winter months. Direct payments

1973. It is a leading worldwide research institute for organic

are made by the state to encourage the keeping of animals ac-

farming.

cording to the ROEL programme.

FTA Free Trade Agreement, www.seco.admin.ch

Swiss Animal Protection SAP This animal welfare organisation was founded in 1861, and has a total of 70 branches in all

FVO Federal Veterinary Office, www.bvet.admin.ch

the cantons, plus the Principality of Liechtenstein. Specialists covering different areas of animal welfare work for SAP. The

IP-SUISSE the Swiss association for farmers who run inte-

SAP inspection service is commissioned by various labels to

grated production operations. IP-SUISSE campaigns for natu-

inspect more than 1000 farms, animal transportation arrange-

ral, healthy food production.

ments and abattoirs for compliance with the animal protection and labelling regulations.

KAGfreiland KAGfreiland is a charitable organisation looking after the well-being of cattle, pigs, chickens etc.

Tenant farmer A farmer with no land of his own to provide food for his animals.

LID Agricultural Information Centre. Press and information service representing the Swiss farming and foodstuffs indus-

TerraSuisse Products originating from animal-friendly Swiss

try.

agriculture in natural surroundings. Obtainable from Migros.

Swiss Animal Protection SAP · Dornacherstrasse 101 · CH-4008 Basel phone +4161 365 99 99 · fax +4161 365 99 90 · sts@tierschutz.com · www.animal-protection.net