Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2008)553 - Protection of animals at the time of killing - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2008)553 - Protection of animals at the time of killing. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2008)553  |
| date | 18-09-2008 |
The technical requirements of Directive 93/119/EC i on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing have never been amended although the context has changed.
New technologies have been introduced making some standards obsolete. In 2004 and 2006 two scientific opinions from the European Food Safety Authority suggested revising the Directive. In parallel the World Organisation for Animal Health adopted in 2005 two guidelines on the welfare of animals at slaughter and killing leading to similar conclusions.
Animal welfare concerns have grown in our society. The legal environment has changed for slaughterhouses with the adoption of a series of EU legislative acts on food safety which emphasises the responsibilities of business operators. Mass killing during animal epidemics has raised questions about the methods used to carry them out. In 2006 the Commission adopted the first Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals, introducing new concepts such as the welfare indicators and centres of reference on animal welfare.
Specific problems have been identified with the EU legislation such as the lack of harmonised methodology for new stunning methods, the lack of clear responsibilities for operators, the insufficient competence of personnel or insufficient conditions for the welfare of animals during killing for disease control purposes.
In light of this the proposal provides substantial added value compared to the status quo.
In particular by changing the legal instrument from a directive to a regulation, the proposal provides for uniform and simultaneous application, avoiding the burden and inequalities due to national transpositions. The form of a regulation is also suitable for faster implementation of changes due to technical and scientific progress. It also provides for a single set of rules making them more visible and easier to apply both for EU operators and trading partners.
The proposal also contains greater flexibility for operators through the adoption of guidelines on detailed technical matters. At the same time it requires operators to take real ownership of animal welfare (self-checks on stunning procedure, standard operating procedures), and therefore contributes to a better enforcement of animal welfare at slaughter.
The proposal also aims to develop learning mechanisms based on sound science (certificate of competence, centre of reference), to make animal welfare better understood and integrated in the daily tasks of animals handlers, slaughtermen and official inspectors.
The main objectives of the proposal are aimed at:
Improving the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.
Encouraging innovation in relation to stunning and killing techniques.
Providing a level playing field within the internal market for the operators concerned.
In addition, this proposal will aim to achieve the following specific objectives:
Develop a common methodological approach to encourage new stunning methods.
Ensure better integration of animal welfare concerns into the production process through the requirement of Standard Operating Procedures and the appointment of Animal Welfare Officers in slaughterhouses.
Upgrade the standards governing slaughterhouse construction and equipment.
Increase the level of competence of the operators and officials concerned.
Improve the protection of animals during mass killing operations.
This proposal will replace Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing, which covers the killing of farmed animals.
Every year nearly 360 million pigs, sheep, goats and cattle as well as more than four billion poultry are killed in EU slaughterhouses. In addition, the European fur industry kills 25 million animals, while hatcheries kill 330 million day-old-chicks. The control of contagious diseases may also require the killing of millions of animals.
The present situation is not satisfactory in relation to the objectives pursued. The level of animal protection is unequally enforced in the Member States, with sometimes very unsatisfactory results. Discrepancies in requirements in the Member States for slaughterhouses and manufacturers of stunning equipment do not ensure a level playing field for them, although they compete on a global market. This situation does not encourage innovation either.
Directive 93/119/EC will be repealed but the scope of the proposal will remain unchanged.
Not applicable.
Consultation of interested parties
Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents
In 2006 the Commission ordered an external study on the stunning practices in slaughterhouses and their economic, social and environmental consequences. In the course of the study, major stakeholders such as meat industry associations, competent authorities and animal welfare organisations were consulted.
The Commission also had direct contacts with the stakeholders and with scientific, technical and legal experts concerning different aspects of the proposal. Consultations started from July 2006. The initiative was publicised through presentations at industry forums and within relevant advisory committees or groups of the Commission during the period 2006–2007.
Specific webpages were created and regularly updated to inform the public about the initiative. From December 2007 to February 2008 a mailbox was opened and stakeholders invited to provide their views. The initiative was presented to the Member States via a working group in January 2008.
Stakeholders and Member States agreed on the principle that operators should be made more responsible for animal welfare. Stakeholders welcomed the proposal for a Regulation rather than a Directive, while Member States were divided.
There was large support for introducing requirements governing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and the idea of an Animal Welfare Officer (AWO) was also well received. However, animal welfare organisations and some Member States stressed the need for keeping prescriptive requirements. Other participants expressed concerns about the requirements regarding SOPs and an Animal Welfare Officer for small slaughterhouses.
In light of the studies and consultations carried out, the Commission concluded that while most large scale slaughterhouses in the EU already employ a person in charge of meat quality control (who can combine the roles of supervising SOPs and of AWO at limited extra cost), this is not the case today for small slaughterhouses. As a consequence, a derogation to the AWO requirement for very small slaughterhouses has been foreseen, due to the lack of proportionality of the measure in comparison with the small number of animals slaughtered, and to avoid possible distortions of competition.
All parties consulted accepted that stunning methods should be better defined.
They also agreed on the need for a better knowledge policy since both official inspectors and operators sometimes lacked technical assistance. They all supported the idea of a certificate of competence. The principle of a national centre of reference received more mixed support. The Member States were worried about establishing a new administrative structure and the possible budgetary implications.
Better preparedness and reporting on animal welfare in case of killing for disease-control purposes received a positive response from the Member States. Some Member States would prefer to strictly adhere to international guidelines while others would advocate a certain amount of flexibility.
The above comments were taken into account as follows:
(a) Concerns about the lack of prescriptive requirements were addressed through the requirement for there to be a national centre of reference. In addition the proposal contains the obligation for manufacturers of stunning equipment to provide guidance on use of their equipment. Member States should also develop codes of good practices.
(b) Concerns regarding the costs related to the implementation of new standards governing infrastructures of slaughterhouses were addressed through the establishment of a transitional period for this requirement.
(c) Concerns concerning administrative costs related to the establishment of national centres of reference were addressed by amending the requirements through a more flexible structure.
(d) In reply to the concerns regarding the administrative burden related to the AWO, the proposal envisages the possibility of a derogation for small slaughterhouses.
(e) In reply to the concerns about the lack of flexibility in a disease-control situation, the proposal provides for derogation when the killing involves serious human or animal health risks.
An open consultation was conducted over the Internet from 20.12.2007 to 20.02.2008. The Commission received 10 responses. The results are available on ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/slaughter
Scientific/expertise domains concerned
Animal welfare, food safety, animal health.
A number of references were consulted and in particular the opinions of the European Food Safety Authority from 2004 and 2006, international guidelines (OIE guidelines on slaughter and killing), national legislations within and outside the Community (USA, UK, France, New Zealand, etc.). All the relevant Food and Veterinary Office reports were also taken into account as was the external study conducted for the purpose of the Impact Assessment.
Several experts were consulted (scientists, consultants or governmental experts) as well as stakeholders: slaughterhouses (red meat and poultry), farmers’ organisation, veterinarians, religious groups, animal protection organisations, manufacturers of stunning equipment.
Anglia-Autoflow — equipment manufacturer
Animals’ Angels — animal welfare organisation
AVEC — poultry meat industry
AEH — Association of European Hatcheries
Butina — equipment manufacturer
CIWF — animal welfare organisation
COPA-COGECA — farmers
EUROGROUP FOR ANIMALS — animal welfare organisation
EPEXA — Association of European Hatching Egg, One-Day-Olds and Pullet Exporters
European Fur Breeders’ Association
Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association
AFSSA — French Agency for Food Safety
FNICGV — red meat industry
Humane Slaughter Association — animal welfare organisation
IBC — International Butchers’ Confederation
OABA — animal welfare organisation
PVE (Product Boards for Livestock, Meat and Eggs) — meat industry
Stork Food Systems — equipment manufacturer
UECBV — red meat industry
The existence of potentially serious risks with irreversible consequences was not mentioned. In their 2004 opinion the EFSA scientists put forward over twenty technical recommendations. The following EFSA recommendations were integrated into the proposal:
- proper training for operators stunning animals;
- constant-current equipment for electrical stunning
- recording system for electrical parameters;
- recording system for gas parameters;
- limiting the use of non-penetrative captive bolt to young lambs;
- several technical improvements on the shackle line for poultry;
- severing both carotid arteries for bleeding;
- requesting gas killing for poultry (non-reversible stun).
Some recommendations were not included in the proposal because the impact assessment revealed that they were not economically viable at present in the EU. This was the case in particular for the following recommendations:
- phasing out the use of carbon dioxide for pigs and poultry;
- phasing out the use of waterbath stunners for poultry.
Other recommendations are not in the proposal because they refer to parameters that should be part of implementing measures.
Recommendations on farm fish were not included in the proposal either because there was a need for further scientific opinion and economic evaluation in this field.
EFSA opinions and OIE guidelines are publicly available on the Internet:
www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA
www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_titre_3.7.
The main policy options envisaged ranged from the status quo, deregulation, technical amendments to the Directive or reorganisation of the legislation.
Slaughtering costs constitute a limited portion of the total costs of slaughterhouse activities (20%) but could affect their competitiveness. Slaughterhouses are subjected to permanent official inspection through food safety legislation. The proposal does not introduce additional requirements for official inspections. Animal welfare has a positive impact on meat quality and occupational safety. It also represents positive market values. No significant environmental impacts have been identified.
From comparison of the main policy options envisaged it appears that reorganising the legislation would appear to be the most advantageous choice.
More specifically, the impact assessment investigates the following aspects of the reorganisation of legislation.
As regards authorisation of new stunning methods, a centralised system would be a valid alternative, while a partially decentralised system would have some benefits especially in terms of flexibility and costs.
Better integration of animal welfare into the process of production brings clear positive outcomes for the welfare of animals, occupational safety and meat quality. This could be done through requiring Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and/or the appointment of an Animal Welfare Officer. Economic costs are limited for both options, and slaughterhouses which have already implemented such measures appreciate the economic benefits.
The impact assessment also indicates that there is a need for updating the standards of slaughterhouse infrastructures. It will bring social benefits, and investment costs can be reduced if a reasonable transitional period is considered.
Better competence of personnel killing animals as well as setting up a specific national structure for providing technical back-up on animal welfare for officials appear to be two complementary approaches. Knowledge policy is highly efficient in terms of animal welfare, flexible for the industry and socially positive for personnel.
Finally, on the issue of mass killing of animals it also indicates that a flexible option is more likely to deliver results than a traditional prescriptive approach.
Contents
- LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
- BUDGETARY IMPLICATION
- Grounds for and objectives of the proposal
- General context
- Existing provisions in the area of the proposal
- Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union
- CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account
- Collection and use of expertise
- Methodology used
- Main organisations/experts consulted
- Federation of Veterinarians of Europe
- Summary of advice received and used
- Means used to make the expert advice publicly available
- Impact assessment
- Summary of the proposed action
- Legal basis
- Subsidiarity principle
- Proportionality principle
- Choice of instruments
- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- Simplification
- Repeal of existing legislation
- European Economic Area
The proposal will increase operators' responsibility for animal welfare. This is in line with the “hygiene package”, a raft of food safety legislation adopted in 2004 obliging operators to integrate food safety into their operations and to demonstrate that they are implementing procedures for that purpose. This approach is also consistent with the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals that introduced the concept of animal welfare indicators measured on animals.
The proposal will make it compulsory for personnel handling and/or slaughtering animals to possess a certificate of competence. The requirement will apply to slaughterhouses and to killing in the context of fur farming.
The proposal will require each Member State to establish a national centre of reference that will provide technical assistance to officials on animal welfare at killing. The centre will provide scientific assessment for new stunning methods/equipment and newly built slaughterhouses, and will accredit bodies delivering certificates of competence concerning animal welfare.
The proposal will provide precise definitions for stunning methods. It will also set up a common system for authorising new methods of stunning.
The proposal will ensure that animal welfare is considered at all stages of the killing process for disease-control purposes. This will imply better preparedness but also specific animal welfare supervision and reporting to the public.
In line with the hygiene regulation the proposal allows slaughter for private consumption (e.g. on farms and in backyards) provided that the general requirements of this regulation are met and in particular prior stunning.
Article 37 of the Treaty of the European Community.
The subsidiarity principle applies insofar as the proposal does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Community.
The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States for the following reason.
Meat, fur and other products related to the killing of farmed animals are traded internationally. Stunning and restraining equipment is also commercialised beyond national borders. Discrepancies in welfare standards governing the killing of animals between the Member States affect the competitiveness of slaughterhouses, farmers, hatcheries and manufacturers of stunning equipment.
Community action will better achieve the objectives of the proposal for the following reason.
Products derived from those activities are freely traded within the EU. Therefore, the EU action is likely to have a more coherent effect and better achieve the objectives proposed.
It is difficult to find indicators that would reflect the situation as regards the objectives of the proposal in a non-ambiguous way. The level of use of some irreversible methods of stunning would appear to reflect a certain level of improvement in animal welfare for poultry or pigs. However, the use of stunning methods is also influenced by economical factors.
The scope of the proposal is limited to the killing of farmed animals. Those activities are largely harmonised through other Community legislations.
The killing of companion animals, or performed as part of hunting or sporting activities, is not part of the proposal and remains under national competence.
The proposal also allows for national measures so as to reflect the provisions of the Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals which refers to the need to respect national provisions relating to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle.
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s).
A Regulation offers the following advantages:
- it provides a uniform and simultaneous application in all the Member States and avoids the burden, both for the Member States and the Commission, of transposition;
- the updating of a Regulation can be more rapidly implemented; this is welcomed in this area which is subject to technical and scientific progress.
- it provides a single set of rules making them more visible and easier to apply for operators and the EU's main trading partners.
The proposal has no financial implications for the Community. The impact assessment indicated that the financial implications will mainly affect operators who have poorly implemented the current EU rules. In addition, transitional periods have been laid down for measures related to the infrastructures of slaughterhouses as well as for taking into account employees already working in slaughterhouses. Derogation is also considered for small slaughterhouses as regards the requirement for an Animal Welfare Officer.
The economic study also indicated that among the slaughterhouse operators that have implemented the measures mentioned in the proposal, the majority of them consider the costs to be relatively acceptable and the changes globally beneficial to their economic activity.
Proposed instruments: Regulation.
Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s).
Non-binding instruments were unanimously rejected by all consulted parties as a sole means to reach the objectives. Killing animals is an activity where all stakeholders consider that a minimum level playing field should be established for all operators and which needs to be checked by governments.
The current EU legislation is a Directive and did not bring about a sufficient level of harmonisation.
The proposal has no implication for the Community budget.
Simulation, pilot phase and transitory period
There was or there will be a transitory period for the proposal.
The proposal provides for simplification of legislation.
The proposal repealing the current Directive will make national transpositions obsolete. In addition, the better integration into food safety legislation will facilitate implementation.
The adoption of the proposal will lead to the repeal of existing legislation.
The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the European Economic Area.