Free trade and animal welfare

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

A COMPARISON BETWEEN SWITZERLAND AND THE EU

FREE TRADE AND ANIMAL WELFARE

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

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

Two years ago, the Swiss Federal Council made a pro-posal to the EU for a wide-ranging loosening of the re-strictions 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 agree-ment on animal welfare, the Swiss Animal Protection SAP organisation compared Switzerland’s animal protection legislation and notably animal-friendly livestock man-agement practices with those of the EU.

To put it bluntly: Is this free trade agreement a vehi-cle by which Switzerland can encourage the type of free-range livestock management desired by the majority of consumers and tax-payers? Or will it eventually and in-advertently 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.

Dr. Hansuli Huber, dipl. ing. agr. ETHDivisional Managing Director

Contents

Agriculture today – a status report 3

Ever cheaper food – livestock pays the price 6

The key differences between animal welfare legislation in Switzerland and the EU 7

Comparison of animal husbandry practices 8

Labelling made all the difference 9

Rural livestock management or factory farming 10

Backward step in animal transportation and slaughter 11

A law is only as good as its execution 14

The SAP position 16

Glossary and links 20

Published by

Swiss Animal Protection SAP

Dornacherstrasse 101, POB 461

4008 Basel

Tel. 061 365 99 99

Fax 061 365 99 90

[email protected]

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)

2

3SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP

Our farmers are facing enormous chal-

lenges. Swiss consumers and taxpayers

insist on an agricultural policy that re-

spects the natural environment, is an-

imal-friendly and has a rural character.

The Swiss Federal Council has specified

animal welfare as one of the five pillars

of its agricultural policy and, in its report

on the realignment of the direct payment

system, calls for significant participation

in the animal welfare programmes known

as BTS (Besonders tierfreundliche Stall-

haltung, translated as “Particularly Ani-

mal-Friendly Stabling”, PAS) and RAUS

(Regelmässiger Auslauf ins Freie, trans-

lated as “Regular Outdoor Exercise for

Livestock”, ROEL). The new animal pro-

tection legislation that came into force in

2008 will also require many farmers to

make changes to their livestock housing

systems within the next few years. Now,

however, the proposal by the Federal

Council for a free trade agreement with

the EU will put pressure on Swiss agricul-

ture. According to the Federal Council, in-

come from farming will fall from the cur-

rent 3 billion Swiss Francs to 1.6 billion

Swiss Francs if the agreement is ratified.

In the 1970s, a rapid, visible change

took place in Swiss farming methods –

cows steadily disappeared from the mead-

ows and intensive, industrial-scale farm-

at all – or monitored in practice.

Swiss tax payers and consumers are

willing to invest considerable tax reve-

nue in integrated and organic production,

and in farms with a particularly animal-

friendly approach. They will also pay pre-

mium prices for the quality products of

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

eggs or producer-labelled meat. However,

the following dilemma cannot be ignored:

even the most animal-friendly, nature-

loving farmer has to make a living from

rearing his or her live-stock, while even

the most responsible consumer will nei-

ther want nor be able to pay an unlimited

amount of money for food.

No more short-term thinkingFifteen years ago, Swiss farming associ-

ations fought against this trend at first,

but many farmers (producer-labelled, or-

ganic and integrated production farmers)

and farming organisations now embrace

this type of quality production. There is

an increasing recognition in the farming

industry that a strategy based on quality

is necessary for reasons of sustainability,

environmental protection, nature conser-

vation and animal welfare; the produc-

tion of food will continue to depend on

fertile soil, clean air and unpolluted water

in future. Economic considerations also

ing operations came into being. This drew

criticism from inside and outside the

farming profession. As a consequence of

this opposition to agro-industrialisation,

comprehensive animal protection legis-

lation came into force in 1981 to com-

bat particularly extreme forms of live-

stock husbandry. At the same time, the

maximum number of animals that could

be kept on any farm was reduced in or-

der to prevent the emergence of intensive

farming. Various additional regulations

affecting livestock were ratified between

1990 and 2005, under pressure from ani-

mal protection organisations. New, com-

pletely revised animal protection legisla-

tion came into force in 2008.

Outside Switzerland, on the other

hand, the specialisation and intensifica-

tion of livestock husbandry that started

in the 1960s continued practically una-

bated, with scant attention to animal wel-

fare. In Europe, at least criticism has only

been levelled at the exploitation of farm

animals and the trend towards the agro-

industry and factory farming methods in

recent years; this has forced Brussels to

enact specific animal protection regula-

tions with regard to poultry, calves and

pigs, as well as in respect of the transpor-

tation of animals. Nevertheless, they have

never been implemented adequately – if

Agriculture today – a status report

SWISS ANIMAL PROTECTION SAP4

play a part: the products offered by Swiss

farmers are more expensive than im-

ported products, and it will only be pos-

sible to continue selling these products on

the market and safeguard direct income

in years to come if they maintain a high

standard of animal protection and nature

conservation.

Higher market share for “animal-friendly” products Animal-friendly products (barn and free-

range eggs; producer-labelled meat) cur-

rently generate a revenue of about 2 bil-

lion Swiss Francs in the market. This rep-

resents roughly 50% of the retail trade

turnover. They have therefore grown out

of their niche position, and have almost

become the standard for the two major

Migros and Coop supermarket chains in

Switzerland. As a consequence of this wel-

come consumer development, the farming

industry has made good progress with re-

gard to environmental protection, nature

conservation and animal welfare in recent

years. Nevertheless, the ecological and an-

imal welfare targets are a long way from

being achieved (diversity of flora and

fauna; clean air, unpolluted water and

fertile soil). In the case of animal welfare,

for example, the only farmers who have

converted to animal-friendly systems are

those whose added investment would be

low because their circumstances were al-

ready favourable, or for whom the market

created additional or long-term opportu-

nities, or an increase in prices for their

particular type of livestock. One clear in-

dication of this is the fact that the PAS

and ROEL take-up rates and the rates of

conversion to organic farming have now

stagnated for years, after increasing rap-

idly in the early stages.

Farmers face enormous challengesThere is no doubt that the close-to-nature,

animal-friendly livestock management

methods required by taxpayers and con-

sumers demands a great deal from farm-

ers. Quite apart from acquiring additional

expertise and skills, they must also accept

a number of fundamental changes in the

way they grow crops and keep their ani-

mals, including the resultant investment

in buildings, equipment and machinery.

For example, the cost of a new but rea-

sonably-priced building to house dairy

cattle or pigs can easily exceed one mil-

lion Swiss Francs. Many farmers therefore

find themselves faced with difficult deci-

sions and huge challenges. They can only

manage these successfully if they are re-

lieved of the need to take on additional re-

sponsibilities and burdens, and if the state

and its citizens provide them with the ap-

propriate level of support. It is of vital

importance that farmers are able to sell

their quality products (free-range eggs,

labelled meat) over a long period of time.

However, this is still difficult; apart from

Coop and Migros, retailers such as Spar,

Lidl, Aldi and Volg have hitherto only of-

fered a very limited range of producer-la-

belled meat and organic products, as has

the hospitality industry.

Swiss farmers face an enormous chal-

lenge in their desire to fulfil the demands

and wishes of consumers, taxpayers and

the government for an increase in ani-

mal protection and more animal-friendly

livestock management – though the in-

dustry is determined to take on the task.

Nevertheless, we can foresee that a free

trade agreement (FTA) would put severe

pressure on Swiss farm prices, and that

the volume of domestic production would

fall as the result of an increase in feed

and foodstuff imports. According to gov-

ernment sources, income from farming

would diminish from the current 3 billion

Swiss Francs to 1.6 billion Swiss Francs.

From SAP’s point of view, we ques-

tion whether an FTA would inspire or

stifle the current efforts with regard to

quality production (animal welfare; in-

tegrated production/organic farms; en-

vironmental protection and nature con-

servation measures, quality and safety of

foodstuffs). Up to now, these efforts have

been desired by consumers and taxpayers,

and have become accepted in the mean-

time by the majority of farmers To put it

bluntly: Is an FTA a fit vehicle for Swit-

zerland’s intended role as a pioneer of in-

tegrated/organic and free-range produc-

tion, or would it simply encourage inten-

sive farming, cruel forms of transporta-

tion and a reduction in environmental

protection and nature conservation?

The whole world needs to catch up The farmers of the world would proba-

bly be able to feed the world’s population

given a “fair” distribution system, care-

ful management of reserves, reasonably

profitable production methods – which do

not in any way exclude integrated pro-

duction or organic farming methods –

and a diet containing little meat. There

would be no need for one sixth of the

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


population to be under-nourished or mal-

nourished. However, increasing prosper-

ity always leads to a change in demand.

The increase in the demand for meat, eggs

and dairy products is a global phenome-

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

linked to positive economic development

in many countries that were previously

poor. However, the expansion of global

animal production creates new problems

as far as ecology and animal welfare are

concerned. Still, we are hardly in a posi-

tion to criticise this development, when

our society has already experienced this

prosperity and its consequences. By the

mid 1980s, average meat consumption in

Switzerland reached a peak of over 80 kg

per person. It started to decline from that

point, and is currently around 50 kg per

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

sumption is now relatively moderate in

Switzerland, and is certainly about 30 to

50 kg per head lower than in the EU and

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 farm-

ing has fallen in recent years in Switzer-

land, whilst it is increasing at a breath-

taking 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 cat-

tle 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 ani-

mal husbandry.

Shortage of agricultural land puts up the pricesThe increase in the production of agricul-

tural crops and animals (with or without

genetic engineering) has reached biologi-

cal, economical and ethical limits, thus

intensifying the above shortage process.

There is no question of a further doubling

of milk, meat and egg production per ani-

mal, as was experienced during the past

fifty years.

The agricultural land that is already

workable can no longer be expanded to

any significant extent. In fact, long-term

mismanagement has lead to a decline

in soil fertility and a submission to ero-

sion in many corners of the globe. Like-

wise, the deforestation of (virgin) forests

for land reclamation has also come up

against ecological, ethical and political

limits. The situation is further aggravated

by the increased planting of crops for en-

ergy production. These arable areas and

the crops growing on them have now be-

come unavailable for the production of

food for man and beast.

Globally, agricultural land to feed hu-

manity will become ever scarcer – even

if the population of the world were to

stay at its present level. The demand for

food (and especially for foodstuffs derived

from animals) will increase further, and it

will not be possible to offset this demand

by further rises in productivity and effi-

ciency. It is certainly no coincidence that

the Chinese, South Koreans, Gulf States

and Americans are buying up agricultural

land, chiefly in Africa. African land own-

ers whose only concern is a short-term

profit are already reputed to have sold

almost 20 million square metres of land.

This is equivalent to a quarter of all the

agricultural land in Europe.

The scarcity of farming land will re-

sult in world-wide price increases for ag-

ricultural products, possibly causing the

trend of the past decades towards ever

cheaper food to go into reverse. We will

then be obliged to spend a greater pro-

portion of our household budget to feed

ourselves.

Fortunately, the prognoses made by the Club of Rome and other pessimists in the 1970s and 1980s have failed to ma-terialise. Global population has grown much less dramatically than was fore-cast. Agricultural scientists, consultants and farmers have been extremely suc-cessful 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-lay-ing hens, and the introduction of space-saving, labour-saving forms of livestock manage-ment), mechanisation and inten-sification (e.g. advances in feed produc-tion and feeding meth-ods, plus the intro-duction of selective breeding for perform-ance), it has been possible to reduce the production costs for animal products dra-matically 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 con-sumption. Daily consumption of meat was once the privilege of the wealthy few, but it soon became a matter of course as it be-came 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 perform-ance 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 fat-tening 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 fat-tened to provide ever more meat, so that two-thirds of the carcass now consists of “prime” cuts. Thanks to advances in sci-ence 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 es-timated that one square metre of arable land will have to be able to provide food for between 5.5 and 6 people by 2050.


Whilst farmers, butchers, the retail trade

and consumers in Switzerland benefited

from the growing meat market and ever

cheaper production between 1965 and

1985, farm animals had to foot the bill.

This was because the space-saving, la-

bour-saving forms of husbandry and se-

lective breeding for performance propa-

gated by scientists and consultants almost

completely neglected the nature and the

biology of the animals. Their needs were

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

than has to be provided for a plant. At that

time, pigs and chickens were even denied

any daylight!

In Switzerland, unlike other coun-

tries, opposition to this form of farming

was swift, powerful and effective. As a re-

sult of the resistance to agro-industriali-

sation, comprehensive animal protection

legislation was enacted in 1981, banning

some particularly extreme forms of live-

stock management. These included keep-

ing farm animals in continuous darkness,

cific regulations and detailed dimensions.

Anybody failing to comply with these re-

quirements is open to prosecution. How-

ever, those who do fulfil the requirements

may be far from providing their animals

with animal-friendly management. In

general, we can state that the threshold

for animal cruelty is more restrictive in

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

minimum regulations bring greater ben-

efit to the animals.

tethering cattle permanently without pro-

viding straw, muzzling calves and cag-

ing piglets. The Swiss legislation quickly

gained worldwide recognition because of

its ban on battery hens.

After the transitional period expired,

various other animal protection regula-

tions were ratified under pressure from

animal protection organisations between

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

ering and crating of sows during gesta-

tion, as well as on slatted, perforated and

gridded floors in new housings for cattle

and swine. The regulation stipulating that

farm animals (other than piglets) could

no longer be castrated unless pain-killing

drugs had been administered also origi-

nates from this period. Nevertheless, these

regulations were not always implemented

with equal rigour: during the 1990s, the

control committees of the Swiss upper

and lower parliament were preoccupied

with the inadequacy of the implementa-

tion of the animal protection legislation

in many cantons.

New, comprehensively revised ani-

mal 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 regula-

tions 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, edu-

cation and information of animal owners

was another new feature.

Neither the five EU farm animal di-

rectives (protection of farm animals;

calves; pigs, laying hens, battery hens)

nor the new Swiss animal welfare legis-

lation define optimum animal protection

standards; instead, they simply define the

threshold for cruelty to animals, with spe-

Ever cheaper food – livestock pays the price

Four distinctions are of particular interest with regard to animal welfare

1. While Swiss animal protection legis-lation specifies detailed regulations and minimum dimensions for all farm ani-mals, EU directives ignore aspects such as the keeping of cattle, turkeys, ostriches and other types of bird (except for chick-ens), sheep, goats and horses. This means that millions of farm animals in the EU have no legal protection whatsoever.

2. The EU does not appoint a technical in-spectorate for animal protection. In Swit-zerland, in contrast, any mass produced housing systems and livestock buildings offered for sale must be checked and ap-proved for compliance with animal pro-tection requirements and suitability. This benefits the farmers when they buy sys-tems of this nature and, of course, it also benefits the animals housed within them.

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 re-strictions, beaks may also be clipped, tails may be docked and piglets’ teeth may be pulled out, none of which are permitted in Switzerland.

4. 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.

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


In Switzerland, the keeping of all farm an-

imals is regulated specifically and in detail

in the animal protection legislation. In the

EU, there are no binding guidelines for the

following species:

Cows, beef cattle for fatten-ing, turkeys, ostriches and other types of fowl (except chick-

ens), sheep, goats and horses.

Calves: in Switzerland, calves must be

kept in groups from the second week they

are born. In the EU, this regulation only

applies from the eighth week. The require-

ment to keep animals in groups only ap-

plies to larger stocks of animals in the EU.

Smaller holdings of six or fewer calves

may be kept individually. In Switzerland,

calves can also be kept alone if they have

a free run outside. Only in Switzerland

are straw-bedded areas specified for the

calves to lie down. In the EU, calves may

be housed in bays with slatted floors.

Pigs: multi-tier piglet cages are permit-

ted in the EU, in contrast to Switzerland.

The same pattern applies to the castration

of piglets without pain relief. From 2010,

pigs for fattening will have more space in

Switzerland than in the EU (9m2 instead of

0.65m2). However, straw bedding for pigs

to lie down is not stipulated in Switzer-

land or in the EU. The EU plans to ban

slatted floors from 2013 onwards whilst

Switzerland will continue to allow these

until 2018. The lot of sows is much better

in Switzerland than in the EU. In the EU,

suckling pigs may be kept permanently in

crates, whilst those in gestation may be

kept in crates for up to four weeks follow-

ing mating. In Switzerland suckling pigs

are allowed to roam freely. Sows in ges-

tation may only be caged for a maximum

of ten days following mating and must

thereafter live in group housing systems.

Tail-docking and tooth-clipping are for-

bidden in Switzerland; they are not per-

mitted routinely in the EU, but may be un-

dertaken in justified cases.

Laying hens: in the EU, there is no

requirement for straw bedding so that the

hens can scratch, pick or take dust baths;

in Switzerland, this is mandatory. Beak

clipping is forbidden in Switzerland; in the

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

battery cages from 2012 onwards, shaped

cages and large cages will still be permit-

ted in the EU, though the eggs will have

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

land, these forms of husbandry were au-

dited by the state’s technical inspectorate

for animal protection (TÜV). Since they

were found to contravene animal protec-

tion standards, they were forbidden.

Fattened chickens: natural day-

light and at least 8 hours of darkness are

obligatory in Switzerland, whilst artificial

lighting and alternating light programs

are permitted in the EU. In Switzerland,

raised areas are required for stretching

and resting, whereas fattening chickens

have to rest on the floor of the stalls in

their own excrement in the EU. The maxi-

mum density of occupation is 30kg/m2 in

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

In other words: if Swiss chicken farmers

were able to produce in accordance with

EU directives, they could cram 50% more

birds into their hen houses.

The key differences between animal welfare legislation in Switzerland and the EU

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

* The new 2008 Swiss animal protection leg-islation 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 cat-tle, 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.

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 coun-terparts in the EU*. Switzerland has con-crete, 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).


erable impact on livestock management

in practice, and can influence husbandry

standards so that they are raised beyond

the minimum requirements of the animal

protection legislation.

SAP therefore carried out a survey of

the distribution of forms of husbandry

that are particularly animal-friendly (pas-

The standard of protection for farm ani-

mals in any country is primarily defined

by that nation’s animal welfare legisla-

tion. However, Switzerland’s example

shows that consumer demand (for labelled

meat and free-range eggs) can join gov-

ernment programmes for the promotion

of animal protection to exert a consid-

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

ture-grazing, exercise, outdoor and or-

ganic animal husbandry) in EU countries.

The questionnaire was sent to national or-

ganic and labelling organisations, agri-

cultural authorities, scientists and animal

welfare organisations. They were asked to

estimate the distribution of grazing pas-

ture and outdoor runs for cattle, pigs and

chickens. The Research Institute of Or-

ganic 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 Switzer-

land. 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-

ther ahead of other countries or shared

first place for animal-friendly husbandry

in practically all the species under inves-

tigation. Taking all animal categories into

account, Switzerland exhibits by far the

highest percentage of particularly ani-

mal-friendly forms of farming (pasture-

grazing/outdoor runs/free-range/group

husbandry) in comparison with the rest

of Europe.

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

Switzerland leads the way now, and for the future

The survey in detail

CH A NL F S D FIN GB DK B IRL PL EST

Pasture-grazing dairy cattle 80 20-40 60-80 10 80* 20-40 60-80* 80 40-60 80 60-80 60-80 20-40

Beef cattle with outdoor run 50 5-10 80 10 80* 5-10 60-80* 60-80 80 10-20 60-80 40-60 60-80

Gestating sows with o/door run 66 <5 <5 <5 5 -10 5-10 <5 40-60 <5 <5 <5 5-10 <5

Porkers with outdoor run 62 <5 <5 <5 5 -10 5-10 5-10 5-10 <5 <5 <5 5-10 <5

Free-range laying hens 69 20-40 10-20 10-20 20-40 10-20 10-20 40-60 20-40 20-40 20-40 <5 5-10

Gest. sows, group husbandry 100 20-40 60-80 10-20 80 40-60 5 100 40-60 20-40 20-40 40-60 80

* The high fi gures 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.

CH A NL F S D FIN GB DK B IRL PL EST

Pasture-grazing dairy cattle 80 20-40 60-80 10 80* 20-40 60-80* 80 40-60 80 60-80 60-80 20-40

50 5-10 80 10 80* 5-10 60-80* 60-80 80 10-20 60-80 40-60 60-80

Gestating sows with o/door run 66 <5 <5 <5 5 -10 5-10 <5 40-60 <5 <5 <5 5-10 <5

62 <5 <5 <5 5 -10 5-10 5-10 5-10 <5 <5 <5 5-10 <5

Free-range laying hens 69 20-40 10-20 10-20 20-40 10-20 10-20 40-60 20-40 20-40 20-40 <5 5-10

100 20-40 60-80 10-20 80 40-60 5 100 40-60 20-40 20-40 40-60 80


The introduction of labelling programmes

in Switzerland can be attributed to the an-

imal protection organisations KAGfrei-

land and Swiss Animal Protection SAP,

which began to name and market barn

eggs and free-range eggs at the end of the

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

gate the management of mother cows and

nursing cows and their products (“Natu-

rabeef”) and launched the “Agri-Natura”

label with fenaco (the Swiss agricultural

organisation) in 1989. Meat and eggs

were sold under this label in branches of

the K-3000 supermarket chain, and the

husbandry methods were monitored by

SAP. In turn, this prompted Coop and Mi-

gros to back the animal protection label

with conviction from the 1990s.

The result has been impressive: by to-

day, labelled meat and barn/free-range

eggs generate around CHF 2 billion an-

nually, which is about 50% of the retail

trade. Animal protection labelling on meat

and eggs has not achieved a significance

anywhere near that of Switzerland in any

EU country. In the EU, the animal welfare/

meat segment is mainly dominated by or-

ganic products. As in Switzerland, how-

ever, they only represent a few percent of

overall consumption – if they are avail-

able at all – and are thus extreme niche

products. In contrast, free-range eggs and

labelled meat from non-organic farms in

Switzerland have escaped from the niche

corner, thanks to the retail giants Mi-

gros and Coop, where they are practically

standard products.

The situation is less satisfactory in the

case of Aldi, Lidl, Spar and Volg, where

animal protection/labelled meat is rare

or even non-existent. The role played by

the catering sector is even more worry-

ing for the further development of ani-

mal-friendly methods of farming and the

spread of the corresponding quality prod-

ucts – roughly 50% of the meat consumed

in Switzerland flows through this chan-

nel. With a very few laudable exceptions,

customers will mostly seek free-range

eggs and animal protection/labelled meat

in vain here, even at highly acclaimed res-

taurants. Imports from intensive farming

systems predominate by some distance.

“Labelling made all the difference” How animal welfare entered the stalls

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 Switzer-land:

PAS (GVE):

Very low (less than 20%): BullocksLow (20 to 40%): Dairy cattle, beef cattle, bulls, calves, goats, broody hens.

ROEL (GVE):

Very low (less than 20%): Fattening calves, rabbits, brooders, pullets, fatten-ing chickens. Low (20 to 40%): Bullocks, rearing calves, calves less than 4 months old.

In other words: Even in Switzerland, mil-lions 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 farm-ing 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 mar-ket and the state, to the advantage of an-imal-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 particu-larly 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 addi-tional expenditure often associated with systems of this nature.

The emergence of labels has contributed significantly to im-proved farm animal husbandry


Switzerland has maintained the rural

character of its farming industry for var-

ious reasons (tradition, organic/closed-

loop philosophy, agro-policies). Its farms

often feature several kinds of animal,

moderate stock densities per stall and a

balance between the feed-growing area

and the yield of farm manure. Switzer-

land held a serious public debate from

the end of the 1970s, in contrast to other

countries, strongly questioning single-

sided specialisation and the management

of livestock in industrial/commercial en-

terprises on land that did not belong to

those enterprises (tenant farmers). Leg-

islators reacted to these discussions by

instigating a number of measures; they

regulated the required grazing area and

limited the number of animals per square

metre; more particularly, they also set

the maximum permitted stocking den-

sity for animal husbandry. Holdings that

previously housed larger numbers of ani-

mals had to reduce their herds during the

1980s. Ever since, repeated attempts have

been made in parliament to abolish or di-

lute the stocking density limits, but these

have (so far) been rebuffed by a majority

of politicians.

Opposing trend abroadIn contrast, the specialisation and con-

centration process continued unabated

in other countries. Intensive and factory

farms with tens of thousands of pigs and

hundreds of thousands of chickens are not

just common practice in the USA, Brazil

and other countries – they also exist in

various regions of the EU. By way of com-

parison: a pig owner in Switzerland keeps

an average of 160 animals. In Germany,

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

Germany live in the federal state of Lower

Saxony, where each farm keeps an aver-

age of 600 swine. A farm in the Nether-

lands has an average of 1160 and in Den-

mark as many as 1510 pigs per farm. Simi-

lar variations can be found in farms keep-

ing laying hens and broiler chickens. Even

in Austria, which is dominated by rural

farms, they keep an average of 20,000

broiler chickens compared with 6,000 in

Switzerland. In Germany, a single hold-

ing will keep an average of 50,000 broiler

chickens. The seven largest owners of lay-

ing hens in the German state of Sachsen-

Anhalt alone keep almost as many laying

hens as all the Swiss egg producers put

together, i.e. 2.3 million animals.

There is no question that a litre of

milk, a kilogram of meat or a dozen eggs

can be produced more cheaply on hold-

ings 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 Ger-

man magazine Der Spiegel ran an arti-

cle 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-

duction increased beyond the previously-

restricted volumes within the EU, as it

did in Switzerland; this led to an imme-

Rural livestock manage-ment or intensive farming?

High animal densities do not necessar-

ily act against the interests of the animal.

However, examples such as free-range ar-

rangements of 50,000 or more laying hens

and broiler chickens cannot be justified

for ethical, ecological or hygienic reasons.

It is a fact that chickens will never stray

more than 50 to 100 metres from their

base location, even under the most fa-

vourable conditions for cover. These huge

animal numbers will therefore congregate

around the shed, resulting in the corre-

sponding over-fertilisation, excess slurry

and danger of vermin.

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


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 cre-

ate a situation where price dumping will

cause hardship for producers in other

countries (in Africa, for instance). It is al-

most unbelievable how naïve or callous

the EU Commission have been in their use

of this misguided policy, ruining first do-

mestic and then foreign dairy farmers –

not to mention the consequences for ani-

mal welfare.

Human-animal relationships sacrificed in the drive for maximisation In general, large holdings of animals con-

taining 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

illnesses, and causes enormous economic

damage if such a case occurs. However,

the greatest objection to intensive farm-

ing from the point of view of animal wel-

fare is the fact that the relationship be-

tween man and beast suffers, as do the

care and supervision of the animals. We

must surely know that the most modern

free-range housing and the most gener-

ous outdoor animal husbandry will al-

ways be only as good as the owner look-

ing after the well-being and health of his

or her animals. Apart from keeping the

animals properly, the essential element of

any form of livestock management is an

intensive relationship between man and

animal. This is only possible with rural

husbandry methods in units that can be

properly monitored.

Both Switzerland and the EU have de-

tailed regulations for transportation.

The major differences affecting the ani-

mals are the rules governing the limits on

transportation times and the implementa-

tion and enforcement of the regulations.

In Switzerland, the maximum transporta-

tion time allowed from the point of load-

ing to the slaughterhouse is 6 hours, and

through-transit of animals destined for

the slaughterhouse is now also forbidden

by law.

In the EU, long distance transporta-

tion lasting several days and crossing

national borders is permitted, as long as

suitable vehicles are used and there is

compliance with rest times. For example,

it is acknowledged that pigs and horses

are carted about for up to 40 to 60 hours.

Official bodies and animal protection or-

ganisations all confirm that the long dis-

tance transportation of animals for the

slaughterhouse often fails to comply with

the regulations, and that there is a lack

of controls and sanctions. Overcrowd-

ing, lack of water, failure to comply with

rest times and a lack of necessary animal

rest and feeding stations appear to be the

norm. The export of thousands of EU cat-

tle for slaughter to North Africa, Lebanon

and Egypt is a particular animal welfare

problem; after a long journey by road, the

animals are shipped by sea to their des-

tination to be killed in accordance with

religious rites.

Transportation encourages the spread of epidemics Luckily, Switzerland has had to face only

a fraction of the animal epidemics famil-

iar to the EU. This situation has been aided

by costly health and prophylaxis pro-

grammes, and the fact that there has not

yet been any intensive cross-border trad-

ing in farm animals. Without doubt, the

ban on the cross-border transit of cloven-

hoofed animals, which has been in force

for decades, has also contributed.

The Federal Council tried to rescind

this ban in 2006, under pressure from the

EU, but the animal protection and farm-

ing organisations put up a furious fight

against them. The national and state

parliaments then incorporated a ban in

the animal protection legislation on the

through-transit of animals for slaugh-

ter (incl. horses and poultry). Experts

agree that the ban on the transit of ani-

Backward step in animal transportation and slaughter


mals would come under pressure if a free

trade agreement was concluded, and that

it would inevitably be rescinded in the

medium term. There is no sign that the

EU will ban long-distance transportation,

with its resultant cruelty to animals, or

that it will adopt the Swiss 6-hour trans-

portation time ruling.

Clear rules governing slaughterIn the new animal protection legislation

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 im-

plementation are expected to come into

force in 2011. The EU has had a direc-

tive 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 implemen-

tation regulations should control aspects

such as important animal protection de-

tails (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 dif-

ference in animal protection provision,

all other indications are that the regula-

tions governing the protection of animals

in abattoirs in Switzerland will be very

similar to those in the EU. Whether this

similarity on paper will apply in practice

mainly depends upon the quality of the

controls carried out in slaughterhouses.

There are considerable differences in size

and processing capacity between abat-

toirs in Switzerland and the EU. The three

largest abattoirs in the EU (Vion, Smith-

field and Tönnies) slaughter as many pigs

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 to-

gether 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 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 slaughter-

ing facilities in Switzerland use CO2 gas

as an anaesthetic, with the animals be-

ing led singly or in groups to the stun-

ning facility. Between 240 and 300 ani-

mals are slaughtered every hour. The EU

uses CO2 gas as an anaesthetic, plus elec-

trical stunning incorporating a restrainer,

achieving significantly higher slaughter-

ing frequency than in Switzerland. With

gas stunning, the capacity is around 350

to 600 animals per hour, while it is up to

600 animals per hour for electrical stun-

ning 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 an-

imals 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. Electri-

cal stunning is also the preferred method

for poultry in the EU, but the slaughter-

ing frequency is considerably greater here

than in Switzerland, at 12,000 to 13,000

birds an hour.

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

The slaughtering process involves one im-portant difference from the perspective of animal protection. In Swiss abattoirs, ad-vance stunning is mandatory for mam-mals. 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 Coun-cil wanted to allow this practice in Swit-zerland, and to revoke the ban on ritual slaughter that has been in place since 1893. However, this idea was dropped af-ter vehement protests from vets and ani-mal protection organisations. Neverthe-less, Switzerland does allow imports in order to supply devout Jews and Muslims with kosher and halal meat. According to SAP’s discussions with Muslim authori-ties, 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 “momen-tary electrical stunning” has been used.


Piecework with an error rateCompared to the situation thirty or forty

years ago, Swiss abattoirs are also run-

ning at a relatively high slaughtering fre-

quency. This depends on the optimum lay-

out and organisation for both equipment

and processes (from the animal’s point of

view, this would include: animal deliv-

ery/transport, unloading, driving, accom-

modating, calming, driving to the stun-

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 Swit-

zerland. On the other hand, an increasing

number of small, regional slaughtering

plants are disappearing because, for ex-

ample, they would have to invest heavily

to achieve equality with the EU meat reg-

ulations. 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 ba-

sis. This is very painful for the animal and

contravenes animal protection rules. Hav-

ing been stunned by gas or an electrical

device, the animals must be stabbed as

quickly as possible so that they bleed to

death and don’t regain consciousness. At

such extreme frequencies, abattoir per-

sonnel have just 6 seconds to stab the

animal correctly with a hollow knife. It

is therefore hardly surprising that 1% of

the animals are not stabbed correctly and

are transported fully conscious for fur-

ther processing (the scalding plant). This

horrific scenario could be affecting 2.5

million of the roughly 250 million pigs

slaughtered in the EU. Even though these

abuses are known to the operators and

the regulatory authorities, experts main-

tain that nothing has hitherto been done

within the EU to combat the cruelty to

animals.

Large EU abattoir: extremely high slaughtering frequen-cies lead to animal cruelty

The consequence of lengthy transportation within the EU

In Great Britain, up to 30% of laying •

hens suffered fractures and dislocated

limbs as they were caught and loaded.

The figures for turkeys and broilers were

10% and 7% respectively. The stresses

of the journey and dense loading con-

ditions weaken the chickens’ immune

system, quickly leading to a powerful

spreading of salmonella germs via ex-

crement and soiling. The problem of

salmonella is insignificant in Switzer-

land, thanks to a sophisticated system

and animal-friendly farming, but it was

found to be present in between 20% and

40% of the poultry houses in the EU.

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

2 million pigs) die during transporta-

tion in the EU. For poultry, the estimate

is in the order of 10 million birds. The

financial loss resulting from the death

of animals in this way is about 300 mil-

lion euros every year. Yet deaths dur-

ing transportation are just the tip of the

iceberg; these harsh transportation con-

ditions also compromise the quality of

the meat. Every fourth pig slaughtered

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

dative: watery meat). This represents a

total of 45 million animals, resulting in

an estimated economic loss of 1.5 bil-

lion euros.

Transportation is not checked with any •

degree of seriousness, and it contrib-

utes to the spread of epidemics. During

an outbreak of foot and mouth disease

in the United Kingdom in 2001, the vi-

rus was transported to the Netherlands

through the trade in animals. The re-

sult: 6.5 million head of cattle had to

be slaughtered and the financial loss

amounted to 23 billion euros. In 2003,

avian flu broke out in the Netherlands

and northern Italy. 31 million chickens

had to be slaughtered and the finan-

cial loss was in the order of 500 million

euros. There was a further outbreak of

avian flu on a farm in the United King-

dom in 2007. Another 160,000 turkeys

had to be killed. This virus didn’t come

from a migratory bird – it came from a

lorry that had been in contact with in-

fected flocks in Hungary.


Statutory and private-law animal welfare

regulations are only successful if they are

implemented and monitored by farm-

ers. Swiss animal welfare legislation was

hardly ever enforced by veterinary offic-

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

tonal vet who was also president of the

Association of Swiss Veterinary Surgeons

sent farmers a paper tape measure as a

means of enforcement with the request

to: “Now take measurements!” Only after

direct payments were started in the mid-

1990s (when the enforcement of animal

protection laws was also transferred to

the Federal Office for Agriculture and the

cantonal agricultural authorities), were

regulations implemented properly and

more consistent controls and sanctions

introduced. This arrangement excludes

livestock management in farms not enti-

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

ers keeping pigs for fattening/breeding,

hobby farmers and businesses managed

by those aged over 65. In these cases, the

veterinary authorities would continue to

be instructed.

Interestingly, agricultural officers,

who are more closely associated with

farmers, have achieved more than those

veterinary authorities who are responsible

for animal protection. Organic and “IP-

Suisse” farms are checked on an annual

basis, whilst “ÖLN” (ecological perform-

ance certified) farms are examined every

three years, including for their compli-

ance with animal protection legislation.

End advance notice for inspectionsFarmers who fail to comply with the animal

protection regulations and are sentenced

for their offence risk a substantial reduc-

tion in their direct payments. However, the

crux of the matter is that the majority of

government inspections are announced in

advance (with the exception of a very few

cantons, where PAS and ROEL farms are

checked on a random basis, without prior

announcement). There are good reasons for

this approach, and it is completely accept-

able for crop production, for example. On

the other hand, it makes it more difficult

to make a qualitative assessment of animal

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

imals and the provision of straw bedding or

outdoor exercise) because a crafty farmer

will have quickly cleaned up his/her act be-

fore the inspector’s visit.

On the other hand, farms that partici-

pate in the labelling programme are sub-

ject to additional inspections. For exam-

ple, the Coop Naturafarm label requires

that farmers keeping pigs, broiler chick-

ens and calves are visited at least once

every year by experts from Swiss Ani-

mal Protection SAP, and – in contrast to

the government and most other labelling

inspections – that these visits should al-

ways be unannounced. The SAP inspec-

tion service comprises a team of ten peo-

ple, including farmers, agricultural en-

gineers and vets; it is accredited by the

government and is subject to an annual

audit by these authorities. Sanctions for

unsatisfactory farms are set by the label

owner and client rather than the monitor-

ing service. Such sanctions could range

from a ban on deliveries to a termination

of the cooperation agreement. Further-

more, the SAP monitoring service under-

takes animal transportation and abattoir

inspections throughout Switzerland on

behalf of Coop and Migros/IP-Suisse, for

the “Naturafarm” (Coop) and “TerraSu-

isse” (Migros/IP-Suisse) labels.

Superficial controls in the EUIn places where the EU has enacted spe-

cific and binding guidelines for the pro-

tection of farm animals (welfare of farm

(Animal-protection) law is only as good as its execution

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


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 consid-

erable differences between the different

countries, many of which did not system-

atically maintain records of the controls,

the survey methods were not standardised

and the events were not notified to Brus-

sels within the deadlines stipulated. These

facts are reminiscent of the Business Au-

dit Commission’s reports on the enforce-

ment 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

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-

lowing implementation of the guidelines

on the protection of farm animals. This

report highlights the results of the checks

undertaken in the 15 member states. These

clearly illustrate that in many farms and

member states implementation of the reg-

ulations and controls is lacking.

Austria obviously takes the controls

very seriously: on 1,543 laying hen farms

that were monitored an unbelievable 7,000

infringements were identified! Relatively

high complaint rates were displayed by

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

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

there was not a single violation in Greece

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

lar for calves: for 9,378 farms visited in

Austria, 26,700 transgressions were iden-

tified. Even France (78%), Great Britain

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

Germany (28%) were responsible for a rel-

atively high rate of non-compliance. In

Greece, in contrast, only a single animal

welfare offender was found among 1,100

calf establishments visited. The complaint

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

control of pigs presented an equally dubi-

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

tria 12,000 infringements were registered.

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

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

played high complaint rates. In contrast,

all 403 pig farms checked in Greece were

supposedly found to be in order. In Italy

142 violations were found in the 10,868

stalls examined, corresponding to 1.3%.

The European “Compassion in World

Farming” welfare organisation for farm

animals visited 74 pig farms in Denmark,

Hungary, Germany, Spain, the Nether-

lands 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 Occurrence Tail-docking/ Environmental Tooth-clipping enrichmentDK 100% 67%D 79% 89%H 70% 70%NL 100% 88%E 100% 100%UK 54% 36%

The study came to the conclusion that

these EU animal welfare regulations were

only practised by a very small minority

of farms.

A Swiss farm that looks after the needs of the animals

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


Let us return to the question we posed at

the beginning: will a free trade agreement

(FTA) tend to inspire or stifle the current

wish of consumers and taxpayers for ef-

forts surrounding quality production (an-

imal welfare, integrated production (IP)

and organic farming, environmental pro-

tection and nature conservation meas-

ures, and the quality and safety of food)?

By now, these desires have also been ac-

cepted by the majority of farmers. Is an

FTA a suitable vehicle to achieve Switzer-

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

ganic and free-range farming methods, or

would it encourage factory farming, cruel

transportation methods and a reduction

in environmental protection and nature

conservation?

We can’t have our cake and eat it tooSwiss Animal Protection SAP detects

signs that the latter outcome will prevail

– Swiss farmers are hardly in a position

to take on both of these major challenges

(quality products/environmental protec-

tion/animal protection on the one hand,

free trade on the other) simultaneously

and implement them successfully, unless

we accept that Swiss agriculture will only

play a subordinate role in the provision

of food for the population in future. Most

food would have to be imported, and only

a few farms would be kept and managed

as especially animal-friendly examples,

in natural surroundings – as models of

the “good old days”, as it were.

We cannot have it both ways, as the

Federal Council would dearly prefer. As

far as SAP is concerned, the priorities

are clear: to start with, Swiss agriculture

and its upstream and downstream stages

must strive for quality production, as de-

manded by the taxpayers and consumers.

In view of the major challenges ahead,

agricultural policy must not make con-

tradictory demands for both quality pro-

duction and free trade. Instead, it must fo-

cus intently on IP, organic and free-range

husbandry, with the aim of creating an

independent farming culture with a high

level of self-sufficiency – subject to ani-

mal-friendly management and near-nat-

ural cultivation.

SAP agrees with the Federal Council

that the elimination of tariffs and the ex-

pansion of the free traffic in goods, mer-

chandise and services have historically led

to continuous economic progress, innova-

tion and an increased standard of living.

Switzerland, as a small country lacking

raw materials, has always encouraged and

benefited from these developments. How-

ever, SAP is of the opinion that the pos-

itive consequences of free trade mainly

apply to goods and merchandise in Sec-

tors 2 and 3, and that it should only be

carried over in a limited manner, with the

utmost caution – if at all – to global trad-

ing in foods and the corresponding raw

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

this sector, unrestricted free trade is an

option that usually leads to losers and un-

desirable dependencies, and would open

the door to speculation involving food-

stuffs. Every country should be able to

secure the highest possible contribution

towards feeding its own population, sub-

ject to ecological and animal protection

constraints.

This requirement arises to a signifi-

cant extent from the fundamental differ-

ences between the production principles

and locations of farms compared with

those of Sectors 2 and 3. In contrast to a

factory or a service organisation, arable

land and livestock holdings cannot sud-

denly be raised from the dead once they

have been closed down. Humans have

little or no influence on factors (climate,

weather, quality of the land, emergence

of epidemics in animals) that play an im-

portant role in the production of food.

A farmer is tied to his farm, whereas the

owner of a company can relocate his busi-

ness (almost) anywhere.

Whilst an air of scepticism towards

the EU is dominant in the Swiss popula-

tion, the Federal Council sees great eco-

nomic and healthcare opportunities for

our country through closer collaboration.

Two years ago, therefore, and to the sur-

prise of the EU Commission, the Federal

Council proposed an extensive liberalisa-

tion of agricultural trade, including the

adoption of the EU law governing food

and public health. Brussels agreed without

further ado – and with very good reason: it

is hardly a secret that several EU countries

have long hoped for such a radical open-

ing of the market so that they can let their

over-production of dairy products and

meat flow off into Switzerland. After all,

the high purchasing power of our country

is a real attraction to EU exporters.

The position of Swiss Animal Protection SAP with regard to the Swiss-EU free trade agreement

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


Weighing up the disadvantagesThe possible benefits for Switzerland from

the proposed agricultural free trade agree-

ment with the EU are by no means clear.

The EU farming industry over-produces;

it now supplies halves of pork and chick-

ens to countries as far as China, and pow-

dered milk as far as Africa – with con-

sequences that are often negative for lo-

cal farmers, who cannot compete with

the dumping prices subsidised by the EU.

In contrast, Switzerland hardly competes

at all with foreign farmers, except for a

few exports of cheese. Roughly a third of

the food consumed in Switzerland is al-

ready being imported, and our farmers are

therefore not exactly ecstatic about the

planned liberalisation of the market and

huge increase in imports. They fear in-

creased pressure on producers’ prices, a

fall in production volumes and the end of

the domestic fodder production that ac-

counts for roughly 10% of the value of

farmed products (since imports of maize,

forage cereals and soya would become

cheaper and increase dramatically). The

Federal Council’s scenario indicates that

these fears are justified. This assumes that

income from the agricultural sector will

fall drastically from 3 billion Swiss Francs

to 1.6 billion Swiss Francs if a free trade

agreement is introduced.

Abandonment of an inde-pendent farming industryFood production is about to be concen-

trated abroad, just at a time when the ag-

ricultural land needed to feed mankind

is becoming increasingly scarce, and it

is clear that the prices for agricultural

commodities and foodstuffs will rise. The

trend towards cheaper and cheaper food

at our latitudes over the past few decades

will reverse, and household expenditure

on food could once again increase. SAP

is of the opinion that Switzerland would

be well advised to strive for its own sep-

arate farming industry in these troubled

times, with a focus on maximum self-suf-

ficiency. In providing food for its popula-

tion, it should acquire a certain independ-

ence – on the basis of animal-friendly

management in natural surroundings.

However, the consequences of the

planned free trade agreement with the EU

act against this idea; farmers’ incomes

would fall by around 50%, and declining

domestic production would be compen-

sated by additional imports that fail to

meet Swiss standards from an ecological

or animal protection point of view. This

would result in increasing dependency –

on the one hand, consumers would de-

pend more on imports, while on the other,

the farmers and the downstream sectors

would depend more on exports, and thus

on relatively unpredictable international

markets and agricultural policies.

Additional exports are pie in the skySAP does not share the Federal Council’s

view that any additional imports resulting

from a free trade agreement could be com-

pensated by exporting more Swiss prod-

ucts (cheese, meat and eggs) or animals.

It is true that the EU is home to the proud

figure of 490 million consumers, but at

least some of the EU countries have highly

intensive and extensive animal produc-

tion industries, which are not ecological

and animal-friendly. These industries al-

low those countries to satisfy the demand

for conventional, cheap products of ani-

mal origin by themselves. In contrast, the

demand for organic products and prod-

ucts from animal-friendly husbandry (la-

belled meat) is still in its infancy in the

majority of the EU countries (with the ex-

ception of barn, free-range and organic

eggs). This demand can currently easily

be satisfied by organic and producer-la-

bel farmers within the EU. In the case of

meat exports in particular, only a very few

selected Swiss specialities could possibly

make any headway abroad.

Quite apart from this, we question the

sense and ecological impact of an increase

in imports of foodstuffs that can be pro-

duced just as well in Switzerland, and the

proposed export of Swiss products and

raw materials (dairy products, meat, eggs)

to the EU, where farmers are presumably

just as happy to produce them as here. The

increase in imports and anticipated ex-

ports would quite clearly have a negative

impact on the environment. However, this

is the paradox: the same country that jus-

tifiably promotes environmental protec-

tion and enacts strict regulations is none

other than the country now encouraging

cross-border trade in foodstuffs, though

these can be produced in sufficient quan-

tities abroad just as well as here. Instead

of Swiss farmers producing within their

region and for their region, they are now

supposed to breed and fatten animals for

the EU market, whilst the EU, in return,

is supposed to supply Switzerland with

meat, milk and eggs.

Lower prices, higher subsidiesThe Federal Council believes that con-

sumers would benefit from a free trade

agreement because they would spend less

on food. This may well be true. However,

The FTA will change Swiss agriculture radically


direct payments and subsidies would have

to rise in order to keep the politically

highly-organised Swiss farming commu-

nity happy and ensure their survival. Sup-

porting measures running into billions are

already under discussion to tempt farm-

ers into giving up their farms prematurely.

Any financial gains the consumers may

make in one pocket as a result of the free

trade agreement will quickly disappear

from the other if the State has to draw

higher taxes from them. An agricultural

free trade agreement would therefore end

up being an exercise with no winners and

no losers for consumers and taxpayers,

and the only profit would be made by im-

porters and exporters.

The downside of the lower food prices

in the EU is highlighted by scandals in-

volving rotten meat and other foodstuffs,

the vastly greater number of cases of sal-

monella in laying and fattening hens

and the high frequency of epidemics in

animals. The foot and mouth epidemic

in the United Kingdom and the Nether-

lands in 2001 and the bird flu epidemic

in the Netherlands and northern Italy in

2003 caused losses amounting to 23 bil-

lion Swiss Francs. A free trade agree-

ment could therefore also have a nega-

tive impact on the safety and quality of

our food.

Animal welfare must not be forgottenApart from purely strategic, consumer

and environmental issues, it is the ani-

mal welfare issue in particular that makes

SAP view the planned free trade agree-

ment in a highly sceptical light. For ex-

ample, the FVO study released in the sum-

mer of 2008 and entitled “A Comparison

of Animal Welfare in Switzerland and the

EU” concluded that adopting the EU di-

rectives in the animal welfare area would

not lead to any improvement, but that it

would represent a step backwards for ani-

mals. This clear conclusion was also pos-

sibly the reason why the study was sub-

sequently designated as an FVO working

paper and not publicised. The SAP organ-

isation’s ears pricked up when it heard

the response from the Federal Council

on the postulation presented by Maya

Graf, a member of the National Coun-

cillor, on the “Impact of the EU agricul-

tural free trade agreement on the level of

animal protection and animal husbandry

in farms”. The Federal Council refused to

draw up a report on the consequences of

the FTA for the protection of livestock

and for the hitherto rural nature of Swiss

animal husbandry on farms (no intensive

farming).

Growing pressure on farmers The biggest losers in any free trade agree-

ment with the EU will be the livestock.

In order to compete on cost with inten-

sive farms abroad, Swiss farming meth-

ods (which are hitherto still dominated by

rural farms) would have to give way to

large concerns. Small and medium-sized

farms would come under severe financial

pressure and would either have to give up

or try to convert to organic/label niche

production. Opportunities here are lim-

ited, however, as only Coop and Migros

have seriously considered products from

animal-friendly farming in larger quanti-

ties up to now.

Whilst the Swiss parliament has con-

sistently rejected all attempts to revoke

the ruling on maximum stocking density,

the Federal Council repeatedly attempts

to water down this ordinance. Intensive

farming in stalls containing thousands

of pigs and tens of thousands of chick-

ens is not just viewed with abhorrence

by taxpayers and consumers, given the

quality strategy promoted by the govern-

ment for Swiss farming. It also endan-

gers the welfare and health of the animals.

As far as SAP is concerned, it makes lit-

tle sense to provide fabulous conditions

for a few farm animals in niche produc-

tions, whilst most production is relocated

to large stalls that can never meet the in-

terests 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 downEven though Swiss animal protection leg-

islation only specifies minimum dimen-

sions and regulations for defining the

borderline with animal cruelty, and there-

fore fails to guarantee optimum, animal-

friendly husbandry, Swiss farm animals

still enjoy better legal protection than

their counterparts in the EU. On the one

hand Switzerland has concrete and de-

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


tailed regulations for all farm animals; on

the other, the Swiss regulations are also

more robust in each of the four catego-

ries of animal where EU directives do ex-

ist (calves, pigs, laying hens and fattening

chickens). Since the EU does not have the

will to fill in the gaps in animal protection

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

to strengthen the regulations for calves,

chickens and pigs, the Swiss farm ani-

mal protection regulations will come un-

der political pressure should a free trade

agreement be adopted. No doubt farming

groups and parts of the industry in this

country would soon be calling for a “level

playing field”.

Backward step for animal transportation Switzerland would, with virtual certainty,

have to rescind the current ban on the

through- transit of EU animals destined

for slaughter. There would also be an ex-

pansion of trading in slaughtered animals

across the current borders. Depending on

demand, price and the capacity of abat-

toirs, animals from Switzerland may also

be exported and EU animals imported

for slaughter. This would put automatic

pressure on the unique Swiss maximum

six-hour transportation time, because the

domestic transport industry would be at

a disadvantage compared with EU lorry

drivers. The increase in animal trade and

traffic would introduce epidemics into

the country; these have hitherto been

kept successfully at bay thanks to pre-

vention programmes costing millions of

Swiss Francs, and supported with taxpay-

ers’ money. That would be the end of the

Swiss “island of health” as it still currently

exists in comparison with the EU.

An end to ROEL and PAS?Compared with the rest of Europe, Swit-

zerland either shares first place or is the

leader with regard to animal-friendly

husbandry in practically all the catego-

ries investigated. Switzerland is far ahead

in its share of particularly animal-friendly

farming practices (pasture-grazing, out-

door runs, free-range and group manage-

ment) when every species is taken into

account. Nevertheless, in absolute terms,

the distribution of PAS and ROEL live-

stock husbandry is still below average for

a number of categories of animal in Swit-

zerland too. Even in Switzerland, millions

of farm animals are still denied the right

to regular outdoor exercise and a lot still

has to be done for farmers before we will

be able to talk about Switzerland as a

free-range country.

A free trade agreement could put an

end to developments such as the PAS and

ROEL animal husbandry programmes. One

the one hand, free-range husbandry will

be increasingly difficult where there are

large numbers of animals on each farm,

and will become an environmental prob-

lem. On the other hand, many farmers

will consider carefully where they want

to make their investments if a free trade

agreement is concluded. Many will (have

to) invest in measures to reduce costs and

in large concerns rather than in quality

measures such as improving animal wel-

fare.

Quality has its priceIt is clear that quality production with

an emphasis on animal welfare is a ba-

sic requirement for Swiss farmers to be

able to sell their high-priced products on

the market. Yet there are limits in this re-

spect, too. Consumers are willing to pay

a little more, but the difference in price

between imported and labelled prod-

ucts must not be too great. The conclu-

sion of a free trade agreement will place

the price argument at the forefront at all

levels (farming, processing, retail trade

and consumers), at the expense of qual-

ity. Everybody takes care of their own in-

terests when times are hard – when they

are under financial pressure. Consumers

will become even more price-conscious

when they shop, and will demand more

imported products. Retailers, especially

Aldi and Lidl, have hitherto been virtu-

ally obliged to stock a wide range of Swiss

cheese, meat and eggs, but a free trade

agreement would allow them to turn in-

creasingly to imports.

The same applies to the catering trade.

Up to now, the majority of establishments

have remained “animal-welfare resist-

ant”, mainly preferring to consider prices

rather than concentrating on quality.

The tentative projects launched in recent

years with the aim of capturing the imag-

ination of the catering channel for Swiss

products, and for environmental conser-

vation and animal protection (the WWF

“Gôut mieux” project, advertising for the

efforts of Proviande and the SAP “Essen

mit Herz” project) would have practically

no chance of becoming more widespread,

and would still stay as a small niche in-

terest.

Grab the chanceGiven that a free trade agreement would

result in the arrival of more cheese, meat

and eggs from the EU – and that these

would often be products of intensive

farming, cruel forms of transportation

and environmental pollution – Switzer-

land would then be supporting animal

cruelty and ecological offenders in other

countries. It would make more sense to

promote animal-friendly husbandry and

natural management at home.

SAP’s clear conclusion: animal-

friendly management of livestock and a

high level of animal welfare can not be

provided by command. The main require-

ment is for well-motivated animal owners

who possess the necessary skills and ex-

pertise, and who have animal protection

close to their hearts, in so far as that makes

financial sense. In the end, however, the

most animal-friendly farmer still has to

make a living from the yield produced

by his animals or he might as well shut

up shop. Equally, even the most animal-

friendly consumer cannot hand out un-

limited amounts of money on food. With

an eye towards the free trade agreement,

Economics Professor Mathias Binswanger

quite correctly asked “How much market

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

vided the immediate answer: “Free trade

will not lead to free farmers. On the con-

trary, it will free Switzerland of farmers.”

Swiss Animal Protection SAP · Dornacherstrasse 101 · CH-4008 Baselphone +4161 365 99 99 · fax +4161 365 99 90 · [email protected] · www.animal-protection.net

Glossary and links

Bio-Suisse umbrella association for organic farming organi-

zations in Switzerland.

Club of Rome The Club of Rome is a not-for-profit organisa-

tion. It is a global think tank that deals with a variety of inter-

national political issues.

CO2 Carbon dioxide is a chemical compound composed of two

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

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

by suffocation.

Compassion in World Farming is a European organisa-

tion for farm animals based in England. It mainly campaigns

against factory farms.

Essen mit Herz (Eat with a good conscience). A project run by

Swiss Animal Protection SAP to sensitise consumers shopping

behaviour. www.essenmitherz.ch.

fenaco supplies farmers with the means of production, accepts

their products, which are then processed and marketed. fenaco

also operates the retail chains Volg and LANDI.

FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, founded in

1973. It is a leading worldwide research institute for organic

farming.

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

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

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

grated production operations. IP-SUISSE campaigns for natu-

ral, healthy food production.

KAGfreiland KAGfreiland is a charitable organisation looking

after the well-being of cattle, pigs, chickens etc.

LID Agricultural Information Centre. Press and information

service representing the Swiss farming and foodstuffs indus-

try.

Naturafarm Meat and eggs from animal-friendly farms where

the livestock can roam freely and exercise outdoors. Obtain-

able from Coop.

ÖLN Ecological Certificate of Achievement. ÖLN is supported

by direct payments from the government.

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

isfy the natural requirements of the livestock. Each animal has

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

ing and one where it can rest. The rest area must be equipped

with suitable litter material. PAS is supported by direct pay-

ments from the state.

PHW PHW Group Lohmann & Co. AG is the biggest German

poultry breeder and processor (including “Wiesenhof”).

Proviande Sector organisation for the Swiss meat produc-

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

Proviande.

ROEL Regular Outdoor Exercise for Livestock. The decree gov-

erning regular exercise in the open air for farm animals reg-

ulates access to the pastures during the growing season and

outdoor exercise during the winter months. Direct payments

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

cording to the ROEL programme.

Swiss Animal Protection SAP This animal welfare organisa-

tion was founded in 1861, and has a total of 70 branches in all

the cantons, plus the Principality of Liechtenstein. Specialists

covering different areas of animal welfare work for SAP. The

SAP inspection service is commissioned by various labels to

inspect more than 1000 farms, animal transportation arrange-

ments and abattoirs for compliance with the animal protection

and labelling regulations.

Tenant farmer A farmer with no land of his own to provide

food for his animals.

TerraSuisse Products originating from animal-friendly Swiss

agriculture in natural surroundings. Obtainable from Migros.

Free trade and animal welfare

Documents

Transcript of Free trade and animal welfare