The ongoing revision of the EU animal welfare legislation is a delicate and contentious process. It will become even more problematic if the new rules, that are not known yet, will only be applicable within the EU territory.
This is currently the case, with the most undesirable effect that imported animal products might be produced to lower standards than those of the EU, not only regarding animal welfare but also on the use of veterinary drugs and environmental mitigation measures. This major loophole should be addressed in the revised legislation, because if imported products are not included within the new legislation’s scope, it will fail to fulfil its ethical purpose.
Even in a best-case scenario, where labelling is eventually harmonised and improved across the EU, European consumers will still unknowingly buy and consume (in restaurants, for instance) transformed imported products, continuing to drive unsustainable and cruel practices despite the efforts of EU producers to abide to improved legislation, thus also creating unfair competition.
On this issue, my organisation has been unequivocal for many years: imported animal-derived foods should in principle adhere to the same animal welfare standards as those applied in the EU. In light of the overwhelming support shown by European citizens for measures to improve animal welfare both domestically and for imported products, extending our standards to imports is now a pressing issue.
Who will be affected?
Not only is this the right thing to do but it is also legally feasible. Under international trade rules, it is possible to restrict the trade of specific goods on ethical grounds (“to protect the public morals of EU citizens”). By contrast, the labelling of imported goods, which would restrict trade to a lesser degree, is not an option.
As argued by the EU when it banned the trade in seal products, labelling cannot “meaningfully contribute” to addressing the EU’s public moral concerns. What better case in point than the rules for animal welfare, a topic that is demonstrably important for EU citizens, to test the concept of “mirror measures”’?
We also believe that imposing animal welfare requirements on imports would not detrimentally affect poorer countries. Looking at the largest exporters, it is easy to see that stricter requirements would primarily affect developed countries (United Kingdom, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the US) or middle income countries (Brazil, Argentina, China, and Ukraine).
Producers in these countries are most often big multinationals with the financial and technical means to comply with the updated EU animal welfare requirements. Some of these companies are already adopting the same standards for products destined for local or non-EU markets, and if this happens on a wider scale, it would amplify the positive impact of EU legislation worldwide (the so-called “Brussels effect”).
Where do we stand now? With the upcoming revision of the EU animal welfare legislation, the debate on import requirements has never been so high on the agenda. The arguments in favour are manifold: this is what EU citizens want and what the European Parliament and several EU Member States have called for.
Lead by example
But the stakes are much higher, as EU citizens are not alone in caring for animals: many non-EU animal protection organisations are hoping the EU will lead by example. They wish to benefit from the “Brussels effect” and use the EU’s progress as a stimulus for their own governments to adopt similar standards.
Some might argue that animal welfare requirements should be negotiated within trade agreements (FTAs). True, but as long as the EU won’t introduce animal welfare requirements on imports, negotiating one FTA at a time will be the only way. Yet, the process has proven to be very difficult, as demonstrated by the talks around the EU-Mercosur FTA, and the agreements already in place do not include conditionality for all animal products.
Working on such agreements does not mean that EU consumption will stop fueling cruelty abroad, but only that the specific FTA will not aggravate the existing situation. We believe that the EU should only rely on such tools to improve cooperation and to address animal welfare concerns when there is no relevant legislation in the EU.
The world has changed dramatically since the EU adopted its last animal welfare standards without extending their remit to imported goods. We are now faced with multiple crises, loss of biodiversity, global warming and a surge in antimicrobial resistance to name but a few, all of which are very much linked to how we produce food and treat animals.
We simply can’t afford to continue ignoring the impact our dietary habits have on farmed animals and the planet. If we don’t include imports in the scope of the revised EU animal welfare legislation, we will only relinquish responsibility for the unsustainable and cruel practices that will continue to happen beyond our borders.
