While the EU is gradually revising and modernizing its outdated animal welfare legislation, no legislative follow-up is currently foreseen of banning or phasing out the use of high levels of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) as stunning method, according to the European Commission.
In 2022, the European Commission contracted the PigStun consortium, managed by the Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (IARTP), to develop non-aversive stunning methods for pigs with the objective of encouraging EU pig slaughterhouses to adopt more animal-friendly methods.
On 4 April this year a meeting was organized by Directorate-General for Health & Food Safety (DG SANTE) and the PigStun consortium in which the consortium shared its results and conclusions on alternatives for high CO2 stunning of pigs. The full report with all five deliverables is available here.
The main conclusions from the report were that it is technically feasible to use alternative non-aversive methods for stunning pigs that are less stressful to the animals than conventional high CO2 stunning. Animal welfare NGOs sent a letter last May to animal welfare Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi with a request for a legislative phase-out of CO2 stunning of pigs.
According to the letter, seen by The Brussels Times, the outcomes of the PigStun project have been highly encouraging. “As a direct result of the PigStun project, there are now at least two commercially viable and more humane alternatives to the use of high concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) for the stunning of pigs, namely argon and much improved electrical systems.”
The letter also referred to the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) which updated its opinion in 2020: "The exposure to high concentrations of carbon dioxide (above 80%) is associated with pain, fear and respiratory distress, and, therefore, it is a serious welfare concern.” EFSA also noted that these adverse effects are inherent to the method itself.
The NGOs urged the European Commission to phase out CO2 stunning for pigs, accompanied by a concrete and time-bound transition plan, and to establish dedicated EU funding mechanisms to support the sector in switching to the newly developed argon retrofit system or improved electrical stunning system.
Asked by The Brussels Times if the Commission planned a follow-up of the PigStun project, a Commission spokesperson replied last week that no legislative follow-up is currently foreseen as alternatives to the current practices exist, including by improving electric and gas stunning methods (e.g., nitrogen, helium and argon).
“The alternative stunning methods recommended in the PigStun project can already be used by operators, as listed in annex 1 of the regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Furthermore, the list of these methods can be amended to take account of scientific and technical progress on the basis of an opinion of EFSA without modernizing the current regulation.”
The spokesperson referred to Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. It includes an annex which lists the different stunning methods such as mechanical, electrical, and gas methods. Last time the annex was amended was in 2018 when low atmospheric pressure stunning for the stunning of broiler chickens was approved.
The Commission explains on its website that the use of carbon dioxide is still permitted in certain cases despite the scientists’ opinion on its aversiveness for animals. “It cannot be rejected at present as there is no commercially viable alternative for certain species like pig or fur animals.”
“The PigStun project estimated that around 67% of EU pigs are slaughtered with high levels of CO2 – this is around 400,000 pigs a day suffering a cruel death in the EU due to the Commission’s failure to act,” commented Peter Stevenson, Chief Policy Advisor and Compassion in World Farming and one of the signatories of the letter. Until now, the NGOs have not received a reply to their letter.
Is the economic argument for using carbon dioxide still valid? “There will be economic implications but there appear to be no definitive figures,” Stevenson replied.
The PigStun project estimated that using argon to stun pigs would increase the cost of stunning by at most 182 eurocents per pig and using improved electrical stunning will increase the cost of stunning by at most 110 eurocents per pig. Taking into account the average weight in the EU of a pig after slaughter and the average consumption of pig meat, the additional cost for consumers would be insignificant.
“Of course, the cost for slaughterhouse operators of transitioning is much higher but the EU should not continue with a stunning method condemned by scientific research as being inhumane for 30 years,” he added. “Slaughterhouses are unlikely to move to the higher welfare stunning methods identified by PigStun unless the use of high concentrations of CO2 is phased out by law.”
Slaughterhouses must be given time to make the change. He suggested that the Commission should amend the annex to the slaughter regulation to prohibit the use of high concentrations of CO2 from I January 2030.
For the time being, any phasing out of carbon dioxide stunning of pigs is not on the EU’s agenda. The issue was not even raised on the recent animal welfare conference "Welfare of Farm Animals in the EU of 2050 – A Pathway to the Future" organized by the Danish EU Presidency (1 December). Denmark produces 25 million pigs per year for export. For what happens inside a big pig slaughterhouse, see op-ed.
“The PigStun results make it clear,” commented Olga Kikou, Director of Animal Advocacy & Food Transition. “CO2 gassing causes severe suffering, yet the issue has been shoved to the back burner. The fact that the EU’s own legislation still permits this stunning method shows that economic interests continue to override animal welfare and that the political will to change the situation is missing.”
