OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Compassion in World Farming Brussels

CIWF Brussels

Compassion in World Farming Brussels is an NGO working to end factory farming and promote sustainable food systems.

Lobbying Activity

CIWF Brussels supports EU rules for on-farm emergency slaughtering

29 Oct 2025
Topic — The Commission is updating safety requirements for emergency slaughtering performed outside slaughterhouses.
Message — CIWF supports explicitly assigning ante-mortem inspections to official veterinarians to strengthen consistency. They welcome clarifications that avoid unnecessary euthanasia for animals that cannot be transported.12
Why — These changes directly promote their mission of reducing animal suffering during transport.3
Read full response

Compassion in World Farming warns against cutting food safety safeguards

14 Oct 2025
Topic — The Commission is proposing to simplify and clarify EU food and feed safety regulations.
Message — The group opposes deleting annual depopulation reports and urges harmonized, digital reporting for mass animal culling. They demand that BSE protections remain intact and that simplification facilitates transparency instead of lowering standards.123
Why — Preserving these reporting requirements ensures the group maintains access to data for monitoring welfare standards.4
Impact — Citizens and animals face increased risks if oversight of mass culling and safety is diminished.5
Read full response

Meeting with Niels Fuglsang (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Sept 2025 · Animal Welfare

Response to European climate resilience and risk management law

4 Sept 2025

Climate change is no longer a distant threat; it is a present and intensifying reality. 2024 was the first year to exceed 1.5 degree above pre-industrial level, for 11 months. Temperatures are rising and weather patterns are becoming more erratic, from floods and droughts, desertification, to storms, wildfires and sea-level rise. This is wracking havoc on human and animal lives, nature and our economy. Even more reason for concern is that the European continent is warming at a rate of roughly twice the global average. The EUs agrifood system is at the same time significantly contributing to this worrying trend as well as one of its hardest hit victims. Our agrifood system causes 31%*of EU emissions and yet agriculture GHG emissions have only sightly decreased since 2005. Furthermore, unsustainable intensive agricultural practices like excessive pesticide and fertilizer use and unrestrained water use are further weakening the resilience capabilities of the agrifood system. Simultaneously farmers experience the consequences of climate breakdown daily. Droughts, floodings, wildfires and storms are harming crops and farmed animals more and more. The European Investment Bank estimates that the EUs agricultural sector already loses more than 28 billion a year to adverse weather, with losses projected to rise by up to two-thirds by 2050. The current situation is not sustainable at all. Compassion In World Farming is therefore welcoming the initiative of the European Commission to set out an integrated framework to support EU countries in tackling this problem. For us the following priorities are crucial to integrate into this framework: A particular attention to the welfare of farmed animals in the context of climate disasters and adaptation. We think it is crucial that the welfare of farmed animals is not overlooked when designing policies to strengthen climate resilience. In our recently published report The Climate Doom Loop (in attachment) you can find ample case studies of farmed animals suffering and losing their lives due to extreme weather events. In the report we also outline recommendations to improve the protection of farmed animals in a coherent way. Championing a transition to more resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems The EU should reduce its reliance on intensive farming and the negative externalities for climate mitigation and adaptation inherent to this model. The EU should actively favor more sustainable methods of farming like organic farming, regenerative farming and extensive livestock farming since these production methods are proven to be more resilient against climate shocks. The EU should also promote a higher uptake of plant-rich and sustainable diets. This could result in the freeing up of vast amounts of lands (which are currently used to produce feed) that can play a crucial role in improving the EUs resilience to climate disasters. Demand should be driven up through an EU Protein Strategy, a Plant-Based Action Plan, procurement and dietary-aligned promotion policies. Make sure adaptation strategies receive further global finance and implementation particularly for the Global South. These adaptation strategies should be monitored to ensure that they remain effective. To do this, governments must incorporate mitigation and adaptation measures for livestock in their NDCs. Ensure adequate and timely public funding for a climate-resilient agrifood sector and tackle harmful subsidies In the next MFF, the EU and its member states should adopt a common exclusion list to prevent EU funds from supporting environmentally harmful activities such as intensive animal rearing, drainage of wetlands, or monoculture plantations. Subsidies should then be redirected towards climate- and nature-positive solutions. *https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2023/739327/EPRS_ATA(2023)739327_EN.pdf
Read full response

Response to Modernisation of the EU legislation for on-farm animal welfare for certain animals

15 Jul 2025

The 2022 Fitness Check of the EU Animal Welfare legislation concluded that it was no longer fit for purpose and needed to be modernised to reflect 1) the latest scientific evidence on animal welfare, 2) growing societal concerns, 3) feasibility to implement the changes in EU farms. 1) Latest scientific evidence Close to 300 million farmed animals are kept in cages in the EU where they are confined, isolated and cant express even the most basic behaviours. EFSA backed the phasing out of cages for sows, egg laying hens, ducks, geese, quail and dairy calves. New publications continue to confirm the negative impacts of cages on animal health and welfare. Other significant welfare issues exist across species, such as tail docking and castration of meat pigs as well as slaughter methods, permanent housing of dairy cattle, culling of day-old male chicks. Broiler chickens selected for fast growth and reared at high stocking density suffer significant health and welfare issues. The sentience of fish and aquatic animals is strongly established scientifically, as is the negative impact of intensive farming on their welfare. Overcrowding makes them more susceptible to disease and stress, aggression and physical injuries, starvation is commonplace and slaughter methods are inhumane. 2) Growing societal concerns In addition to the 1.4 million EU citizens who supported the ETCA ECI, the 2023 Eurobarometer survey shows that 84% of EU citizens dont want animals to be kept in individual cages and, when asked about the CAP, say they want farmers to have high animal welfare standards. Furthermore, 9 out of 10 EU citizens believe the welfare of fish should be protected. European Bureau of Consumers (BEUC) research shows that the majority of EU citizens (70%) are willing to pay more for higher-welfare products. Impact studies have shown that a cage-free egg would only cost 0,0084EUR more and the consumer price of pork would increase by just 1.3 % with a complete cage phase out. 3) Feasibility to implement the changes in EU farms Higher welfare systems can be just as profitable as low welfare ones, and can bring human health benefits such as reduced antibiotic use and better working conditions for farmers. The estimated investment costs for cage-free systems for laying hens amount to EUR 3.2 billion. However, this does not take into account the investment already needed to replace the enriched cages installed before 2012 soon reaching their end of life. Investing in cage-free systems, instead of new enriched cages, would only require an extra EUR 1.8 billion. Case study evidence suggests that farms can achieve a cage-free transition within 3 to 5 years. A variety of EU and national funds are available to support the investment costs; CAP funds should be used in a degressive way to avoid a rush just before the end of the transition period. 7 EU Member States have already adopted a national ban on cages for one species or more. Moreover, numerous economic operators have moved or have committed to moving to cage-free supply chains, some of which in response to the European Commissions Communication (2021)4747. These front-runners are now on an unequal playing field with operators continuing to use cages. An EU-wide ban is needed to resolve this fragmentation of the EU Single Market, which is detrimental to EU producers and EU consumers. As the ECI and Eurobarometer surveys clearly show, consumers do not want food from animals kept in cages for ethical reasons. The same requirements must thus apply to EU and non-EU producers. Legal opinion shows that banning the sale of meat and eggs from caged animals in the EU in addition to an EU ban on the use of cages, would be compliant with WTO rules. The UK, the EUs main trading partner, already has a ban on sow stalls and is considering a wider ban on cages in line with the EU provisions. All scientific references supporting the above points are compiled in an Annex attached to this submission
Read full response

Meeting with Andrea Gavinelli (Head of Unit Health and Food Safety)

3 Jul 2025 · Discussion on the financing of cage-free systems and the future CAP

Meeting with Patricia Reilly (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and Eurogroup for Animals and VIER PFOTEN International

30 Jun 2025 · to follow

Meeting with Patricia Reilly (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and Eurogroup for Animals and VIER PFOTEN International

30 Jun 2025 · Discussion on animal welfare in the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP

Meeting with David Cormand (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Eurogroup for Animals and

18 Jun 2025 · Policy Breakfast

Meeting with David Cormand (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

9 Apr 2025 · Animal Welfare

Meeting with Maria Noichl (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

25 Mar 2025 · Animal Transport

Meeting with Michal Wiezik (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Mar 2025 · Vision for Agriculture

Meeting with Ricard Ramon I Sumoy (Acting Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development)

11 Mar 2025 · Exchange of views on the Vision for Agriculture and FooD

Compassion in World Farming Urges Shift From Industrial Livestock Production

3 Mar 2025
Topic — The European Commission is seeking input on creating a water-resilient strategy for Europe.
Message — The organization calls for a transition away from factory farming towards agroecology and extensive farming models. They urge the Commission to prioritize water for human food over animal feed and protect existing environmental regulations.123
Why — The group would see European agricultural policy align with its core mission of ending factory farming.4
Impact — Industrial livestock operators would face significant pressure to reduce herd sizes and scale back intensive operations.5
Read full response

Response to The European Oceans Pact

14 Feb 2025

Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) is an NGO working to end factory farming and promote sustainable food systems that benefit animals, people, and the planet. As a stakeholder in sustainable aquaculture, we are pleased to contribute to the call for evidence for the upcoming European Ocean Pact. As the world's fastest-growing food production sector, aquaculture has the potential to enhance food security and economic development. However, its rapid expansion has also raised serious environmental and ethical concerns that must be addressed. Our recent report Rethinking EU Aquaculture: for People, Animals and the Planet (annexed) provides evidence on the scale of the issue and policy recommendations to address these concerns. The EU Strategic Guidelines for a More Sustainable and Competitive EU Aquaculture (20212030) emphasize animal welfare, ecosystem services, and lower-trophic aquaculture. These guidelines also call for reducing reliance on wild-caught fish for feed and encourage diversifying farmed species to those that do not require fishmeal or fish oil Against this evidence, it is clear that the European Ocean Pact must prioritize low-trophic, environmentally responsible aquaculture with the highest animal welfare standards. Aquaculture should prioritize the development of low-trophic species such as bivalves, seaweed, and herbivorous fish, which are key nature-based solutions for climate adaptation and mitigation, have minimal environmental impact, and require no input of human-edible resources such as wild fish inputs or soy (see the report attached). These systems capture carbon, enhance biodiversity, and protect coastal habitats, contributing to a resilient and sustainable blue economy. Octopus farming should be explicitly prohibited, as it exemplifies the risks of introducing new carnivorous species whose ethological needs cannot be met in farming systems, exacerbating overfishing, and ecosystem pressure, making the case for a complete ban on octopus farming. As sentient beings, aquatic animals deserve higher welfare standards. Our Rethinking EU Aquaculture report shows how such standards reduce pollution, antibiotic use, and health risks while improving global food security. The EU must introduce species-specific legislative requirements to protect aquatic animals during rearing, transport, and slaughter, under the revision of the animal welfare legislation promised by the Commission, with these standards also applying to imports to ensure a level playing field. EURCAW Aqua should support their implementation. Ensuring Sustainable Feed and Ecosystem Protection in Aquaculture. Our report Rethinking EU Aquaculture shows that intensive aquaculture decreases water quality, degrades natural habitats, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and spreads aquatic diseases. Sustainable aquaculture must phase out the use of wild-caught fish as feed, and adopt sustainable feed alternatives like algae-, and microbial-based proteins, implementing science-based thresholds for nutrient discharge and habitat protection, and establishing robust monitoring systems to prevent disease outbreaks and escapes that threaten wild populations. Integrating Sustainable Aquaculture into Climate Action and the Blue Economy. Regenerative aquaculture models, such as integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA), should be incentivized to reduce waste and maximize ecosystem benefits. The European Ocean Pact should also support low-carbon aquaculture solutions, including the use of renewable energy-powered farms, and ensure equitable opportunities for small-scale and community-led initiatives to foster local sustainability and food sovereignty (please see the Rethinking EU Aquaculture: for people, animals and the planet report from CIWF).
Read full response

Meeting with Tilly Metz (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Oct 2024 · Animal welfare

Meeting with Carolina Morace (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Oct 2024 · Introductory Meeting

Meeting with Majdouline Sbai (Member of the European Parliament) and La Fondation Droit Animal, Ethique et Sciences (LFDA)

25 Sept 2024 · Echange sur le bien être animal

Meeting with Thomas Waitz (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Animal Welfare Foundation e.V.

25 Sept 2024 · Tierschutz

Response to Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy

6 Sept 2024

Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) is a charitable organisation dedicated to promoting sustainable food systems and improving the welfare of farmed animals across Europe and beyond. We welcome the opportunity to take part in the evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Despite the objective to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities contribute to long-term environmental, economic, and social sustainability, the CFP has not effectively met this requirement. Animal welfare is a key aspect of sustainability, and there is a growing demand amongst consumers for the high welfare production of aquatic animals. In the CFP, Clause 16 states that full regard should be paid to animal health, animal welfare, food and feed safety, however there are insufficient provisions addressing the welfare of aquatic animals. The lack of animal welfare requirements within the CFP has huge consequences; each year trillions of aquatic animals are caught by fisheries and up to one billion fish are farmed in the EU. One aim of the CFP is the promotion of aquaculture practices and research with a view to enhancing positive effects on the environment and on the fish resources, and to reducing negative impacts, including reducing pressure on fish stocks used for feed production, and increasing resource efficiency (Article 34; 4g). The introduction of new intensive aquaculture technologies and the farming of carnivorous species does not align with this objective. Farming carnivorous aquatic animals is inefficient because they require large amounts of protein rich feed to grow, which is sourced from wild-caught fish in the form of fishmeal and fish oil. For example, it can take over 350 wild caught fish (plus other high-quality ingredients) to feed one farmed salmon. As such, intensive aquaculture of carnivorous fish is increasing pressure on wild fish populations. It is vital that more emphasis is put on the wide-reaching benefits of farming lower in the trophic chain (i.e. omnivorous and herbivorous species) in extensive systems, and production is steered away from the intensive farming of carnivorous species. The overfishing of fisheries above maximum stable yields is threatening long-term sustainability, depleting fish stocks and harming marine ecosystems. Animal welfare is again left unprotected in this sector. Aquatic animals caught by fishing vessels typically endure immense suffering and die slow, painful deaths. Fish often die from injuries during capture or are left to asphyxiate in the air upon landing, a process that can take minutes to hours, during which they experience extreme suffering. Additionally, bycatch (non-target species caught inadvertently) also suffer greatly. They are discarded back into the water, dead or dying, which also has a negative impact on the marine ecosystem. The suffering of target and bycatch species demonstrates the need for improvements in fishing practices. High welfare standards in fisheries and aquaculture have been shown to support environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Good welfare is closely connected to improved product quality and helps reduce resource wastage caused by animal injuries/disease, repeated stress on animals, and early mortalities. CIWF recommends that the CFP include animal welfare objectives, and stronger monitoring and enforcement to ensure the upholding of welfare and sustainability standards. Adopting new technologies and practices that enhance animal welfare in fisheries and aquaculture is essential. Examples include the use of humane slaughter methods, lower stocking densities, and less invasive/harmful fishing techniques. Also, a transition to farming lower in the trophic chain is needed to better contribute to a future food system that can provide for nutritional needs while working harmoniously with the environment. Such improvements are essential to achieving the long-term environmental, economic, and social sustainability goals of the CFP.
Read full response

Response to Ex-post evaluation of European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 2014-2020

6 Sept 2024

CIWFI supports the conclusions drawn in the European Court of Auditors (ECA) special report on EU aquaculture, published in November 2023, which highlights gaps in the current monitoring of sustainability progress within the sector. As the report indicates, there is a notable absence of reliable indicators for monitoring sustainability progress in this sector. We are concerned that the EMFAFs contributions toward advancing sustainability remain dubious and limited without these indicators. Furthermore, in the ECAs special report, the European Council responded positively to recommendations to bring in sustainability indicators for the aquaculture sector. Animal welfare was also important to consider for achieving sustainability. To ensure the EMFAF effectively supports the transition towards sustainable and welfare-oriented aquaculture, CIWFI recommends the following actions: 1. Animal welfare o Develop science-based welfare indicators based on studies from recognised and reliable sources that are species specific. o Ensure that these welfare indicators are considered alongside environmental indicators, acknowledging the connected relationship between animal welfare and environmental sustainability. 2. Environmental sustainability o Use scientifically backed indicators to measure sustainability improvements across the industry over time. For example, the trophic level can be used as a rough measure of overall dependence on fishmeal and fish oil. The type of farming system (e.g. intensive/extensive, flowthrough/recirculating) can influence a farm's energy requirements, stocking densities, feed use, water use, interactions with wildlife, and effluent production. 3. Enhance Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms: o There should be clear and strict processes implemented to monitor and enforce EMFAF spending so that funds can be retracted or directed towards sustainable and high welfare production types. 4. Economic Incentives for Welfare and Sustainability Improvements: o Incentives should be developed to facilitate the transition towards a sustainable and sustainable aquaculture sector. These could be low/zero-interest loans for equipment or increased access to high-welfare technologies. o The farming of low trophic species like herbivorous fish, bivalves and seaweed should be encouraged for their economic, welfare, and environmental benefits , . o Addressing Current Concerns in EU Aquaculture Funding. CIWFI is concerned about using EU funding to promote unsustainable and low-welfare farming practices that contradict the EUs sustainability goals, especially since the commission has acknowledged in the EU Strategic Aquaculture Guidelines (SAGs) that farming carnivorous animals are detrimental to the environment. CIWFI is especially concerned with the development in the EU of octopus intensive farms. Using public funds to develop octopus factory farming is unacceptable since the evidence shows that high-welfare octopus farming is impossible . Octopuses are solitary animals, have complex environmental needs, and suffer significantly in small farming environments . Furthermore, they are carnivorous animals and farming them would contribute to the global demand for fishmeal and fish oil and, therefore it would contradict sustainability aims . The recent developments in bluefin tuna farming are also alarming and, like octopus farming, are in direct opposition to scientific evidence and public sentiment, which increasingly favour more sustainable and welfare-friendly approaches to aquaculture. CIWFI is pleased to participate in this consultation and hopes that the EMFAF midterm evaluation will consider our concerns and recommendations, leading to a more targeted and responsible use of public funds focusing on animal welfare and environmental sustainability.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2017-2024

27 Mar 2024

Compassion in World Farming EU appreciates the work of the European Food Safety Authority, especially with respect to the scientific Opinions provided for the sake of the revision of animal welfare legislation in the EU under the Farm to Fork Strategy. Over the past few years, EFSA has provided the European Commission with a necessary scientific base for the revision of now deeply outdated legal acts on the welfare of animals on farm, during transport and during slaughter. We would like to commend EFSA for focusing on science and presenting clear facts to the policymakers, showing a huge gap between the current farming models and animals behavioural and physiological needs. Despite criticism targeting EFSA, stemming from certain vested interests, we would like to stress that EFSAs main task is to provide recommendations based on animal welfare science alone, not economic evaluations which are to be considered in an impact assessment by the European Commission. EFSA plays an indispensable role in animal welfare policymaking and we expect that the Authority will continue to provide unbiased scientific knowledge. We also look forward to seeing future scientific Opinions on other species which are now desperately needed.
Read full response

Compassion in World Farming urges stronger EU animal transport rules

23 Mar 2024
Topic — Regulation revising EU animal welfare protections during transport and related operations.
Message — The organization requests journey time limits aligned with scientific evidence, ban on animal exports to third countries, and stricter temperature controls. They argue current proposal ignores EFSA recommendations and perpetuates animal suffering during transport.12345
Why — This would end factory farming practices and promote sustainable food systems.6
Impact — Animals lose stronger welfare protections as proposed rules perpetuate systematic suffering during transport.78
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the Regulation on serious cross-border threats to health

12 Feb 2024

Compassion in World Farming Brussels (CIWF EU) welcomes the ongoing efforts to prevent and mitigate cross-border threats to health and the opportunity to contribute to this public consultation on Serious Cross-Border Threats to Health Regulation evaluation. We highlight the need for special attention to industrial farming facilities in terms of surveillance and ad hoc monitoring given that these facilities create perfect conditions fostering communicable zoonotic diseases: permanent inputs of antimicrobials, high stocking density, stress and other aspects of low animal welfare both imply shedding of known resistant pathogens and potential appearance of novel zoonotic diseases. An ever-growing body of research demonstrates evidence that genes causing antimicrobial resistance can originate in animals farmed for food and be transferred to people.1 Other studies point to even greater risks; for instance, colistin use2 in animals is linked to compromised innate immune response in humans. Some member states require higher frequency and density of such monitoring, given drastic difference in antimicrobial use within the bloc. Countries with average use of antimicrobials have usage levels 5-10 times higher per livestock unit than those of low users. The highest users such as Poland, Italy and Spain, have a significant share of intensive production systems and antimicrobial usage levels 10-20 times above those of low users.3 The human toll that COVID-19 pandemic with its economic consequences is still being fully understood. We call on the decision-makers to make sure that the irresponsible, unsustainable and inhumane practice of factoring farming is not allowed to become the source of a next pandemic. 1 Allel, Kasim & Day, Lucy & Hamilton, Alisa & Lin, Leesa & Furuya-Kanamori, Luis & Moore, Catrin & Boeckel, Thomas & Laxminarayan, Ramanan & Yakob, Laith. (2023). Global antimicrobial-resistance drivers: an ecological country-level study at the humananimal interface. The Lancet Planetary Health. 7. e291-e303. 10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00026-8. 2 Pramod K Jangir, Lois Ogunlana, Petra Szili, Marton Czikkely, Liam P Shaw, Emily J Stevens, Yang Yu, Qiue Yang, Yang Wang, Csaba Pál, Timothy R Walsh, Craig R MacLean (2023) The evolution of colistin resistance increases bacterial resistance to host antimicrobial peptides and virulence. eLife 12:e84395. 3 Nunan, Coílin (2022). Ending routine farm antibiotic use in Europe. Achieving responsible farm antibiotic use through improving animal health and welfare in pig and poultry production. European Public Health Alliance
Read full response

Response to Technical specifications for the preparation of risk management plans to ensure the safe reuse of treated waste water in

5 Feb 2024

Compassion in World Farming Brussels welcomes the ongoing efforts to ensure sustainable and safe use of scarce planetary resources and the opportunity to contribute to this public consultation on Reusing wastewater in agriculture technical specification for risk management plans. We highlight the need to take antimicrobial resistance into consideration in the development of Risk management plans, with a special focus on industrial agriculture facilities where inputs of antimicrobials, high stocking density, stress and other aspects of low animal welfare both imply shedding of known resistant pathogens and potential appearance of novel zoonotic diseases. Some examples of such high risks would include Spain and Portugal simultaneously experiencing severe drought warranting water use restrictions, home to massive intensive farming facilities with high inputs of antimicrobials according to EMA. We believe that Risk management plans should take into account that the presence of intensive animal farms guarantees that they do not further damage human and animal health.
Read full response

Meeting with Diederik Samsom (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra)

27 Nov 2023 · factory farming and the ‘End the Cage Age’ European Citizens’ Initiative

Response to Waste Framework review to reduce waste and the environmental impact of waste management

21 Nov 2023

Compassion in World Farming Brussels (CIWF EU) welcomes the ongoing efforts to curb food waste in the bloc and the opportunity to contribute to this public consultation. As the proposal highlights, the agri-food system is a most resource-intensive sector, it is crucial that inputs with higher environmental footprint are treated with the necessary care and their loss and waste are cut to the barest minimum, if not entirely. In this regard, we would like to point out that environmental and labour resources required to produce different food groups are not equal, with animal protein being one of the most resource-intensive products. Animal protein stands out also by being one of the more difficult products for donation, as recipient institutions most often do not have the necessary capacity to ensure appropriate cold chain management. The definition of hotspots needs further clarification in the proposal and should include specific prevention and monitoring efforts for resource intensive animal-derived products. Importantly, EU farms are currently culling and disposing of millions of animals due to outbreaks of highly pathogenic bird influenza (HPAI) and African Swine Fever (ASF). The EU must pay more attention to these animals who were born or hatched, consumed food, water and other resources, their rearing required labour, veterinary interventions, including inputs of antimicrobial substances and it generated waste, and, also, in many cases EU and member states subsidies received though animal products never came to the market. EFSA data from October 2022 shows that 47,7 million birds were culled in the bloc due to HPAI over the reporting period. And over the first outbreak of ASF just in Romania, almost 1,5 million pigs died or were culled. This is in addition to animals who die in factory farms all over the EU before they ever get to the slaughterhouse or animals discarded at the slaughterhouses. We highlight that these animals are part of the EU food system and there is a glaring failure to properly address the role of primary production in generating waste. In addition to the need for greater focus on primary production that is currently missing from the proposal, we would like to add that given the already amassed considerable experience on food waste prevention efforts, it is clear the interventions aimed at HORECA, retail and households must be significantly different, we highlight the need to reflect this in the EU approach to the issue. Additionally, it is very disappointing to see that the EU ambition of reducing food waste is set below the UN SDG 12.3 target. If the EU wants to lead in this sphere globally, its commitment to food waste reduction across all sectors including primary production must be on par, if not exceeding the goals established by the UN. Related to the reduction targets, we wish to highlight ongoing issues with comparability of food waste data across member states: we urge you to implement a reliable and obligatory methodology applicable across all member states, so that EUs reporting on its food reduction progress could be viewed with due consideration.
Read full response

Compassion in World Farming demands binding EU soil targets

25 Aug 2023
Topic — This legislative proposal focuses on monitoring and improving soil health across Europe.
Message — The group urges legislators to strengthen the proposal to reflect Green Deal goals. They demand measurable and legally binding targets to ensure soil restoration.12
Why — Stricter soil protection would help the group challenge intensive factory farming practices.3
Impact — Intensive farms would lose the ability to use fertilizers and pesticides irresponsibly.4
Read full response

CIWF Brussels demands labeling for gene-edited plant products

9 Aug 2023
Topic — This consultation addresses a proposed legal framework for plants created via new genomic techniques.
Message — CIWF calls for mandatory labeling and traceability for all end-products to ensure transparency. They urge the EU to follow the precautionary principle by requiring thorough risk assessments for safety.12
Why — Maintaining transparency prevents greenwashing and protects the sustainable food systems they advocate for.34
Impact — Consumers lose their right to know while the environment faces unknown scientific risks.56
Read full response

Response to Updating the legislation related to the hygiene rules for products of animal origin

25 May 2023

Compassion in World Farming welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to a draft Commission Delegated Regulation amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards specific hygiene requirements for certain fresh meat, fishery products, dairy products and eggs. We are pleased to see that possibility to slaughter animals on the farm has been extended to a limited number of sheep and goats. On-farm slaughter eliminates animal transport, which is inherently stressful to animals and also contributes to antimicrobial resistance as different groups of animals are mixed during the journey or in assembly centres or control posts. For those reasons, we support the increased use of mobile slaughterhouses across the EU. However, considering the lack of personal capacities of veterinarians in certain Member States, we would like to stress the importance of veterinary supervision of such slaughter to ensure compliance with Regulation 1099/2009. It must be safeguarded that the option of on-farm slaughter is not only more animal welfare-friendly in theory, but also in reality, and spares animals any additional stress, pain and suffering. Therefore, supervision and monitoring of this process are crucial.
Read full response

Meeting with Maria Noichl (Member of the European Parliament)

24 May 2023 · Tierschutz

Meeting with Caroline Roose (Member of the European Parliament)

23 May 2023 · Etiquetage et bien-être animal

Response to Marking of eggs on farm as general rule

15 May 2023

Compassion in World Farming Brussels (CIWF EU) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to this consultation. We strongly urge the European Commission to ensure that only eggs from hens raised in accordance with EU level animal welfare standards are allowed to enter the EU market in order to promote the welfare of hens as ensure a level playing field. We also stress the need to reconsider the deletion of a 16-week limit of restricted access outside for free-range hens in Annex II, after which eggs may no longer be marketed as free-range, which we find to be misleading for consumers who buy free-range eggs with the intention of supporting systems where hens are allowed to spend time outside and fulfill their behavioural needs. You can see our detailed contribution attached.
Read full response

Response to Review of poultry marketing standards

15 May 2023

Compassion in World Farming Brussels (CIWF EU) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to this consultation. Marketing standards setting minimum liver weight for foie gras promote cruel force feeding which seriously impacts animal welfare and health. We urge that the marketing standards are revised and the current minimum weight for duck and geese liver to be marketed as foie gras in Art. 2(3) of the proposed delegated regulation is abandoned. Please see our detailed contribution attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and WWF European Policy Programme and Stichting BirdLife Europe

3 Apr 2023 · Taxonomy and agriculture

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner) and

28 Mar 2023 · Conference on the revision of the EU legislation protecting farmed animals

Meeting with Tilly Metz (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Mar 2023 · Animal Welfare

Meeting with Anja Hazekamp (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Feb 2023 · networking dinner on animal welfare

CIWF demands faster EU action on antimicrobial import bans

20 Dec 2022
Topic — This consultation addresses banning specific antimicrobials in animals and products imported into the EU.
Message — CIWF calls for the swift adoption of implementing acts and a shorter transition period. They also want the last-resort antibiotic colistin added to the list of substances reserved for human use.123
Why — Faster enforcement would drive global shifts toward better animal welfare and reduced health risks.45
Impact — Global intensive farming operations would face high costs to overhaul poor animal living conditions.67
Read full response

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and Eurocities and

16 Dec 2022 · VTC Meeting: Sustainable Food Systems/Procurement

Animal Welfare Group Demands Ban on Live Animal Exports

1 Dec 2022
Topic — New EU rules for official controls on livestock vessels transporting animals.
Message — The organization demands that only purpose-built vessels be approved for animal transport, veterinarians be present throughout sea journeys, and proper enforcement of transport rules be secured. They call for a complete ban on live animal exports to non-EU countries, replaced by meat and genetic material trade.1234
Why — This would eliminate long-distance transport suffering and prevent cruelty in countries beyond EU jurisdiction.567
Impact — Livestock exporters and vessel operators lose a profitable trade in live animals.8
Read full response

Animal Welfare Group Calls for Total Ban on Live Exports

1 Dec 2022
Topic — EU rules on official controls and welfare standards for livestock vessels.
Message — The organization requests five immediate regulatory improvements: mandatory journey logs for all combined road-sea trips over 8 hours, veterinarians on board all sea transports, end-of-voyage reports for all export journeys, port facilities for animal unloading and care, and veterinary presence during port operations. They ultimately call for a complete ban on live animal exports to non-EU countries, replaced by meat and genetic material trade.1234
Why — This would eliminate documented welfare concerns during transport and slaughter beyond EU jurisdiction.56
Impact — Live animal exporters and transport operators would lose their business to non-EU markets.7
Read full response

CIWF urges cutting animal farming to meet pesticide targets

26 Jul 2022
Topic — EU consultation on revising rules to reduce pesticide risks and promote sustainability.
Message — CIWF argues for a significant reduction in animal farming to decrease pesticide use on feed crops. They demand legally binding national reduction targets and more support for organic farming.123
Why — These proposals would help CIWF achieve its core goal of ending factory farming.4
Impact — Intensive livestock producers and pesticide manufacturers would face significant business disruptions.5
Read full response

CIWF Brussels demands tougher pollution rules for intensive farms

6 Jun 2022
Topic — Updating EU legislation to ensure large-scale industrial activities follow sustainable environmental practices.
Message — CIWF urges the removal of "lighter" rules for cattle, poultry, and pig farms. They want permit obligations maintained rather than replaced by simple registrations to ensure environmental protection.12
Why — Tougher enforcement would help the organization transition the EU toward sustainable food systems.3
Impact — The environment and local citizens lose protection if intensive farms follow weakened rules.4
Read full response

CIWF Brussels urges EU to reserve colistin for humans

9 May 2022
Topic — This initiative identifies antimicrobials to be reserved strictly for treating certain human infections.
Message — The organization requests the Commission include colistin on the list of antimicrobials reserved solely for human treatment. They argue it is currently used recklessly in farming to compensate for poor animal welfare.12
Why — Restricting this antibiotic would force the livestock industry to adopt higher animal welfare standards.34
Impact — Intensive pig producers would lose a method to manage health issues in low-welfare farming systems.5
Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

22 Apr 2022 · Farm to Fork Strategy for food security

Compassion in World Farming urges livestock cuts for climate

19 Apr 2022
Topic — The European Commission is proposing a regulatory framework for certifying carbon removals.
Message — Carbon removals cannot replace deep emission cuts. The EU should prioritize a significant reduction in the number of animals kept for food production.12
Why — Mandatory animal reduction would help the organization achieve its goal of ending factory farming.3
Impact — Industrial animal agriculture would lose its dominant position in European food systems.4
Read full response

Response to Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products

10 Mar 2022

Compassion in World Farming EU (CIWF EU) welcomes the Commission’s initiative on the application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products. We are pleased to see that the Commission is aiming at addressing the systemic problems in food production as well as the regulatory and market failures. We believe that is if of utmost importance that any product imported into the EU follows the Union’s standards for the following reasons: • The EU’s import rules should take into consideration the values of the EU citizens in regards to animal welfare, who increasingly are calling for higher standards and comply with citizens’ expectations. • EU citizens do not want the EU market to incentivise the use of low welfare farming systems and practices in third countries. We submit our feedback in the attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Anja Hazekamp (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Dec 2021 · Fish Welfare

Response to Sustainable food system – setting up an EU framework

26 Oct 2021

Compassion in World Farming EU (CIWF EU) welcomes the Commission’s initiative to make the EU food system more sustainable and to integrate sustainability into all food-related policies. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our feedback to the Inception Impact Assessment (IIA). As the Commission rightly points out in the IIA, the transformation of our food systems in line with the Farm to Fork (F2F) and Biodiversity Strategies is urgently needed in the face of the climate, biodiversity and public health crises. Currently, our food systems are accelerating these crises, contributing to the vicious cycle of the overuse of the planet’s resources and the subsequent decrease of available food for a growing population. We are pleased to see that the Commission intends to address the systemic problems in food production, as well as the regulatory and market failures. The complexity and global dimension of the challenges addressed in the IIA and in the following document, call for a consistent, science-based and solutions-oriented approach. It must be recognized that economic growth and GDP, measures long used for policy making in this area, will not lead us to a future worth living in, but will further contribute to the destruction of the planet. While the IIA does address most of the important and urgent problems in our food system, regrettably, the role of animals and the animal farming sector is barely mentioned. This is surprisingly disproportionate to the sector’s impact, both economically and in regards to the crises mentioned above. There can be no doubt that the end of intensive animal farming and the reduction in the numbers of animals used in production systems, as well as the reduction in consumption of animal sourced products in the EU need to be on the forefront of food system transformation. This has been recognized by numerous studies and expert committees and will be the focus of the present document. It is our view that Policy Option 4 “New comprehensive framework legislation on the sustainability of the Union food system” is the most suitable one, as it is the one with the most transformative power to achieve the objectives listed in the IIA and do justice to the systemic challenges the food system transformation poses. It can serve as a framework law addressing all actors of the food chain and align other policies that shape the production and consumption of food, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Furthermore, upcoming revisions of the CAP and other legislative proposals must respect the policies established in the SFS and fall under the scope of the framework. Please see attached document which presents our position.
Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

26 Oct 2021 · Review of the EU agricultural promotion policy

Response to Review of the EU school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme - EU aid

23 Jul 2021

We welcome the review of this scheme. The scheme tends to assume consumption of dairy milk as the norm, but increasing numbers of families are turning to plant-based alternatives for a range of reasons. Consumer preferences, including strong concern for animal welfare, need to be included in this revision. The school years are a time when children may form dietary habits that last a lifetime. It is the responsibility of society and policymakers to ensure that our children develop healthy eating habits, that they understand how their food was produced, and that they know they may avoid animal source foods and instead benefit from plant-based diets for their essential nutrition. The reconsideration of the scope of eligible products to include plant-based drinks and/or whole grains is very important. Nutritious, plant-based foods should make up the majority of nutrition under the EU school framework. Dairy products if used should be served in minimal quantities and sourced only from high-welfare systems which allow the cows outdoor access to grazing, such as organic and agro-ecology, and should source preferably from cow-calf systems. We welcome the reference to animal welfare in the ‘environmental impacts’ section and urge that animal welfare is included in procurement policies and in all educational materials relevant to agriculture, food and nutrition for school programmes. Information thus provided on animal welfare and nutrition should be based on the latest scientific expertise. In many cases ‘traditional’ foods are not necessarily the healthiest option. Healthy, sustainable diets are those which are primarily plant-based. The scheme’s design is stated to include contributing to the ‘Common Agricultural Policy general objective of enhancing viable food production’. However, dairy production is generally far from viable for the animals concerned and the industrial dairy industry is inherently inhumane. Dairy cows are subject to very poor welfare. Most have been bred to produce very unnaturally high amounts of milk, causing multiple welfare issues, including painful lameness and mastitis. The offspring of dairy cows are also subject to poor welfare. In commercial dairy production, most calves are separated from the cow shortly after birth. Mother and calf have a strong bond, and separation causes both to suffer. Moreover, the very young calves are then kept in individual housing for the first 8 weeks of their life, which affects their welfare and development. All EU policies and practices that concern animals should place full regard for animal welfare at the centre, as is intended by Article 13 TFEU, and should be coherent with each other. In this case, that includes the review of animal welfare legislation, and the focus of the Farm to Fork Strategy on improving animal welfare, and on sustainable farming methods such as organic and agro-ecology, healthier diets and reduction of food waste. In light of the animal welfare, climate and public health emergencies in the EU, policies should together foster higher social awareness of the detrimental impacts of industrial animal production, including dairy production, and appreciation of the origins of what we eat. This includes reflecting the true cost of production in the price of foodstuffs. Dairy production is highly polluting and its effects worsen with intensity of production. We conclude that nutritious, plant-based foods should make up the majority of nutrition under the EU school framework. Products from intensive dairy production have no place in school programmes. If dairy products are to be included in school programmes, quantities should be minimal and sourced only from high-welfare, preferably cow-calf, systems. There is a wide and rapidly expanding range of nutritious, plant-based dairy alternative products, the production of which is more sustainable and animal-friendly.
Read full response

Animal welfare group demands cage ban and 70% cut in EU livestock

22 Jul 2021
Topic — Revision of EU legislation on animal welfare across farming, transport, and slaughter.
Message — The organization calls for immediate prohibition of all cages and confinement systems by 2027, an eight-hour transport limit, and ban on live exports. They demand species-specific legislation for all farmed animals including fish and invertebrates, based on the five domains framework rather than five freedoms.123
Why — This would end industrial farming practices causing suffering to 9 billion animals annually.45
Impact — Industrial farming operators lose their current production model and export markets.67
Read full response

Response to Authorisation to feed poultry with processed animal protein derived from farmed insects or domestic porcine animals

6 Apr 2021

We recommend the rejection of this proposal on welfare grounds. A precautionary approach is needed with regard to the exploitation of invertebrates and indeed of any new species at risk of exploitation. There is very little scientific research on the welfare, behavioural needs and health of invertebrates. Before any decision on the use of invertebrates in farming, it is therefore essential for the EC to carry out a risk assessment on these factors. Furthermore, regulations would be needed to protect their well-being, including conditions of rearing, transport and killing. Mistakes have been made with other species over the past decades whereby they are now farmed on a large scale in an inhumane manner. For example, scientific research is now demonstrating the sentience, behavioural complexity and needs of fish and crustaceans and demonstrating an urgent need to alter  farming, transport and slaughter methods. The suffering that has been caused in the interim is indeed great and the effort required and resistance to altering perceived norms makes the process of positive change problematic and costly.  It is well recognised that the intensive farming of pigs and poultry is severely detrimental to their welfare. The proposal to use insects as feed risks perpetuating the existing vicious circle favouring the highly polluting, over-producing pig and chicken industries, which cause animal suffering on a massive scale. Moreover, the proposal runs completely counter to all modern knowledge on the urgent need to improve farm animal welfare, to promote healthy nutrition and lifestyles, and on respecting the planet and all its inhabitants. It would be extremely negligent to push ahead with authorization of large-scale production of invertebrates without proper scrutiny of the risks. Rejection on sustainability grounds: It is recognised that the feeding of human-edible food such as cereals and legumes to farmed animals is an inefficient way of feeding people, an inefficient use of land, and a leading cause of deforestation, biodiversity loss and climate change. To feed farmed insects on human-edible food, in order to grow them as feed for other farmed animals, is an even more inefficient and unsustainable way of producing food for people. An extra trophic level and process is added, requiring additional resources, whilst losing more protein and calories in conversion to meat, eggs and dairy. Ultimately, even more land, water, and energy is required to produce the same quantity of meat, fish, eggs and dairy.  We also point out that enabling the expansion of unsustainable factory farming by exploiting yet more species as feed, would require yet more land for buildings, slurry lagoons and associated infrastructure, thereby further reducing the opportunities for biodiversity renewal and expansion. The proposal to authorise the use of insects as feed occurs at exactly the time of widespread scientific and political recognition of the need for ambitious reductions in production and consumption of terrestrial and aquatic animal products. Instead of seeking means to prop up factory farming, the more positive and logical approach is for people to use cereals and legumes as a direct food source, thus retaining all of the protein and calories, and using less land, water and energy, whilst also benefiting from more nutritious diets. This reduction should be accompanied by the replacement of industrial animal production by regenerative farming methods, pasture-based grazing of ruminants, and investment in meat analogues. Sacrificing yet more species to the nightmare of EU industrial animal farming is not acceptable and is not coherent with the laudable ambitions of the European Green Deal and of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies. This proposal to use insects as feed for pigs and chickens must be rejected.
Read full response

Meeting with Anja Hazekamp (Member of the European Parliament)

22 Mar 2021 · ECI End the Cage Age

Response to Information and promotion measures for agricultural and food products in the internal market and in non-EU countries

9 Mar 2021

We urge that this policy is brought into alignment with the Commission’s ambitions for the welfare of farmed animals and fish, for the environment and biodiversity, and for public health. The EU should no longer support production and consumption of animal products from factory farms but should use the promotion budget/s to encourage healthy, primarily plant-based diets. Animal farming should be supported to make the transition to high-welfare, well-managed regenerative systems. The EU currently rears 9 billion terrestrial animals each year, the majority of whom are slaughtered. Insufficient legal protection condemns billions of these sentient beings to lives of suffering in factory farms and at slaughter. In addition, hundreds of millions of fish – who are also sentient beings - have a life of misery in underwater factory farms. Cruel methods of capture and slaughter are commonly used for farmed and wild fish. European Commission figures show that from 2017-2019 the EU promotions policy provided at least €62.8m on average per year to promote animal products, acting as a prop for the industrial animal agricultural model, despite the wealth of evidence of its detrimental impacts. The vast majority of EU citizens demand reform for farmed animals; the 2016 Eurobarometer on Animal Welfare shows that 94% think that protecting the welfare of farm animals is important, and almost 1.4 million signatures were gathered in the recent End the Cage Age European Citizens’ Initiative. Examples of promotions which stimulate industrial animal farming Broiler (meat) chickens have been bred to reach their slaughter weight so quickly that their legs often cannot properly support their rapidly growing body. As a result at least 1.8 billion chickens every year in the EU may suffer pain. The electrical waterbath is use to pre-stun most broilers before slaughter, although 16 years ago, EFSA said that since welfare is poor when the waterbath stunning method is used “the method should be replaced as soon as possible”. Nonetheless, €4.4m of EU taxpayers’ money has been granted to promote increased consumption of chicken meat and to “contradict myths and fake news” about chicken production and slaughter. Pigs France, Portugal and Spain were awarded a combined €5.4m to promote pork consumption. An earlier campaign to promote pork consumption to young Danes and Swedes was granted €2.5m. The EU pig industry is responsible for multiple and severe animal welfare issues. In standard commercial pig production the majority of EU sows (mother pigs) spend many weeks each year in cages in which they cannot even turn around. They have to nurse their piglets through the metal bars. EC data indicates that in many member states, 98-100% of pigs are still tail-docked although routine tail-docking has been prohibited for over 25 years. Many millions of pigs are stunned/killed with high concentrations of CO2, although this is well-known to cause a high degree of animal suffering. The European Commission and industry should urgently carry out research into humane stunning methods. An industry that causes such suffering should not be promoted. Rabbits Most EU rabbits farmed commercially for meat are confined in barren cages where they have a smaller area than an A4 sheet of paper and cannot carry out their essential natural behaviours. They suffer from high levels of stress and disease. Antibiotic use is widespread; even so, mortality rates are very high. As yet, there is no species-specific legislation for farmed rabbit welfare. Yet in 2018, France was granted €1.7m to promote consumption of rabbit meat. We urge the EU to end the promotion of animal and fish products from factory farms but to instead encourage healthy, primarily plant-based diets and assist EU animal farming to make the transition to high-welfare, well-managed regenerative methods. www.ciwf.eu
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products

12 Feb 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. The revision of marketing standards could be an important contribution to the improvement of animal welfare and sustainability standards in EU terrestrial and aquatic animal production. Compassion in World Farming EU proposes EU-mandatory method of production labelling on all products from farmed terrestrial and aquatic animals, and mandatory method of slaughter labelling of wild-caught aquatic animals. Most EU farmed animals and fish continue to be confined in unsustainable industrial systems in which poor welfare is inherent. Citizens are increasingly concerned about animal welfare but when buying animal-source products, they are not provided with clear information about the animals’ lives. Mandatory labelling of shell eggs by method of production, in force since 2004, has facilitated the growth in EU cage-free laying hen production. The French method of production label L'étiquette Bien-être animal, covering the life of the animal from birth to slaughter, is a welcome advance in the labelling field. EU-wide mandatory method of production labelling would harmonise the situation across the EU. Country of origin or provenance labels do not show explicitly how the animals were kept. As well as perpetuating industrial animal farming, the lack of mandatory method of production labels has a potentially significant adverse economic impact on those producers operating to higher welfare standards and may prevent or restrict the development of higher welfare, extensive farming systems and associated potential economic, environmental and human health benefits. It is essential that a sustainability framework and sustainability labelling of animal-source products gives animal welfare equal weight to other considerations. Industrial animal welfare is highly unsustainable for animals, humans and the planet. Nutrition labelling should acknowledge the benefits for the consumer of animal-source products from higher-welfare systems, which have been found to often contain higher levels of key nutrients and less fat than animal products from factory farm systems. Sustainability also means consuming far fewer animal-source products and increasing intake of whole grains, fruit, vegetables and legumes.
Read full response

Response to Setting of nutrient profiles

3 Feb 2021

Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback. Overview #EUFarm2Fork brings a most welcome joined-up approach to food and farming, including recognition of the urgent need to improve farmed animal welfare and to reduce meat consumption for the sake of public health and the environment. The EU uses around 9 billion terrestrial animals for food each year. These animals are sentient beings and we have moral and ethical responsibilities to provide them with a decent quality of life. Animal welfare standards are affected by all steps in the production chain, from conception of the animal to the marketing of animal products. Any policy which has an impact on farmed animals, including this initiative, needs to place their welfare at the centre, equal in weight to considerations regarding the environmental, public health, economic, trade, political, livelihood and other impacts of EU production and consumption of animal products. A transition to far fewer animals in much better conditions, and method of production labelling of their products as has been the case for shell eggs since 2004, could bring huge dividends for animal welfare, human health and the planet. 1. Nutrient profiles The Impact Assessment considers elements which are high in fats, sugars and/or salt. The World Health Organization classifies processed meat as ‘carcinogenic to humans’ and red meat as ‘probably carcinogenic’. It seems logical – indeed, ethical - to reflect this on the label of such products. We welcome the recognition in the EU Beating Cancer Plan that key features of health-promoting diets are plenty of fruit and vegetables and low intake of red meat and processed meat. This does not mean that consumers should replace red and processed meat with poultry or fish. The vast majority of birds used for food are farmed in damaging industrial systems. Fish farming and the capture of wild fish and fish slaughter also cause severe animal suffering on a massive scale and harm the environment. It is important to note for public health that animal products from higher welfare systems are often significantly lower in fat than equivalent products from intensively-reared animals. It would be helpful if the EU were to introduce meaningful reductions in production and consumption of animal products, and include information on the labels to remind consumers of recommended quantities. 2. Mandatory origin/provenance indications Mandatory origin for animal products by place of birth and place/s of rearing and slaughter can show if long distance live transport was involved, a trade to which many citizens are opposed because of the toll of animal suffering it carries with it. Origin labelling does not however help inform consumers on the welfare of the animal/s from breeding to slaughter. To address this gap, we call for mandatory method of production labelling, which shows how the animal was kept. Method of production labelling has been required for shell eggs since 2004 and this has raised awareness among consumers. Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Czechia and Slovakia have unilateral bans on cages for hens in force or coming into force in the next few years. Increasingly, food businesses are turning to cage-free eggs. Consumers need to have full information at hand to help the EU make the urgent move to higher animal welfare standards for all species. The term ‘local’, without further qualification such as free-range or organic, could refer to industrial animal farming, and does not give transparent information to consumers as to how the animals were kept. 3. Foods suitable for vegetarians and vegans An increasing number of consumers are choosing not to consume some or all animal products. EU-wide labelling to identify vegetarian and vegan foods would help these consumers and facilitate expansion of this burgeoning market.
Read full response

Meeting with Magdalena Majerczyk (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

28 Jan 2021 · Discussion on the ‘End the Cage Age’, the first successful European Citizens’ Initiative for farmed animals.

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

17 Dec 2020

Animals raised in organic or agroecology farms can contribute to all the Reg’s environmental objectives. But industrial animal farming harms several of these objectives The DA’s failure to recognise industrial livestock as unsustainable arises because the DA splits its consideration of ag into separate sections on crops & animals and so ignores the connection between animals & crops. Industrial animal farming depends on feeding crops to animals The DA requires soy to be “certified by a recognised body”. The DA must specify which bodies are recognised as sustainable certification schemes for soy vary substantially in their efficacy in preventing deforestation The DA focuses on the animal farms themselves & ignores the harmful environmental impacts of the growing of feed cereals, except for those cereals grown on the farm. But most feed cereals are grown at some distance from the farm where they are used. Producing cereals for feed is carried out intensively with monocultures & chemicals and leads to soil degradation, biodiversity loss, overuse & pollution of water & air pollution To ensure that excessive quantities of cereals & soy are not included in feed, the DA should provide that the max amount of cereals & soy that may be included in feed by pig & poultry farms is 40%. Climate For animals kept on grassland, the DA should set clearer criteria re the methods that enable carbon to be stored in the land e.g. silvo-pastoralism, inclusion of a wide range of plant species in the sward and low use of chemical fertilisers FAO states that 45% of GHG emissions from the animal farming industry come from feed production. As the DA does not properly consider the use of cereals & soy as feed, it does not include the large GHG emissions arising from feed production. This is very important with pigs & poultry as FAO states 69% of feed grain is used for pigs & poultry. The production of feed involves: • The manufacture of the fertilisers used to grow cereals for feed entails emission of much CO2 • Application of these fertilisers to land involves large emissions of N2O • Feed for pigs & poultry contains much soy leading to deforestation & release of stored carbon. The DA states livestock production is a “transitional activity as referred to in Article 10(2)”. But an activity can only be seen as transitional if “it supports the transition to a climate-neutral economy consistent with a pathway to limit the temperature increase to 1,5°C above pre-industrial levels”. Industrial livestock cannot meet this objective unless the emissions arising from the production of cereals & soy as feed are ignored. Industrial livestock should not be classified as “transitional” as it does not meet the Art 10 criteria for an activity to be viewed as transitional Do no significant harm to non-climate criteria Water: Section 3 of the DA’s Table looks only at use of water on an animal farm, but most water use & pollution in intensive livestock arises in production of cereals as feed. FAO states: “Often, over 90% of the water consumption in livestock and poultry production is associated with feed production” & “determining the water use associated with feed production is of paramount importance in livestock water use assessments”. Circular economy The DA states the impact of livestock on transition to a circular economy is ‘non-applicable’. Industrial animal production is inherently linear while extensive systems can be genuinely circular.The DA livestock section must include the transition to a circular economy Pollution: Section 5 of the Table refers only to pesticides & fertilisers but several other pollutants arise from intensive livestock farms Biodiversity: The DA aims to protect only “lands of high-biodiversity value”. The harmful impact of industrial livestock on biodiversity is not limited to such special areas but is widespread across the EU.The DA must consider biodiversity on all land not just lands of high-biodiversity value
Read full response

Response to Revision of the EU geographical indications(GI) systems in agricultural products and foodstuffs, wines and spirit drinks

25 Nov 2020

Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback. Regarding animal products, this scheme is not coherent with the EC’s animal welfare and green ambitions. Requiring no special animal welfare standards, the scheme does not reflect genuine quality. For example, the production of several hams and cheeses have no requirements for animal welfare. The scheme also does not require any special environmental protection conditions. The scheme should be urgently updated with stringent animal welfare standards, at the minimum to include indoor enriched conditions, access to fresh air, lower stocking densities than standard, and an end to mutilations and forced early weaning. It should also include environmental protection measures.
Read full response

Response to Revision of ante-mortem inspection and post-mortem inspection

6 Nov 2020

Compassion in World Farming EU would like to support recommendations from the response of World Horse Welfare to this consultation, on the animal welfare implications of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004: i) Point 3 of Section III of Annex III on slaughter at place of origin, where (a) the animals cannot be transported, to avoid any risk for the handler or to protect the welfare of the animals; We agree that what constitutes ‘risk for the handler’ should have more detail. The wording of legislation needs to be clear to protect animal welfare, to enable enforcement, and to avoid excessive use of this provision. Animals should not be treated in ways that result in distress and suffering. ii) Chapter VI of Annex III: Emergency slaughter outside the slaughterhouse 1. An otherwise healthy animal must have suffered an accident that prevented its transport to the slaughterhouse for welfare reasons. We agree with World Horse Welfare that intention to slaughter cannot be at the expense of the animal's welfare and in an emergency situation the animal needs to be killed as soon as possible, without undue delay. Thank you for the opportunity to give our response on these matters.
Read full response

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner) and European Environmental Bureau and

5 Jun 2020 · VC Meeting - Farm to Fork