|
|
|
Reports and Memo's
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Brussels, october 1995
|
Decisive years for european consumer protection
|
|
Animal welfare and the quality of meat
The usual term « meat production » defines most clearly the relationship of those producers with slaughter animals. Practical experience shows that the animals in particular suffer in the so-called mass production.
The question arises ever more frequently as to why slaughter animals which are bred to serve man as food, must also, throughout their entire life often be treated cruelly and in a way which is unworthy of mankind. So far it has not even been possible to spare these animals ill-treatment even on their way to the slaughter-house. The latest compromise of the Agriculture Council of 20 June 1995 regarding the duration of animal transport is not acceptable solution either.
Nevertheless, it should not be difficult to recognise that animals that are intended for human consumption also have a right to a treatment that is worthy of mankind. Moreover it is now known that animals that are well treated up until their death, also provide a better quality meat.
The fault of this development lies with the CAP which is based on the principle of the price/quantities subsidy. It provides financial support and therefore is an incitement for mass production since he who produces large quantities, also receives a correspondingly high level of subsidies. From the very beginning, strict quality standards were not laid down.
Also over the years, the qualitative requirements hardly became more stringent. This gave free scope to the development of mass production. In meat production, particularly poultry and pigs, this led amongst others to a steadily increasing use of medicines in the form of antibiotics, tranquillisers, hormones,etc. without which any mass production is impossible. With the passing of time, the production of quality products became more and more inadequate.
The growing amount of unmarketable agricultural mass-produced meat surpluses which in some instances are of a deplorable quality coupled with the growing consumer trend to seek more natural production methods- due mainly to the fear of medicine and pesticide residues - impelled in the first place a few producers to react to the trend and then later on, the official agricultural policy-makers.
Already in the seventies but still more during the eighties and until the present day, this development led to divergent production trends and methods, starting with the so-called « organic » production and continuing with the various forms of own « labels » of individual producers or groups of producers.
As far as regards official agricultural policy, a first Regulation (N°2081/92) was issued for the purpose of protecting regional specialities. This gives the producers the possibility to specialise within a specific geographic area and to obtain higher prices thanks to limited competition.
A further Regulation, also dated 14 July 1992, created a monopoly for products with special local and regional characteristics and tried to increase, or at least maintain, the producers' level of income.
Already in 1991, Regulation N°2092 protected and promoted the so-called « organic » production, first of all in the plant sector. In April 1995, the Commission submitted a proposal to supplement this Regulation to include livestock production.
The supplementary Regulation lays down that very special care is to be shown in the rearing of livestock for the so-called organic production, and that is, not only during their daily life but also during transport.
In contrast, it has not yet proved possible to keep and treat the other animals coming from agricultural mass production in a dignified manner. The ill-treatment of animals is an ordinary occurrence and photographs and reports of gruesome scenes of horror are not uncommon. Animal friends and consumers are turning more and more away from the cruel handling methods sometimes applied by the producers, and meat consumption has certainly already suffered on this account.
Since at present no understanding is to be expected on the part of the producers, it is high time that the consumers react against these intolerable conditions so that at least the official policy would be obliged to reduce the financing of mass production with the taxpayers' and the consumers' monies. In this way, mass productions of the type and quantity that we find today, would no longer be possible, particularly since antibiotics and tranquillisers should be forbidden. The ban already placed on the use of growth promoters must be controlled much more strictly and non-compliance with the provisions, sanctioned by deterrent penalties.
The production of lower quality meat and the ill-treatment of animals should no longer be supported financially. The production of good quality meat as such, should on the contrary be given financial support.
|
|
|
[ TABLE OF CONTENTS ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
