Response to interpellation 2022/23:232 on the ban on production and import of PMSG
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a ban on the production and import of PMSG. S considers the import and use of PMSG to be ethically unjustifiable due to the suffering of horses 1 2 and that a ban is necessary to level the playing field for Swedish farmers 3 2. S emphasizes that they highly value strong animal welfare 2. KD considers that Sweden has strong animal welfare legislation and that the government wants to raise the level of animal welfare globally 4. KD argues that market forces and breeding can be more effective paths than a ban 4 5 and that an investigation should analyze how increased animal welfare requirements affect the competitiveness of Swedish food producers 4. KD considers that all production involving animal suffering should be taken seriously 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Sofia Skönnbrink has asked me several questions regarding the production and import of the hormone PMSG.
Animal welfare is an issue that I and the government prioritize. We have strong animal welfare legislation in Sweden which, in several areas, sets higher requirements than other countries' legislation.
The Government wants to raise the level of animal welfare within the EU and globally. On 19 February this year, the Government decided on the committee directives for strengthened competitiveness for food producers and strong animal welfare (dir. 2023:19). A special investigator shall, among other things, propose measures to raise the level of animal welfare within the EU and globally and analyze how it affects the competitiveness for Swedish food producers. The overall purpose of the investigation is to find solutions to, with maintained high animal welfare requirements, strengthen the competitiveness for Swedish food production.
As I have previously expressed, I agree that the administration of the hormone PMSG is problematic and is not compatible with what we in Sweden consider good animal welfare. However, there are different ways to influence other countries in a more animal-welfare-friendly direction. It is not always given that legislation and bans are the most effective path. One should, for example, not underestimate the power of the market. In Sweden, the pig industry has found other solutions for heat synchronization and does not use PMSG.
The European Parliament's resolution is something that represents exactly the European Parliament's position on the issue. The government's forum for primarily influencing EU rules is, first and foremost, the Council of the European Union. This involves, for example, participating actively in the Council's negotiations on legislative proposals from the European Commission. In the area of animal welfare, this will take place during the upcoming review of all of the EU's animal welfare legislation. The European Parliament also participates in the legislative process.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
Before we enter into the debate for real, it is good to provide a little more background on the issue that I have chosen to bring up to the Minister here tonight.
PMSG is a type of hormone found in mare's blood during pregnancy. From the hormone, a preparation is produced that is highly sought after within the meat industry because it is used to streamline breeding, especially within the pig industry, as the minister said. It is used systematically to make gilts reach sexual maturity faster and to get sows to come into heat at the same time and thus give birth to their piglets within the same narrow time span.
Mr. Speaker! The preparation is no longer used in Sweden, but it is all the more common in other EU countries, such as Denmark and Germany. One might wonder what the problem with PMSG actually is, but it concerns the painful and very stressful handling that the pregnant mares are forced to endure so that the blood can be collected and the hormone extracted.
The EU has previously banned the import of PMSG from South America due to a number of animal welfare scandals that are linked specifically to these "blood farms," as they are called. But despite this, imports are now occurring instead from Iceland, where the extraction of stobblood has become a very lucrative activity.
Mr. Speaker! Previously, the sale of blood was a side business on Icelandic horse farms. But due to the high profitability, it has now become the main activity. In fact, Iceland is the largest producer of PMSG for Europe. This leads to thousands of Icelandic horses every year being bled of liters of blood. Over a period of eight to ten weeks, lactating and pregnant Icelandic horses are subjected to the stressful procedure that bloodletting entails.
Free-roaming mares that are not accustomed to being handled are captured and tied up by force so that blood can be collected and so that this hormone can be obtained. The risk of injury is great. And in the handling of these animals, it has been observed on several of these farms that this handling has been very violent. Once a week, the mares are bled of about five liters of blood, which is a far too large amount compared to the international recommendations that exist. It is therefore not uncommon that these procedures lead to anemia with subsequent complications. It becomes particularly serious because the time for recovery between these bleedings is so short and that the mares are then either pregnant or lactating, which in itself implies a great physical strain.
Mr. Speaker! What is positive is that there is a broad majority in the EU Parliament that wants to ban the import and use of PMSG in Europe. But unfortunately, there does not seem to be any particular high ambition from the government's side to work for a ban. Instead, the Minister for Rural Affairs has expressed that we shall await the EU Commission's proposal for new animal welfare legislation which will arrive in the autumn.
I question how the EU's revised animal welfare legislation can improve the situation for the horses in Iceland. I would therefore like to have an answer to the question of whether the Minister considers it ethically justifiable to subject pregnant Icelandic horses to this type of treatment, or what it is that otherwise prevents the government from more clearly backing the European Parliament's decision that the import of PMSG should be prohibited.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a strong animal welfare legislation that we should be very proud of. I believe, just as I said in my response, that the path that the pig industry, among others, has taken regarding the use of this hormone should also be taken in the rest of the EU and globally.
In Sweden, one has successfully utilized breeding to solve what PMSG has been used for, just as the member is pointing out – to synchronize estrus and so on.
We are actively working to include animal welfare aspects to the greatest extent possible in the negotiations on trade agreements that we have with third countries. One should, as said, not underestimate that it also has an effect. In Sweden, as said, the pig industry has found other solutions, and more should do so.
In many areas, Sweden has been a pioneer regarding animal welfare issues and animal protection issues. The government wants to raise the level of animal protection within the EU and globally. The investigation that I mentioned earlier shall, among other things, propose measures to raise the level of animal protection within the EU and globally. I recall that many industries manage very well without this hormone. And hopefully more will follow suit, hopefully also faster than with the rather extensive process that EU legislation is.
But just as the member pointed out, there is no doubt about my opinion on this issue. However, it is not as easy as it may sound, to simply shout for bans all the time.
Since the EU Commission is working on new animal welfare legislation, we naturally hope that we will be able to be an active part of this work as well and take it on when it arrives.
I do not think we are particularly far apart in terms of opinion on the issue itself. And I would like to take this opportunity now to thank you for a very interesting interpellation.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I hear what the Minister says, but I am not entirely satisfied with the answer. In my view, it is actually unreasonable that you, in a government position, cannot stand behind this majority in a clearer way. And by that, I mean that one stands up for it in a clearer way regarding the prohibition of the import and use of PMSG in Europe, especially now that we know how much suffering and stress it actually causes for the horses that are subjected to the treatment. Then we haven't even begun to talk about the sows that are forced into an abnormal reproduction rate in the countries where the preparation is used.
I fully understand that the Swedish presidency in the EU limits the government's room for maneuver because it entails a responsibility to take a mediating role. The minister has also previously expressed this in the response to my written question on the same theme. However, there are other ways to push forward important issues and get them on the agenda, including through contact with other countries that share the same view.
Mr. Speaker! I do not know if the Minister for Rural Affairs himself has watched the much-publicized film that was a reason why this decision was made in the EU Parliament. If the Minister had done so, I hope that this would have been a higher priority issue for the government. The type of images and information that one sees in this film truly leave an impression, at least on me. On my retina, there are still images remaining of terrified horses that, with wide-open eyes, are forced into cramped transport crates and which, in full panic, do their utmost to break free from this restraint and flee from the situation they are in.
But if we are to disregard the animal welfare aspects for a moment, there are also other parameters that are problematic when it comes to the use of PMSG.
Mr. Speaker! Since the right-conservative government took office, it has been clear that increased competitiveness, as the minister just mentioned, for Swedish food producers is something that is important for the Minister for Rural Affairs to achieve. We Social Democrats also think so. However, I do not think we are quite in agreement on the path there and how we are to achieve it. A clear example, I think, is the question of just PMSG, because according to me and us Social Democrats, it would have been an important step to ban this hormone in Europe as part of the work to achieve increased competitiveness for Swedish farmers.
As it stands right now, there are several European countries that are in the same market as Sweden and which use this hormone in their production. This means, in other words, that these countries, with the help of the preparation, can raise more animals in a shorter time and for a cheaper price than can be done in Sweden. Therefore, it surprises me that the Minister for Rural Affairs does not seem to consider the issue to be a higher priority.
Therefore, I want to ask the Minister for Rural Affairs if the cool interest is due to the government considering that PMSG should be allowed to continue being used by livestock farmers around Europe. If so, is the intention that it should again be permitted to be used even in Sweden? Otherwise, I believe the government is working against its own goal of leveling the competitive conditions.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! My interest is neither cooler nor warmer regardless of how many times the member claims that I have a cool interest in precisely this issue. I do not.
Speaking of interest, it can be noted that this hormone has been used since some point in the 1980s. If I remember correctly, the member's party was in government for eight years. The member is welcome to account for all the fantastic measures against this hormone that took place then.
What we have done is appointed an inquiry that aims to strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. As the member correctly points out, it may, according to some, be a competitive advantage, and according to others not, to use this method. But it is precisely this that this inquiry puts its finger on, also from an EU perspective. How are we to get the EU to follow Sweden even more regarding our high animal welfare requirements? So the interest is there. Then I understand the political dimension that one wants to draw attention to this. I think it is good. It can lead to more following suit.
But it is not about us as the chairing country now going in and steering the process when we have ongoing work in the EU Commission on new animal welfare legislation, which we really hope for very much.
Sweden shall be active and a contributing part in the work. We will be a good example for many other countries and other member states when we discuss these issues. That is the way forward. I hope very much for that.
Furthermore, we have the investigation which shall further clarify how we are to move this issue and other animal welfare issues forward in a European context.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for that answer as well!
The reason why the question is being raised here today and has not been noticed before is that there hasn't exactly been anything that people have talked about loudly, especially in Iceland. Very few Icelanders knew that it occurred at all before it was noticed by the animal rights organization in Germany.
Strong animal welfare and good animal well-being are very important. It is something that we Social Democrats value very highly. We pushed through the strengthened animal welfare act in 2018. We will continue to work so that our animals have it as good as possible.
To say that we did nothing in government might have been a bit of an exaggeration. The updated animal welfare legislation has been very important for, among other things, safeguarding animals' natural behaviors.
As the minister said, it is already forbidden to use PMSG in Sweden. We shall not settle for that but continue to drive and stand up for strong animal welfare even in the EU. It is not only for the animals' best but also for the Swedish farmers' best.
As long as we allow the import of PMSG, pregnant cows in Iceland will continue to be bled while unequal competitive conditions are maintained in the EU:
Mr. Speaker! There are still questions that I do not consider the Minister to have answered and which I would very much like to hear what the Minister has to say about.
It concerns the ethical question and whether the minister considers it ethically justifiable to subject the pregnant and lactating Icelandic horses to this type of treatment. This is particularly relevant because there is no medical benefit to the procedure.
If the Minister does not intend to work for a ban, how will the Minister in that case work to ensure that the use of PMSG in Europe does not affect Swedish farmers negatively from a competition perspective?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I naturally take all production that involves animal suffering seriously. Sweden is a pioneer when it comes to animal welfare. Here we have a great task. We shall work to ensure that the level of animal welfare is raised within the entire EU and globally.
Hopefully, the impact on consumers and organizations can also lead to change. It could possibly happen before the EU legislation is in place. That would be the best-case scenario.
As I have understood, it has also shown in this issue that one has come a good way in Sweden but also in other places around Europe. This applies not least after it has been highlighted by animal welfare organizations. They have indeed produced this film.
The Icelandic government has acted by investigating the issue. Certain tightenings are being introduced, but it is not enough. They have also indicated that the activity will be re-evaluated within a few years.
Finally, I hope it is true that work is being done in several places on several different fronts to produce alternatives to this. It is something that Sweden can be a leading country in, not least through our pig farming.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.