Response to interpellation 2023/24:369 on the importance of new animal welfare legislation in the EU
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the importance of new animal welfare legislation in the EU. KD considers that Sweden has extensive and strong animal welfare legislation compared to many other countries 1. KD argues that harmonized and strong animal welfare legislation within the EU is important for a sustainable food system, reduced antibiotic use, and high food safety 2. KD emphasizes that high animal welfare standards in Sweden have created a disadvantage in the form of higher production costs. KD wants Sweden to market its production methods and increase Swedish animal production 1. KD argues that the EU should streamline the bureaucracy instead of increasing the administrative pressure on farmers 1. S considers that more debates on animal welfare are needed throughout the EU, including legislation, control, and compliance 3. S argues that animals suffer when protection fails, for example through brutal methods at slaughterhouses, long transports, and overcrowding on industrial floors 3. S emphasizes that the animals have many advocates and that the issues must reach the political corridors 3.
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)
Madam Speaker! I have been asked how I intend to act to ensure that the Commission's review of the animal welfare legislation is completed in its entirety and presented to the Member States, as well as how I and the Government intend to act if a complete update of the legislation is not carried out.
First and foremost, I want to point out that Sweden has long worked to ensure that animal welfare within the rest of the EU is strengthened. The Commission's initiative to review the EU's animal welfare legislation was therefore very welcome. Harmonized and strong animal welfare legislation within the EU is an important step towards a sustainable food system with good animal welfare, reduced antibiotic use, and high food safety. It also contributes to meeting consumers' expectations and providing more equal competitive conditions for food producers in different Member States.
The Commission has previously indicated that the new proposals would comprise four regulations. As the interpellator mentions, however, only one of these proposals was presented in December last year, namely the regulation on the protection of animals during transport, as well as a previously unannounced proposal on the welfare and traceability of dogs and cats in the internal market.
The Commission has not announced which or when the other parts will be presented. The Government is keen that the Commission's legislative proposal on the area of animal welfare is presented in its entirety as soon as possible.
In a letter to the relevant commissioners during the autumn of 2023, I emphasized the importance of this reform being carried out and that it is carried out within the set timeframe. This is a position that I also expressed in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in December last year.
Sweden has, compared to many countries within and outside the EU, extensive and strong animal welfare legislation. This has, among other things, contributed to our good animal health and low use of antibiotics within food production. Harmonizing the level of animal welfare within the EU is important for Sweden, both from an obvious animal ethical perspective, to strengthen the protection for the individual animal, and from a competitiveness perspective.
We are proud of Sweden's high level of animal welfare, but the difference in level has also created a disadvantage in the form of higher production costs compared to those parts of the EU that have different requirements for animal welfare or where the application and compliance of the legislation look different. My and the government's continued position is therefore naturally that the Commission's review of the animal welfare legislation shall be completed in its entirety and that this shall occur as soon as possible.
When the interpellator reported that she was prevented from attending the meeting, the second Deputy Speaker granted that Jytte Guteland instead was allowed to participate in the interpellation debate.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Rural Affairs for being here and answering the important questions regarding the animal welfare legislation that my colleague Sofia Skönnbrink has posed in her interpellation.
As said, it is now clear that the planned review of the EU's animal welfare legislation will not be completed or implemented in its entirety during this mandate period. This is very disappointing, if not shameful, because we know that there are deficiencies for the animals in many parts within the union.
Furthermore, the EU Commission had the ambition to conduct a more comprehensive review and present new proposals. This concerned both the keeping of animals as well as animal transport and also animal welfare labeling. What has been presented so far, however, is a rather small part of this. It concerns a proposal on animal transport. It also concerns a regulation on the welfare of dogs and cats in commercial activities and traceability in the internal market. One must say that it became a bit of a thumb when we had expected the whole mitten.
This is also disappointing given that these are issues that engage Europeans, not just Swedes, even though the Swedes' commitment to animal welfare is great. We see a strong commitment in many EU countries, and when it comes to citizens' initiatives, actually many of the largest have been taken on the grounds of animal welfare.
Furthermore, it is catastrophic considering how animals often fare within the EU. It concerns animals that are transported for weeks, with a lack of controls on how the legislation is complied with, with a lack of water and feed, many times over long periods along the roads. One ends up in queues.
We have also received reports that the legislation is not being followed. Animals are transported in several countries. They end up in Spain and are then sent out onto the Mediterranean. Many of these animals become very weak and exhausted at the end and simply die.
This is appalling. Therefore, the EU would really need to pull itself together here and improve the legislation.
I want, just like my colleague Sofia Skönnbrink who is responsible for these issues for us, to ask what the Minister for Rural Affairs intends to do now to get momentum back into these issues. We are in an EU election campaign, but we have a sitting Swedish government that in the coming years can push the new commission and ensure that these issues are brought back to life so that they do not fall into the gap between this mandate period and the next. Otherwise, this could end up on the back burner for as long as it likes.
What does the Minister for Rural Affairs intend to do to raise these issues now? We heard in the response that the Minister for Rural Affairs has sent a letter to the relevant commissioners. The Minister has also raised this at a ministerial meeting. That is good, but more is needed. What does the government intend to do moving forward?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Sofia Skönnbrink and I debated this issue in the autumn, and even then I pointed out that the government and the Social Democrats are in agreement. It is good that we are in agreement on these issues. It is a strength to have consensus here.
It stands beyond all reasonable doubt that the level of animal welfare, just as Jytte Guteland says, needs to be raised within the EU. The current legislation also needs to be updated. Therefore, the government's position is that all proposals must be presented in the review that the commission has signaled and promised and which we have had bilaterals about.
It is not only Sweden that is pursuing this line, but there is a group of leading countries, of which Sweden is probably the foremost within the EU when it comes to animal welfare. We naturally have a responsibility within the EU and within animal husbandry throughout the world to show that food production can go hand in hand with good animal welfare, and with a very low antibiotic use as a result of that.
We have, as said, in different contexts and in different forums, conveyed the importance of a thorough review and that it should preferably have been carried out within the set timeframe.
Even though hope should be the last thing to be abandoned, I am prepared to agree that it does not look like any more proposals will come in this area. I have not yet had the opportunity to have any individual meeting with the responsible commissioner but will, of course, seek that opportunity as soon as the opportunity arises. That is the way we move issues forward in the EU. It is about having enough on our side. It is about having good and established contacts with other member states, and it is about taking the time to prioritize and ensuring that meetings are held with responsible commissioners in order to move forward.
I want to conclude with what I began this contribution with, namely that I have already stated that I think it is good that we have a large consensus on this issue in the chamber.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Rural Affairs once again for the clarity regarding the intention to push for a complete review of the legislation at the EU level, so that we can produce proposals in all areas that need to be reformed. Reform is necessary; on that, we also agree.
The current situation is not sustainable. The animals have suffered many times during periods of price pressure, but also since further back in the system that exists within the EU, where there are clearly gaps in the legislation and difficulties in reviewing the rules that nevertheless apply, as well as in monitoring and also introducing sanctions when animal welfare legislation is breached.
Investigations also show that the member states do not always do what they are supposed to. Previous investigations of EU legislation have also established that there are an extra high number of violations from the member states within this specific area. That is serious in itself.
If we are to talk about what it is really about, it is animals that are transported for very long periods. Despite the fact that the legislation speaks of eight hours, in practice it is many times much longer.
It is also difficult for farmers to know how far their animals are transported after they have been sent for slaughter. Sometimes it can be a matter of farmers believing that the slaughter takes place the day after next, but that it in fact is to take place in a country very far away. They have a lack of control over this, and the animals suffer from it.
In recent years, we have seen very many animal scandals in the media in several countries, not least at slaughterhouses where the animals have suffered badly. It is not only in Sweden but in several of the EU's member states that one has seen it in the news.
Furthermore, we know that industrial large-scale production in certain areas has meant that the animals are treated as commodities and not as sentient beings. We have all seen reports where chickens are crowded together and bones are broken and have been horrified by it. It is essential that this is stopped.
We also know that there are still countries where piglets are tethered. We know that there are many countries where there is animal husbandry in cages that is appalling. We should address that. We have come very far in Sweden, but we really need to ensure that we go much further at the EU level.
Therefore, it is good to have a consensus. But it is also important that one has the strength to highlight the issues at times when much else is also happening, and sees that there are synergy effects and that a sustainable future for the animals is also sustainable for agriculture within the EU.
It is actually the case that in order to achieve level playing fields and a competitive situation within the EU that is also good for Swedish farmers, we need to ensure that animal welfare standards are improved and, for example, remove much of the routine antibiotic treatment. Through level playing fields within agriculture throughout the EU, the price structure will also improve. Animal welfare issues are therefore linked to sustainability also in an economic sense.
It is important with pathos, but it is also important that one has the strength to take up these issues when there are very many other issues dominating the agenda. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister for Rural Affairs what the next step is for the government here.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank Jytte Guteland for supplementary questions.
It is always important to emphasize that Sweden, compared to many countries within and outside the EU, has a stronger and more comprehensive animal welfare legislation. The first thing I want to state is that we shall continue to safeguard this.
We are currently seeing extensive protests from farmers in virtually all of Europe's countries, and in many countries, attempts from the EU to increase animal welfare are seen as burdens on agriculture with direct and negative consequences. The time we are living in now - it must simply be acknowledged - does not make it easier to move forward with this type of proposal. In that case, I believe we have an even greater responsibility from our agricultural side, which manages to produce with higher requirements than in almost every other EU country, to show that we can manage to maintain animal welfare and that we can manage to keep production up while we have really good animal welfare.
But I also believe that puts demands on the EU in other areas. It is, in fact, inevitable that food production throughout the EU has taken a hit recently. Fundamentally, it is a long-term problem with too low profitability in our important food sector, not least on the primary production side - for our European farmers.
The EU reaches quite long fingers into agriculture. To some extent, one should also do so because agricultural policy is common to the EU, but over time you have increased the administrative pressure on individual farmers when it comes to basic conditions and things such as crop rotation - that the EU should be involved and micro-manage and keep track of exactly what we grow on which field and what crop rotation we have. I believe we can find other efficiencies in the EU bureaucracy that reduce red tape and costs for Europe's agriculture instead of going after animal welfare issues or failing to strive for animal welfare.
One can address many aspects of this. The obvious ones are the purely ethical ones, and they rank high on the agenda even for me. But if one looks at this with humanity as the starting point, one also sees that the use of antibiotics is a very great threat to humanity, if one may use such large words. It is actually so, for the fact that we use so much antibiotics unnecessarily – just as the member says – causes the resistance to increase even among us humans. We could end up in disease situations where we need antibiotics but they perhaps do not work. If anything, I think they should work.
I believe that Sweden must do many things to show that our model is better than theirs. Among other things, we shall market our production methods. We shall try to produce more livestock, that is to say, have a larger livestock production in Sweden - because it is so much better than many others - and ensure that more people buy from us instead. We use, in fact, very little antibiotics and very little plant protection products, and we take a great environmental and climate responsibility in our Swedish agriculture. It is one way.
As I said in my previous post, this is also a political craft. It is a matter of building up contacts and utilizing the contacts one has to move things forward in the EU, and that is what I intend to do.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister once again for several clarifications.
I want to start by saying that I am glad that we have this debate in the chamber today. I think that Sofia Skönnbrink has raised a very important issue. We need more debates on animal welfare throughout the EU, as well as on what the situation is regarding legislation and also control and compliance in the member states. These issues are, in fact, very large.
They are large because it concerns millions of individuals – sentient beings – who suffer when protection fails, and we have seen many examples of that in recent years. In several reports and on the news, also from Sweden, we have seen what it looks like when things go wrong. It does not look good. It is an immense suffering. We can, for example, see brutal methods at certain slaughterhouses and transports that become far too long, where animals become exhausted and perhaps die as a result of it. We can also see how animals are crowded on industrial floors and treated as commodities rather than sentient beings.
We have seen a lot of this in recent years. Perhaps it is also in a time of price pressure so that those who are most vulnerable are also those who suffer the most – those who cannot assert their rights according to legislation. But what is heartening is that the animals have many advocates. There are very many Europeans pushing on the issue. Swedes in particular are engaged, I would say, but there are also many in other countries pushing for citizens' initiatives. Most of the citizens' initiatives have actually been linked to various issues regarding animal welfare or the environment, and it is very pleasing that it looks that way.
This does, however, oblige us to ensure that these issues end up in the political spheres, that they are debated and that new legislation is produced. Therefore, in this debate, I note that the Minister for Rural Affairs clearly states
that one wants to take further initiatives to push forward
that a broader review is required and
that this is not incompatible with improved regulations and reduced red tape.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! A harmonized and strong animal welfare legislation within the EU is an important step towards a more sustainable food system where good animal welfare is a given – and where the consequences of good animal welfare are reduced antibiotic use and high food safety. I also believe that it contributes to the ability to meet consumers' expectations and provide more equal competitive conditions for food producers in different member states.
Again: The Government is keen that the Commission's legislative proposal is presented in its entirety and that this happens as soon as possible. I am also, again, pleased to note the Social Democrats' support for this position.
We have from the Swedish side for a long time worked with animal welfare issues in order to influence the rest of the EU. Therefore, we saw this as a very welcome initiative from the Commission's side. We have already invested a lot of work and commitment into this issue and will of course not let it go. Animal welfare is and remains important, and we want, as said, that the level of animal welfare is raised in the entire EU.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Sofia Skönnbrink for the interpellation and Jytte Guteland for the debate. It is important to raise these issues often.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.