Response to interpellation 2025/26:177 on irregularities in the poultry industry
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned poor conditions in the poultry industry. V considers that the suffering is built into fast-growing chickens and that Sweden should ban the breeding of these breeds nationally 1 2. MP considers that animals are sentient beings and that there is a systemic error as the legislation is not followed in practice 3 4. MP argues that the government must act now instead of referring to EU processes 3 4. KD considers that Sweden has strong animal welfare legislation and that one should work for change at the EU level 5. KD argues that it is counterproductive to ban legal activities 6. KD claims that the government has taken measures 6. KD considers that farmers have a great responsibility for animal suffering 7. KD argues that Sweden is at the forefront and that it is difficult to introduce entirely own rules 7. KD emphasizes that 97 percent of the flocks had no remarks during inspections in 2024 8. KD argues that the rhetoric of scaring consumers does not work as consumption has not been affected 8.
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! Kajsa Fredholm has asked me if I intend to take national measures, and if so which ones, in view of the conditions within the Swedish chicken industry, as well as if I intend to take measures, and if so which ones, to ban the breeding of fast-growing chicken breeds in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! Sweden has strong animal welfare legislation, and in many cases, we have more detailed animal welfare requirements compared to the EU and other member states.
From the Swedish side, we signaled early to the EU Commission that during a review of the EU's animal welfare legislation, it is important to strengthen animal welfare for broiler chickens. We emphasized that specific legislation for breeding animals needs to be developed, which is currently lacking at the EU level. We also emphasized the importance of considering both animal welfare and animal health during breeding so that there is not an overly one-sided focus on production traits such as growth. Finally, we emphasized that a ban on beak trimming should be introduced, a ban that we already have in Sweden today.
Madam Speaker! The review of the EU's animal welfare legislation is important for several reasons. Therefore, I have once again, at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 11–12 December 2025, pointed out to the Commission that the remaining proposals must be presented.
I have not seen any reason to act nationally in an issue where the greatest gains can be made at the EU level. Broiler chicken breeding is conducted from an international perspective where the breeding selection does not take place in Sweden. However, the majority of the world's broiler chicken breeding takes place in Europe, so it is on that arena that I believe we should work for change.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!
This debate is about the severe conditions that exist in Sweden's chicken industry. The chicken is our most common bird in the country. Annually, over 100 million chicks are born for slaughter. The chicken that we buy in the grocery store is bred to grow large in a very short time. These are so-called turbo chickens.
Madam Speaker! Statistics from the Swedish Food Agency's animal welfare inspections show that at least 56,000 chickens were subjected to pain, stress, or premature death prior to slaughter. The most widespread problem is corrosion damage under the chickens' feet. It is broiler chickens, that is, fast-growing chickens, which constitute 98 percent of all chickens raised in Sweden. They also run a higher risk of dying during transport than slower-growing breeds.
Madam Speaker! Yesterday, SVT's Uppdrag granskning released the report "Älska de kyckling", which is a follow-up to the report "Kycklingens pris" which two years ago revealed the systematic suffering in the Swedish chicken industry for broiler chickens.
These chickens and the parent animals, that is to say the breeding animals, have pain bred into their bodies. They grow so fast that their legs cannot support them. The parent animals are kept on a starvation diet so that they do not die from their own genetics, which results in the hideous images we have seen in Uppdrag granskning of chickens that even eat each other alive.
Madam Speaker! The ethologist Per Jensen, who has followed the poultry industry for many years, says in the program: This is the most acute animal welfare problem we have in Sweden. These types of animal breeding and animal production passed the biological limits a long time ago.
Still, Madam Speaker, nothing has happened in two years. Despite the revelations, no measures have been taken, neither from the chicken companies nor from politics. We in Vänsterpartiet consider it completely unacceptable that the conditions in the Swedish chicken industry have been allowed to continue without any measures being taken.
I repeat my two questions that I posed in the interpellation. Does the Minister intend to take national measures, and if so, which ones, in view of the conditions within the Swedish chicken industry? Does the Minister intend to take measures, and if so, which ones, to ban the breeding of fast-growing chicken breeds in Sweden?
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! From the perspective of the Green Party, we are constantly trying to highlight that animals are not products but sentient beings with their own value. This means that we have a great moral responsibility for their lives and well-being. This is also something that is established in the preparatory works for the Animal Welfare Act.
We have an animal welfare law that, among other things, Peter Kullgren usually boasts about in international contexts. In the investigations that Uppdrag granskning has conducted, such as Älskade kyckling, one sees that the law means nothing in reality.
The images, which are very powerful, cut to the heart. I need to hide those images from my child, Madam Speaker. It is something that goes against everything our morality tells us and everything we have actually agreed upon. We are to treat animals in a better way than this.
Suffering is something that we can try to protect small children from. But we politicians cannot turn a blind eye to the systematic suffering. It is a receipt that we have a system failure.
On paper, we have ensured that all animals shall have the right to a natural behavior. But in practice, they live their entire lives in misery and in constant suffering. That is because their body is a biological prison with constant pain. It is also because their space to practice their natural behavior is no larger than the paper I am now holding.
Madam Speaker! Peter Kullgren points to the EU and that it is there we should demand change and work our way away from the misery that exists. Where is the limit? We can state that we are breaking our own laws in Sweden. It is something that the government has a responsibility for. We cannot engage in protracted and years-long processes in the EU.
When Peter Kullgren is asked what the government intends to do, he refers back to the industry. But we have legislation, and the legislation is not being followed. Approximately 80 percent of all inspections show violations of the animal welfare legislation in Sweden. In that case, we cannot refer to the industry solving this itself. Nor can we refer to starting a protracted process in the EU.
We need a government that stands up for our animal welfare law in Sweden and ensures that consumers and all people in Sweden can trust it. When we buy Swedish-produced products, we should be able to trust that we have an animal welfare law not just on paper, but one that is reflected in fair conditions for the animals in production.
Madam Speaker! After these reviews, my question to Peter Kullgren is: What measures does the government intend to take here and now?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I have nothing to say to those who do not follow the laws and rules that we have in Sweden. What we have seen in some of the reports is not compatible with the legislation we have.
The legislation regulates what is to be done if the legislation is not followed. It is a task that the authorities must perform through controls and follow-ups. If one breaks the law, one shall naturally be punished.
I also have very little tolerance for people breaking into other people's property illegally and installing cameras. I know it is difficult to have those two discussions in your head at the same time. But there are activists who, naturally, try to find the absolute worst thing one can imagine.
Madam Speaker! It is not the first time I have discussed these questions with my two fellow debaters. I can state that one is not so far from these activists. I do not believe that one will be satisfied from either the Miljöpartiets side or the Vänsterpartiets side until we have no animal production in Sweden. There we are not in agreement; that we can begin by stating.
But this does not mean that we should not strive for animals to have it as good as possible in the meantime. Therefore, I am very proud that we have strong animal welfare legislation. I am also proud of the broad consensus that exists in Sweden when it comes to pushing forward and pushing the EU forward. It is at that level that we can absolutely best address this type of problem.
I think it is incorrect to claim that the government has done nothing. Now, I do not know what was included in the follow-up of this program, which was primarily carried out two years ago. But I note there that I myself have visited relevant companies and had in-depth discussions with industries. We have also ensured that we have an expanded animal welfare program, which now also covers breeding animals. So, things have indeed happened. And at the EU level, as I said, we are pushing so that we can get a different order of things.
I think it would be inappropriate of Sweden to in any way intervene and ban activities that operate according to the Animal Welfare Act. It would only lead to the fact that we would most likely start importing chicken from other parts of the world, where the animal welfare legislation is not at the same level and where the conditions are even worse. In that case, we would harm our food production even further. That is precisely why I emphatically assert that it is at the EU level that we must solve these issues. Otherwise, it will only be counterproductive.
I understand that one will not agree with me on that, but if one thinks a bit further, I believe one will see the reasonableness in it.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the Minister's answer, but I am not entirely satisfied.
The Minister for Rural Affairs answers that the breeding of broiler chickens is conducted from an international perspective where the breeding selection does not take place in Sweden. Admittedly, the direction of the breeding is already determined when the Swedish chicken industry purchases fast-growing so-called grandparents from breeding companies in the United Kingdom. That is also where the first mistake lies – that we allow them to purchase precisely fast-growing chicken hybrids. But then the breeding continues at Swedish facilities, where the eggs from the grandparent animals are hatched to produce parent animals which in turn lay eggs that become broiler chickens. The breeding thus takes place in several stages, even in Sweden. And in Sweden, Swedish animal welfare legislation applies, which states: It is forbidden to carry out breeding with such a direction that it can cause suffering for the parent animal or the offspring.
So, breeding means that the suffering is built into these chickens' fast-growing bodies. This is therefore a systematic animal welfare problem and not isolated cases of deviations. And this contravenes the Animal Welfare Act.
Madam Speaker! Norway has gone ahead of us. Already in 2023, Norway's animal ethics council proposed a ban on fast-growing breeds, such as Ross 308, which is the same broiler chicken that we have here in Sweden. The Norwegian council considers it incompatible with their animal welfare legislation to continue with this type of animal husbandry. Therefore, one might wonder: What is it that prevents the Minister for Rural Affairs from ensuring that the animal welfare laws are followed by banning the breeding of fast-growing chicken hybrids even in Sweden? Norway has succeeded in purchasing slow-growing breeds. Why should not Sweden be able to do so?
Madam Speaker! Furthermore, the Minister for Rural Affairs expresses that he has seen no reason to act nationally in an issue where the greatest gains can be made at the EU level. I think it is good that the government has several times expressed support for the review of the EU's animal welfare legislation. But as the responsible minister for Sweden's animal welfare, one has more power. I also think that one has an obligation to do more than joint inputs to the EU Commission. What is it that prevents the minister from working at both the national level and the EU level so that Sweden can be at the forefront instead of, as now, lagging behind its neighboring countries?
Norway has taken the lead by setting an end date for the breeding of broiler chickens. In Denmark, there is a broad political agreement that fast-growing chickens shall be phased out from all state procurement, and the Danish government shall work towards a ban on broiler chickens at the EU level. It is entirely possible to act at the national level in other countries. Why not also in Sweden?
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! The answer that Peter Kullgren gave began to deal more and more with activists than with the issue itself. I would therefore like to bring this debate back to the issue.
We have, therefore, a confirmed case. It actually concerns an entire industry. One can see which regulations we have and what the Animal Welfare Act says about breeding. It is not compatible with these fast-growing breeds, the turbo chickens. It is a constant suffering for them. Therefore, we must move away from the fast-growing and switch to more slow-growing.
One reason that Peter Kullgren gave was: If we go first, there is a risk that we will start importing from other countries. I would say that it is precisely the opposite, Madam Speaker. If Sweden does not act and do something about this and if the government does not take these issues seriously, many will probably be able to imagine importing from Norway. The neighboring country Norway has, after these reviews, actually chosen to act. That shows that it is fully possible. Consumers expect this. They expect that the legislation that exists is followed.
Today, it is a system failure when the breeding variety itself entails suffering, when controls do not take place, and when there are no consequences when one violates the laws that we have enacted together. Therefore, it is not possible to shift this to anyone else. The arguments are not valid, because Norway shows the opposite. And I truly believe that the Swedish people expect more.
I want to ask once more: What does Peter Kullgren intend to do in this matter, in the position he holds in Sweden's government?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I think both of my fellow debaters are being a bit careless or taking on a role that I do not consider one has as a Member of Parliament. It is claimed in this debate that practically the entire industry should be condemned and that everyone is doing something wrong. So that is how it sounds if one listens objectively to what is being said in the debate.
I want to clearly point out that it is not my assessment. Among the chicken farmers I meet when I meet the industry, there is a great responsibility for animal welfare. It is absolutely in their own interest. One can also observe that in most of the inspections that are carried out, the experts employed to perform this type of inspection judge that animal welfare is maintained, even when it concerns what you call broiler chickens.
Yes, Norway has made a different assessment. Norway is also not a part of the EU and the EU's common agricultural policy. That is Sweden, I can inform both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. It is one of the few truly EU-common policy areas, which means it is difficult for Sweden to do exactly whatever it wants. We are already stretching at the forefront, not least in the area of animal welfare.
That is where the rest of Europe lags behind. I am very disappointed that the Commission has not come forward with what it has said it would do. We press them all the time. But to believe that Sweden, as a part of the EU under the common agricultural policy, can have any rules it wants in a vacuum without it having any consequences whatsoever is out of touch with reality.
I can also state that I very closely follow the development of the controls that exist. There are targets that 10 percent of the production facilities should be controlled annually. This is only achieved in certain counties. We follow this closely, and it is important that we do. We shall reach the targets that exist. The reasons for this vary from county administrative board to county administrative board. Sometimes it is a staff shortage, sometimes a lack of competence. An increased degree of threats is also experienced, and therefore, people often work double, not primarily when it concerns the livestock of agriculture but in other animal welfare matters.
This is a problem that we must continue to look at. It is clear that the control must function. If errors are found, they must be rectified. I do, however, turn quite sharply against the sweeping picture where there is once again a desire to drag all farmers over the same comb. That is not my picture.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
Now I also took up an EU country in my example in my previous speech, namely Denmark, which is ahead of Sweden in that area. This also applies to the Netherlands and France, and as far as I know, all these three countries are members of the EU. Thus, the minister's reasoning falls a bit short, I think.
Another important part is the county administrative boards' lack of oversight in the poultry industry. There are reports showing that no or very few physical inspections are carried out at Sweden's largest poultry slaughterhouses, even though millions of chickens are slaughtered there every year. How is a sensible supervision to be carried out if physical inspections are not performed to a sufficient extent? We in Vänsterpartiet have budgeted 100 million kronor more than the government to be able to provide resources for increased animal welfare inspections.
I have a few closing questions for the Minister. Swedish consumers have the right to know what they are paying for and what they are eating. Does the Minister believe that consumers want to pay for a farming practice that looks like this? Does the Minister believe that the consumer likes to eat their chicken when they know that the chicken comes from a production that is so bad that animals can even eat each other alive?
I think the minister should consider it and take responsibility and ban the breeding of broiler chickens in Sweden. As it stands now, it contravenes Swedish animal welfare legislation.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I will just make one observation: When the chickens' feet were checked in 2024, I believe it was, 97 percent of the flocks had no remarks. One can state that this is a very high figure. At the same time, the Swedish animal welfare legislation is not designed according to any percentage but on an individual level. The goal is therefore, of course, that there should be none at all. This still provides some perspective in the debate, because when one listens to my opponents, Madam Speaker, one gets the impression that it is terrible everywhere. I do not share that image, and this is a figure that leads this in evidence.
Is everything perfect? No, it is not. Should we strive for it to become even better? Yes, we should. Is the industry committed to striving for it to become better? Yes, it is. Do we need to ensure that we fulfill and reach the goals we have regarding controls? Yes, we must do that.
The rhetoric of sweeping everyone over the yardstick and trying to scare consumers does not seem to work either. I believe it is because people see through the scaremongering. One suffers with every animal that suffers, but one also knows that it is not the general rule and that it does not look like that in all stables all the time. I believe that is why one can see that consumption has not been affected. If it were that bad, consumers would in such a case steer this entirely themselves. That is my conviction.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.