Should “animal suffering” be taken into account in the final bill for the leg of lamb or the slice of veal? Far from being absurd, this idea is put forward by the Court of Auditors of the European Union. In an analysis document published on Monday on the transport of live animals in the European Union, the institution returns to the supervision of these movements, and puts forward “courses of action” to strengthen it. A work carried out within the framework of the upcoming revision of European regulations on animal welfare.
The court recalls that animals are often transported between Member States by producers to “exploit cost differences between regions”, with a view to maximizing profitability, economies of scale and reducing slaughter expenses or production. However, “transporting live animals over long distances can have adverse effects on their well-being”, underlines Eva Lindström, responsible for the document. Anxiety, hunger, thirst, heat… The trip, sometimes long – 37% last more than eight hours, including 4% more than 24 hours – can be particularly trying. In addition, all states do not equally apply the legislation governing the transport of animals, and “loopholes” are exploited by producers, says the official.
Faced with this worrying observation, the auditors therefore suggest limiting the number of journeys, as well as their duration, and improving the conditions for transporting the animals. And, among the avenues suggested to dissuade producers, the document proposes in particular to “attribute a monetary value to animal suffering during transport and [to] integrate it into the cost of it and the price of the meat” . As it stands, the document points to a lack of information about the “financial consequences of animal welfare problems during transport”. A breach that “harms the development of incentive systems that could encourage transport companies to take action to prevent breaches in animal welfare”.
The court thus hopes to encourage producers to change the way they transport animals, or even to reduce travel, by introducing “incentive systems encouraging transport companies to prevent animal welfare shortcomings, and to reduce minimizing the economic attractiveness of non-compliant practices’. However, it will then be necessary to set up a “method for pricing animal suffering”, which remains to be defined.
More broadly, the analysis document provides ways to succeed in “inciting producers and consumers to adopt sustainable behavior”. A way to reconcile animal welfare, product quality for consumers and compliance with rules for producers. And this, while buyers are more and more sensitive to these questions, in exchange for transparency on the part of producers: they are thus ready to pay more for their purchases, but “only if they are informed of the good conditions of ‘breeding”.
