Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing` () (98/C 407/36)

On 30 March 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 23 July 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Gardner.

At its 357th plenary session of 9 and 10 September 1998 (meeting of 10 September), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 62 votes to 37, with 5 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Commission proposal is based on the Scientific Veterinary Committee report submitted in October 1996, updating the previous report in 1992.

1.2. 93 % of all hens in the EU (some 320 million in 1997) are housed in battery cages under conditions laid down in Directive 88/116/EEC, which has been of mandatory application in all Member States since 1995. There are currently no minimum European standards for the welfare of laying hens reared by methods other than battery farming.

1.3. This proposal is to replace this Directive and also to set standards for other systems of rearing hens. It is based on a recent report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee on the welfare of hens which was required by the 1988 Directive. Most of the detailed changes for battery cages would give hens more space. As a result much of the infrastructure would need replacing by bigger units. The proposal therefore includes a ten-year transition time for this.

1.4. However there is no proposal to phase out battery cages.

1.5. In relation to the socioeconomic aspects, it must be remembered that poultry farming forms an integral part of agriculture and the rural economy, which is extremely important in certain EU regions. European poultry farming is of practically no cost to taxpayers and uses up vast quantities of the cereals produced in the EU. Furthermore, it operates in an increasingly liberalized and competitive world market.

2. General comments

2.1. The report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee makes it clear that conditions of hen rearing need to be improved. Various reports from individual countries have come to the same overall conclusions, e.g. the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council report.

2.1.1. As an example a cage space of 450 cm2 per bird severely restricts movement, denies natural behaviour such as wing flapping and the maximum height of 40 cm prevents most birds from standing fully upright.

2.2. In the EU there is widespread concern about animal welfare. However there is a wide variation between Member States in the awareness to the problems of laying hens and the public pressure for change varies accordingly. In some Member States the public considers that improvements are extremely important whereas in others there is little call for change. In a single market however, any change in the minimum standards has to apply to all Member States, those where there is public pressure and those where there is no such pressure.

2.3. Raising the welfare standards for hens increases the price of eggs and of egg products with obvious effects on the consumer price. However surveys in five Member States () have indicated that consumers would be prepared to pay more for eggs produced under higher welfare standards.

2.4. For producers there are considerable one-off costs since much of the infrastructure will have to be adapted or completely replaced. The difficulty of doing this will be compounded by restrictions on environmental and planning grounds since many buildings would have to become bigger. Increased running costs are also likely, resulting in lower farming incomes. Some farmers could even go out of business resulting in overall reduction of the EU flock.

2.5. The proposed welfare improvements would make EU products less competitive with potential effects both on farming incomes and on EU jobs, owing to increased imports from countries where lower welfare standards apply, such as the USA or China.

2.6. The Commission proposes seeking the support of other countries in establishing minimum protection standards for laying hens reared in the various types of systems. It is worth noting here that only the EU and Switzerland have compulsory standards for the welfare of hens.

2.7. Under the WTO agreements, it is no longer possible to ban such imports. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the possibility of amending the WTO so as to address animal welfare. The Committee insists that the Commission must commit itself to such a policy in its negotiating position in the next stage of WTO rounds. However that would be a very long-term aim and well outside the time scale of this proposal.

2.8. The Commission recently confirmed that its declaration to the Council from 1986 concerning appropriate measures to take account of the financial consequences of the present directive is still valid. The ESC attaches great importance to this position of the Commission.

2.9. The EU applies import duties to eggs and egg products under the tarification process. Under the WTO agreement on Agriculture these import duties will be reduced by around 1/3 by the year 2000. However tariffs are not high on the list of WTO's unacceptable trade related measures. With respect to eggs and egg products, future tariff concessions might be made conditional upon acceptance by third countries that lower (or zero) tariffs will apply only to those eggs which meet the EU minimum standards.

2.10. Another possible long-term solution would be to use consumer pressure so as to discourage the sale of imports made under poor welfare standards. At present the label indications for production conditions are optional. The Commission wants to make these mandatory (twelfth Preamble). If that were done these indications could be supplemented by the words 'Produced under EU approved standards` or simply the normal CE logo. Experience in other fields shows that such information could cause the distributive trade to react and give strong preference to products produced in ways favoured by the consumer. Such labelling of course would also have to apply to egg products when featured in the ingredient list.

3. Conclusion

3.1. The proposal would appreciably improve animal welfare but would increase egg prices for consumers and costs for the producers. Having weighed up the pros and cons of the matter, the Committee cannot endorse a radical amendment of the directive until such time as:

- the minimum requirements enshrined in the old directive have actually been implemented in all EU Member States;

- third country imports are subject to the same production and shelf-life conditions;

- adequate Community aids for conversion have been provided.

4. Detailed comments

4.1. 'Enriched cage` is not the correct term in all languages and the term needs amending (e.g. in English to: 'enriched battery cage`, in German to: 'Ausgestattete Batterie`).

4.2. Article 2.6 (new)

From an animal welfare point of view, beak trimming should be phased out wherever this is possible, starting with those production systems where it is not absolutely essential. In the meantime it needs defining so as to distinguish it from debeaking which should be totally prohibited. The following is proposed:

'Removal of the hook of the upper mandible and the tip of the lower mandible`.

4.3. Article 3

The date of 1 January 1999 and all the other dates given in the proposal, need to be changed to:

'x months/years from the adoption of this proposal.`

4.4. Article 3.1.a

Add:

'Nest boxes or nesting area should be closed off at night to prevent roosting and faecal contamination.`

4.5. Article 3.1. e

Bell drinker systems should be added.

4.6. Article 3.2. (new)

There needs to be a total allowance for useable space per bird and a total stocking density. The following is an example of current practice.

'In systems involving only two dimensions, the space useable allowance per bird shall be at least 1 400 cm2 or a stocking density of 7 birds per m2.

In systems where three dimensional space is available, (e.g. Aviary or Perchery) the stocking density can be increased to a maximum of 15,5 bids per m2 of useable floor space.`

4.7. Article 3.3.

Enriched cages are still at the experimental stage and it would be wrong to define conditions too closely. For example in some types and with some strains of hens, beak trimming has in fact found to be necessary.

4.8. Article 3.4

It is this Article that has particular benefits for animal welfare and which also particularly increases the costs for EU farmers. At present the standard minimum is 450 cm2 per bird throughout the EU but several countries require more space (up to 600 cm2 per bird for cages with several birds). 800 cm2 of cage area therefore would require considerable investment throughout the Community, as would several of the other provisions such as minimum aisle width and cage height.

It is also this Article in particular which requires a large amount of investment and where Community aid is necessary. It is also this Article which would increase the costs compared with competition outside the Community.

4.9. Article 3.4.a

The exact figure of 800 cm2 needs more justification than is given in the proposal or the explanatory memorandum.

4.10. Article 3.4.e

There should be cost/benefit evaluation for the best aisle width. The proposed increase to 1m minimum is costly but should reduce problems during depopulation. Even so 1m may not be sufficient for modular transport tray systems to assist depopulation - a far more humane method than taking birds out individually and placing them in transport crates.

4.11. Article 7

The provisions for inspection by the Commission are weaker than the current Directive, and even this does not seem to be working sufficiently well. (There are complaints currently running against four Member states for non-compliance with parts of the present directive).

At the very least it needs changing to:

'veterinary experts from the Commission shall, where necessary ....`

Given the considerable competitive and welfare implications of this proposal, the whole inspection system needs to be tightened, particularly for imports. The Commission should make separate proposals for that.

4.12. Annex

6. This doubles the current inspection requirement to twice a day. Once a day might be retained but only provided there is an effective video monitoring system.

15. (new) Where dust bathing is provided, the materials used must be such as not to give a health hazard for the workers involved in poultry keeping.

Brussels, 10 September 1998.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 123, 22.4.1998, p. 15.

() Mori Poll for Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, June 1998.

APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following text of the section opinion was rejected during the general discussion:

1. Introduction

1.1. The Commission bases its proposal on the Scientific Veterinary Committee report submitted in October 1996, updating the previous report in 1992.

1.2. 93 % of all hens in the EU (some 320 million in 1997) are housed in battery cages under conditions laid down in Directive 88/116/EEC, which has been of mandatory application in all Member States since 1995. There are currently no minimum European standards for the welfare of laying hens reared by methods other than battery farming.

1.3. In relation to the socio-economic aspects, it must be remembered that poultry farming forms an integral part of agriculture and the rural economy, which are extremely important in certain EU regions (See Appendix 1). European poultry farming is of practically no cost to taxpayers and uses up vast quantities of the cereals produced in the EU. Furthermore, it operates in an increasingly liberalized and competitive world market.

1.4. The Scientific Veterinary Committee report sets out the pros and cons of the various rearing methods. Compared with alternative systems, rearing laying hens in battery cages offers many advantages, such as a lower incidence of parasitic infestations, better control over food intake, low risk of aggression and cannibalism, lower level of egg contamination, a stable social order, lower production costs, high-quality eggs, better working conditions on the farm, a lower impact on the environment, and lower mortality and infection rates among the birds.

1.5. The Commission makes it mandatory to include nests, perches and litters in all systems for housing laying hens, which in no way guarantees an improvement in the welfare of the hens according to the Scientific Veterinary Committee report on which the proposal is based. It also proposes the use of 'enriched cages` which are still being researched and are not commercially available on the European market.

2. General comments

2.1. In the third paragraph of the conclusion of its communication, the Commission openly states that it is aiming to phase out the use of battery cages over 'a period long enough` to spare farmers financial difficulties and avoid adverse effects on egg quality. However, the Commission gives no indication of how these objectives are to be achieved, and the directive leaves the issue entirely unresolved.

2.2. To mitigate the economic consequences of its proposal, the Commission suggests accompanying measures such as making it compulsory for EU-produced eggs to carry an indication of the rearing method employed. This mandatory labelling system will afford the Community market no protection from third-country imports.

2.3. The Commission also proposes a cofinanced aid scheme for investment. Capital investment to help the sector adapt to the proposed standards is not even vaguely related to the availability of Community funding for investment aid under EU structural policy. It is more likely that producers will receive no compensation at all in view of the Agenda 2000 proposals in which the Commission earmarks no allocation under the budget heading for the poultry sector.

2.4. The Commission proposes seeking the support of other countries in establishing minimum protection standards for laying hens reared in the various types of systems. It is worth noting here that only the EU and Switzerland have compulsory standards for the welfare of hens.

2.5. The Commission proposes phasing out battery farming for laying hens, by decision of the Member States, over a maximum adjustment period of ten years. This proposal does not reflect EU and world production patterns.

2.6. It is simply unacceptable for the Commission to modify the current minimum standards for battery hens mandatory since 1 January 1995, until it is able to enforce the existing standards effectively throughout the EU, until there is international recognition of the restrictions imposed on European producers, and until the competitiveness of EU poultry farming is safeguarded within an increasingly liberalized world market.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Over and above the implications for animal welfare, it is important to take account of the health, socio-economic and environmental aspects of any proposal considered. The economic analysis presented by the Commission is patently inadequate. An independent study on the impact of the proposal on all of these areas is vital, given that it affects 93 % of the Community's egg production.

3.2. The possible consequences of the proposed directive include the following:

3.2.1. Animal welfare

It is misleading to say that removal of the current battery cage system and its replacement with alternative systems will improve animal welfare. There are no developed genetic lines of laying hens adjusted to alternative systems. Disadvantages of these systems include problems such as pecking, cannibalism, parasitosis, contamination by external agents, high ambient concentrations of dust and ammonia, and difficulty in controlling microbial infections. To ease the situation, efforts must be made to improve veterinary treatment. Even so, mortality rates are significantly higher than in battery farms.

3.2.2. Socio-economic aspects

Implementation of the proposed directive will affect a wide range of areas:

- Employment: Increased costs will force many of the sector's current operators out of business as they will no longer be competitive. The sector currently provides 90 000 direct jobs and 120 000 indirect jobs in related sectors.

- Prices: Increased costs will drive up the market price of eggs and the most underprivileged groups in society will be worst hit.

- Quality and health aspects: Quality and food safety in the European egg industry could be placed in serious jeopardy if the current proposal is introduced. Prevention of illnesses such as salmonella is made more difficult under the conditions proposed in the directive. This is a risk which cannot be permitted. If EU-produced eggs are replaced by imported eggs or egg products on the Community market, consumer safety will suffer.

- Working conditions:The Commission proposal means a deterioration in working conditions on the farm, and a greater risk of illness (due to the presence of airborne dust and a higher concentration of ammonia from the litter) and of physical strain (need to lift and remove eggs from the ground, replace the litter and control the hens, etc.).

- Other markets:The egg-producing poultry sector consumes approximately ten million tonnes of cereals every year (barley, maize and wheat). The expected decrease in production will have immediate repercussions on the EU cereals market.

3.2.3. Health

Control and prevention of disease is less effective in alternative systems than in battery cages, as the presence of nests, perches, litters and other additional materials hinders the disinfection and total disinfestation of the housing area.

There is a higher risk of disease in farms using alternative systems, and in open-air systems there is also a higher risk that disease could spread to other farms and installations nearby. Neither is it easy to avoid contact between animals (birds, rodents, predators). This increases the health risk for the birds and for the workers, due to the possible spread of zoonoses.

3.2.4. Environmental aspects

The draft directive will have adverse effects on the environment for the following reasons:

- Up to three times more surface area will be required to house laying hens.

- Litter systems produce larger volumes of low-grade farm waste which release stronger smells and higher levels of ammonia into the air. Handling cannot be mechanized, nor is it possible to dry the faeces in the same shed, as occurs in battery farms. Further units are required to treat the manure and there is an increased environmental risk (leaching, smells, soil contamination, etc.). On open-air farms, the birds and their faeces have a greater impact on the land on which they are kept.

4. Conclusions

4.1. The proposed directive does not enhance the welfare of laying hens. Instead, it risks worsening it. Welfare should not be considered synonymous with the freedom to make certain movements or carry out certain activities. Consideration needs to be given to all aspects related to the concept of welfare, in particular the health of the bird and protection against aggression.

4.2. In relation to health, environmental and socio-economic aspects, the draft directive is counterproductive and carries with it some very worrying risks. A large proportion of the economic sector that depends on egg production could collapse; the market price of eggs could rise dramatically; European consumer safety could be diminished; and the environmental impact of farms could worsen.

4.3. In the light of these issues, the section rejects the proposed directive on the grounds that the welfare conditions for laying hens in battery cages are adequately regulated by Directive 88/166/EEC. However, if the Commission wishes to regulate the conditions of laying hens housed in alternative systems, a specific text should be drafted for this purpose.

Brussels, 24 July 1998.

The President of the Section for Agriculture and Fisheries

Pere MARGALEF i MASIÀ

APPENDIX 1

Egg production in the European Union

More than 87 billion table eggs (5 007 000 tonnes) are produced every year (1997 figure) in the 15 EU Member States.

>TABLE>

Laying hens

Some 320 million laying hens are reared in the European Union.

Some of these (approximately 50 million) are reared on purely rural-type farms and the eggs produced are for personal consumption.

Others (some 20 million) are reared in the open air or by extensive farming, either on perches or on the ground.

The rest (around 250 million) are reared in battery cages and produce 93 % of the eggs for Community consumption.

Gross marketable production and turnover

The gross marketable production in the EU table egg sector amounts to ECU 4 500 million and the overall turnover for eggs and egg products is estimated at ECU 5 600 million.

Employment

The EU egg and egg product sector (farms, egg packaging and processing centres) provides direct employment for 90 000 people.

Related sectors (companies producing animal feedstuffs, equipment and packaging) provide

120 000 jobs solely for the egg sector.

Cereal consumption

The European egg sector uses approximately 10 million tonnes of EU-produced cereals (essentially maize, barley and wheat) each year.

Egg consumption

The average EU unit consumption of eggs is currently (1997 figure) 210 eggs per head of population.

Depending on varying dietary habits, some of the eggs are consumed by households without further processing, while the rest are used for the manufacture of industrial or artisanal food products.

In the last ten years there has been a steady increase in demand for egg products both in the industrial and craft food sectors.

Egg products currently account for between 28 % and 40 % of EU egg consumption, depending on dietary habits.

The rest of the world

The EU Member States are the only countries in the world to have established standards protecting the welfare of battery-farmed hens. Switzerland has outlawed battery farming.

This means that over 88 % of world egg production is not subject to any form of restriction.

In the United States (which accounts for 10 % of world production) and in the other main producer countries (China, the former USSR, Japan and Brazil accounting respectively for 28 %, 9 %, 6 % and 4 % of world production), the minimum recommended cage space is 310 cm2 per hen.

Australia recommends 349 cm2 for heavier hens and 327 cm2 for lighter hens, while New Zealand considers that heavier hens require 363 cm2 and lighter hens 340 cm2.

Voting on opinion

For: 59, against: 44, abstentions: 5.