EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 18.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2425 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
Proposal for a 
 
COUNCIL REGULATION 
 
on the protection of animals at the time of killing 
  
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT  ASSESSMENT REPORT 
{COM(2008) 553} 
{SEC(2008) 2424} 
 
EN 2   EN SUMMARY  
Every year nearly 360 millions pigs, sheep, goats a nd cattle as well as more than 4 billions of 
poultry are killed in EU slaughterhouses. In addition the European fur industry kills around 
25 millions animals while hatcheries kill around 330 millions day-old-chicks. The control of 
contagious diseases may also require the ki lling of thousands to millions of animals. 
The killing of farm animals is regulated by Council Directive 93/119/EC1 on the protection of 
animals at the time of slaughter or killing. Th e directive has never been amended. The present 
impact assessment will therefore mainly focus on whether the problems have changed and whether the original objectives are still valid. 
The starting point of th e Commission proposal has been the adoption in 2004 and 2006 of two 
scientific opinions from the European Food Safety Authority, which suggest revising the 
technical annexes of the Directive. In paralle l the World Organisation for Animal Health 
adopted in 2005 two guidelines on the welfare of animals at sla ughter and killi ng leading to 
similar conclusions. As a consequence the Comm ission mandated an external consultant in 
2006 to carry out a study on stunning/killing pr actices in slaughterhouses and their economic, 
social and environmental consequences. The st udy was finalised in 2007. At the same time 
the Commission conducted consultations of inte rested parties and Member States. Reports 
from the Commissions' experts from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO)  were analysed as 
they reflect the state of implementation of the current directive within the Member States. An 
internet consultation was also performed from D ecember 2007 to February 2008. 
This legislation mainly affects slaughterhouses, fur farming, hatcheries  and killing performed 
for disease control purposes. The meat industry is  the most concerned sector since it kills the 
largest number of animals. This is also where legislative requirements are more detailed and 
explain why most of the impact a ssessment focuses on this industry. 
                                                
 
1 OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21. 
 
EN 3   EN The context for killing farm animals has considerably changed since 1993. New technologies 
have been introduced, new scientific research have been carried out making current standards 
obsolete in some areas. Animal welfare con cerns have also grown in our society and 
European citizens are increasingly more demandi ng on this aspect of the food chain. The legal 
environment has also changed for slaughter houses with the adoption of the "Hygiene 
Package", a series of EU legislation on food safety which emphasizes the responsibilities of 
the food business operators. Mass ive killing during large animal epidemics have also raised 
questions on our way to ensure humane killin g of animals. In 2006 the Commission adopted 
the first Community Action Plan on the Protec tion and Welfare of An imals, introducing new 
concepts such as the welfare indicators and the need for further research programs and centres 
of reference on animal welfare. 
Specific problems have also been identified with the present EU legislati on such as the lack of 
harmonised methodology for new stunning methods , the lack of clear responsibilities for 
operators on animal welfare, the insufficient competence of personnel handling animals, or 
insufficient conditions for the welfare of anim als during killing for disease control purposes. 
The killing of farm animals is an area subj ect to EU legislation since 1974 and Community 
competence has been reinforced in 1993. Consultations from stak eholders and Member States 
confirm the relevance of Community initiative in this domain. This legislation affects the 
meat industry, the sector of equipment manufact urers and some farmers' activities. All of 
them are working at international level and ask for an EU framework. 
The general objectives of the initiative attached to this impact assessment is to improve the 
protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing, while ensuri ng a level playing field 
for all business operators concerned, so that  their competitiveness is not affected by 
discrepancies in their costs of production or their market access.  This initiative should also 
contribute to the Better Regul ation/simplification policy.  
The specific objectives are to encourage innovat ion for stunning animals humanely, to ensure 
better integration of animal welfare in the pr oduction process of slaughterhouses, to increase 
the level of knowledge of personnel concerned a nd to improve the protection of animals when 
massive killings occur. 
The options range from doing nothing (=baseline= option 1) , non-biding recommendations 
(option 2), amending the directive (option 3) through its technical anne xes and reorganising 
the legislation (option 4).  
Slaughtering costs represent a limited part of  the total costs of slaughterhouses activities 
(20%) but could affect their competitiveness.  However changes in costs for slaughtering 
animals are unlikely to affect the final price of meat. Slaught erhouses are already submitted to 
permanent official inspection through food safety legislati on. The current animal welfare 
legislation does not introduce additional require ments for official inspections. Animal welfare 
has a positive impact on meat quality and occupational safety. It also represents positive market values. No significant environm ental impacts have been identified. 
From the comparison of the options  it appears that doing nothing (option 1) have a number of 
negative impacts on the objective pursued. None of them is li kely to be achieved by this 
option. Animal welfare on many asp ects is likely to be worsen ed while businesses will have 
to operate in an increasingly different environm ent from Member State to another. Therefore 
simplification is far from being improved. Inn ovation will be discoura ged by this situation 
despite efforts made in some Member States. Economic costs on busines s and authorities will 
be limited in the short term. But detrimental effects on meat quality, public perception and occupational safety could have long term ne gative economic impacts on the meat sector. 
 
EN 4   EN The comparison between the other options in th e light of the objectives makes clearly more 
advantageous to reorganise the legislation (option 4) while am ending the directive (option 3) 
would bring some benefits and providing non- biding recommendations (option 2) will not 
suffice to tackle most of the objectives. Therefor e option 2 alone can not be considered as to 
be sufficient way to address the issues, but  could be considered interesting as a 
complementary instrument. 
Non biding recommendations (option 2) would in  particular contribute to improve animal 
protection and meat quality. It coul d also contribute to establish a certain level playing field 
among businesses but in a very limited way due  to the non mandatory nature of the option. 
Reorganising the directive (opt ion 4) is the only option wher e innovation can be encouraged 
and simplification provided (cha nging the legal instru ment and having a new approach). It is 
also brings more benefits than amending the di rective (option 3) as re gards animal protection. 
It is also the option that is li kely to bring the most positive im pacts in terms of meat quality, 
public perception and better working conditions in slaughterhouses. 
Options 3 and 4 will generate short terms cost s for certain businesses but their effects will 
depend if specific measures are taken like po ssible transitional peri ods or exemption in 
specific cases.  
Environmental impacts are considered to be ne utral for all options as there was no evidence 
during the collection of data of substantia l and/or direct effects on environment. 
The general monitoring of the legislati on on animal welfare is included in the 
Regulation 882/2004 on official controls of food and feed2 and this document does not 
suggest developing at this stag e specific instrument that woul d create administrative burden 
for the Member States.   
                                                 
2 OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1–141.