Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the  Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production (COM(2005) 221 final — 2005/0099 CNS)
Date: 2005-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal welfare, intensive livestock farming, poultry, poultrymeat, protection of animals, veterinary legislation

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/25

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive
laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production’

(COM(2005) 221 final — 2005/0099 CNS)

(2006/C 28/05)

On 13 June 2005, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 October 2005. The rapporteur was
Mr Leif E. Nielsen.

At its 421st plenary session, held on 26 and 27 October 2005 (meeting of 26 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 123 votes to 3 with 2 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1
Intensive farming of chickens kept for meat production
raises problems of animal welfare and health. The Scientific
Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare thinks that
most welfare problems are attributable to breeding selection for
reasons of growth and food conversion, with no accompanying
improvements in animal welfare or health. Genetic selection
has thus led to changes in metabolic and behavioural traits,
resulting in leg problems, ascites, sudden-death syndrome and
other health concerns. At
the Scientific
Committee notes that the negative effects of high stocking rates
are reduced in buildings where good indoor climatic conditions
can be sustained (1).

the same time,

things,

litter, noise,

light, cleaning, disinfection,

may, however, permit a stocking density not exceeding 38 kg/
m2 live weight in establishments or single units of an establish-
ment in which the owner or keeper complies with a number of
to inspections,
requirements relating, among other
monitoring and follow-up carried out by the competent
authority of the Member State concerned. The proposal also
contains a range of detailed minimum requirements for all
establishments, covering inspection and monitoring, drinkers,
record-
feeding,
keeping, surgical
interventions, training and guidance. Estab-
lishments with a higher stocking density are subject to addi-
tional requirements for record-keeping and documentation,
NH3 and CO2 concentrations, temperature and humidity, the
installation and inspection of ventilation, cooling and heating
systems, the evaluation of indicators in post-mortem inspec-
tions and procedures in case of non-compliance. A regulatory
procedure is proposed to secure the uniform application and
ongoing adaptation of the provisions set out in the annexes,
with assistance being provided by the Standing Committee on
the Food Chain and Animal Health.

for

farming purposes (2). However,

The EU has only general requirements for the protection
1.2
of animals kept
some
Member States have made national provision for the protection
of chickens kept for meat production, and various voluntary
quality assurance schemes are in place that also encompass
welfare aspects. The Commission feels that common minimum
standards are a potential means of
tackling these welfare
problems and of securing a more level playing field and a more
effective common market. This also reflects civil society's
growing awareness of the need for proper animal protection
standards, and ties in with the Commission's action plan on
animal welfare.

1.4
This ‘integrated approach’ for establishments and single
units of an establishment with a higher stocking density is
information between the
based on an increased flow of
producer,
the competent authority and the slaughterhouse,
underpinned by post-mortem inspections. The Commission
feels that
the data on production parameters collected for
commercial purposes and in order to monitor compliance with
feed and food law and hygiene requirements (3) can also be
used to improve animal welfare. This integrated approach is,
moreover,
the new legislation on food
hygiene and on veterinary controls (4).

the foundation of

1.3
The Commission is proposing that that the maximum
density of chickens per square metre of useable area (‘stocking
density’) be fixed at 30 kg/m2 (live weight). Member States

(1) The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers), report

of 21 March 2000.

(2) Directive 98/58/EC, OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23 (The directive was
drawn up on the basis of the Council of Europe Convention, under
which a recommendation has been adopted on domestic fowl
containing additional provisions for poultry kept for meat produc-
tion.).

Not later than two years from the date of adoption of
1.5
this directive, and drawing on the experience gained in
applying voluntary labelling schemes,
the Commission will
submit a report on the possible introduction of a specific,

(3) Regulation 882/2004, OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1; corrigendum, OJ

L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 1.

(4) Regulation 882/2004 of 29.4.2004 (hygiene package), OJ L 165,

30.4.2004.

C 28/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

harmonised, mandatory labelling regime at Community level
for chicken meat, meat products and preparations, based on
compliance with animal welfare standards;
the
report will consider the compliance of such a regime with
WTO rules. Drawing on further scientific advice, the Commis-
sion will also submit a report — accompanied, if need be, by
appropriate legislative proposals — on the influence of genetic
parameters on identified deficiencies resulting in poor welfare
of chickens.

in addition,

Scientific Committee's report, the EESC considers it proper and
acceptable to introduce a maximum limit of 30 kg/m2 for
flocks in general and 38 kg/m2 for flocks where any adverse
impact is countered by specific requirements relating to indoor
climatic conditions.

2. General comments

2.1
As the Commission points out, the EU public is increas-
ingly alive to animal welfare concerns in intensive production
systems. This is, among other things, clearly reflected in a
2005 Eurobarometer study (5). In the same way as other rele-
vant factors, therefore, animal welfare should also be included
as an element in the ‘European model of society’ so as to offset
any adverse impact of free trade and stronger competition,
both within the EU and in the wider world.

Responsibility for welfare problems cannot be placed on
2.2
one single link of the EU production and marketing chain for
chickens kept for meat production. This includes genetic selec-
tion in internationally focused breeding centres, the production
the production stage itself,
of parent animals, hatcheries,
slaughterhouses, marketing and consumers. Moreover, within
the individual categories, views vary both on welfare problems
and on economic and competition-related issues. As representa-
tive of civil society — and given the diversity of its member-
ship — the EESC clearly has a responsibility to help establish
sound and acceptable minimum standards of animal welfare in
the EU.

2.3
The Committee commends the Commission's thorough
preparatory work and endorses the proposed approach. The
general provisions that apply to all flocks are obvious require-
ments based on enhanced self-monitoring on the farm, and
they do not, for the most part, present any difficulties. The
EESC also broadly endorses the more far-reaching requirements
of
flocks with higher stocking
density, which take the proposed foot pad lesion scoring
system, mortality and other possible indications of poor
welfare conditions as a basis for intervention and an overhaul
of conditions in the establishment in question.

the integrated scheme for

2.4
The key issue is stocking density, where underlying stan-
dards must be based on the best possible scientific advice and
on striking a balance between the various indicators of physio-
logical conditions, behaviour and health. In the light of the

(5) Special Eurobarometer June 2005: Attitudes of consumers towards

the welfare of farmed animals.

2.5
At the same time, it must be recognised that stocking
density is a critical factor in production costs and competitive-
ness. According to a March 2005 Dutch study, the proposed
maximum stocking density will affect almost every establish-
ment in the country. A typical Dutch holding of chickens kept
for meat production earns, on average,
just 1.89 cent per
chicken after the deduction of variable and fixed costs (6). This
shows the extremely narrow earnings margin in this kind of
farming. To maintain the same level of earnings at stocking
densities of 30 and 38 kg/m2, therefore, the price of a chicken
kept for meat production has to rise by 8.0 and 2.5 cent
increase.
respectively — for consumers a seemingly minimal
However, at European level, the industry feels that a maximum
stocking density of less than 42 kg/m2 will inevitably result in
a gradual displacement of EU sales on both European and
third-country markets because of competition from key export
countries outside the EU.

2.6
Hence, the requirement for lower stocking densities in
the EU must go hand in hand with an adjustment in interna-
tional trade rules so that the same or equivalent requirements
also apply to imports from outside the EU. The EESC recog-
nises the difficulty of discussing this issue in the current WTO
negotiating round. But if the EU decides to adopt proper and
legitimate animal welfare standards in this and in other areas,
then it must, subsequently, also have the wherewithal, as one
of the world's biggest trading partners, to press successfully at
international level for the introduction of a clause of some kind
to ensure that those standards are maintained (7).

Naturally, non-EU countries with comparative advan-
2.7
tages and acceptable welfare standards can, potentially, gain a
bigger share of the EU market and must therefore be presumed
to support the introduction of international standards. But it
will be paradoxical — and unacceptable — if, as a result of
higher standards within the Union, EU production and sales on
the European market and third-country markets gradually shift
to non-EU countries with lower standards, or if the EU feels it
is unable to improve animal welfare standards on the grounds
that conditions in other key trading partners are also poor and
there is a risk of production relocating there.

(6) Economic consequences of reduction of stocking density of broilers,
Ir. P. van Horne, LEI (Agricultural Economics Research Institute),
Wageningen University and Research Centre, March 2005.

(7) The issue is addressed in the Communication from the Commission
to the Council and the European Parliament on animal welfare legis-
lation on farmed animals in third countries and the implications for
the EU (COM(2002) 626 final, 18.11.2002).

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/27

2.8
For that reason, the EU — whether with or without
prior international agreement — must require that imports
from all non-EU countries comply with equivalent rules. If,
international acceptance is lacking, a degree of
therefore,
provocation may be necessary in order to draw the requisite
attention to the need for law change, and to promote under-
standing of why that has to be done. The Commission should
in any case make a detailed economic study of the competitive
environment two years after the directive comes into force in
the Member States to assess how the situation is shaping up.

along the lines of the one for organic products. This gives
consumers choice and lets the market itself show the extent of
the interest in raising animal welfare standards beyond the
current minimum requirements. The EESC would also like to
see a mandatory labelling scheme for EU products, if such prac-
tice is compatible with WTO rules. That said, current EU law
should be complied with in any case, obviating the need to
mention that point specifically on the labelling. For pre-packed
chickens, consideration should also be given to the possibility
of indicating the production method on the packaging, as is
currently done for eggs.

2.9
The World Organisation for Animal Health (known by
its French acronym OIE) recently adopted recommendations on
certain other aspects of animal welfare, thereby demonstrating
the need for minimum
growing international awareness of
international standards. The OIE recommendations stemmed
from a conference held in 2004 as a forum for constructive
dialogue between institutions,
stakeholders and
NGOs from around the world, including an array of developing
countries. The conference underscored the need for a scientific
basis for international animal welfare standards. The Committee
feels that the WTO must take this task on board so that
minimum standards adopted under OIE auspices can be applied
within the context of the WTO.

scientists,

2.13
The Commission should, as announced, submit a
report based on new scientific evidence, and taking into
account additional research and practical experience, in order
for meat
to further improve the welfare of chickens kept
production. The report should also consider the influence of
genetic parameters on identified deficiencies. However,
the
proposal ought to take account of the impact of genetic selec-
tion even at this stage, and there is also a need for rules on
conditions for parent animals. Work on this front should there-
fore begin without delay, and should be revised at a later stage
if necessary in the light of the slaughtering data. Otherwise, the
Commission will only be able to start work once the slaugh-
tering data become available five years after adoption of the
directive.

the

introduction nationally of

In the light of negative experiences such as defective
2.10
stiffer,
implementation or
competition-distorting requirements, the industry at EU level
feels that the rules should be laid down in a regulation. The
EESC recognises the advantages of a regulation, but notes that
the Member States prefer directives, which allow the imple-
menting provisions to be adapted to suit specific national
conditions. A directive also seems better suited to the proposed
integrated approach. Similarly, common rules on the technical
details of farming methods will
lack the necessary flexibility
with regard to the systems used, and counteract technical devel-
opments designed to secure more effective and welfare-friendly
farming practices. It must, however, be impressed upon the
Commission that non-implementation or defective implementa-
tion cannot be tolerated.

The EESC recognises that

research is a long-term
2.14
process and that current rules should be adapted to new knowl-
edge and technological developments. At
the same time,
research in this and in other fields must also be stepped up so
as to improve knowledge in areas where it falls short of the
mark. This applies, among other things, to the connection
between stocking densities and climatic and environmental
conditions (8). Biosecurity also merits much greater attention,
given the close link between animal health, welfare and the
for instance, with avian influ-
environment,
enza (9).

in connection,

2.11
Yet it is paradoxical that the Commission should cite
distortions of competition arising from the different existing
national arrangements as one of
the reasons behind the
proposal — and behind the need for common rules — while,
at the same time, the proposal itself opens the door to more
stringent national
in the individual Member States.
Common rules in the EU are a key point of departure for
Union efforts to secure common rules internationally. As for
Member States' failure to implement directives properly or at
all, the Commission must, in future, take its Treaty responsibil-
ities seriously and ensure that the rules are applied correctly
within the timeframes that the Member States themselves have
been involved in setting.

rules

2.12
The EESC is fully supportive of more far-reaching
voluntary schemes in the shape of codes of practice and would
like to see them replaced by a joint, European-level scheme

3. Specific comments

3.1
Irrespective of production systems, stocking densities,
technical arrangements etc., stockmanship, management and
good agricultural practice are of vital importance for animal
welfare and health. These factors, and their importance in daily
contact with — and care of — animals, cannot, by their very
nature, be secured through legislation and monitoring. The
provisions of the proposal relating to instructions, guidance,
courses, training and inspection at least twice a day should be

(8) More recent scientific publications include, for instance, the article
entitled ‘Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions
than by stocking density’ in NATURE/VOL 427/22.1.2004 www.na-
ture.com.

(9) See the Commission proposal of 28 April 2005 (COM(2005) 171)
and the EESC opinion of 28 September 2005 on the control of
avian influenza.

C 28/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

flock in days,
i.e. around 3.5 %. The industry feels that a
maximum limit of 0.12 % mortality per day is justified, and
that, as there is no connection between welfare and mortality
in the first seven days, the limits could, if necessary, reasonably
be set at 1.5 %. The EESC considers that the limit here and in
other areas should be set at a level that reflects practical possi-
bilities in a smooth-running establishment. In cases where there
is notification of severe deficiencies, consideration should also
be given to supplementing records of mortality and foot pad
burns with records of, for instance, leg problems and peritonitis
in the flock.

3.7
Detailed written descriptions, including photographs of
foot pad lesions in the different groups, should be laid down by
the Commission in order to standardise the classifications.

4. Conclusion

4.1
Subject to the above comments, the EESC endorses the
Commission's approach to the issue and the proposal's detailed
provisions. The various limits for light intensity, maximum
NH3 and CO2 concentrations, mortality, foot pad lesions etc.
should be set at a level that reflects the practical possibilities in
a smooth-running establishment.

4.2
Any reduction in stocking density from current levels
must be accompanied by a welfare clause in international trade
rules that makes it possible for the EU to lay down equivalent
requirements for imports from non-EU countries, so that poor
conditions in key export countries outside the EU do not
preclude proper and warranted standards within the Union. If
international acceptance is lacking, the EU will have to take
unilateral action to draw the requisite attention to the need for
law change, and to promote understanding of why that has to
be done. Otherwise, production must to a large extent be
expected to shift to countries with lower standards. At the
same
a detailed
the Commission should conduct
economic study of the situation two years after the directive
comes into force in the Member States.

time,

4.3
Research has to be a long-term process and rules should
be adapted on an ongoing basis to reflect new knowledge and
technological developments. Research must also be stepped up
so as to improve knowledge in areas where it falls short of the
mark.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

self-evident in this regard. The EESC is concerned, however,
that there are no skills requirements and that training may be
replaced by experience irrespective of the kind of experience
involved.

3.2
Steps must be taken to ensure that any assessment of
animal welfare is conducted independently by inspectors with
enough training and experience in the field. Similarly, written
records should be kept in a uniform way in the Member States.

In the interests of transparency, it should also be made
3.3
clear
low stocking densities is only
that poultry kept at
inspected as part of the ‘hygiene package’. Approved training
schemes and documented training periods should also be
required for all establishments above a certain size.

3.4
The requirements for maximum NH3 and CO2 concen-
trations must be laid down in such a way that the limits are
not exceeded under normal conditions. Under atypical climate
conditions it will be impossible to exceed these limits in the
bulk of ideal production systems.

and practical

experience, however,

3.5
The proposal states that ‘all buildings shall have light
with an intensity of at least 20 lux during the light periods,
measured at bird eye level’ and that ‘the light must follow a 24-
hour rhythm and include periods of darkness lasting at least 8
hours in total, with at least one uninterrupted period of dark-
ness of at
least 4 hours’. This corresponds exactly to the
Council of Europe's recommendation (10). Drawing on scientific
reports
industry
considers a minimum of 15 lux for the first 14 days, followed
by a minimum of 5 lux and a four-hour uninterrupted period
of darkness to be adequate. The industry says that trials invol-
ving a higher light density and longer periods of darkness have
led to more foot pad lesions and to animals being rejected
because of skin lesions. In the EESC's view, a balance needs to
be struck between many different considerations, and policy
should be based on the most relevant scientific findings and
practical experience. In cases of uncertainty or a lack of docu-
mentation, further studies should be carried out so that the
provisions in place can be adjusted to reflect the best knowl-
edge available on this subject at any given time.

the

the
In establishments with higher stocking densities,
3.6
proposal provides for intervention when the mortality rate
exceeds 1 % plus 0.06 % multiplied by the slaughter age of the

Brussels, 26 October 2005.

(10) Article 14 of

the Council of Europe's 1995 recommendation,
which, in line with the convention, has been unanimously adopted
by the forty or so member countries.