Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Animal Welfare — Labelling
Date: 2007-03-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, European standard, animal welfare, eco-label, labelling, quality label

C 161/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Animal Welfare — Labelling

(2007/C 161/17)

On 28 November 2006 the German presidency of the Council requested the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an opinion
on Animal welfare — labelling.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment prepared the Committee's work on
the subject.

Because of the referral's urgent nature the European Economic and Social Committee, at its 434th plenary
session, held on 14 and 15 March 2007 (meeting of 15 March), appointed Mr Nielsen as rapporteur-general
and adopted the following opinion by 92 votes to six, with two abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

it

this,

In view of

1.1
There is growing interest in the EU in promoting produc-
tion and rearing methods that show more consideration than
hitherto for domestic animal welfare.
is
proposed that the present mandatory minimum animal welfare
standards should be backed up by voluntary labelling rules that
can be used in combination with both general commercial
labels and more quality-based labels, not least among them
‘quality schemes’. This will underpin market forces and will not
place an unnecessary burden on the political system in the EU
or on national inspection bodies. Quality labels play an essential
part in competition in the food sector, and they often contain
varying animal welfare elements over and above the applicable
mandatory minimum standards. However,
for
consumers to see the basis for labelling and the content of rules,
and the animal welfare aspects are not always based on proper
scientific principles.

is difficult

it

1.2
Such a market-based system based on objective criteria
to quantify animal welfare will be more flexible, effective and
future-oriented than politically imposed criteria and will there-
fore be better suited to future developments in production and
marketing, which will be marked by a greater variation in
production conditions as a consequence of EU enlargement,
continued specialisation and diversification of production, struc-
tural changes in retailing and partnerships in the field of
product development and branding.

It

is important

1.3
to promote production and rearing
methods that show more consideration for animal welfare, both
directly, through training and the circulation of new research
findings, and through market signals, which at the same time
will be an essential starting point for a series of priorities within
training,
investments, etc. In this way a labelling scheme can
help create the necessary ‘all round’ synergy and contribute
towards a more rational use of resources. Livestock producers
need stability, since today they can be subject to a string of
more or less valid changes that affect producers' planning and
investment strategy.

An animal welfare labelling scheme going beyond
1.4
minimum requirements should thus be set up as a voluntary
offer to the producer, business and industry interests concerned;
private labelling schemes could refer to standards that have a
scientific and practical basis and be adjusted in line with new
knowledge. In concrete terms this could consist of offering a
sort of logo combined with colour labelling or a points system,
which could be applied to commercial labels and form an objec-
tive basis for marketing combined with a form of private and
independent monitoring. The system could,
in principle, be
applied to all types of domestic animals and animal products
and likewise to imported products,
in accordance with WTO
rules.

1.5
Traditional regulation by the authorities in the form of
minimum requirements should still be continued in the EU, as
has been the case up to now for labelling the methods used for
producing eggs and organic products. However, this form of
regulation is politically and administratively burdensome and
therefore less
suitable for promoting the development of
production and rearing methods that pay greater attention to
animals' welfare. At the same time the system will be perceived
as stiff and bureaucratic by producers, industry and trade inter-
ests, without there being any corresponding benefits for consu-
mers.

1.6
The proposed scheme shows essential similarities to
environmental labelling schemes in general, including the EU's
own eco-label. Environmental labels are thus based on the appli-
cation of common principles for production and the use of
widely differing products to create greater synergy and wide
recognition for the label. However, because of mutual competi-
tion, players in the food sector will naturally give priority to
their own quality labels, which is why the ‘environmental
model’
is not directly applicable to animal welfare labelling,
which must be based on specific research and the mutual assess-
ment of welfare-related indicators.

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/55

1.7
The contribution of research in the EU in the field of
animal welfare is thus crucial in determining whether it will be
possible in the future to integrate animal welfare into the agri-
culture and subsequent production and trading chain on a scien-
tific and objective basis. However,
the
elements of a labelling scheme be laid down as soon as possible
so that research findings and standardised — objective, measur-
able and replicable — indicators can be turned into practical
strategies and used in the labelling scheme as and when they
become known and those concerned become familiar with the
scheme.

is important

that

it

In any case, a substantial

1.8
information campaign is
required, targeting consumers and the retail sector in particular
and including coverage of the EU's mandatory minimum stan-
dards. At the same time, thought could be given to setting up a
website and database supported by the EU to bring about
greater transparency and openness, though common guidelines
should first be applied before the exact content is published.
Thought should also be given to tighter controls and bans on
incorrect and misleading advertising to ensure that businesses
live up more to their own claims.

2. Background

the background of

the increased interest

2.1
In accordance with the request from the German presi-
dency, the aim of the opinion is to describe possible animal
welfare labelling schemes and their structure, with an eye to
promoting the development of production and rearing methods
that pay more attention to animals' welfare. It is to be seen
against
in animal
welfare in the EU, where animal welfare alongside other ethical
considerations is increasingly being included as an element in
the ‘European model of society’. Consumers have a right — in
line with the findings of Eurobarometer studies — to expect
food made from animals to be produced using systems that
respect EU regulations, notably those on animal welfare, and to
count on the existence of objective and credible possibilities for
choosing food that is produced in conditions that show special
consideration for animals' welfare (1). Moreover,
in many
respects there is a connection between animal health and
welfare and the development of diseases that can be transferred
to human beings.

(1) According to the Eurobarometer Special of June 2005 ‘Attitudes of
consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals’, 43 % of consumers
in the EU take animal welfare into consideration when buying meat and
74 % of those questioned think that their purchases can have an influ-
ence on animal welfare. At the same time, however, a number of scien-
tific studies have shown that the psychological and emotional factors
which influence consumers, such as appeals to ethical and moral values
and the retail trade's presentation and labelling, are extremely complex.
For instance, there is a difference between attitudes and actions, and a
politically correct attitude towards ethical labelling does not necessarily
lead to the purchase of products that are produced under particularly
ethical conditions; purchasing decisions are determined more by price,
accessibility, health and taste. However, people react strongly when
cases of inadequate conditions for animals used in production or
research are made public in the media.

2.2
According to most research, consumers thus consider
animal welfare as a parameter of key importance to a product's
quality. However,
this view may be less marked in some
Member States. An animal's welfare experience or quality of life
can be defined as the sum of positive and negative experiences
to which an animal
is exposed during its life. Pain, disease,
conflict behaviour, abnormal behaviour and chronic stress can
be considered as the start of negative experiences for an animal,
whereas rest, sleep, food, parental care and grooming can be
considered as positive experiences. However, there is no recog-
nised unambiguous definition of animal welfare.

2.3
The EU has — among other things, on the basis of
recommendations by the Council of Europe — adopted a series
of minimum standards for animal welfare in the form of tradi-
tional regulation by the authorities. Many of these minimum
standards in the years ahead will have to be reviewed in the
light of earlier decisions. In addition, specific rules have been
implemented on the voluntary labelling of organic products and
the mandatory labelling of production methods when marketing
eggs, as well as a few isolated rules when marketing poultry for
slaughter and beef.

The food industry and the retail sector are becoming
2.4
increasingly concentrated and competitive, and make more and
more use of quality labels which show that special consideration
is being paid to various quality criteria including,
to an
increasing extent, animal welfare. At the same time producer
organisations and co-operatives have set up an array of region-
ally-based quality labels, which often include consideration for
animal welfare and the environment. Some of these products
can make use of the EU's system for protecting geographic
designations and specialities (2).

2.5
There are major differences from country to country. For
example, the British market is dominated by the trade's quality
labels, while in France and Italy there are a significant number
of regionally-based quality labels. Dutch production is tradition-
ally dominated by the processing sector's quality labels, although
more and more labels are being developed by the retail trade
and producer organisations. In Sweden producers' own labels
dominate, which is tied up with the traditional view in several
other countries that naturally assumes that domestic products
mean higher quality, including the animal welfare aspects.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agri-
cultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed
and Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ L 93 of 31.3.2006.

C 161/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

Experiences with voluntary labelling schemes indicate
2.6
that
the Commission's intention is to promote the use of
specific, objective and measurable indicators for animal welfare
in current and future Community legislation as the basis for
legislation on the validation of production systems that apply
higher welfare standards than the minimum standards laid
down in the present rules (3). According to the Commission this
involves a classification of applied welfare standards in order to
promote the development of production and rearing methods
that pay greater attention to animals' welfare and make it easier
to use these standards in the EU and internationally. The
Commission also wants to consider the possibilities of EU label-
ling on this basis.

3. General comments

resource use, not least as regards producers' planning and invest-
ment strategy.

At any event, this is a long-term process that of necessity
3.3
must take place in step with the development of objective,
measurable and replicable scientifically-based welfare indicators
and an assessment of different production systems.
is,
however, important early on to lay down frameworks and prin-
ciples for the formulation of a common labelling scheme for
animal welfare, so that work can be prepared and standardised
welfare indicators can be incorporated into the scheme as and
when they are developed. As soon as possible, therefore, there
must be an understanding and acceptance among the parties
the common
concerned on the guidelines and structure of
scheme that can be used for all livestock products on as volun-
tary and flexible a basis as possible.

It

3.1
As the representative of civil society it is natural for the
EESC to contribute towards the formulation of relevant labelling
schemes and share responsibility for introducing them in the
form of a common European system that can support sustain-
able development in the internal market and in trade with the
rest of the world. Animal welfare forms part of Europe's cultural
heritage and the EU's ethical values alongside corporate social
responsibility, environmental protection and ecology, which to
some extent have been incorporated into EU legislation. There is
a certain common identity here with ecology, which as a
sustainable production system within agricultural production is
based on the environment and animal welfare.

3.4
At the same time it has to be admitted that the process is
made more complicated not only by a lack of accessible knowl-
edge about the animal welfare aspects and their priority in rela-
tion to each other, but also by the diversity of consumer prefer-
ences and production conditions, the effect of different tradi-
tions and levels of education on people's attitudes, competition
in the food sector, the complexities of existing laws, the difficul-
ties of comparing the content of private quality labels and the
unreliability of private and public sector inspection bodies,
including those relating to imports into the EU.

3.2
The EESC therefore supports the Commission's intention
to promote animal welfare in the EU on an objective and
sustainable basis (4) and considers it appropriate to establish a
common system for
labelling to promote production and
rearing methods that pay greater attention to animals' welfare.
The aim here above all is to help get market forces to operate
on an objective basis and ‘pull in the right direction’. At the
same time it is important that production and rearing methods
which pay greater attention to animals' welfare are promoted
through training and the circulation of new research findings.
The signals from the market will at the same time, as is the
nature of things, be the starting point for a whole series of prio-
rities within research, the training of farmers, advisers and vets,
and for future investments in the production system. A labelling
scheme can thus contribute to creating synergy and to rational

(3) See the Commission Communication on a Community Action Plan on
the Protection and Welfare of Animals (COM(2006) 13 of 23.1.2006),
which announces initiatives at WTO level, a report in 2009 on a
mandatory labelling scheme for chicken meat and meat products, a
report in 2009 on the further application of measurable indicators and
the possible establishment of a European Quality Standard for products
emanating from high level animal welfare production systems and crea-
tion of a specific technical and financial system to promote the applica-
tion of higher welfare standards both inside and outside the EU.

(4) See EESC opinion CESE 1356/2006 of 26.10.2006 on the Commission
Communication on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and
Welfare of Animals, and CESE 1246/2005, OJ C 28 of 3.2.2006 on the
Commission proposal COM(2005) 221 for a directive laying down
minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat produc-
tion.

In any case, clear and informative labelling is a key factor
3.5
in promoting production and rearing methods which pay
greater attention to animals' welfare. Experiences with organic
products and alternative egg production systems have shown
that
to make production
systems show greater consideration for animal welfare.

labelling rules have the potential

3.6
Labelling rules fall within the EU's terms of reference.
They are constantly the subject of discussion and conflicts of
interest, and it is the Commission's intention to bring out a
proposal
for an amended labelling directive by the end of
2007 (5). Relevant and clear labelling is most often the result of
a compromise where it is not possible to satisfy all wishes and
demands. This applies not least to food products, where it is
often said that labelling requirements are too comprehensive.
The food authorities also have reservations about further label-
ling that runs the risk of overshadowing basic information

(5) Welfare Quality® is an EU-funded project involving 39 institutes and
universities with special expertise in the field of animal welfare. The aim
of the project is to develop scientifically-based animal welfare standards
and practical strategies with an eye to making animal welfare an integral
part of the production chain from agriculture through to the subse-
quent processing, sales and marketing stages, with adequate informa-
tion for consumers.

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/57

about a food's characteristics. Consumers are also uncertain
about the benefits of much of the information on food, espe-
cially that relating to ethical aspects. For these reasons animal
welfare labelling should be based on a smaller logo combined
with colours, stars or points, which can be applied as a supple-
ment to existing labelling.

be indicated, using one of the following designations as appro-
priate:

— ‘EU Agriculture’ if the agricultural raw material making up

the product was grown or bred in the EU;

4. Imports into the EU

4.1
Further statutory requirements and restrictions in the EU
may lead to imports from countries with lower standards
squeezing EU production and sales, and even cause a loss of
market share on the world market. But a stronger focus on
animal welfare in the internal market comprising 30 European
countries with a total of 500 million inhabitants (6) will have a
spin-off effect in countries outside the EU and their exports to
the EU. The World Bank's International Finance Corporation has
pointed out the increasing interest worldwide in animal welfare
and the need to adapt to this development both in primary
production and in industrial processing (7).

4.2
Obviously, animals that have been reared, slaughtered
and cut up in the EU, as well as processed or unprocessed
products made from them, fulfil the EU's minimum criteria, and
putting a label on them stating this is therefore superfluous. On
the other hand, there is often a justifiable call for imported
products to be labelled in such a way that it is directly or indir-
ectly evident to what extent the product concerned fulfils the
EU's minimum requirements. As has already been mentioned in
previous EESC opinions, animal welfare must be recognised in
the longer term as a fully justified consideration in trade in agri-
cultural products, so that
imports can be required to meet
minimum standards. In view of all this, there should be a closer
look at how much a call for the mandatory labelling of imports'
countries of origin would be justified and — if there is no guar-
antee that EU minimum standards have been met — whether
there should be some sort of ‘unknown production method’
statement.

4.3
In order to cater for all EU agricultural products which
comply with mandatory EU animal welfare standards and to
distinguish them from non-EU products which are not subject
to the same requirements,
the place where agricultural raw
material making up the product was grown or bred could thus

(6) Including Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, which through the Euro-
pean Economic Area (EEA) are included in the EU's internal market.
(7) Creating Business Opportunity through Improved Animal Welfare
from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), World Bank Group,
April 2006. The IFC covers 178 member countries and the request
applies in particular to investments in developing countries with an eye
on exporting to the developed countries. Many countries also have
traditional codes of practice regarding animal welfare without having
legislation in the strict sense of the term. This applies, for instance, to
Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Brazil.

— ‘Non-EU Agriculture’ if the agricultural raw material making

up the product was grown or bred in a third country;

— ‘EU and non-EU Agriculture’, if part of the agricultural raw
material making up the product was grown or bred in the
EU and another part was grown or bred in a third country.

The designation ‘EU’ or ‘Non-EU’ could possibly be replaced or
supplemented by the name of a country in cases where all the
agricultural raw materials making up the product were grown
or bred in that country.

4.4
Even though compatibility with WTO rules should be
the starting point and precondition for any controls, the EU
may,
in cases where there is no international agreement as
mentioned in the EESC's previous opinions, see itself as obliged
to take unilateral action in order to draw the necessary attention
to the need for an adaptation of existing rules. In any event,
importers and the retail trade must take responsibility in both
the short and long term for ensuring that imports from non-EU
countries fulfil comparable requirements through certification
and similar guarantees.

5. Traditional regulation by the authorities

A whole series of minimum standards have been laid
5.1
down for animal welfare in the EU and previous decisions
oblige the Commission to produce a proposal to review and
update these in the years ahead (8). Minimum standards are laid
down in detailed legislation, often after difficult political nego-
tiations. In the future, minimum standards should be based even
more on research findings and an objective analysis of the situa-
tion, which should conceivably make the political process easier.
The rules should thus be based on the knowledge available at
any given time and be laid down at an objective and justifiable
level that reflects the practical possibilities for primary produc-
tion, transport, stunning and slaughter under proper operating
conditions. Minimum standards must, of necessity, also be laid
down in this way in the future, through the application of tradi-
tional public law regulations.

(8) Commission Communication on a Community Action Plan on the

Protection and Welfare of Animals (COM(2006) 13).

C 161/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

5.2
Rules on the voluntary labelling of organic products and
the mandatory labelling of production methods when marketing
eggs have also been laid down in detail
in EU legislation. In
other words, if more detailed marks are used in labelling, EU
rules must be followed. This is to ensure fair conditions of
competition and provide correct information for consumers.
These forms of
labelling combined with detailed mandatory
requirements are to be introduced when labelling has been
clearly requested by consumers or is important to the market's
smooth operation, since it regulates the use of commercial
names which the consumer associates with certain forms of
production, thereby establishing the minimum legal conditions
required in order to avoid fraud or confusion in the market.
Here too, experience has shown that it is difficult and time-
consuming to lay down criteria. There is also a lot of work
involved in the form of registrations, accounting and inspection
visits for businesses and for national inspection bodies. None-
it is also appropriate to keep to the present form of
theless,
regulation in these areas.

5.3
According to the proposal on minimum standards for
the slaughtering of chickens, the Commission plans, at the latest
two years after adoption, to submit a report on the ‘possible
introduction of a specific, harmonised mandatory labelling
regime at Community level for chicken meat, meat products
and preparations based on compliance with animal welfare stan-
dards’ (9). This will result in a scheme in parallel with existing
Community rules for egg production systems, with labelling
rules that refer to different forms of production.

to regulated or mandatory labelling.

5.6
A further extension of the traditional model laid down
by authority at EU level and the use of labelling by the public
authorities is therefore inappropriate. The same applies at
national level, where taking national labelling rules as a starting
point would be in conflict with the internal market. Similarly, a
label stating that the EU minimum standard had been met
would only mean anything if there were different levels of label-
ling, as is the case with egg production.

6. The ‘environmental model’

6.1
A general voluntary labelling scheme along the lines of
the rules for awarding the EU's eco-label (10) and corresponding
national rules would be less suitable for promoting the develop-
ment of production and rearing methods that pay more atten-
tion to animals' welfare. The food industry and trade would,
without a doubt, prefer to develop their own quality labels
further. Even though the ‘environment model’ has more similari-
ties with the proposed voluntary model for animal products, it
would be unsuitable for use as a basis for the introduction of
objective criteria for animal welfare,
in the same way that a
model like the EU's eco-labelling scheme would be too bureau-
cratic to use for animal welfare labelling.

5.4
However, the traditional regulation model is only suitable
when a distinction can be drawn between clearly defined forms
of production that are readily apparent to consumers. The same
applies to the ‘ecology regulation’, which primarily covers the
environment and does not refer explicitly to animal welfare. The
model may also be used for the production of chickens for
slaughter if consumers are able to understand and remember
the background to labelling but the model will not be clear if it
is extended to cover several animal products.

6.2
The relevant eco-labels would operate, in principle, with
the help of a secretariat that would assist the parties concerned
with laying down environmental criteria that were stricter than
those prescribed by law and provide information on labelling
for consumers and purchasers. The advantage with this is that
the labelling in principle could be used for all products and
thereby achieve a wider application through synergy and greater
knowledge of the scheme. The information would be guaranteed
by an impartial third party as objective and verified proof that a
product was produced in a more environmentally-friendly way
and used as such throughout its total life cycle.

5.5
In addition, traditional regulation would be too rigid and
complicated bearing in mind divergent production relationships
in an enlarged EU and future market developments. There is a
risk that it would slow down or block development as a result
of complicated audit procedures and the difficulties of allowing
for natural differences in the production process. The model is
politically and administratively demanding and not sufficiently
attractive for market players, and it would reduce the incentives
for private quality labels, such as those applying to production
in a regional area. Experience has also shown that there would
be an increase in red tape if there was a shift from voluntary

6.3 When animal products are involved, the laying-down of
individual criteria for the rearing of animal species and produc-
tion conditions must be done by experts on the basis of
research findings and a thorough assessment of production
systems. So, there is a need for detailed and specific professional
assessments. But the ‘environmental model's’ clear and credible
indication to consumers, voluntary use and the market-based
common labelling scheme showing compliance with special
ethical criteria that are stricter than the mandatory minimum
requirements should also be used to promote the development
of production and rearing methods that pay more attention to
animals' welfare.

(9) COM(2005) 221 of 30.5.2005 laying down minimum rules for the

protection of chickens kept for meat production.

(10) Regulation (EC) 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17.7.2000 on a revised Community eco-label award
scheme, OJ L 237 of 21.9.2000, p. 1.

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/59

7. Private quality labels

7.1
Private quality labels operate in line with market
premises and in accordance with the legal bans on misleading
advertising without any particular intervention by the authori-
ties. These are flexible systems that can constantly adapt to
developments. However, labelling is not optimal as far as animal
welfare is concerned. The ever-increasing supply of goods makes
it difficult for consumers to monitor and make comparisons
between the individual labels. Marketing may give a misleading
picture of production conditions and the qualities claimed for a
product may not necessarily based on objective criteria, among
other things because there is not yet a pool of sufficiently objec-
tive knowledge that can be used as a basis for such criteria. This
leads to a loss of credibility and a distortion of competition
with regard to more serious products and production condi-
tions. Industry and business may also, as the result of competi-
tion, be prone to altering requirements in a way that is not
always well-founded and which may cause difficulties for animal
producers.

7.2
For these reasons, objective criteria need to be laid down
for production. The Commission has proposed the setting-up of
a centre or laboratory whose aims will include the development
of objective welfare indicators (11), and the Commission expects
that the further use of measurable indicators in Community
animal welfare legislation can come about on the basis of the
research findings of the Welfare Quality Project, which is to be
concluded in 2009. At the same time it is important to make
use of other research and development carried out
in the
Member States.

Future efforts to promote the development of certain
7.3
production and rearing methods that pay more attention to
animals' welfare in line with sound scientific indicators must
therefore, of necessity, be made as a complement to private
quality labels as the best solution. This will allow businesses to
keep their own labels and develop them further, and thus also
differentiate themselves from their competitors on a real and
objective basis; moreover, consumers will be able to make
choices according to their own convictions and preferences on
the basis of accurate information. The system will thus be able
to operate in line with market premises and without unneces-
sary intervention by the authorities. This can be done with an
indication that the product meets an EU standard that is subject
to independent monitoring.

findings have been produced by the Welfare Quality Project,
among other things. This will make it possible for experts and,
where appropriate, the proposed centre for animal welfare, to
work out the necessary objective criteria. There must be an over-
view of different indicators covering the entire life cycle of the
animals; these should be translated into practical and realistic
production conditions, so that there is the best possible interac-
tion between research, development and the application of new
technologies (12).

8.2
The results from this can be translated into standards for
all domestic animal species and the most essential animal
products through a mandate given to the relevant centre and
used for the proposed rules on labelling; guarantees must be
provided that the individual
indicators can be measured and
subsequently checked. Labelling referring to animal welfare
should be based as far as possible on measurable and replicable
animal welfare indicators and not
just on the production
systems used.

8.3
Business and industry could then, on a voluntary basis,
label animal products with a logo recognised by the EU guaran-
teeing that they meet a higher standard than the EU's minimum
requirements. The higher standards should be laid down in a
legal instrument, unless it is legally possible to refer directly to
common standards. The standards could, for example, be set at
a choice of three levels 20, 40 and 60 per cent above the
minimum standards to the extent considered appropriate for the
respective animal species and product. The guarantee of compli-
ance with the specific requirements and checking of the label's
application could be based on self-policing by businesses with
the help of an independent inspector, institute or organisation
or a special certification body working in accordance with the
relevant European and international ISO Standards in EN —
ISO — 17000 or accredited as a certification body in accord-
ance with EN — ISO — 45011. However, there is no need for
use of the relevant logo to be approved or permitted in each
individual case, with the red tape and monitoring by the public
authorities that this would involve.

8.4
The relevant logo could, for example, be combined with
a system of colours, stars or points, which could be applied to
there was no conflict
existing commercial
between the common labelling rules and existing commercial
label. The system could also be used for imported products and
thus not cause problems in relation to WTO rules.

so that

labels,

8. Proposals for animal welfare labelling

9. Supplementary measures

8.1
It is important to lay down frameworks and principles
for the structure of a common labelling system so that work
can be prepared and standardised welfare indicators can be
incorporated into the system as and when sufficient preliminary

9.1
Consideration should be given to setting up a website
and database, supported by the EU, with a description of the
proposed labelling rules and various welfare labels and rules, to
be supplied by those responsible for the relevant labels. Busi-
nesses would be able to provide information about products
and thus show that they are behaving in an ethically responsible

(11) As proposed in the EESC's opinion on the Commission's Communica-
tion on a Community Action Plan, the relevant laboratory or centre
should be set up at a global level in cooperation with the EU's most
important trading partners, with the aim of gaining international
acceptance of the methods developed.

(12) The relevant indicators should include all the essential data on the
animal species concerned as regards rearing, space and accommoda-
tion, daily supervision, health and sickness aspects, weaning, surgical
operations, transport to the slaughterhouse, stunning and slaughter.

C 161/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

manner. The same information could also be accessible in
shops, for example. The database could also be a source of
inspiration for further development in this area. It would lead to
greater transparency, and the risk of criticism and the exposure
of cheating and misleading claims could contribute to a certain
self-discipline and internal monitoring.

9.2
In addition, consideration could be given to tightening
the rules on incorrect or misleading claims, so that stiffer sanc-
tions can be imposed in the event of abuse, though this would
not mean a system of approval combined with monitoring by
national authorities. Of course, businesses may quite legally
make claims that are correct and do not mislead consumers; but
it is also quite clear that it is the exclusive responsibility of busi-
nesses to ensure that claims about products are truthful — irre-
spective of whether or not they are verified by an independent
third party.

By far the simplest option would be just to support the
9.3
continued development of private labelling rules through infor-
mation campaigns aimed at consumers and the retail trade,
without any further measures. But, as has been made clear
earlier, this would not be sufficient. Regardless of the choice of
labelling rules or other measures, information campaigns should
be carried out in all circumstances, if the basis for this is estab-

Brussels, 15 March 2007.

lished. This could be done through conferences for opinion-
leaders as well as through TV or newspaper articles;
the
Commission and the relevant national authorities should play
an essential role here, along with agriculture, consumer and
animal protection organisations, for example.

9.4
In the meantime there have been calls for mandatory
national labelling to show a product's origin, against the back-
ground of a general preference for national products. Despite
claims from business about the risk of distortions of competi-
tion, a basic principle up to now has also been that stricter rules
on animal welfare may be laid down at national level than the
minimum requirements prescribed by the EU. If, in accordance
with the subsidiarity principle,
it is left up to the individual
Member States to develop their own labelling schemes for
protecting animals' welfare, dependent on production conditions
and consumer interests, these would rapidly turn into a one-
sided promotion of national products, and any form of manda-
tory national labelling would be incompatible with the internal
market and EU competition rules. However, Member States
which introduce higher mandatory minimum requirements for
one or more production sectors have the possibility, where
appropriate, of allowing these to be included in the proposed
labelling scheme.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS