This article is part of our special report Animal protection – in Europe and beyond.
Around 134 million pigs are farmed for food in the European Union. The vast majority of these highly intelligent animals will undergo surgical mutilation at a tender age with a portion of their tails being chopped off, generally without the use of anaesthesia or pain relief.
Dr. Joanna Swabe is senior director of public affairs for Humane Society International/Europe.
Piglets are robbed of their tails solely to prevent the damage and pain that tail-biting can cause. Yet, this abnormal behaviour is actually the result of boredom and the stress of living in inadequate conditions.
In the topsy-turvy world of intensive animal agriculture, animal bodies are routinely being surgically altered, rather than their living environments being enriched in a way that actually meets their complex welfare needs.
Tail-docking is a painful experience for piglets. It can have both short and medium-term negative welfare consequences for these young animals, such as soft tissue lesions, skin damage and bone lesions, including fractures of the spinal vertebrae. This is not to mention the stress associated with being handled, as well as the fear and pain.
Routine tail-docking is explicitly prohibited under the EU Pigs Directive. Indeed, it may only be carried out when there is evidence of injuries to other pigs’ tails, and, before resorting to this procedure, preventive measures must be taken to reduce and eliminate tail-biting, such as ensuring adequate environmental enrichment.
Much to the exasperation of animal welfarists, the ban on routine tail-docking in pigs has been blatantly ignored for the past three decades by all Member States, aside from Finland and Sweden.
After conducting a series of damning audits several years ago, the European Commission instructed Member States to deliver action plans for phasing out these routine mutilations and provided them with copious educational resources to explain best practices for raising pigs with intact tails and what enrichment materials and strategies should be used.
In the meantime, the European Food Safety Authority delivered a Scientific Opinion on the welfare of pigs, which concluded that this cruel practice “is not necessary if husbandry practices and management are appropriate” and recommended that “tail docking should not be performed.” EFSA scientists pointed to the necessity of providing pigs with enrichment materials, such as straw, increasing space allowance, and ensuring low levels of ammonia.
Given the general lack of responsiveness of Member States to such recommendations, it was a welcome surprise to learn that the Commission has just approved a Danish scheme, financed by State Aid to the tune of approximately €20 million, to support higher animal welfare standards for pigs.
The aim is to support farmers to implement the much-needed preventative measures to reduce the risk of tail-docking, including improved housing conditions.
Although arguably such action to eliminate tail-docking was long overdue, it is laudable that the Danish government have decided to use State Aid explicitly to provide grants and subsidised services, such as training, to its pig farmers.
Given that Denmark is the EU’s fourth largest pigmeat producer – with a population of 11,368,000 pigs in 2023 – moving towards higher welfare standards will positively impact millions of animals.
It is also important that the Commission deemed this Danish State Aid scheme both necessary and appropriate for achieving the goal of advancing the welfare of animals. This opens a pathway for other Member States who are – let’s face it – currently failing the majority of pigs commercially raised for food production, to devise similar schemes to fund improvements.
Whenever the need to advance animal welfare is debated, politicians and farmers consistently sound like a broken record. Yes, they all agree that improving animal welfare is important, but the crux of the matter is who is going to pay for it?
We can only hope that this Danish State Aid scheme will provide inspiration and a concrete example of how Member States can legitimately support economic activities, such as raising pigs in a more humane fashion, with appropriate financing incentives.
It would be fantastic if other national governments took such decisive measures not only to eliminate the illegal practice of routine tail-docking and to enrich the living environments of pigs, but to propose similar schemes to improve the welfare of other species, such as broiler chickens and laying hens, who are confined and suffer greatly in intensive production systems.
State Aid schemes are not, of course, the only way in which Member States can fund and incentivise animal welfare improvements.
Around 23 percent of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy. Under national CAP Strategic Plans, Member States are already able to allocate funds via eco-schemes to allow producers to implement farming practices with greater animal welfare benefits. We need to see substantial increases in the channelling of such funds to help farmers to transition to higher animal welfare, especially cage-free, production systems.
In the absence of the legislative proposals promised by the Commission to revise and expand the scope of the existing EU animal welfare acquis, including a pledge to end caged confinement for farmed animals, the Danish State Aid Scheme shows that meaningful action on animal welfare is still possible.
Without a doubt, President von der Leyen is still obligated to deliver on these outstanding animal welfare commitments during the Commission’s new mandate. In the meantime, all measures that may improve the welfare and enrich the lives of farm animals will be both welcome and timely.