Law Pod Pre Slaughter Stunning FINAL INTRO/ OUTRO: [00:00:00] You're listening to LawPod UK. It's a podcast that covers all aspects of civil and public law in the United Kingdom. All comments are current at the time of publication. It's a podcast that's brought to you By the barristers at one Crown Office row, and this episode is presented by Rosalind English. Rosalind: Hello Law Pod listeners, we have rather a sombre subject for you today, but hang on in there. You'll learn quite a lot of stuff that I guarantee you won't have known before. Anyway, I did when I was preparing for this interview. We start with a [00:01:00] recent ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasberg. Rosalind: This involved a challenge by Jewish and Muslim groups to the Belgian government, who had stipulated that farm animals have to be stunned before slaughter. This, said the leaders of the kosher and halal food groups respectively, was a breach of their religious rights contrary to Article 9 of the Convention. Rosalind: Broadly speaking, both kosher and halal systems demand that the animal should be in full health, in other words, not unconscious, before it is bled out. This is a hygiene measure dating back from biblical times and desert conditions that arguably no longer makes sense in modern abattoirs. Nevertheless, it remains a principle in both religions killing of animals in accordance with their doctrinal rights. Rosalind: Somewhat to everyone's surprise, the Strasbourg court rejected the [00:02:00] challenge. In Belgian Muslims and Others versus Belgium, the court itself acknowledged that, quotes, this is the first time that the court has had to rule on the question of whether the protection of animal welfare can be linked to one of the aims referred to in paragraph two of article nine of the convention, close quotes. Rosalind: And it found that it could so be linked. In its conclusions, the court noted that it has already recognised on several occasions that the protection of animals constitutes a matter of general interest protected by the Convention. And you'll be able to find a list of those cases in the article I wrote for the Human Rights blog on the Belgium ruling. Rosalind: The court said, in quotes, Contrary to what the applicants alleged, the protection of public morals, to which Article 9, Paragraph 2 of the Convention refers, could not be understood as [00:03:00] aiming solely at the protection of human dignity in relationships between people. In this regard, the court observed that the Convention does not ignore the environment in which the people it aims to protect live, and in particular, animals whose protection has already attracted the attention of the court. Rosalind: Therefore, the Convention cannot be interpreted as promoting the absolute satisfaction of the rights and freedoms that it enshrines without regard to animal suffering, close quotes. I have with me Paula Sparks, who practised as a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers before leaving the bar to pursue a full time role with the UK Centre of Animal Law, A-Law for short, a charity whose vision is a world where animals are fully protected by law. Rosalind: Paula frequently lectures and writes about animal related law and policy. In [00:04:00] 2023, she co-edited the Routledge Handbook of Animal Welfare. Paula, very many thanks to take the time to come on to Law Pod uk. Paula: It's a real pleasure, Rosalind. I've been following the podcast for many years and it's a delight for me to talk to you today. Paula: So thank you. Rosalind: I'm very grateful. So let's start with a question. Were you surprised by the Strasberg Court's judgment in the Belgium case? Paula: I wasn't wholly surprised actually, I feel that the Strasburg Court has been fairly sympathetic in the past in matters where human rights under the Convention have been balanced against animal welfare objectives to be pursued. Paula: So we saw this in the challenges to the Hunting Act when that was enacted and the concerns raised about [00:05:00] the right to family life and potential infringement there and the right to freedom of association. So, the court has had to carry out this type of balancing exercise in the past. However, I think, possibly, we might have had a decision that was different maybe a decade or so ago. Paula: And I think it comes across in the judgment that the court is very cognisant of the fact that animal welfare is important to people. And indeed, it forms part of the underlying reasons for the decision that this is a matter of public morality and there should be scope for differing opinions on the extent to which our state should enact laws to protect animals. Rosalind: So moving on from the human rights law and the Court of Human Rights - what is [00:06:00] generally the position law wise in this country now we've left the European Union with regard to farm to fork, with regard to the welfare of animals going for slaughter Paula: We still have the retained EU law, and that's Council Regulation No. 1099 of 2009, on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Paula: So we refer to that generally as PATOK, and that is still retained. and is enforced across the devolved nations by the welfare of animals at the time of killing regulations. Of course, we still have the Animal Welfare Act of 2006, which is domestic legislation and so has been unaffected by leaving the European Union, but that's the main legislative regime for protecting [00:07:00] animals at the time of killing. Paula: One of the areas that the Animal Welfare Committee was asked to give an opinion about was an area that has become more current, because of the avian flu crisis, and that's what happens when it may be necessary to depopulate or to kill large numbers of intensively bred chickens. And one method of doing that, which had been proposed, is ventilation shutdown. Paula: Essentially what that means is ventilation is, as it says, shut down. The heat rises as the body heat of the animals continues and that causes death, often through multi organ failure. Now, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, that was the previous manifestation of the Animal Welfare Committee, looked at [00:08:00] this issue in 2006, and following that report, in fact, ventilation shutdown was made legal through the Welfare of Animals Slaughter or Killing Amendment Regulations of 2006. Paula: However, ventilation shutdown has never been used and would since be illegal under WATOK, that's the enforcement legislation for PATOK. The Animal Welfare Committee was asked to look at this again and they identified the effects of ventilation shutdown as being profoundly negative in its impact on birds and resulted in prolonged and significant suffering. Paula: They felt therefore that it shouldn't be used as a matter of routine where there is an outbreak of avian flu or some other disease. [00:09:00] However, they did leave open the possibility that in very exceptional circumstances, for example, when there's a highly pathogenic zoonotic disease, or where a disease is rapidly spreading, or in the event of flood, fire, or major infrastructure failure, that it's a possibility the government could consider. Rosalind: I mean, quite clearly this ventilation shutdown euphemism is a kind of form of cooking these animals alive, isn't it? Paula: It is. Rosalind: And so, given that they're not destined to be eaten, what are the humane ways of depopulating these diseased animals? There must be some sort of gas related solution. Paula: Yes, and the report did look in detail at those possibilities, including the use of percussive gases. Paula: I think it is disappointing that [00:10:00] it was proposed even as a last case resort, but there we are. It is as it is and we haven't had to use it so far in this country and one would hope we never have to. Rosalind: Okay, and then we move on to another form of mass destruction of animals not destined for our table and this is the problem of overproduction of chicks, including male chicks that nobody wants. Rosalind: I promised you that this was going to be a sombre discussion, and now it's going to get quite grim because what happens to these male chicks in hatcheries, Paula? Paula: It is grim; at up to 72 hours of age, the methods of culling that are allowed include maceration, which is really high speed blades. and the use of gas or cervical dislocation. Paula: Maceration really is, how it sounds [00:11:00] with sharp rotating blades. It's argued by some animal welfare experts that the use of maceration doesn't give rise to animal welfare concerns because the death is instantaneous. To me that still sounds pretty brutal. Nonetheless, it raises ethical concerns about killing very large numbers of animals simply because they are surplus to needs in the food chain. Paula: The problem currently is the laying breeds don't produce enough muscle mass to be very attractive on the food market and so you have these large numbers of chicks that need to be disposed of. Unfortunately, and I think the Animal Welfare Committee report estimated that this affects around 40 to 45 [00:12:00] million male chicks hatched and killed each year in Great Britain. Paula: Now I should add that, as far as I know, maceration is not a common method of killing in the UK. It is elsewhere, and we can still import chicks who have been killed through maceration. As far as I understand it, within the United Kingdom, gas is more commonly used than the maceration method. But the Animal Welfare Committee found, again, this being highly problematic because of the large number of animals concerned rather than on animal welfare grounds, although I would be somewhat concerned about that because I'm not really sure that we have a very strong evidence base for concluding that there are not animal welfare detriments. Rosalind: And going back to your point about [00:13:00] wastage, it, it just seems, yes, these macerated chicks go to kept animal zoo food, exotic pet food and so on. It still feels like a form of mass food waste. I'd like to look at the question of farmed fish. Now, this is a huge problem environmentally, as we all know, but I must say, even I didn't know, well, two things. Rosalind: I didn't know how these fish are slaughtered, but I also didn't know that we farm in cleaner fish to clean the farm salmon. I mean, the whole thing just goes on and on. And what do you do about the cleaner fish when they become too old or ill to clean the farm? They need to be slaughtered. I don't know, it's a never ending world. Rosalind: Anyway, Paula, what are the problems with farmed finfish? Paula: There is a problem, you're right, and I don't believe that the legislation adequately protects farmed fish, and [00:14:00] that is a view shared by many, because when you consider the PATOK regulation, the EU regulation, In relation to farmed fish, although these are vertebrate species and so recognised as being sentient, they are excluded from the detailed provisions in the regulation. Paula: I think the Animal Welfare Committee mentioned in their recent report, I think 2023, something like 52. 4 million fish killed annually for food that are farmed, and 12. 7 million killed for other purposes. Now, given the fact that fish are widely accepted as being sentient, and having cognitive capacities and being sensitive to pain, this is really important and ethical issue [00:15:00] for society to grapple with. Paula: The Farm Animal Welfare Committee published a report about the welfare of farmed fish in 2014 and was asked to update its opinion in 2023. And they recommended that fish should be rendered insensible to pain before killing. In other words, they should be stunned before killing. And in the 2018 European Union Commission report, that also found that there were deficiencies in a number of countries in relation to the welfare of farmed fish, but it did not think it was appropriate at that time to bring in legislation. Paula: And so both in the UK and in other areas there's really reliance on a voluntary scheme, rather than having those detailed regulative provisions that would [00:16:00] protect farmed fish at the time of killing. Rosalind: But then of course we always come down to the economic argument that however aspirational and specific the legislation is, more humane methods are necessarily going to be more expensive and will then drive up the cost of the final food product.Is that correct? Paula: In relation to the economics, that's always a consideration with these matters. And the extent to which we can continue producing large quantities of animal products, whether it's fish or other types of meat, and maintain good animal welfare standards is something that I think governments should also be grappling with. Paula: And that perhaps in society we should be thinking about, can we raise animal welfare [00:17:00] standards without cutting back to some extent the consumption of animal products? Because you have these very vast numbers and as you pointed out there is an environmental impact sometimes with these types of very large industrial farm systems. Rosalind: Okay, so the laws that you mentioned, protection of animals at time of killing, welfare of animals at time of killing, PATOK and WATOK, they don't cover certain species that we do meet on our plates, such as crustaceans, cephalopods, and so on. And is it because the jury is out on sentience? Why are they not included? Paula: Well, this is a really interesting area, I think, because the Animal Welfare Act only protects vertebrate animals. And that is because it was historically [00:18:00] felt that the scientific evidence was conclusive around the sentience of vertebrates, but the scientific community was less confident. about the sentience of invertebrate species. Paula: So invertebrates are not generally protected by the Animal Welfare Act. Now, when the Animal Welfare Sentience Act of 2022 was going through Parliament, a government commissioned study by the London School of Economics reported evidence that decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, which are invertebrate species like crabs, lobsters, and shrimp, are actually sentient. Paula: And the government accepted that evidence, and as the bill was going through Parliament it was amended to include the scope of these animals [00:19:00] within the provisions, which are now vertebrates plus the crustaceans and the cephalopods. Since that time, the Animal Welfare Act hasn't been amended to bring those type of species into scope, which means they are still unprotected. Paula: And we have, in relation to protection at the time of slaughter, a rather unusual situation that only protects vertebrate animals. However, schedule 4, paragraph 1 of WATOK does extend a limited protection to invertebrate animals, reptiles and amphibians at the time of killing. And that is this general provision that at the time of killing, animals should be spared avoidable pain, distress and suffering. Paula: So there is some [00:20:00] protection under domestic law for those species. However, and this is perhaps an exemplar of a much wider issue around enforcement, there appears to be very little enforcement of that provision when it comes to decapods and cephalopods. And that's really unfortunate, and we still see lobsters being thrown into boiling pots and other methods of killing that would be anticipated to cause pain and distress and suffering. There is technology that allows pre stunning of lobsters and so again the technology is there but may be expensive. And the law is there but the generality of the law and their lack of specific provisions I think is one of the impediments to that being effectively enforced [00:21:00] along with all the other issues. Paula: We have stretched local authority budgets and so forth, all those type of issues that are recognised as feeding into some of the problems generally with animal welfare law enforcement. Rosalind: So Paula, there has been a recent or relatively recent review of PATOK. What issues did it throw up? Paula: Yes, this was really interesting because the government carried out a statutory review looking at the WATOK regulations under PATOK and this raised issues about a topic we've been talking about, non stun slaughter, highlighting in fact the rise in chickens and sheep killed by non-stun methods. Paula: And it was quite a considerable rise. In the case of chickens, 4 percent in 2001 to 10 percent in 2018. And sheep from 10 [00:22:00] percent to 25 percent in that period. And another issue that was highlighted by the implementation report is the rise in the number of pigs who are stunned using high concentration carbon dioxide. Paula: And this has been increased from 50% in 2013 to 86% in 2018. Now, carbon dioxide sunning is recognised to be highly aversive and that was recognised by the Farm and Welfare Committee in its report of 2003 that recommended that high dosage carbon dioxide for pigs should be phased out within five years. We haven't seen that happen. Paula: And in fact, the report demonstrates or shows us that, in fact, there's been an increase in the number of pigs killed by [00:23:00] this method. It takes some time for the pigs to die, and so it's a real concern, and related to that, another area that is concerning is the use of electric water baths, stunning of poultry, and a number of stakeholders, including the European Food Safety Authority, their health and welfare advisory panel, have pointed out the aversive nature of using water baths for stunning and recommended that both that and the high dosage carbon dioxide for pigs should be phased out, but this was rejected by the Commission because of the economic considerations, going back to your earlier point about how expensive is all this. Paula: Which then raises the ethical questions as a society. How do we grapple with this when we have sentient [00:24:00] animals who are suffering? We know what the best animal welfare science is, but it's not affordable. That's a big question that probably goes beyond you and I, Rosalind. Rosalind: Well, at least we can talk about it. Rosalind: It's not a subject that people want to know about. There's lots of talk about farm to fork, but not actually all the gory detail. I remember the author, J. M. Coetzee, has a character who is a great animal welfare polemicist, Elizabeth Costello, and Elizabeth Costello proposes something called the glass abattoir. Rosalind: If there were glass abattoirs in the middle of every city, everybody would give up eating meat. Paula: I think you're right. That's a very good point. Rosalind: Well, on that note, Paula, thank you very much for sharing your detailed knowledge of this issue. important, very [00:25:00] important and complicated legislative area. And I might just mention that your organisation, A-Law, has its own podcast and I look forward to listening to some of your episodes. Paula: Thank you very much, Rosalind, you've been very generous. INTRO/ OUTRO: This episode of LawPod UK was presented by Rosalind English. The series is produced by One Crown Office Row.