Hélène CHARDON
Hubert BRUGERE
Pierre-Michel ROSNER
Animal Société Aliment Association
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE:
TitreStyle
1 : Titre
Basic
Principles and Regulatory Compliance
style
2 : Chapo
tyle 3 :: Body
1
ANIMAL WELFARE
Dossiers
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Centre d’Information des Viandes
Tour Mattei
207, rue de Bercy
75012 PARIS
Layout:
Jean-Baptiste Capelle
[email protected]
Published in July 2015/Translated in February 2016
Translation:
Lara Andahazy-Colo
[email protected]
FOREWORD
Animal welfare is currently a major concern among livestock sector professionals and citizens. Despite this interest,
information is for the most part scattered or poorly known. This is, for instance, the case with initiatives by sector
professionals, the role of research, the involvement of veterinarians and the government, and even current regulations.
With the aim of facilitating knowledge and understanding of social issues relating to the livestock and meat sectors,
the Centre d’Information des Viandes (CIV) decided to devote, for the first time, one of its Dossiers to the topic of
animal welfare from farm to slaughterhouse. In line with the scope of the collection, this Dossier offers a range of
information allowing anyone interested in the subject to build or deepen his or her thinking on the subject. To
do so, it relies on scientific and legal publications, regulatory texts, and reports by institutions and official bodies.
In Part One, this Dossier covers the progressive elaboration of France’s current animal welfare laws applicable
to livestock operations. First, it retraces how humankind’s perception of animals has evolved over time and the
consequences that these ideas have on our relationship with animals. In connection with these mental images,
it shows how the legal status of animals was progressively determined. Finally, it presents the elaboration of the
regulatory arsenal on animal welfare.
Part Two explores the role and missions of the main stakeholders involved with animal welfare in France, from
livestock operations to the slaughterhouse. Professionals in animal production sectors are especially involved,
although other stakeholders also participate in the implementation of laws and regulations and in the ongoing
improvement of the conditions determining the welfare of farm animals: government agents, veterinarians,
researchers, animal welfare associations, etc.
This Dossier is the result of close collaboration by a multidisciplinary group of experts from the Animal Société
Aliment (ASA) association and Ms Hélène CHARDON, veterinarian and health safety and animal health project
manager with CIV, Mr Hubert BRUGERE, research professor for health safety and the feed industry at the École
Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse (ENVT), and Mr Pierre-Michel ROSNER, director of CIV.1
CIV would like to extend its special thanks to the following people for their feedback on this Dossier: Mr Dominique-Pierre
PICAVET, research professor in infectious diseases, law and ethics at ENVT, and Ms Marion RENSON and Ms Lalia
ANDASMAS, lawyers specializing in animal rights and PhD students in animal law at the University of Limoges.
Pierre-Michel ROSNER
Director of CIV
1. This collaboration was launched in 2014 as part of a research project with the École Nationale des Services Vétérinaires (ENSV). At the
request of CIV, a group of students studying to be public veterinary health inspectors conducted a sociological study on farm animal
welfare as part of a Master’s degree on feed policy and health risk management. The results of this study were presented at the
‘Bien-être animal. Pratiques et perceptions’ [animal welfare practices and perceptions] Symposium on 27 March 2014 at ENSV.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
3
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
CONTENTS
Part One: The Origins of Legislation Governing
Farm Animals in France 8
1. T he Issue of How We Perceive Farm Animals 8
1.1. The Weight of Technical and Socioeconomic
Structures in Our Perceptions 8
1.2. The Major Philosophical and Cultural Shifts 12
2. T he Status of Animals: Society’s Expression of its
Concept of Human-Animal Relations 2.1. F rom Prehistory to the 19th Century 2.2. In the 20th Century 2.3. A
t the Start of the 21st Century 16
16
19
22
3. Animal Welfare and Regulatory Oversight
Today 24
3.1. The Influence of Changes in Animal Status 24
3.2. A
Paradigm Shift 26
Part Two: Livestock Welfare from Farm
to Slaughterhouse 30
1. O
n Farms 1.1. Premises and Equipment 1.2. Feeding and Watering 1.3. H
ealth Monitoring 1.4. Training 1.5. G
overnment Inspections 32
33
33
34
35
36
2. Transport 2.1. A
nimals Fit to Travel 2.2. Training 2.3. O
rganizing Transport 2.4. Material and Equipment 2.5. Government Inspections 38
39
40
41
41
44
3. Assembly Centers (Markets, Grouping Centres
and Fairs) 46
4. Slaughterhouses 4.1. A
nimal Housing 4.2. Immobilization and Stunning 4.3. Bleeding 4.4. G
overnment Inspections 47
49
50
53
53
Conclusion 55
Appendices 56
Bibliography Glossary Acronyms Useful Links 56
59
60
61
Notes 62
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
5
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
PART
ONE
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
THE ORIGINS OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING
FARM ANIMALS IN FRANCE
8
1. THE ISSUE OF HOW WE
PERCEIVE FARM ANIMALS
Is it possible to examine the relationship between humans and animals
objectively, that is to say without introducing the bias of anthropomorphic
projections? This is what many scientific
disciplines attempt to do, for example
by defining objective indicators of
animal wellbeing and corresponding
measurements, or by analysing the
neurological mechanisms of pain [35].2
Yet, no matter how useful and necessary
these approaches are, they are only
partial. They shed a purely physiological,
and notably behavioural, light on a
question that, ultimately, is equally a
matter for politics and ethics3 and is
therefore fundamentally human: What
relationships do we allow ourselves to
have, as people, with animals? And,
first and foremost, what are animals
and what does it mean to be human?
And therefore what is the relationship
between people and animals?
These questions may seem surprising
as an introduction to a document
on animal welfare from farm to
slaughterhouse that aims to provide
technical, scientific and regulatory
information. Nevertheless, they clearly
deserve to be asked as a preamble to
the subject. Indeed, human-animal
relationships and the notion of animal
welfare depend on how we see and
think about this or that animal and the
mental images we have of it.
In other words—and this is the goal of
this first section—before we can even
look at the status of farm animals and
how this status was conceived legally
and operationally, it is useful to look
at how humankind conceives of and
imagines animals, how these mental
images are built, how they have evolved,
and consequently how humankind
perceives its own relationship to animals
and their wellbeing.
The conceptual framework for
human-animal relations necessarily
depends on the filter of humankind’s
idea of what an animal is. Let us note
that our mental images have throughout time influenced language and
etymology. Thus, in French as in English,
we habitually talk about rearing or
taking care of livestock using positive
language that displays the attention
we pay to these animals, as opposed
to more neutral expressions that might
merely speak of the work involved.
These animals form the farmer’s herd,
or in other words all the head (caput in
Latin) that he owns, but we could also
speak of his capital because this word
also derives from the same Latin root.
Economically speaking, the aim of
capital—particularly livestock—is to
cause it to grow or reproduce. In Europe,
similar etymological parallels can be
found in both Latin and Anglo-Saxon
languages.4 We can also note the oldest
Indo-European root that links cattle
(peku) and wealth (pecunia, money in
Latin). Through these examples, we see
that language portrays very deep-seated
and extremely old relations between
farmers and their animals, while offering
them as models. These relations are not
lacking economic considerations, but
attention and care form a central aspect
of desired and demanded practices.
A few examples reveal how mental
images evolve over time and within
societies (cf. Sidebar 1).
1.1. The Weight of Technical
and Socioeconomic
Structures in Our
Perceptions
Given the influence that our mental
images have over how we see animals
2. T he numbers between square brackets correspond to the bibliographic reference listed on page 56.
3. H
ere, ethics designates how moral rules and pragmatic considerations regarding action are combined; politics refers to the way in
which a society is organized and makes decisions.
4. For example: cabeza (head) in Spanish, cap (type of hat) and capitulum (a small head or rounded extremity of bone in medical
terminology) in English, kopf (head) in German, and (k)capital in each of these three languages.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
and our relationships with them,
it is appropriate to examine the
factors that determine how these
images are elaborated. Without citing
all technical and socioeconomic
determinants that have influenced
this elaboration, a few key elements
are presented here.
Sidebar 1
EXAMPLES OF OBSERVATION BIAS OR PERCEPTION IN IDEAS ABOUT ANIMALS
Artistic Renderings: With horses, our first thought
is of an animal that stands 1.5 to 1.6 m at the withers.
Yet, on an ancient Danish cauldron,a we see a Gallic
rider seated on a small horse with his feet touching the
ground. Analysis of the bones of Gallic horses proves
that the image on the cauldron is accurate and therefore
(Cont. p. 10)
Evolution of Cattle Size [33]
140
cm
135
130
125
120
115
110
La
te
L
17 t
h
15 t
h
14 t
h
10 t
h
-11
th
11 th
-13
th
En
aT
èn
d
6 th
- 9 th
4 th
-5 t h
1 st
2 nd
-3 rd
d
io
eP
er
16 t
h
centuries
105
Méniel 1984, Lepetz 1997, Clavel 2001, Lepetz and Horard-Herbin 2012 & 2013.
AUROCHS
1.80 m
1.35 m
1.25 m
1.30 m
1m
1.50 m
1.15 m
NEOLITHIC / IRON AGE / ANTIQUITY / MIDDLE AGES / CONTEMPORARY PERIOD / CHAROLAIS CATTLE
J.D. Vigne & M. Coutureau
a. Celtic Gundestrup Cauldron (National Museum of Denmark): http://www.cndp.fr/archive-musagora/gaulois/documents/
gundestrup.htm).
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
9
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
Sidebar 1 (cont.)
10
that our current mental image is inappropriate to that
time. The same is true for cattle. The Figure here shows
changes in the height at withers of cattle since aurochs
were domesticated: from 1.8 m during the Neolithic
era to barely 1 m during the Iron Age and 1.6 m today.
These comparisons between imagery and bones show
that the animals of the past do not correspond to our
mental images of them based on our relationship with
the animals of today. As a result, we must be aware that
we conceive our relationship with animals through
images that are but partial and conditioned by a set of
historical and social determinants.
Sources of Information: For a long time, written documents were the only sources of information deemed
worthy (because available) by historians and archeologists. These ‘ancient’ sources, written by clerks for the
religious or economic authorities, above all reported on
the animal husbandry and consumption practices specific
to those social groups. Lacking alternative sources, it was
assumed that the animal husbandry and consumption
practices of other social groups were relatively similar. The
combination of computing and new testing capacities
(study of skeletal remains, material composition, signs of
wear, etc.) provides new sources of information. These
new sources are now beginning to testify directly to
a history of animal husbandry practices among small
farmers and village butchers that is different from what
we have until now known in Europe from Antiquity to
the Middle Ages. This example shows that even when
we rely on scientific knowledge, our ideas about animal
husbandry and our relationships with animals are to be
viewed with precaution because they depend on our
awareness of biases in the scientific methods used.b
Animal Species: Indeed, the relationship that humankind maintains with animals is mediated by the idea that
each person has of these animals and their species. This
mediation introduces observation biases (we do not look
at what we should in the animal) or perception biases
(we look at what we should, but through deforming
lenses: anthropomorphism, current knowledge, etc.) that
influence how we think about the animals. In reality, the
expression of animal welfare may vary depending on
the species considered. For example, periods of play in
young animals may reveal a state of dietary well-being
and sufficiency as among calves or, inversely, dietary stress
as may be the case among kittens practicing hunting.c
b. H
ere, we refer to all the discussions on the papers presented during the ‘La viande : fabrique et représentations’ [making
meat: practices and representations] symposium [34]. The various cases discussed notably covered ancient Egypt, Greece,
the Roman world, and Western Europe.
c. S uzanne Held: ‘Play as an indicator of good welfare: why, why not and how?’ [49].
During the Paleolithic Era, humans
were hunter-gatherers who collected
plants and insects and hunted animals.
Organized in clans or tribes, humans
often referred to totemic animals of a
sacred or taboo nature. According to
S. Reinach, totemism would partially
explain some food taboos, such as
pigeons and doves among Slavic
populations and hares among the
Celts [47]. More generally, other animals may be killed and eaten but,
in an animistic context where every
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
living being has a soul, their killing is
the subject of rituals. This ritualization
probably parallels the commodification of animals when they are killed,
that is to say their transformation
from living being to thing(s): meat
and other products. Currently, the
term ‘commodification’ is often used
to emphasize the consequences of
industrialization on livestock farming
conditions. However, one must not
forget that slaughter has long been
the first form of commodification.
In any case, slaughter was never
seen as insignificant, and this
non-insignificant nature can be
found throughout nearly all of human
history. Humankind, out of respect
for the animal as much as out of
economic considerations has made
use of nearly all of it: skin, meat, fats,
ligaments and bones.
During the Neolithic Era, humans
developed farming by domesticating
plants and animals. According to J.P.
Digard, this ‘man the domesticator’
is not simply a user of animals; he
is also a producer of these domesticated breeds that are not natural
because they come from a selection
of animals of other species such as
wolves, aurochs, mouflons, etc. [14].
Humans thus begin to distinguish
between wild animals and animals
that have been acclimated for their
labour or company. Until then, humans
used all parts of animals, but starting
with this period, humans begin little
by little to derive two additional
resources from domesticated animals: energy (carrying and draught
power, etc.), and manure as a source
of fertilization. Among other things,
animals were assigned a function of
live savings—reproducible and easy to
mobilize—that, progressively, would
give rise to the notion of capital (cf.
Sidebar 1). The resources provided
and functions fulfilled by domestic
animals would serve humankind
until the contemporary era and
thus define a relationship based on
utility. Indeed, it would take until
the invention of the steam engine
(at the end of the 17th century), then
synthetic fertilizer (19th century) and
finally refined petrochemicals (20th
century) for animal traction, waste,
hides and non-food raw materials
to find substitutes. The relationship
based on usefulness would then be
reduced nearly to the provision meat,
eggs and dairy products.5
Starting in Antiquity and continuing
relatively continuously into the contemporary era, humankind’s mental
images of animals—and notably
domestic animals—have therefore
been marked on the material level by
usefulness. However, during this same
period, philosophical and cultural
changes played a decisive role in the
evolution of these mental images
(cf. §1.2).
The contemporary era constitutes
a break in the human-animal relationship. According to J.L. Guichet,6
until this date, the human and animal
worlds were intimately enmeshed.
These two worlds were functionally, economically and technically,
emotionally and morally intertwined
[10]. They were embedded in landscapes and activities, all professions
were present everywhere, including
in urban areas: slaughterhouses,
butcher shops, tanneries, transport,
etc. This intertwining existed even in
the senses with the omnipresence
of smells of hay, manure, leather,
bodies, etc. Contemporary breaks
are to be understood in opposition
to this enmeshed nature. For this
author, the contemporary world is
therefore marked by a progressive
‘de-animalization’ that sped up
starting in the mid-20th century—a
period specifically marked by the
rise of agricultural motorization
(replacing animal power), the use
of fertilizer (loss of the imperative
need to have manure) and the use of
textiles and other synthetic products
from petrochemical industries (loss of
the role of raw materials other than
milk and meat).
‘De-animalization’ must be understood on different levels [10]:
Separation of Spaces and Species:
Livestock are relegated to rural areas
and disappear from the urban landscape (closing of slaughterhouses,
loss of their role in traction, etc.). Pets
become more numerous in cities and
are almost exclusively confined to the
domestic sphere.
Dequalification of Human-Animal
Relations: With a few rare exceptions
(seeing eye dogs, horses), animals no
longer have vital technical functions
to perform compared to human
activities. Their role is now to be
present, but without a shared task
to accomplish. Depending on the
case, they are therefore reduced to
being only a source of raw materials
(for food, industry, science, medicine,
etc.) or a backdrop for emotions or
the imagination.
Revaluation of Animal Sentience: As human-animal relations
have lost their main material supports
and as they are now marked by
separation and dequalification,
5. This is a voluntary simplification of the current situation. Value chains continue to utilize co-products and by-products. But this
use is now more one of opportunities that the supply side takes up, whereas before it was a response to a demand that had no
alternatives.
6. J.L. Guichet is a philosopher. During the symposium ‘Evolution des relations entre l’Homme et l’animal’ [evolution in human-animal
relations], he proposed a summary of societal changes leading to or revealing the break in the human-animal relationship in the
contemporary era [10].
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
11
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
12
they tend by default to enter more
and more strongly into the field of
ideology, imagination and fantasy.
The question of animal’s sentience,
previously secondary to uses and
material ends, has thus become
primordial. This revaluation is said
among other things to benefit from
the increased sensitivity of humankind itself, the growing importance
given to rights, and the separation
of roles according to the responsible
party/victim pair.
Deconstruction and Breakdown of Mental Images: The last
components of this break, while
having become primordial, are the
ideas that humankind has about
animals; these ideas have lost all
connection with the animal world
previously embedded in the human
world (cf. supra). This concept has
become deconstructed and splintered into three clearly distinct
components: the utilitarian animal
(livestock or laboratory animal, but
in any case invisible to most people),
household pets (which are highly
anthropomorphized), and wild
animals (which are deformed and
idealized by the media). It is now
through the image of the household
pet, rather than that of the farm
animal, that relations with the other
types of animals are approached,
even though these three images
are in reality irreconcilable.
This de-animalization of the contemporary world is the source of
an ultimately highly paradoxical
situation, two traits of which J.L.
Guichet underscores here:
Animality now seems to be
thought at two levels: level one, the
‘visible, sentient, familiar or wild,
always comforting or positive’ animal;
and level two, the farm animal, a
‘“lower” animal, invisible [and having
a] ghost-like [existence], [...] faceless
and even completely un-imaginable,
about which we generally prefer not
to think’ [10]. According to N. Vialles,
humans have shifted from being zoophagous, knowing eaters of animals, to
sarcophagus, or flesh-eaters, unaware
of its animal origin [48]. This idea has
also been taken up by F. Burgat [4].
The deconstruction of the relationship with animals has caused
this relationship to be the subject of
increasingly intense thinking from
the 1950s onwards, with the goal of
understanding it from the standpoint
of ethics. On this point, J.L. Guichet
cites the writings of Ruth Harrison7 on
Animal Machines [32] and the—better
known in France—writings of Peter
Singer on La libération animale (1975),
and of Tom Reagan on La question
des droits des animaux (1983).
While very summary and necessarily
partial, this review of a few key stages
that marked animal husbandry and
human-animal relations clearly shows
how the evolution of technical and
socioeconomic conditions has influenced the elaboration of our mental
images.
Three major eras in human-animal
relations can thus be defined:
the Palaeolithic period with an
animist relationship and the ritualization of killing;
the Neolithic Revolution with
the domestication of animals: animals became indispensable for the
functioning of societies, and the
relationship with animals was intrinsically marked by their usefulness (cf.
Figure 1); and
the contemporary period, characterized by both the drastic drop
in livestock utility due to technical
progress (motorization, rise of chemistry, etc.) and the marginalization and
breakdown of concepts pertaining
to human-animal relations in favour
of positive images projected on pets
and wild animals.
1.2. THE MAJOR PHILOSOPHICAL
AND CULTURAL SHIFTS
From Antiquity to the contemporary
period, the role of livestock was central
to how societies were organized and
7. R. Harrison was a precursor on this question of ethics because as early as 1964 she denounced the effects of the industrialization of
livestock farming that, according to her, was relegating animals to the rank of production machine. In the French context, this work
deserves to be mentioned to underscore the ambiguity of the expression ‘animal machines’ employed by R. Harrison and today by
many authors, without knowing whether these authors refer to Descartes’ reflections on ‘animal-machines’ (cf. §1.2.2) or those of
Harrison (given that there is every indication that she did not know of Descartes’ writing on the subject; personal communication of
Marina Stamp Dawkins, 03/09/2014 [49]).
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
shifted very little. Indeed, beyond
technical changes, animals were still
suppliers of food, non-food goods and
energy. They were also a key element
in soil fertility management methods
and therefore in food systems (cf. §1.1).
However, throughout this lengthy
period, ideas about animals were
influenced by different philosophical
and cultural currents that took an
interest in human-animal relationships.
1.2.1. From Antiquity to the
Middle Ages
Let us note here the uncertainty
surrounding human-animal relations
until the Middle Ages, notably because
sources of information are often ‘religious’ (cf. Sidebar 1). Sources are, what
is more, sometimes contradictory, as
is the case for sources from Antiquity.
According to the Old Testament
and Hebrew exegesis, Adam and
Eve seem to have been vegetarian.
Permission to eat animals seems to
have come only after the Flood8 [41].
The purpose of the Hebrew Kashrut9
would then have been to separate
blood from body during religious
slaughter, thus aiming to preserve
the animals’ souls.
During Antiquity, in Egypt, Greece
and the Roman world, herds were
mainly owned by the dominant classes
(leaders, clergy, etc.) and eaten during
religious sacrifices [34]. However,
in Greece during the same period,
various philosophical movements
advocated for vegetarianism with
various justifications: condemnation of
sacrifices, pity for animals and respect
for life, the search for asceticism and
purity, belief in the transmigration of
souls, etc. Today, it seems difficult to
appreciate the real importance of
these practices and know whether
they went beyond philosophy circles
given that, in the theatre of the time,
mocking vegetarian characters was
a recurrent theme in plays [41]. What
about the rest of the population? Did
these practices and lines of thought
influence human-animal relationships
or not? In the end, it does indeed
seem that people at the time were
already asking questions that we ask
ourselves today. What differences
are there between people and animals? What is the nature or degree
of these differences? Or, should one
see continuities? Finally, how does
all this translate into human-animal
relations?
In the 4th century B.C.E., Aristotle
(384-322 B.C.E.) gave particularly
strong answers to these questions.
For him, Man was half-way between
gods and beasts and must therefore
be seen as the final purpose of other
living species: plants were for animals,
and animals were for Man. All of
nature was therefore at the service
of Man because, based on Aristotle’s
zoological observations, Man has all
the faculties of living beings, including
reason—that is to say the capacity
for rationality. Man was therefore a
rational animal. But he was not, for
all that, equal to the other animals;
his rationality justified his domination
of them [50].
This concept of humankind and,
consequently of animals, would mark
how the human-animal relationship
was understood until nearly the
modern period. It notably had a
major influence over how Catholi­
cism viewed behaviour towards
animals and, in particular, the fact that
because of their inequality they were
entirely at the service of humankind.
In his Curiosités judiciaires et juridiques
[courtroom curiosities] published
in 1858, Emile Agnel thus reported
several examples of animals put on
trial during the Middle Ages, such as a
sow condemned to have its snout cut
and be hanged for having mutilated
and killed a child, a bull hanged for
goring a man, or even field mice
and caterpillars excommunicated
for damaging harvests [5].
1.2.2. Cartesian Thinking
In the 17th century, Descartes (15951650) adopted a perspective comparable to that of Aristotle: identify
what constitutes the essence of
humankind. Like Aristotle, Descartes
defined humans in relation to God
8. According to the Old Testament, the Flood was a universal punishment of humankind by God, as humans had become bad and
systematically broke God’s laws. Among people, only Noah and his wife were seen as worthy of surviving the 40 days and 40 nights
of rain caused by God’s wrath, and were tasked with saving one mating pair of each animal species. After the Flood, God set down
new rules.
9. The Kashrut is the Jewish dietary code that specifies which foods are allowed and which are forbidden, as well as acceptable modes
of preparation. These include specific rules on how animals are to be slaughtered.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
13
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
14
and other living things. But here,
the position mid-way between the
two must be understood as being
between the infinity of God and the
finite nature of the body. In other
words, Descartes was not operating
within a unitary approach to the living
whereas that had been Aristotle’s
objective in that, according to F.
Wolff,10 for him the challenge was
to provide a philosophical foundation for zoology. Descartes, on the
other hand, placed himself within a
dualist perspective that sought to
understand body and soul, mind and
matter. Why this dualistic approach?
Ultimately because his challenge was
to provide a foundation for physics,
with on one side work by the mind
(mathematical calculations) and on
the other the work by the body (use
of materials). In this context, unlike
Aristotle, humankind was no longer
the object of knowledge but had
become the subject of knowledge.
Humankind is mind and awareness,
and this awareness is what allows
one to know the rest of nature.
At the same time, humans are also
(only) bodies—that is to say complex
machines made exclusively of organs,
or the equivalent of clockwork mechanisms, pumps and other mills [12].
According to F. Wolff, this concept of
the body reduced to the mechanical
interplay of its organs is a response to
another of Descartes’ preoccupations:
giving a philosophical foundation
to human medicine, and notably
physiology. This mechanical concept
authorizes humans to act on their
bodies: they can and may—that is to
say, they are capable of doing so and
have the right to do so. In this context,
nature—which includes animals—is
reduced to its physicality. Having a
soul—that is to say not only reason
but awareness of the self and one’s
relationship to God—humankind
is, for its part, also a moral subject.
Between the two, nothing.
Descartes’ oft cited formula of ‘animal machine’ must be understood
within this line of thinking in which,
because of their bodies, humans are
themselves thought of as machines,
but they also have a mind, whereas
animals have remained body only.
It must also be understood in its
epistemological11 logic accompanying
a twofold scientific revolution, physics
and medicine.12
The ‘animal machine’ concept was
later taken up by other philosophers
who took it out of its epistemological field of application to make it a
concept in its own right. For instance,
according to Nicolas Malebranche
(1638-1715), pain was punishment
for sin. As animals did not have souls,
they were not responsible, could not
sin, and therefore did not know any
pain. Animals were therefore indeed
machines that could not suffer.
1.2.3. The Emergence of
Animalism
The emergence of neurosciences
and cognitive sciences13 over the
past thirty to forty years has been the
source of a revolution of an entirely
different nature [6]. These branches
10. Unless otherwise stated, this section (§1.2.2) and the following (§1.2.3) deal with the theses developed by Francis Wolff in his book
Notre humanité – D’Aristote aux neurosciences [our humanity: from Aristotle to neuroscience] [50]. This work is interesting because
of several specificities: Its main goal is not to examine the relationship between humans and animals but rather human nature. It
is therefore in the framework of these reflections—on humans, how they think of themselves and represent themselves—that F.
Wolff secondarily examines this human-animal relationship. He also offers an analysis of four major philosophers or philosophic
movements (Aristotle, Descartes, structuralism, and congitivism), each of which proposes what he calls a ‘figure’ of mankind and
(except for the third) a specific relationship to nature or animals (cf. §1.2.3). Beyond the presentation of each of these philosophies,
the comparative nature of his approach and the fact that he does not favour any of these movements a priori and does not seek to
promote a specific posture in regard to animals but rather seeks primarily to understand what characterizes humans deserve to
be underlined in particular. Finally, one will note that F. Wolff associates the emergence of these different human figures with the
development of specific scientific disciplines. In this way, he provides understanding of the evolution of human-animal relations in
the light of scientific progress and advances in knowledge, rather than from an exclusively moral perspective.
11. Underlined words can be found in the glossary on page 59.
12. W
e should note that Elisabeth de Fontenay develops a point of view that is comparable to that of F. Wolff: the challenge of
Descartes’ thinking was indeed to provide a philosophical foundation for the scientific revolutions underway. The notion of an
animal machine must therefore be understood based on this intent, and not in an exclusively literal way [11].
13. T he expression ‘cognitive sciences’ is used to designate disciplines that make it possible to understand how thought operates. They
notably include psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence and neurosciences, biology, ethology, anthropology, sociology and
social psychology, neuropsychology, psycholinguistics and psychophysics. We also call on mathematics, neurobiology, computer
models and simulations, studies on the role of the social and cultural environment, analogies between the brain and computers,
between human beings, animals and robots, etc.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
of science directly challenge previous concepts of the human-animal
relationship. Indeed, according to
the cognitivist paradigm, humans
are considered to be animals like the
others; and knowledge is seen as a
natural process that can be addressed
through biological disciplines. Humans
have in a way been re-naturalized,
that is to say that we believe that
there is not a specific essence that
would distinguish humans from other
animals. Humans must be seen as a
population in the genetic meaning of
the term—a collection of individuals,
able to evolve and adapt, and that
shows inter-individual variability.
According to F. Wolff, this approach
tends to blur the line between human
and animal. It leads him to speak of
animalism, on the same footing as
we speak of transhumanism for the
blurring of borders between humans
and machines. Behind the word
‘animalism’ is the aim of emphasizing
that animals are the object of moral
attention and compassionate ethics,
and benefit from a theory of rights.
Animalism thus arose from a set of
external evolutions: the development
of the cognitive sciences, the rise of
productivism and its excesses, the
increased urbanization in megacities,
the loss of contact with nature and
the idealization of nature, the development of the moral of care,14 visions
of humankind as a hyper-predator
and the main cause of risks to the
biosphere, and even the reduction
of policy to ecology, that is to say
the management of the balances
among living organisms.
Each of these movements also has its
own advantages and limits, notably
in regard to the moral and political
norms that it legitimizes and the
practices it justifies, for example:
Pushed to its extreme, animalism
believes that there is no essential
difference between living beings, but
mere differences of degree, notably
when it comes to intelligence, aptitude, communication or sentience.
In which case, there is no longer any
moral reason to differentiate treatment between species, which would
amount to practicing speciesism.
Animalism therefore advocates for
anti-speciesism, a position whose
nature could seem contradictory.
If all definitions of what constitutes
an animal are debatable, the least
poor is probably to consider that any
heterotrophic living being—that is to
say one that obtains its nourishment
from organic substances—is an
animal. And if humans are animals
like the others, why require them
to behave differently than other
animals?
Aristotle’s inegalitarianism;
Descartes’ mechanistic and
utilitarian vision of nature reduced
to its corporality; and
the anti-speciesist approaches
deriving from the cognitivist
movement.
However, compared to each other,
none of the concepts of humankind
and its relationships with animals
developed by these philosophical
movements appears to be good or
bad, either scientifically or morally. Ultimately, according to F. Wolff, science
is unable to say what makes a human
a human (instead of an animal) and
what humans must do. At most, we can
say that unlike other animals, humans
are capable of scientific knowledge
(cf. Sidebar 2). Or, in other terms,
that humans live in the possibility
of incompletion (cf. Sidebar 3). The
impossibility of defining humans
scientifically has several consequences.
The way in which we may define
humankind results, ultimately, from a
philosophical concept, a vision of the
world. The way humans conceive their
relationship with animals therefore
also derives from a vision of the world.
This necessarily involves the image
mankind has of itself, of animals as
How should these three philosophical movements be understood?
And how should one interpret the
major changes they introduce in
terms of how we see animals and
the relationship between humans
and animals? F. Wolff notes that each
of these philosophical movements
accompanied and consolidated a
scientific revolution: the emergence
of zoology with Aristotle, physics and
medicine with Descartes, and the
neurosciences and cognitive sciences
in the 20th century.
14. C
are is protection as the principle behind action rather than, for example, responsibility.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
15
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
compared to itself, and finally of its
relationships with animals.
16
A lapidary expression can perhaps
summarize this: when it comes to
humankind’s relationship with animals,
it is ultimately much more a matter
of knowing how to be (be human,
be or behave with animals) than it
is a matter of knowing something
(what a human is, what an animal
is, and what their relationships are).
2. THE STATUS OF ANIMALS:
SOCIETY’S EXPRESSION OF
ITS CONCEPT OF HUMANANIMAL RELATIONS
The weight of concepts of the world
and mental images has a heavy influence on the relationships between
humans and animals (cf. §1). Legislation
is a way to codify and institutionalize
these relationships by giving them a
legal expression.
This section uses a few representative
examples to cover the main evolutions in the legal status of animals
in connection with ideas about what
humans are, and humans’ concept of
Sidebar 2
HUMANKIND AS BEINGS CAPABLE OF SCIENTIFIC
KNOWLEDGE [50]
The capability of a living being to
develop scientific knowledge is
associated with two characteristics:
Awareness: having the capacity
to feel, emotionally, the state of one’s
surroundings (phenomenal consciousness); being able to form judgements
distinguishing true from false and
share them (language); thereby being
animals and their own relationships
with animals. More than providing an
exhaustive view, the goal here is to
understand the progressive shift in
this status and how it has lead to the
social and judicial notions defined in
the laws of the 19th and 20th centuries.
2.1. FROM PREHISTORY TO THE
19TH CENTURY
Figure 1 shows some of the evolutions
in the status of animals from Prehistory
to the 19th century.
capable of knowledge (which allows
one to justify that which is true or
false); and being able to compare
these justifications with others.
Morality: being able to take
intentional action; being able to freely
choose one’s actions; subjecting them
to a value judgement; and submitting
these values for discussion.
2.1.1. Until the 17th Century
Humankind’s relationship to farm animals and the relationships developed
with these animals are presented
in §1.1 and §1.2 (pg. 8-12). Let us
recall, however, that while Aristotle
had a decisive influence over how
humans and their relationship with
animals have been conceived until
the modern period, throughout the
Middle Ages, biblical texts (the Old
and above all New Testaments) were
the reference for social organization
Sidebar 3
COMPLETION AND INCOMPLETION
Completion: Only seeing details, only deriving short-term
consequences from them, not predicting the long term, not
knowing how to elaborate multiple scenarios to prepare
for different circumstances. This is the fate of even the
most evolved animals that have behaviours that indicate
some capacity to master incompletion, which is still only
experimental. Animals live in a state of completion.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Incompletion: Knowing that reality is not all that exists,
knowing how to imagine and invent what does not yet
have a visible and concrete existence, dialoguing with
the invisible may exist or may be inexistent or simply
imaginary. Humans are capable of incompletion, and
the human species is the only one that is aware of this.
Humans live in the possibility of incompletion.
Figure 1
A Few Examples of Evolutions in the Status of Animals from Prehistory
to the 19th Century
Totem Animal
Killing Rituals
(commodification
of the animal)
Prehistory
Domestication
Utility-Based
Relationship
Animal
Sacrifices
Antiquity
(-3000 to the 5th C)
Man = Rational
Animal
(Aristotle, 4th C B.C.E.)
in the West and notably for behaviour
in regard to animals.
2.1.2. 17th and 18th Centuries
The 17th and 18th centuries were a
break with the past. In its dualism,
Descartes’ reflections on nature and
animals marked a turning point with
the publication of his Discourse on
the Method in 1637 [12]. But this
shift was above all intellectual and
philosophical. It had few concrete
effects on the Biblical references
that continued to govern people’s
behaviour towards animals. On the
contrary, he was part of a debate about
ideas that developed progressively
over these two centuries, notably
with the Enlightenment philosophers.
Little by little, new spaces for thinking would be opened and distance
themselves from religious texts. The
bulk of the reflection focused above
Influence of
Catholicism
Middle Ages
(5th - 15th C)
Animal Trials
Animal-Machine
Theory
(Descartes, 17th C)
Animals = Goods (Civil Code of 1804)
Animal Welfare Societies
(SPCA in 1824, SPA in 1845)
Modern erA
(15th - 18th C)
ConteMPorAry Period
(19th C)
Animal Suffering
(Bentham, 18th C)
all on the concept of humankind, its
construction as a political subject, and
the forms of political organization that
would be adequate. However, the
question of the relationship between
humankind and animals was also a
central concern. This question was
addressed in regard to morality: What
attitude should one have towards
the animals that one welcomes,
uses, rears and slaughters to eat?
These adjacent reflections in the
centre of the philosophical-political
debate mobilized nearly all the
major thinkers of these two centuries. Malebranche took Descartes’
expression of ‘animal-machines’ (cf.
§1.2.2) to the extreme. Arguing that
pain comes from sin and, given that
they are not responsible because
they are machines, animals cannot
sin and therefore they cannot suffer,
Malebranche went so far as to assert,
horribly, that animals ‘cry without
First Animal Welfare Laws
(Martins’ Act in 1822, Grammont Law in 1850)
Emergence of Animal Sentience
(French Law of 21 June 1898)
pain’ and therefore we should not
pity them [42]. Other philosophers,
however, defended different positions at the time. Buffon, Rousseau,
Diderot, Voltaire, Condorcet and
others vigorously debated vegetarianism, hunting and animal rearing
with arguments based sometimes
on human physiology (which had
progressed since Descartes’ time, cf.
§1.2.2) and sometimes on the issue
of animal suffering.
This debate also reached the rest
of Europe, and at the end of the
18th century, English philosopher
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) strongly
challenged the negation of animal
suffering. For him, the question was
not to know if animals are rational
beings or if they can speak, but rather
whether they can suffer and feel sensations. This capacity to feel and suffer
would be considered to be necessary
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
17
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
18
and sufficient to define animals’ own
‘interests’—which humans should
take into account when reaching
decisions. This philosophical approach
to human-animal relations would
strongly influence dominant thinking
in the 19th and 20th centuries [5].
2.1.3. 19th Century
In France, plans to assemble simple,
clear and appropriate laws in the form
of a Code of Law had been under study
since the Ancien Régime. France’s civil
code, called the Napoleonic Code and
which inspired many civil codes in
other countries (Belgium, Italy, Latin
America, Spain, etc.) during the 19th
century, was created in 1804. In this
Civil Code, animals were viewed only
in function of their usefulness for
humankind, as a means of traction and
source of energy and manure. Animals
were, thus, one element of farms, and
were not treated any differently than
other production ‘tools.’ They were
therefore classified as property in
Book II, devoted specifically to goods
and property. Depending on the case,
farm animals were seen as either
immoveable property because associated with farmland, or as moveable
property. Article 524 specifies: ‘Thus
immoveables by destination, having
been placed by the proprietor for the
use and management of his farm,
are: beasts required for agricultural
purposes [...].’ Other domestic animals
are covered by Article 528: ‘Moveables
in their nature are bodies which may
be transported from place to place,
whether they move themselves like
animals, or whether like inanimate
things, they are incapable of changing
their place, without the application of
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
extrinsic force.’ In both cases, animals
are indeed things that, even though
they can move by their own devices,
are no different from inanimate
objects.
In 1810, under the first Empire, the
Penal Code was created. In it, animals
are seen as goods that are part of their
owner’s property. The ‘destruction’
of animals may be punished with
the single goal of repairing the harm
done to the owner’s property [3]:
Book III, Title II, Chapter II, Section III,
Article 454—‘Whoever shall, without
necessity, kill a domestic animal, in a
place of which the person to whom
such animal belongs, is proprietor,
tenant, cultivator, or farmer; shall be
punished with an imprisonment of
not less than six days, nor more than
six months. If there has been a breach
of enclosure, the maximum of the
penalty shall always be awarded.’ At
the dawn of our modern era, animals
were thus seen only as things placed
at their owner’s discretion for the
owner to use, maltreat or enjoy as
the owner wished.
During the 19th century, mentalities
evolved progressively with the
advances in science and technology.
This slow maturation led, in Europe,
to the creation of schools of thought
and then structures federating animal
defence. Thus, in 1822 in England—the
cradle of moral protests regarding the
animal cause—the British Parliament
voted in the Cruel Treatment of Cattle
Act called ‘Martin’s Act’. This was one
of the first laws aiming to establish
animal rights. It covered oxen, cows,
heifers, steers, sheep and other livestock
(cattle); the text did not include bulls.
It was only in 1835 that the new law
(the Cruelty to Animals Act) included
them. This law was itself was repeated
in the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1849
that levied fines for the poor treatment
of animals. In 1824, the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)
was created. Sponsored in 1850 by
Queen Victoria, the SPCA then became
the Royal Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).
These ideas spread very widely during
this period in other countries: Austria,
Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and even the United
States. In France, consideration of
animal welfare was speed up by the
intervention of Sir John de Beauvoir
(a member of the RSPCA Committee
and British Member of Parliament)
who helped spread English schools
of thought. Thus, in 1845, the Société
Protrectrice des Animaux (SPA [animal
protection society]) was created with
the aim of establishing a legislative
framework punishing maltreatment
of animals.
On 2 July 1850, the first French law
on ill-treatment of domestic animals,
called the Grammont Law, was passed.
This law only concerned domestic
animals (dogs, cats, horses, cows,
etc.) and only punished ill-treatment
in public (prison sentence and fine).
Rather than aiming to protect animals,
this law aimed to protect human
sensibilities [5]. Indeed, at this time,
some coachmen beat coach horses,
which could generate a climate of
urban violence. The dangers of the
‘contagion’ of this violence to peo-
ple were non-negligible. Quelling
ill-treatment of animals also made
it possible to limit the risk of an
escalation of violence (cf. Sidebar 4).
Only ‘public morality’ could justify
this impediment to property rights.
Despite the limits of this law—which
applied only to domestic animals and
their public ill-treatment (without
other precisions)—was at the time a
real turning point in French laws on
animal welfare. Indeed, the owner’s
right to use and maltreat animals was
no longer absolute and, from that date
forward, could be punished by law.
measures to ensure that animals enjoy
good conditions during transport to
slaughter facilities.
Consideration of animal sentience
emerged through these articles. In
this, the Law of 1898 was the first
recognition of animal sentience in
which animals began to be protected for themselves, rather than
solely to protect people or people’s
sensibilities.
Articles 68 to 72—formerly
Articles 279 to 283 of the Rural Code—
covered the cleanliness of premises,
At the end of the 19th century, the Law equipment and housing for domestic
of 21 June 1898, long unremarked, animals. They notably set forth:
was a major turning point:
the role of public health veterinarians in charge of inspection
Article 65—formerly Article 276 of and, when appropriate, the sanitary
the Rural Code—prohibits the serious measures to be taken;
maltreatment of domestic animals. By the responsibility of Mayors in
prohibiting ill-treatment, without any charge of hygiene rules for fairs and
mention of it occurring in public, this markets; and
law marked a turning point compared the shared responsibility of Prefects
to the Grammont Law of 1850. However, and Mayors in charge of implementing
as no penal measures were provided the measures prescribed by the public
for, only infractions of the Grammont health veterinarians as needed.
Law could be punished with fines
or imprisonment. Mistreatment in 2.2. IN THE 20TH CENTURY
private was forbidden, of course, but
not punished. Its success shows that A series of laws completed and
animal welfare—a moral imperative amended the Civil and Penal Codes
before being a technical one—could throughout the course of the 20th
only become reality in Penal Law.
century. Among other things, the
Rural Code was created in 1955; it
Articles 66 and 67—formerly consisted of a set of laws on goods
Articles 277 and 278 of the Rural and property in the countryside.
Code—covered animal transport.
Article 66 obliged the transporter Figure 2 thus presents a few key
to water and feed animals during elements in the consideration of the
journeys of more than 12 hours. evolution of the status of animals in
Article 67 obliged Prefects to set up these different legal codes during the
course of the 20th century, including
among these main texts:
The French Decree of 7 September 1959
Decree No. 59-1051 was a step forward
in the animal welfare regime: ‘Article 12
– Those who, without necessity, publicly
or not, have maltreated domestic
or tame animals or animals held in
captivity [...].’ This text marked the
abandonment of the public nature of
ill-treatment. It therefore completed
the Law of 1898 but above all—and
this difference is crucial—punished
ill treatment by a category four fine.
This decree thus marked the end of
the ‘human-centric’ concept of animal
welfare (to preserve morality) in favour
of an ‘animal-centric’ concept that
takes into account the animal’s own
interests.
In addition, this text extended the
protection previously afforded only
to domestic animals to all animals
kept by people. Only wild animals,
towards whom people have made no
commitments, remained uncovered
by any rules. This distinction therefore
authorized hunting and set limits
necessary for animal welfare (fighting
pests was, for example, allowed). This
decree thus modified the Penal Code
directly and the Rural Code indirectly
(via the Law of 1898).
The largest shift in this text is found
in the reversal of the burden of proof
brought about by the replacement
of the word ‘abusively’ in the Law of
1850 by the word ‘unnecessarily’ in
1959. Under the Grammont Law, the
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
19
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
Figure 2
Grammont
Law (1850)
Law of 1898
re
ill p re
w i - t re ssi o
l
b u d at m n o
ju rd e anim e n f p u
dg n
t
m of als) of a blic
e n p / r ll
o
t s ro o ev a n r p
f in e r s ima r i v a
a
t h l o l s ( te
e e f t ex
v e h e ce p
nt
t
of
cr
ea
ti o
no
ft
he
cr
im
eo
fo
u
fa
in n d
ct
sp a
of
e c ti o
cr
ti o n
ue
n of a
lt y
ni
m
al
we
cr
lf a
c r e at
re
r e e at i i o n
co o n o f
gn o th
i ti f th e c
on e ri
of cr i m e
an m e of
im o ab
al f s e an
s e ve d o
nt r e n
du
ien m m
ty
ce a l t e n t
of
re /
ca
at
re
m
fo
en
rk
t
ep
t
an
an
im
im
a ls
a ls
=
li v
in
an
gc
im
re
a ls
at
=
ur
p
es
riv
cr
at
m e at i
ep
alt o n
ro
re o
pe
at f t
m he
rty
en c
t r im
e
re
of
co
se
gn
xu
i ti
al
on
of
an
im
al
se
nt
ien
ce
20
re
d o p re
m ssi
es on
tic o
an f p u
im b
a ls li c
ill tre
em
at
m
se er
en
g
nt e
to
ien nc
f
ce e o
fa
ni
m
al
Consideration of the Evolution of the Status of Animals in French Law
Decree
of 1959
Law
of 1963
Law
of 1972
Law
of 1976
Decree
of 1980
Decree
of 1994
Law
of 1999
Penal Code
party prosecuting ill treatment of
animals had to prove to the judge
that the acts in question were abusive.
With this new decree, the opposite is
true: the person who committed the
acts needed to prove, in order to be
cleared of the offense, that the acts
were necessary. Three criteria are
used to define a state of necessity: a
present or imminent threat to a person
or property, the need to commit the
offense to save the person or property,
and proportionality between the
means used and the severity of the
threat.15
was illegal in principle, except when
the committing party could prove its
necessity. Unobtrusively, the ‘status’
of beatings given to animals evolved:
no longer an everyday occurrence,
they must now be justified by need.
Unnecessary maltreatment thus covers
a more diverse range of situations than
abusive maltreatment. Although not
expressly recognized in this decree,
animal sentience does seem to be
the basis for these new provisions.
Prior to 1959, only maltreatment was
punished; starting in 1959, ill treatment
Law No. 63-1143 amended articles 453
and 454 of the Penal Code by intro-
French Law of 19 November
1963
Law
of 2004
Law
of 2015
Rural Code
Civil Code
ducing the notion of ‘act of cruelty’ for
which it institutes a prison sentence.
‘Maltreatment’ corresponded to the
suffering caused in animals, sometimes without the intent to do so,
through negligence or greed. An ‘act
of cruelty’ corresponded to the intent
to cause suffering out of pleasure
to do so ‘because of the satisfaction
derived from suffering and death.’16
It seems that maltreatment founded
on a violation of public morals, as
understood in the Grammont Law,
was similar to the act of cruelty
in the Law of 1963. A distinction
was therefore drawn based on the
severity and intentional nature of the
maltreatment of animals, and a level
15. Under these criteria, it is for example possible to kill threatening animals that have entered private property and are devastating a
pear orchard (St-Denis-de-la-Réunion court of appeals, 31.05.1985).
16. Official Journal of France – Proceedings – National Assembly – 1st session of 12 July 1961.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
of penal punishment is correlated to
this (cf. Sidebar 4).
French Law of 15 November
1972
Law No. 72-130 defined the categories
of government agents (veterinary
inspectors, technical agents and
sanitation officers) authorized to
report violations of the former Articles
279 through 283 of the Rural Code
(cf. supra). In addition to the usual
law enforcement officers such as
police officers and gendarmes, other
government representatives were
acknowledged as legally authorized
to enforce the Penal Code in regard
to animal welfare.
French Law of 10 July 1976
Law No. 76-629 marked a major shift
in the history of animal welfare laws
by declaring a fundamental principle:
‘Article L 214-1 – Every animal, as a
sentient being, needs to be placed
by its owner in conditions that are
compatible with the imperative
biological requirements of its species.’ Animal sentience, which until
then had been merely implicit, was
henceforth asserted. Three centuries
of philosophical debate of the utmost
importance to define humankind
were officially closed: the position of
the French Republic was clear. Nevertheless, the legal and practical interest
of this declaration—with which no
punishment for non-compliance was
associated—remains to be established.
Among other things, Article 13 introduced the notion of ‘severe maltreatment’ in order to expand the scope of
Article 453 of the Penal Code, as ‘act of
cruelty’ was deemed overly restrictive
(cf. supra). Everything beyond severe
Sidebar 4
FOUR MAJOR TRENDS IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE STATUS OF ANIMALS
Commodification of the animal: Under the influence of
Catholicism throughout the Middle Ages, then Descartes’
animal-machine theory that marked the 17th century, and
despite the criticisms of the Romantic Movement in the
18th century (cf. §1.2 and §2.1.2), it would take until the
Law of 1898 and in particular the Law of 1976 for animal
sentience to be recognized. Finally, the Law of 2015 put
a definitive end to the commodification of animals by
creating a category between things and people: animals.
Animals had progressively acquired a unique legal status:
not things, not people, but still property (cf. §2.3).
out further clarification, whether in terms of pain or the
perpetrator’s intent. The creation of ‘acts of cruelty’ in
1963 made it possible to differentiate between facts, and
the Decree of 1980 clarified the duty of care that fell on
people who keep animals. In the space of 130 years, a
shift happened, from banning beatings or excessively
heavy loads (1850) to an obligation to provide animals
with care (1980). Finally, the Law of 1976 imposed duties
and obligations on people: abandoning an animal was
henceforth punished with the same severity as acts of
cruelty.
The maturation of the concept of animal welfare: The
initial purpose of animal protection in the Grammont
Law was ambiguous: Was the aim to protect animals or
instead people from their own violence? This ambiguity
was resolved by the laws of 1898 and 1959, by eliminating the public nature of maltreatment. Finally, in 1963, a
distinction and hierarchy were applied to the notions of
‘maltreatment’ of and ‘act of cruelty’ towards animals.
Expansion of animal welfare to the protection of
living beings: Animal welfare originally concerned
horses, draft animals or livestock (Grammont Law,
1850). In 1959, animal welfare was extended to cover all
animals kept by people (with the exception therefore
of animals living free in the wild). Among other things,
the Penal Code evolved in 1994 and henceforth took
an interest in animals as living creatures, rather than
simply as sentient beings. The duty to treat animals
well was henceforth completed by a duty to respect
the lives of animals.
Emergence and definition of maltreatment: This
notion emerges in 1850 with the Grammont Law, with-
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
21
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
22
maltreatment is considered to be an
act of cruelty. Henceforth, it is not a
matter of restricting oneself to the
perpetrator’s wilful misconduct or his or
her attempt to cause animal suffering
to qualify the act. The intensity of pain
felt by the animal is in this way taken
into account. However, as the law lacks
further precisions, it is up to the judge to
make a determination. Finally, this law
modified Article 453 of the Penal Code
by creating the crime of abandonment
for all animals kept by people.
Decree of 1 October 1980
Thanks to the Law of 1976, the French
administration now has the means
to define—more than a century
after the aborted attempt in the
Grammont Law—what can be called
‘maltreatment.’
Nevertheless, regulatory provisions
remained vague and did not impose
specifics.
Decree of 1 March 1994
The Penal Code was reformed in
1994 (Decree No. 93-726), and many
provisions were revised at the time. A
major shift thus occurred: a move was
made from protecting sentient animals
to protecting living animals. Indeed,
unnecessarily killing an animal is now
forbidden, even if the animal belongs
to the person doing the killing and
regardless of whether or not suffering
was caused. Protection no longer
applies to either goods belonging
to other people or even to sentient
beings that suffer from maltreatment,
but to the living creature that will die
unnecessarily.
Prior to Decree No. 80-791, ill treatment
of animals was only associated with
blows given to make them move.
Under this Decree, the maltreatment
of animals is also manifest in less
obvious actions such as using hitching
or immobilization equipment that is
unsuited to the species or likely to
injure the animal, keeping them in
inadequate shelter, depriving them of
food or water, or even failing to provide
treatment for illness or injury, etc.
The 1994 reform also made it possible
to take animals out of the ‘property’
category, which was a major step
towards their legal protection.
It is now the responsibility of the person holding the animals to implement
all useful means to prevent animal
suffering. A ban on maltreatment
has thus been replaced, through the
description of the means used, by a
near-obligation to treat animals well
(care, feeding, appropriate shelter).
This law also modifies the Civil Code of
1804. Animals are henceforth different
from objects (Article 524) and bodies
(Article 528). They are no longer seen as
things but are also not seen as people.
The distinction between animals
and things or bodies does not call
into question their legal qualification
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Law of 6 January 1999
Law No. 99-5 modifies the Penal Code
with Article 521-1 by eliminating the
notion of ‘necessity’ in the commission
of acts of cruelty towards or serious
maltreatment of animals.
as property and therefore objects
of law. Animals are seen, rather, as
special property for which specific
protections exist in law (Penal and
Rural Codes). At the time, the Civil
Code merely admitted that animals
are a special type of property, without
recognizing their sentience.
Law of 9 March 2004
Law No. 2004-204 amended Article
521-1 of the Penal Code by adding
sexual maltreatment to acts of cruelty
and severe maltreatment.
2.3. AT THE START OF THE 21ST
CENTURY
In France, the status of animals is
currently defined in various codes.
Civil Code
Until the end of 2014, animals were seen
in the Civil Code as property (Articles
524 and 528, cf. §2.2). Since the passing
of Law No. 2015-177 of 16 February
2015 modernizing and simplifying
law and procedures in the areas of
justice and home affairs: ‘Animals are
living sentient beings. Under reserve
of the laws protecting them, animals
are subject to the regime governing
property’ (Article 514-14). The purpose
of this change in the Civil Code is to
better reconcile the legal qualification
of animals and their emotional value,
while harmonizing this code with the
Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code and
the Penal Code (cf. infra).
Animals are no longer seen as moveable property. They remain classified
in the property category, but in a
primordial position that recognizes
their sentience and distinguishes
them from other forms of property.
There are three fundamental legal
categories: things, people and—
now—animals. Animals do not have
subjective rights, but are recognized
as having a sentience to which people
must pay attention.
in the Rural and Maritime Fisheries
Code. It should be noted that there is
no legal definition of what constitutes
a ‘sentient being.’ This same code
also stipulates: ‘Article L. 214-3 – It
is forbidden to maltreat domestic
animals and any wild animals that have
been tamed or are held in captivity.’
Rural and Maritime Fisheries
Code
Maltreatment of animals is punished:
‘Article 521-1 – Serious maltreatment,
or sexual maltreatment, or the commission of an act of cruelty, whether
in public or not, towards a domestic
Since the Law of 10 July 1976, animals
have been defined as sentient beings
Penal Code
animal, or tamed animal, or animal
held in captivity, is punishable by two
years of imprisonment and 30,000
euros in fines.’ In so doing, it implicitly
recognizes and confirms that animals
are indeed sentient beings.
Among other things, Book VI of the
Penal Code, titled ‘Minor Offenses’
clearly distinguishes between
offenses against people, property,
the Nation, the government or public
order, and ‘other offenses’ exclusively
devoted to offenses against animals’
lives. This is additional proof that, in
the Penal Code, animals are no longer
Sidebar 5
THE STATUS OF ANIMALS IN EUROPE [3]
In 1957, the Treaty of Rome establishing the European
Economic Community was signed. In this Treaty, farm
animals are seen as agricultural products on equal footing
with meat, butter or eggs, for example (cf. List F, tariff
headings in the common customs tariff).
‘Desiring to ensure improved protection and respect for
the welfare of animals as sentient beings, have agreed
upon the following provision [...].’
In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty, through a Declaration on the
Protection of Animals, invited the European Parliament,
Council and Commission, along with the member States,
to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals
when drafting and implementing Community legislation
on the common agricultural policy (CAP), transport, the
internal market and research. Because of its non-binding
nature, this declaration had only symbolic impact.
In 2004, the European Constitution was adopted in Rome.
It contains an article taken from the Protocol annexed to
the Treaty of Amsterdam: ‘Article III-121: In formulating and
implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport,
internal market, research and technological development
and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall,
since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the
requirements of animal welfare [...].’ The member States
therefore pledged to recognize the sentience of animals
and meet the requirements of their welfare.
In 1997, the Treaty of Rome was modified by the Treaty
of Amsterdam. In force since 1999, this Treaty states
in its 10th Protocol annexed to the agreement on the
protection and welfare of animals that the ‘Community
and the Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare
requirements of animals [...].’ This protocol replaced the
Declaration in the Maastricht Treaty. Among other things,
in this Protocol, the sentience of animals is recognized:
In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon modified the founding treaties
of Europe. The provisions of a new Article 13 place animal
welfare on equal footing with the other fundamental
principles—the promotion of equality between men
and women, the guarantee of social protection, the
protection of human health, the fight against discrimination, the promotion of sustainable development, and
the protection of consumers and personal data.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
23
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
assimilated with property (Articles R
653-1, R 654-1 and R 655-1).
3. ANIMAL WELFARE AND
REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
TODAY
24
The evolution of laws on animal
welfare, as in other areas such as
health safety, is the result of an
ensemble of scientific, economic,
political, social, etc. data. Close
interdependency exists between
social phenomena and the production of legal standards carrying
new ideas [3]. In Europe, animal
welfare principles grew out of both
recognition that animals are sentient
(cf. Sidebar 5 and Figure 2) and
‘definitions’ of animal wellbeing
and protection (cf. Sidebar 6).
In France today, animal welfare rules
are founded on national codes and
European regulations. Implementation of these laws, from farm to
slaughterhouse, is described in Part
Two of this Dossier.
3.1. THE INFLUENCE OF CHANGES
IN ANIMAL STATUS
When the EU’s Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) was established in 1962,
animals were seen as agricultural
products (Treaty of Rome, 1957, cf.
Sidebar 5). Evolutions in society
and in agricultural and industrial
systems led, at the same time, to the
emergence of farm animal welfare
associations (cf. Sidebar 7). This was
the case in France with the Œuvre
d’Assistance aux Bêtes d’Abattoir
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
(OABA [association for assistance to
slaughterhouse animals]), founded in
1961. Animal welfare became a topic
of growing interest for society, which
was becoming increasingly sensitive
to respect for animals, notably in
livestock farming modes.
European agreements entered into
force starting in the 1970s:
the European Convention for
the Protection of Animals Kept for
Farming Purposes of 10 March 1976
and the Protocol of Amendment
dated 6 February 1992;
Note: European conventions do not cover
only farm animals. Specific conventions on
pets and animals used in scientific research
also exist.
Since 1997, animals have been seen as
sentient beings by the Treaty of Amsterdam (cf. Sidebar 5). Community policy
in the areas of agriculture, transport,
the internal market and research have
since evolved to take into account this
change in animal status.
European directives and regulations
have been issued regularly since
then:
Council Directive 91/629/EEC
the European Convention for the laying down minimum standards for
Protection of Animals During Inter- the protection of calves, amended in
national Transport of 13 December 1997 and 2003, rescinded by Council
1968, revised 6 November 2003; and Directive 2008/119/EC;
the European Convention for the Council Directive 91/630/EEC
Protection of Animals for Slaughter laying down minimum standards for
of 10 May 1979.
the protection of pigs, amended in
2001 and 2003, rescinded by Council
We should note that laws and regu- Directive 2008/120/EC;
lations governing animal protection
during transport are among the Council Directive 91/628/EEC
oldest European regulatory provisions on the protection of animals during
in this area. Indeed, the first Council of transport, amended in 1995 and
Europe Recommendation adopted in 2003, rescinded in 2005 by Regulation
this area dates from 1961. It resulted 1/2005; and
in a first Convention, which entered
into force in 1971 and already laid the Council Directive 93/119/EC on
foundations of current regulations the protection of animals at the time
[46].
of slaughter or killing, amended in
2003 and 2005, rescinded in 2990
These standards formalize the good by Regulation 1099/2009.
practices that respect animal welfare
at each stage of the value chain. Only Since its origin, this legislation has
those European countries that have aimed to place animals in conditions
ratified these conventions are obliged that meet the biological imperatives
to apply them.
of their species. It differentiates rec-
ommendations in light of animals’ life
stages, living conditions, and in some
cases species (cf. Part Two).
In France decrees and orders have
clarified certain points in European
regulations and completed the articles
in the Rural Code and the Rural and
Maritime Fisheries Code. They set
technical, reporting and organizational
requirements specific to each stage
(cf. Part Two):
Order of 25 October 1982 on
livestock farming, the keeping and
the holding of animals;
Decree No. 95-1285 of 13 December 1995 and Order of 5 November 1996
on animal welfare during transport;
Order of 12 December 1997 on
immobilization, stunning and killing
procedures for animals and animal
welfare conditions in slaughterhouses;
Encadré n° 6
ANIMAL WELFARE
In the United Kingdom in 1965, the British government
commissioned Professor Roger Brambell to investigate
the welfare of animals in intensive livestock systems.
Based on the Brambell Report, the British government
created the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
in 1967, which became the Farm Animal Welfare Council
(FWAC) in 1979. The Committee recommended that farm
animals be able to turn over, groom themselves, stand,
lie down, and stretch their legs.
The five fundamental freedoms of animal welfare,
which define animals’ ideal state of wellbeing, were taken
from this report. They are:
physiological: freedom from thirst, hunger and
malnutrition;
environmental: suitable shelter, freedom from
weather-related or physical stress;
health-related: freedom from pain, injury or illness;
behavioural: freedom to exhibit normal behaviours
specific to each species; and
psychological: freedom from fear or anxiety.
Current European and French regulations are based on
these five principles.
on these five principles in its international animal welfare
recommendations (cf. Sidebar 8): ‘Animal welfare means
how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it
lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated
by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well
nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and
if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain,
fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease
prevention and appropriate veterinary treatment, shelter, management and nutrition, humane handling and
humane slaughter or killing.’
Neither animal protection nor animal welfare are defined
in European and French legislation. According to the Veterinary Academy of France, animal well-being corresponds
to the ‘state’ of the animal; good treatment corresponds
to a set of practical actions furthering animal welfare
(improving the status of animals), and animal protection
corresponds to a set of defined protective measures that
prevent animals from feeling undue pain, suffering and
stress (cf. Sidebar 10, Part Two) [1].
Note: In English, the expression ‘Animal Welfare’ generally covers
three separate concepts: well-being (the state of the animal),
actions contributing to this well-being (proper or good treatment),
and animal protection measures. In French, however, separate
expressions are used for each of these concepts: bien-être (wellbeing), bientraitance (good treatment), and protection animale
(animal protection).
Readers should note that, as in regulations, we deal
mainly with animal protection in Part Two.
The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) also relies
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
25
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
Decree No. 2011-2006 and
Order of 28 December 2011 on the
conditions authorizing slaughter
facilities to obtain waivers regarding the obligation to stun animals;
and
26
Order of 31 July 2012 on the
conditions for the delivery of certificates of competence regarding
animal welfare in the framework of
their killing.
3.2. A PARADIGM SHIFT
European food safety regulations
underwent comprehensive reform
in 2006, leading to a set of regulations called the ‘Hygiene Package’
(Regulation Nos. 178/2002, 852/2004,
853/2004 and 854/2004). While these
regulations govern food safety, they
refer several times to animal welfare.
Beyond preventing the spread of
animal diseases, some of which are
zoonoses (infectious or parasitic
diseases that can be transmitted naturally between animals and humans),
the assurance of animal health and
wellbeing also contributes greatly to
food quality and safety.
Among other things, Regulation
No. 178/2002—foundation of the
Hygiene Package, also called the ‘Food
Law’—provides for the creation of
the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA). As set forth in consideration
36, the EFSA ‘should provide a com-
Sidebar 7
FARM ANIMAL WELFARE ASSOCIATIONS
These associations emerged starting in the 1960s in
France with the aim of ensuring better consideration
of animal welfare at all stages of their lives (on farms,
during transport, at the slaughterhouse). Their main
missions are to:
Work with industry professionals in an advisory
and support role. For instance, OABA works alongside
market operators to improve animal handling and build
facilities that offer them proper working conditions while
maintaining animal welfare before, during and after they
are sent to market.
Ensure proper enforcement of regulations,
notably by providing their assistance and expertise to
law enforcement and the various government offices
concerned. For instance, the associations Protection
Mondiale des Animaux de Ferme (PMAF [global farm
animal protection]) and Animals’ Angels jointly publish
a guide on live animal transport. Destined for inspection
personnel, this guide summarizes the main points to
examine during inspections.
Disseminate knowledge among professionals
and the general public (through websites, newsletters,
etc.), such as on animal welfare laws. For instance, the
association Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) offers
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
species-specific factsheets on its website that cover applicable regulations and research and provides technical
and organizational tips to improve farm animals’ living
conditions.
Lobby to improve French and European animal
welfare regulations (cf. Figure 3, Part Two). Eurogroup
for Animals thus federates flagship animal welfare organizations in the European Union. A favoured interlocutor
of European institutions, this group has run information
campaigns, held press conferences and originated TV
coverage with the aim of obtaining decisions by the
Council of Ministers.
Foster the care and housing of farm animals that
have been victims of maltreatment or acts of cruelty,
either as intermediaries or within their own shelters.
Other associations, whose activities do not concern farm
animals alone, also help improve their living conditions.
We should note that Law No. 94-89 of 1 February 1994
allows any animal welfare association that has been duly
registered for at least five years to exercise civil party rights
in regard not only to the offenses of severe maltreatment
and acts of cruelty but also the lesser offenses of poor
treatment and voluntary killing of animals.
prehensive independent scientific
view of the safety and other aspects
of the whole food and feed supply
chains, which implies wide-ranging
responsibilities for the Authority.
These should include issues having
a direct or indirect impact on the
safety of the food and feed supply
chains, animal health and welfare,
and plant health.’
In the European Union in the 2000s,
the question of animal welfare became
a major preoccupation, on equal
footing with food safety. The many
regulations were revised during
this period; they impose various
obligations regarding equipment,
documentary traceability, inspections,
etc. (cf. Part Two), notably with the aim
of ensuring respect of FWAC’s ‘Five
Freedoms’ (cf. Sidebar 6). At this time,
the European Commission wished to
consolidate existing animal welfare
measures and ensure compliance
with these measures throughout the
member States.
Among other things, an overhaul
now seems necessary in order to
harmonize the various regulations
applicable within the European
Union. In the future, a common legal
package on animal welfare—the
Welfare Law—could replace the
many current directives and regulations in this area. In the same spirit
as the Hygiene Package of 2006, the
objectives of the Welfare Law would
no longer be based on what people
keeping animals must do (shelter, feed,
equipment, etc.), as is currently the
case, but on an obligation to achieve
certain results, specifically: place
animals in conditions that prevent
undue pain, suffering or fear at all
stages in the value chain (cf. Sidebar
10, Part Two). The responsibility of
professionals will be central to the
scheme: all professionals will need to
avail themselves of the means they
deem necessary to attain the results
targeted by these future regulations.
Animal welfare indicators will need
to be identified so as to determine
whether or not the targeted results
are attained. There are therefore
many European and national research
projects underway to identify the
most relevant indicators and criteria
Sidebar 8
THE WORLD ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH’S INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
In the framework of its 2001-2005 Strategy, the World
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) set animal welfare as a priority field of action for the first time. Thus,
the 180 member countries mandated the OIE, as the
international organization of reference for animal
health, to elaborate recommendations and guidelines
on applicable practices in the field of animal welfare,
reaffirming the key role of animal health. The OIE’s
first recommendations were adopted in 2003, and
the guiding principles were integrated into the OIE’s
Terrestrial Code in 2004. Since May 2005, the OIE’s
World Assembly of Delegates, which represents the
180 member countries and territories, has adopted ten
animal welfare standards with the aim of integrating
them into the OIE’s Terrestrial Code, as well as four
others destined for the OIE’s Aquatic Animal Health
Code. These standards cover, for instance:
the transport of animals by land/sea/air;
the slaughter of animals;
the killing of animals for disease control purposes;
animal welfare and beef cattle production systems/broiler chicken production systems;
welfare of farmed fish during transport; and
the welfare aspects of stunning and killing of
farmed fish for human consumption.
These standards are regularly updated to take into
account the newest scientific discoveries. They are not
regulations and are less binding than European legislation.
Nevertheless, these standards are indispensable because
they oblige OIE member countries to take into account
the issue of animal welfare in their practices and to do
so in a harmonized manner.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
27
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
One
to utilize for each animal species (and
even for each physiological stage)
at every step in the value chain (cf.
Part Two).
Sidebar 9
INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS
28
In 2012, the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) signed an official cooperation agreement with the
OIE regarding the elaboration of technical specifications
for animal welfare that comply with OIE standards (cf.
Sidebar 8).
An ISO standard for ‘food products – welfare of animals
used in food production’ is currently being elaborated.
This standard will also make it possible to harmonize the
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
requirements of the various references currently available
worldwide when it comes to the welfare of animals used
in food production.
In this context, the Standardization Commission brings
together the crucial expertise necessary to elaborate
standards and reference documents and appoints
national delegates in European and international standards structures.
PART
TWO
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
LIVESTOCK WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
30
During the second half of the 20th
century, a regulatory framework for
animal welfare was progressively set
up in France and within Europe (cf.
Part One). The legislation was drawn
up specifically in function of categories
of animals: pets, wild animals, animals
used for scientific purposes, and farm
animals. In this Dosser, we cover only
cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses
reared for meat production.
In the 1970s, regulations on farm
animal welfare were driven by the
Council of Europe through agreements
covering all value chains from farm
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
to slaughterhouse. They were then
taken up by the European Union in
the form of directives and regulations,
and then inscribed in French law as
decrees and orders. Arising out of
notably economic objectives such as
trade harmonization, internal market
regulation and rational production
growth, this regulatory framework
aims to reconcile farm animal welfare
and the needs of farms. As indicated
in the legislation on the subject,
regulatory requirements are based
on the available scientific data. They
are consequently likely to evolve
based on advances in research, as
has already been the case in the past
(cf. Part One).
Various stakeholders in the animal
production industries, civil society,
research, government, etc. participate
in and/or ensure implementation
of regulations and the on-going
improvement of farm animal welfare
conditions at every stage—on farm,
transport, grouping centres, slaughterhouses (cf. Figure 3). Mandatory for
industry professionals under current
regulations, protecting and ensuring
farm animal welfare is also necessary
to produce safe, quality products.
Figure 3
The Main Farm Animal Welfare Stakeholders in France
European Commission
European Parliament
and Council
elaborates European regulations
(Directorate-General for Health
and Consumers – FVO)
helps elaborate European regulations
verifies application of European
regulations
risk assessment
OIE
elaborates international
standards
French Ministry of Agriculture
(EFSA, ANSES)
(DGAL, DGPAAT)
issues scientific opinions
elaborates French regulations
verifies application of French and European regulations
research and
development
research institutes
technical agricultural and
agro-industrial institutes
lead multidisciplinary research
projects on animal welfare
(physiology, sociology, ethology,
etc.)
animal welfare
associations
monitor and promote
consideration of
animal welfare
throughout the
lifecycle
French livestock and meat industries
livestock
marketing
animals
processing
(private companies
and cooperatives)
livestock
traders
processors butchering and
preparing
livestock
farmers
slaughterers
veterinary practitioners
verify the health and welfare
of farm animals
health protection
groups
contribute to the preservation of
farm animal welfare
31
marketing
meat
hypermarkets
and supermarkets
(traditional products
counter/self-service)
food service
(municipalities or
private)
consumers
meat wholesalers
(wholesale butchers)
livestock
farmers’
cooperatives
traditional butcher
and tripe shops
Key
Interactions
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
1. ON FARMS
32
A livestock farming nation, France
holds 23% of European cattle, and in
particular 34% of European suckling
cows—making it the largest producer
of beef. It is also the largest producer of
butcher calves in Europe. In addition,
the country is ranked third in lamb
and pork production, and fifth for
horsemeat production [24; 25] (cf.
Table 1).
mals’ living conditions. Starting in
the 1970s, the first animal welfare
measures for farm animals appeared
in Europe and a fortiori in France (cf.
Part One, §3.1).
Council Directives 2008/119/EC
and 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008
laying down minimum standards
for the protection of calves and pigs
respectively; and
Currently, the regulations applicable
to animal welfare in livestock farming
are based in particular on:
the Rural and Maritime Fisheries
Code, and in particular articles L
214-1 and following (cf. Part One,
§2.2).
the European Convention for
the Protection of Animals Kept for
Farming Purposes of 10 March 1976
and the Protocol of Amendment
dated 6 February 1992;
Immediately following World War II,
the need to increase production and
thereby meet the political imperatives
of supply and cost caused farmers
to modify their livestock farming
practices and, consequently, ani-
Council Directive 98/58/EC of
20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming
purposes;
The goal of this legislation is to avoid
causing animals any undue pain, suffering or harm through the conditions
in their habitat, feeding and care (cf.
Sidebar 10). It takes into account the
specific characteristics and needs of
animals (species, age and farming
method) and determines different
levels of requirements. For instance,
Table 1
Key Livestock Figures in France for 2013 [9; 24; 36; 37; 38]
Cattle Sector
Sheep Sector
Goat Sector
Equine Sector
Pig Sector
Number of Livestock Farms
in France
218,000
73,840
5,120 (C)
34,500
18,150
Average Number of Livestock
per Farm in France
50 cows
80 ewes
150 goats
1 to 2 mares
100 to 200 sows
50 to 400 fattening
pigs (2010)
French Herd (in million head)
19.1 (A)
7.2 (B)
1.2 (D)
1 (E) (2011)
13.4 (F)
European Herd (in million
head)
84.7
98
17
7 (2011)
145.2
Global Herd (in million head)
1,040.1
1,173
996
59 (2011)
802.3
A: 5.45 million male and female bovines under the age of 1 year / 0.91 million male bovines aged 1 year / 4.52 million
heifers / 0.41 million steers and bulls / 4.1 million suckling cows / 3.7 million dairy cows
B: 1.7 million lambs / 5.5 million ewes / 6,100 rams
C: f arms with more than 10 goats
D: 867,000 goats / 333,000 male and female kids
E: 58,000 plough horses / 82,000 donkeys / 185,000 race horses / 230,000 ponies / 445,000 saddle horses. These
numbers cover horses raised for meat production as well as horses used for sporting and leisure activities.
F: 1
.1 million sows / 12.3 million fattening pigs
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
specific regulations were adopted for
pigs and calves (cf. Sidebar 11).
Note: Today, this differentiation only concerns
certain types of farm animals (nothing exists
for lagomorphs and fish farming, for example).
Regulations thus mandate compliance
with many requirements at different
areas of livestock operations, such
as premises and equipment, animal
feed, health monitoring, and even
professional training. They are based
on respect for the Five Freedoms,
fundamental in animal welfare: physiological, environmental, health-related,
behavioural and psychological (cf.
Sidebar 6, Part One).
1.1. PREMISES AND EQUIPMENT
Animals must be kept in an environment that meets the biological
imperatives of their species (cf. Sidebar
6 and Sidebar 10).
Environmental conditions must thus
be suited to their physiological and
ethological needs [16]:
air circulation, dust levels,
temperature, humidity and gas
concentrations kept within limits
that are not harmful;
lighting that is appropriate for the
species in duration and intensity (no
constant darkness, no uninterrupted
artificial light); and
sufficient space to allow the
animal to exhibit normal behaviour
for its species and age.
The materials used for buildings and
stables (floors, walls, partitions) and
the equipment with which animals
may be in contact must have the
following characteristics:
1.2. FEEDING AND WATERING
No matter what farming method is
used, animals must receive healthy
not be harmful to the animals feed appropriate for their age and
(no sharp boards or slippery floors, species. It must be provided in
for example);
sufficient quantity and quality at
intervals that correspond to their
be cleaned and disinfected physiological needs in order to keep
easily and regularly;
them in good health and meet their
nutritional requirements. Among
be designed so as to limit con- other things, to avoid all risk of cross
tamination risks (impervious floors contamination, the regulations set
with sufficient slope to ensure the specific labelling requirements for all
runoff of liquids and evacuation of feed bought by farmers and destined
waste, for example); and
to feed their animals. Farmers keep
these labels in their herd registers
be verified daily and maintained, (traceability).
especially in the case of automatic
or mechanical equipment such as In France, more than 80% of the
feeding and watering systems.
feed ration for cattle and sheep is
fodder (mainly grass, either pasture
Animals kept constantly outside must or conserved) and nearly 90% of this
be protected from weather, predators feed is produced on-farm [13; 40].
and any health risks. Pigs raised in
the open air, for example, will be Feed for calves must contain enough
given antiparasitic treatments. Pens iron to ensure an average blood
and enclosures must be designed to haemoglobin level of at least 4.5
prevent escape.
mmol/l, and a minimum daily ration
Sidebar 10
PAIN, STRESS AND SUFFERING
Pain: an unpleasant sensory and
emotional experience associated
with actual or potential damage or
described in terms of such damage
(Baumans et al., 1994; Le Bars et al.,
2001).
Stress: a negative emotional experience caused when an individual
is faced with a situation that the
individual perceives as threatening
(Mormède et al., 2007).
Suffering: a psychological or physical experience designating in both
cases pain felt more or less strongly
by an individual as a reaction to real
or potential trauma (Larousse).
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
33
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
34
of fibrous food for each individual
over the age of two weeks. This
quantity must be increased regularly,
from 50 to 250 g per day for calves
aged eight to twenty weeks. It must
be progressively supplemented by
fibrous plants such as hay to respect
the normal physiological development of their digestive systems.
Finally, animals must have access to
an appropriate quantity of adequate
quality drinking water, that is to say
clean water, especially when animals
are ill or the weather is very hot.
1.3. HEALTH MONITORING
Farmers verify their animals’ health
every day (twice daily for housed
calves), they know how their animals
behave and the care they need. Any
animal that seems ill or wounded
must receive treatment without
delay, and a veterinarian must be
consulted immediately if necessary.
Accommodations with dry bedding
must be available to isolate ill or
wounded animals if necessary. Any
ill animals and all medical treatments
administered must be recorded in the
herd registry, which is maintained for
at least three years on the farm and
kept available to inspection services.
The same holds in the event that an
animal dies on a farm.
By supervising the health of animals
on farms, veterinarians also help
protect animals’ wellbeing and health:
anti-parasite treatments, vaccination
to prevent the appearance of diseases,
hoof care to prevent limping, etc.
During these visits, veterinarians verify
that animal welfare obligations are
met (cf. Figure 3). When necessary,
Sidebar 11
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR PIGS AND CALVES
For pigs, given their needs for exercise and investigatory
behaviour, specific measures have been set, for example [21]:
standards for the size of pens and crates, the
layout of the facilities and equipment for each category
of animal: boars, sows and gilts, piglets, weaners, and
rearing pigs;
access to a sufficient quantity of material to
enable proper investigation activities, such as straw, hay,
wood, etc.;
specific environmental conditions: sound levels
(< 85 dB, no constant or sudden noises), light intensity
(>40 lux for a minimum of 8 hours), comfortable lying
area; and
for sows and gilts, who enjoy social interaction,
kept in groups (without tethers) during a period starting
from four weeks after the service to one week before the
expected time of farrowing (with an exception for farms
with fewer than ten sows provided that they can turn
around easily in their boxes). Among other things, given
their need to chew, sows and gilts must have constant
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
access to materials such as cord or pieces of wood, for
example. They must also receive a sufficient quantity of
bulky or high-fibre food as well as high-energy food.
For calves, with the exception of farms with less than six
calves and calves kept with their mothers for suckling, we
can cite the following specific measures [20]:
calves shall not be kept in isolation after the
age of eight weeks, unless a their health or behaviour
requires them to be isolated in order to receive treatment;
standards for pens or crates regarding size,
layout and equipment in order to allow calves to move
about and have visual and tactile contact with other
calves (perforated walls in the case of individual pens);
and
a ban on tethering calves, with the exception of
group-housed calves which may be tethered for periods
of not more than one hour at the time of feeding milk/
milk substitute. All tethers must be inspected regularly
and not harm the calves.
they advise farmers on what actions
to take to improve animal welfare.
Finally, health protection groups
(HPGs) monitor proper herd health
on departmental level (cf. Figure 3).
Composed of farmers and at least
one veterinarian, they organize the
prevention and monitoring of animal
diseases in conjunction with veterinary
services (cf. infra). In this framework,
they also play an advisory role for
farmers when it comes to animal
welfare.
1.4. TRAINING
Farmers and livestock technicians
are trained to have the skills, knowl-
edge and professional capacities
appropriate to ensure animal welfare.
The basics of animal handling and
restraint are part of the syllabus in
their initial and on-going education.
For example, the Institut de l’Élevage
trains 1,500 to 2,000 farmers every
year in cattle handling and restraint
[23]. The objective is to acquire both
theoretical and practical abilities
regarding cattle behaviour, master
handling techniques and know the
material that will allow them to do
their work safely, for themselves and
the animals.
Among other things, farmers and
livestock technicians are authorized to
perform some veterinary procedures
and surgeries. These acts are listed in
the Decree of 5 October 2011. With
pigs, for example, this is the case
for tail-docking, tooth-clipping and
tooth-grinding. Given the pain that
these procedures may cause, these
interventions are strictly governed
by regulations. They must be done
under appropriate hygiene conditions by skilled and experienced
people. Decree No. 2011-1244 of
5 October 2011 thus defines the
required minimal skills. Fulfilment
of these conditions may be shown
by the possession of a diploma or
certificate attesting to the completion
of appropriate initial or on-going
training. In addition, the owners or
keepers of livestock are considered to
Sidebar 12
INITIATIVES BY LIVESTOCK PROFESSIONALS
Livestock professionals have elaborated tools to master
their practices, going well beyond strict compliance with
animal welfare regulations. Production charters and
‘professional’ quality approaches exist in all sectors [23]:
This tool allows farmers to examine their practices with
the aim of entering into a process of improvement. Specifically trained technicians have distributed 20,000 of these
guides (for 23,000 farmers with more than 50 ewes).
Charte des Bonne Pratiques d’Élevage: This charter
of good animal husbandry practices has existed since 1999.
In France, 94,000 cattle farms adhere to it—that is 62%
of cattle farms representing 77% of the cattle reared and
92% of the milk produced. On a voluntary and individual
basis, farmers’ practices are evaluated by a technician
who then proposes suggested improvements. Animal
welfare is included through commitments covering the
Five Freedoms (cf. Sidebar 6). More than 97% of adhering
farmers comply with the criteria from the technician’s
very first visit.
Code Mutuel de Bonne Pratiques en Élevage
Caprin: This mutual code of good goat rearing practices
has existed since 2004. More than 2,500 farmers adhere
to it in France—more than 45% of all goat farmers. It is
similar to the guide for the sheep industry.
Guide des Bonnes Pratiques Ovines: This guide to
good sheep handling is built around seven major sheep
rearing challenges taking into account animal welfare.
The Fédération Nationale du Cheval [national
horse federation] is preparing a horse welfare charter to
optimize farmers’ know-how and professionalism.
Guide de Bonnes Pratiques d’Hygiène en Élevage
de Porcs: The main purpose of this guide to good hygiene
practices for pig rearing is above all to guarantee the safety
of foods marketed while respecting other regulations
such as those on animal welfare.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
35
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
have the necessary skills when they
have at least one year of professional
experience in the livestock industry
[27; 28].
36
Animal welfare regulations change
regularly. To stay abreast of these
changes, farmers have many sources
of information:
training courses from (departmental or regional) Chambers of
Agriculture and HPGs;
inter-branch newsletters;
the professional press;
informative documents and
websites from animal welfare associations, professional structures, the
administration, etc.; and
initiatives by livestock professionals (cf. Sidebar 12).
1.5. GOVERNMENT INSPECTIONS
Within France
Since 2005, the European Union has
set up cross compliance measures to
ensure more sustainable agriculture
and thus foster better acceptation of
the common agricultural policy (CAP)
by all citizens. The cross compliance
system subjects the payment of
certain EU aid to compliance with basic
requirements when it comes to the
environment, good agricultural and
environmental practices, health (public
health, animal health, plant health)
and, since 2007, animal welfare [31].
Compliance with these requirements
in connection with animal production is verified during inspections
conducted by government agents.
Cases of non-compliance are defined
for each area of inspection, that is: the
state of livestock buildings (inspection
point 1), injury prevention (inspection
point 2), animal health (inspection
point 3), feeding and watering (inspection point 4), and animals kept outside
(inspection point 5). Based on the
severity, extent and persistence of
non-compliance, aid is reduced by
a predetermined percentage. Some
anomalies of little importance and
without direct consequences for
human and animal health may be
qualified as minor when they are
easily remedied using the methods
and within the deadline specified in
the technical factsheets produced by
the Ministry of Agriculture. When a
farmer remedies the anomaly within
the given deadline and compliance
is validated by the inspection body,
it is not taken into account in the
calculation of reductions linked to
cross compliance.
Refusal to submit to an inspection,
however, triggers the complete
cancellation of all aid subject to
cross compliance conditions for the
inspection year.
Among other things, in accordance
with Article L 214-23 of the Rural and
Maritime Fisheries Code, veterinary
services are in charge of verifying
application of the measures set forth
in Articles L 214-1 and following, and L
215-10 to L 215-11 of the same code in
regard to farm animal welfare (animal
identification, farm premises and
equipment, no maltreatment, etc.).
When necessary, government agents
issue official notice which may result
in financial or penal sanctions. Thus,
non-compliance with regulations is
punished by fines ranging from 450 to
1,500 euros. Finally, the Article 521-1
of the Penal Code punishes harm to
animals as sentient beings, acts of
cruelty and severe maltreatment with
sentences that may reach two years
of prison and 30,000 euros in fines.
Within Europe
The 2008 Directives stipulate that,
every two years, the member States
shall inform the European Commission of the results of the inspections
conducted during the previous two
years. These inspections must cover,
every year, a statistically representative
sample of the different livestock farming systems of each member State.
In addition, the Commission’s veterinary experts may inspect livestock
farms to verify uniform application of
regulatory requirements within the
European Union. These experts are
members of the Food and Veterinary
Office (FVO) (cf. Figure 3). Their inspections are conducted in collaboration
with the appropriate authorities17 in
the member States. When required,
17. A
ppropriate authority: the central authority of a member State in charge of ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, or
any authority to which said central authority has delegated this task.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Sidebar 13
THE CURRENT STATE OF ANIMAL WELFARE RESEARCHa
‘Animal and Society’ Meetings were held in 2008 and
brought together animal production industry professionals, scientists, elected officials, public authorities and
associations around the issue of animal welfare. In this
context, INRA conducted an expertise mission in 2009
on pain in farm animals; this expertise identified priority
needs for research [35]:
improve knowledge of pain mechanisms and
evaluation in certain species;
identify sources of pain for farm animals;
take into account farm animals’ pain and assess
the socioeconomic impact of measures to prevent and
treat pain;
evaluate a modification in the regulatory system
and legal status of animals (cf. Part One).
There is also the Réseau Mixte Technologique (RMT
[combined technology network]) on animal welfare
and livestock farming systems. In particular, it brings
together research institutes and laboratories (INRA, ANSES),
technical agricultural and agro-industrial institutes (IDELE,
IFIP, etc.) and animal production industry institutes. The
RMT’s purpose is to set up a lasting structure for discussion and sharing among these different stakeholders
so as to ensure a continuum between applied research,
development, teaching and livestock professionals. It is a
favoured arena to grasp the diversity of research projects
underway, such as:
The analysis of animal welfare assessment systems: the goal is ultimately to define reliable, measurable
indicators for each species, notably for farm animals.
These indicators may be of two natures: resource mastery indicators, that is to say environmental parameters
and animal husbandry practices that condition animal
welfare; or indicators that measure outcomes for animals
[43]. Whatever their nature, these indicators may be
behavioural (e.g. observation of animals laying down), or
relating to health and production (e.g. mortality, drop in
production), available resources (water, feed, shelter) or
human-animal resources.
Note: Tools aiming to elaborate a livestock welfare assessment
standard already exist. One such is the method developed within
the framework of the European Welfare Quality project. Its use is
currently limited by its feasibility and cost.
Helping farmers better manage pain: the goal
is to define pain management procedures on farms and
adapt training units.
The organization of information and reflection
days with other known networks such as AgriBEA (INRA,
CNRS, universities, agronomic and veterinary schools,
etc.).
Agricultural and agro-industrial technical institutes
are also conducting studies that are more species-specific
and/or specific to a given subject. For instance [23]:
Identification of conditions that encourage
tail biting on pig farms. The aim is to identify possible
initiatives to avoid cutting the tails of piglets (IFIP).
Setting up methods to detect boar taint in pig
carcasses at the slaughterhouse. The aim is to overcome a dual challenge: no longer castrate piglets, while
still offering consumers meat that does not give off an
unpleasant odour during cooking due to metabolites of
male sexual hormones (IFIP).
Dehorning of cattle in France: current state of
practices and ideas. Surveys have been conducted to
identify and quantify this practice, identify the ideas
farmers have regarding them, and possible levers for
change (IDELE, 2009).
Research institutes are participating in many European research projects along the lines of ProHealth
a. T he examples given in the field of research on farms, during transport and at the slaughterhouse are not exhaustive.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
37
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
Sidebar 13 (cont.)
(2014-2019). This project centres around exploring new
paths to improve animal health and the quality of production, and limit its impact on the environment while
maintaining farm and value chain profitability. Although
not at the heart of the project, improved animal welfare
is one goal (INRA).
38
the appropriate government authority
takes any necessary measures to take
into account the inspection results.
Animal transport is a solution notably
to the following situations:
the need to gather animals from
all farms (small farms are the most
numerous type in France);
Decree No. 99-961 of 24 November 1999 on animal welfare during
transport.
Imports
To be imported into the European
Union, farm animals from outside
countries must have been treated at
least as well as animals from within
the EU. To prove this, they must be
accompanied by a certificate delivered
by the appropriate authorities of that
country [20; 21].
2. TRANSPORT
Animal transport is an inescapable
stage in animal production value
chains. Fattening, grouping, reproduction, slaughter and transhumance
require the transport of more than a
million animals within the European
Union every day. In Europe, 90% of live
cattle trade and more than 97% of live
sheep and goat trade takes place via
transport by road [7]. Most movement
happens within the national borders
of the member countries.
In France, animal transport concerns
nearly 380,000 farms (all species
combined) and 1,550 livestock dealers,
of which 840 companies selling more
than 100 animals per month [39].
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
the specialization of breeding
and fattening farms, linked to geographical and weather differences
between regions; and
the expansion of animal collection territories because of the reduction in the number of slaughterhouses
and slaughterhouses’ specialization
for economic reasons [7].
The regulations in force regarding
animal transport are based in particular on:
The European Convention for
the Protection of Animals During
International Transport of 13 December 1968, revised 6 November 2003 (cf.
Sidebar 15). This was the first European
convention on animal welfare (cf. Part
One, §3.1). At this same time, in France,
the first farm animal welfare associations
were born (cf. Sidebar 7, Part One).
Council Regulation (EC) No.
1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the
protection of animals during transport
and related operations.
Order of 5 November 1996,
amended by the Order of 24 November 1999 on animal welfare during
transport.
The primary objective of these regulations is to avoid causing animals
undue stress, pain, suffering or
harm during transport (cf. Sidebar
10). They take into account animals’
unique characteristics (species, age)
and the type of transport (by road,
sea, rail, air), and determine different
levels of requirements. In this way,
they impose compliance with many
requirements regarding animals’
fitness for travel, professional training, the necessary administrative
authorizations, and finally the
specific equipment and materials
for each means of transport (lorry,
boat, etc.).
Note: Farmers transporting animals using their
own vehicles for the purposes of transhumance
or transporting their own animals over
less than 50 km are only concerned by the
following regulations [46]:
• Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No.
1/2005: ‘No person shall transport animals
or cause animals to be transported in
a way likely to cause injury or undue
suffering to them’;
• Article R 214-52 of the Rural and Maritime
Fisheries Code that forbids the transport
of ‘unidentified and non-registered’ animals;
and
• Article 521-1 of the Penal Code: ‘Serious
maltreatment, or sexual maltreatment,
or the commission of an act of cruelty,
whether committed in public or not,
towards a domestic animal, or tamed
animal, or animal held in captivity, is
punishable by two years of imprisonment
and 30,000 euros in fines.’
enough health to travel—can be
transported, provided that transport
conditions will not cause undue injury
or suffering (cf. infra).
Before travel begins, the animals’
fitness is systematically verified by
the transporter or attendant, taking
into account the length and mode
of travel (by road, sea, rail, air). Annex I
2.1. ANIMALS FIT TO TRAVEL
The elements described in the rest of this
Dossier apply to all other types of for-profit
transport.
Only animals deemed ‘fit’—that is to
say properly identified and in good
Figure 4
Key Figures on the International Live Animal Trade in 2013 [9; 24]
France’s Animal Trade by Species in 2013 (within Europe)
Cattle Sector
Sheep Sector
Goat Sector
Equine Sector
Pig Sector
Exports (in thousand head)
1,180 605
0.540
4.8 64
Imports (in thousand head)
71 373
7.8
3
7
(A)
(B)
(C)
A: 128,000 calves / 64,000 large cattle for butcher’s shops / 988,000 large cattle for fattening
B: 39,500 calves / 30,000 large cattle for butcher’s shops / 1,500 large cattle for fattening
C: 13,000 horses are exported but only 4,800 of them are for slaughter
Intra-EC Cattle Trade in 2013
in thousand head
1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
Exports
p.
an
S l ia
ov
ak
ia
Re
Ro
h
m
d
an
ec
ds
Po
l
Cz
Ne
th
er
lan
an
ia
ly
hu
It a
Li t
d
lan
e
I re
nc
in
Fr
a
a
-L
ux
tr i
iu
m
Au
s
lg
Be
Ge
rm
an
y
Imports
Sp
a
Given the importance of transport
by road in France and within the
European Union, we shall focus more
specifically on this type of transport
(cf. Figure 4).
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
39
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
40
of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005
specifies that animals that are injured or
that present physiological weaknesses
or pathological processes shall not be
considered fit for transport, especially if:
and receive appropriate treatment
from a veterinarian rapidly. If necessary,
it may undergo emergency slaughter
or killing to prevent any unnecessary
suffering.
the animals are unable to move
independently without pain or to
walk unassisted;
2.2. TRAINING
they present a severe open
wound, or prolapse;
they are pregnant females for
whom 90 % or more of the expected
gestation period has already passed,
or females who have given birth in
the previous week;
they are new-born mammals in
whichthenavelhasnotcompletelyhealed;
they are pigs of less than three
weeks, lambs of less than one week
and calves of less than ten days of
age (unless they are transported less
than 100 km).
However, in strictly regulated cases, sick
or injured animals may be transported.
This is the case, for instance, with cattle,
horses and pigs of all ages injured less
than 48 hrs. before transport. Under the
supervision of the treating veterinarian,
these animals may be transported to
the nearest slaughterhouse if they
are accompanied by a veterinary
certificate and provided that they be
caused no additional suffering during
the journey.
Finally, when an animals is injured or
shows signs of illness during transport,
it shall be separated from the others
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
In compliance with regulations,
all persons responsible for handling livestock during transport or
loading-unloading operations—
whether on farm, in grouping centres
or at slaughterhouses—must receive
ad hoc training.
Such training is dispensed by bodies
that have been approved by the
appropriate authorities. In France, this
training is manifest by the delivery of
a Certificat d’Aptitude Professionnelle
au Transport des Animaux Vivants
(CAPTAV [certificate of professional
competence for the transport of live
animals]). In Annex IV, Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 stipulates that
the field of application of certificates
of competence or of professional
competence may be limited to a
specific species or group of species.
animal behaviour and the concept
of stress;
the practical aspects of handling
of animals (Trained personnel must
perform this task with care: prods
or other pointed instruments must
not be used on the animals, animals
must not be hit, they may not be
lifted or dragged by any part of their
bodies, pressure must not be placed
on especially sensitive areas, etc.
Among other things, personnel must
minimize excitement by separating
animals of different species or those
showing signs of hostility, or even by
isolating individuals of different size/
age/sex, etc. Finally the personnel
must not use methods likely to scare
animals, injure them or inflict undue
suffering.);
the impact of livestock transport
mode on the welfare of the animals
transported and on the quality of meat
when these animals are destined for
slaughter;
animal first aid; and
the organization of transport
(documentary, technical and route
planning aspects – cf. §2.3);
safety for animal handlers.
Indeed, studies have shown that
handlers’ safety is one of the major
factors contributing to animal welfare. Controlled and coordinated
behaviour among the personnel
involved (drivers, herders, etc.) as well
as the presence of protective systems
are among the best guarantees of
appropriate conditions in compliance
with animal welfare regulations.
animal physiology and in particular drinking and feeding needs,
Note: In the special case of transport over
less than 65 km, operators are not required
to have a transport authorization (cf. infra),
The training must cover the technical
and administrative aspects of Community legislation and in particular
the following items:
animals’ fitness to travel;
train their personnel in animal handling, or
use attendants holding CAPTAV certificates.
This is, for example, the case when animals
are transported by farmers using their own
vehicles from one farm to another or to the
nearest slaughterhouse.
2.3. ORGANIZING TRANSPORT
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005
greatly increased the administrative
requirements for animal transport.
Transporters must have the following
documentation:
The CAPTAV certificate of each
member of the team handling livestock during transport (cf. supra).
Transport documents specifying notably the species, number
of animals transported and their
owners, the location-date-time of
departure, the destination, and the
scheduled duration of the journey.
Transporter’s registers are conserved
for three years.
Transporters’ authorization to
conduct short (type 1 authorization)
or long (type 2 authorization) journeys
(cf. Table 2). This authorization is
delivered for a period of five years by
the appropriate authority on condition
that the transporter in question proves
that he or she has sufficient and
appropriate personnel, equipment
and operational procedures.
animals’ needs during the journey.
Animal welfare must in no case be
compromised due to insufficient
coordination between the various
parties involved in the journey.
As a general rule, the length time
cattle, sheep, goats, horses and pigs
The transport vehicle’s certificate may travel must not exceed eight
of approval for long journeys. This hours. However, for long journeys, this
approval is delivered for a period of time may be extended if additional
five years by the appropriate authority, provisions regarding material and
with a unique identifying number in equipment are followed (cf. §2.4). The
the member State.
watering and feeding times, travel
times, and rest times for this specific
The journey log in the event of case are given in Figure 5.
long intra-Community and international transport. This log consists of the 2.4. MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT
journey plans (animal characteristics:
species, number, estimated total In order to limit animals’ stress as much
weight, etc. & journey characteristics: as possible, the vehicle must comply
planned duration, list of rest/transfer/ with a certain number of provisions:
exit stops, etc.), the departure site
and destination, the transporter’s Separate animals of different
declaration, and the incident report. species or even animals of the same
species that present significant differAll the necessary measures must ences in size or age, with or without
have been taken in advance by the horns, sexually mature males and
transporter to limit the duration of the females, or that are showing hostility
journey as much as possible and meet towards other animals.
Standards on space allowances
for each animal species and each category according to type of transport.
They were set based on the results
of several studies and tests done
in real journey conditions. Indeed,
when the space is too small it is bad
for animal welfare but if there is too
much space, animals may fall during
transport (cf. Table 3).
Table 2
Short and Long Journeys [19]
Short Journeys
Long Journeys*
National Transport
< 12 hrs.
> 12 hrs.
International Transport
< 8 hrs.
> 8 hrs.
* With the exception of young animals accompanied by their mothers,
long journeys are only authorized for horses above the age of 4 months,
calves above the age of 14 days, and pigs weighing more than 10 kg.
The regulations also impose strict
requirements regarding material and
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
41
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
equipment. They must, for example,
be designed, built and maintained
so as to:
limit trauma and risk of injury
to animals during transport (e.g. solid
non-slip vehicle floors) and during
loading-unloading operations (e.g.
lateral protection able to withstand
the animals’ weight so they cannot
escape, species-appropriate ramp
slopes).
faeces, litter or feed can not leak or
fall out of the vehicle. In addition, they
must be cleaned and disinfected after
every transport.
Ensure that animals and the
environment are clean. Vehicles are
designed in such a way that the animal
42
Ensure suitable environmental
conditions (temperature, ventilation,
lighting, etc.).
Table 3
Space Allowances by Animal Species (Transport by Road) [19]
Species
Surface Area/Animal
(sq. m)
domestic Equidae
adult horses
Species
Surface Area/Animal
(sq. m)
cattle
1.75 (0.7 x 2.5)
small calves (55 kg)
0.30-0.40
young horses (6-24 months)
for journeys < 48 hrs.
for journeys > 48 hrs.
1.2 (0.6 x 2)
2.4 (1.2 x 2)
medium-sized calves (110 kg)
0.40-0.70
ponies (< 144 cm)
1.1 (0.6 x 1.8)
heavy calves (200 kg)
0.70-0.95
foals (0-6 months)
1.4 (1 x 1.4)
medium-sized cattle (325 kg)
0.95-1.30
heavy cattle (550 kg)
1.30-1.60
sheep / goats
shorn sheep and lambs
26-55 kg
> 55 kg
0.20-0.30
> 0.30
very heavy cattle > 700 kg
unshorn sheep
< 55 kg
> 55 kg
0.30-0.40
> 0.40
pigs
heavily pregnant ewes
< 55 kg
> 55 kg
0.40-0.50
> 0.50
goats :
< 35 kg
35-55 kg
> 55 kg
0.20-0.30
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.75
heavily pregnant goats
< 55 kg
> 55 kg
0.40-0.50
> 0.50
> 1.6
All pigs must at least be able to lie down and stand up in
a natural position.
In order to comply with these requirements, the loading
density for pigs of around 100 kg should not exceed
235 kg per sq. m.
The breed, size and physical condition of the pigs may
mean that the minimum required surface area given
above has to be increased; a maximum increase of 20%
may also be required depending on meteorological
conditions and journey time.
Note: These space allowances may vary depending on the size and physical condition of the animals, weather, and journey
time.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Allow access to the animals to
inspect them and provide treatment
if necessary.
Not hinder the natural movement Calves must not be muzzled.
of animals when animals need to be Vehicles must be clearly and visibly
attached.
marked indicating the presence of
live animals.
Figure 5
43
Long Journeys (water, feed and rest) [based on 46]
unweaned calves,
lambs, kids, piglets
and foals
Transport 9 hrs.
Transport 9 hrs.
unloading, rest, water, food for at least 24 hrs.
hrs
9hrs 19
MAX
9hrs 1hr
24hrs
rest +
water
Transport 24 hrs. + permanent access to water
pigs
non-registered
horses and
Equidae
unloading, rest, water, food 24 hrs.
24hrs
24
hrs
Transport 8 hrs.
Transport 8 hrs.
8
8
hrs
water
Transport 8 hrs. unloading, rest, water, food 24 hrs.
hrs
hrs
24
8 MAX
Transport 14 hrs.
14
24hrs
hrs
water
cattle, sheep and Transport 14 hrs.
goats
hrs
24hrs
MAX
1
hr
unloading, rest, water, food 24 hrs.
14
hrs
29hrs
MAX
24hrs
rest +
water
Note: Animals are fed as necessary during breaks.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
For long journeys, additional provisions apply, for instance:
free access to drinking water;
a light-coloured, properly insulated roof;
a satellite navigation system to
track and record vehicle movements.
The data recorded by these two
systems must be kept for three years.
or targeted basis. In the event of long
journeys between member States
and other countries, verification that
animals are fit to travel is done before
loading at the site of departure.
2.5. GOVERNMENT INSPECTIONS
As a preamble, one should recall that
the Penal Code punishes maltreatment
of animals as well as severe maltreatment and acts of cruelty with fines
and prison sentences (cf. Part One). In
addition, transporting animals without
the mandatory authorization to do so
is punishable by six months of prison
and a fine of €7,500 (Article L 215-13 of
the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code).
Throughout the journey and on arrival
in France or Europe, verifications
and inspections of animal transport
conditions may be conducted by the
veterinary services, on either a random
Inspections mainly cover:
animals: verification of their identification, health status, physical
status and stress levels;
documentation: CAPTAV certificate, transporter’s authorization,
vehicle approval, etc.; and
means of transport and equipment: space allowance, ventilation, watering, etc.
44
bedding material appropriate
to the species, number of animals,
journey time, and meteorological
conditions;
individual stalls for horses,
except for mares traveling with their
foals;
a ventilation and temperature
recording system (an alert warns
the driver when the temperature in
compartments containing animals
reaches the maximum or minimum
temperatures); and
Within France
Within Europe
At border inspection posts and exit
points (sites set up specifically to
Sidebar 14
INITIATIVES BY ANIMAL TRANSPORT PROFESSIONALS
Since European legislation on animal welfare during transport (Directive 95/29) entered into vigour, professionals
have elaborated operational tools:
Vademecum sur la protection des animaux vivants
lors du transport: This vade mecum on the welfare of
live animals during transport provides practical information on the regulatory obligations for professionals
in the cattle, sheep and goat industries at every stage of
transport (administrative formalities, equipment, skills,
etc.) (INTERBEV, IDELE, 2007).
Guide de non-transportabilité des bovins: This
guide on the non-transportability of cattle to the slaughterhouse offers transport stakeholders (farmers, transporters, attendants, veterinarians, etc.) simple and illustrated
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
rules to determine whether cattle are fit to travel. This
document is a practical and transparent transcription
of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 (INTERBEV, IDELE,
OFIVAL, 2007).
Le guide de transportabilité des porcs vers
l’abattoir: This guide on the transportability of pigs
is a decision-making tool for farmers and transporters
when loading pigs for transport to the slaughterhouse
(INAPORC, Coop de France, IFIP, UGPVB, 2009).
Research and development projects at the heart
of industry concerns. These projects cover tools and
equipment as well as operating modes and methods
during transport (cf. Sidebar 16).
allow animals to rest for at least 12
hours), the member States’ official
veterinarians verify in particular:
animals’ physical and healthrelated fitness to travel;
the information in the journey
log: it must be realistic and
transmitted to the appropriate
authority at destination;
the validity of the transporter(s)
administrative paperwork delivered by the appropriate authority
in the departure country: authorizations, certificates of fitness or
professional competence;
livestock transport means (cf.
supra), including for example:
the certificate of approval;
the materials and equipment
must be appropriate for the
number and type of animals to
transport;
the equipment specific to long
journeys: ventilation and satellite
navigation systems; and
maintenance, cleaning and
disinfection of equipment.
The appropriate authority takes all
necessary measures to prevent or
minimize delays during transport. If
needed, animals may receive care,
or even be fed, watered, unloaded
and rested.
In addition, when the appropriate
authority observes non-compliance
with regulatory requirements, corrective measures must immediately be
taken by the transporter. Examples
include: changing drivers, repairing
vehicles, transferring all or some of
the animals to another means of
transport, returning them to their point
of departure by the most direct route,
unloading and resting them in adequate premises, etc. The appropriate
authorities in the country of departure
are also notified of any infractions.
Among other things, the certificate
of competence or of professional
competence of the driver or attendant
at fault may be suspended or revoked.
Finally, in the event of serious or
repeated infractions, a member State
may temporarily ban the transporter,
or the means of transport in question,
from transporting animals within its
borders.
Sidebar 15
TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS OUTSIDE THE EUROPEAN UNION [17]
The European Convention on the Protection
of Animals During International Transport of 6
November 2003 applies to transport between member States and non-member States and to transport
between two member States when transiting through
third countries.
One of the fundamental principles is that animals
must, to the extent possible, be transported without
delay to their place of destination. When the journey
time exceeds 8 hours, the arrangements foreseen
for the journey must be written down: the places of
departure, transfer, rest and destination of the animals
transported are thus recorded and kept available to
the appropriate authorities. Transport is entrusted
to personnel who have received adequate training.
Most of the transport of animals from French farms
to countries outside Europe takes place by sea (from
Europe to the Americas or Africa). When loading
onto ships, the inspections cover animals (fitness,
identification) and transport equipment (forced air
ventilation system with alarm, freshwater distribution
system, lighting, space allowance, etc.). Among other
things, loading and unloading are supervised by an
official veterinarian. The ship’s equipment must be
appropriate for these operations: suitable and lighted
gangways, ramps and walkways between quayside
and the ship’s livestock decks.
For all modes of transport, drinking water must be
available at the point of destination (or feed and rest
area if needed). Health certificates, health status and
animal welfare conditions at destination must also
be systematically verified. In the event of any noteworthy issues regarding animal welfare during the
voyage, the appropriate authority of the country of
destination must report to the appropriate authority
of the country of origin.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
45
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
Sidebar 16
THE CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH INTO ANIMAL WELFARE DURING TRANSPORT
46
Until the early 1990s, the main subject of research was
the impact of transport on the quality of meat after
slaughter. The entry into force of European regulations
(Directive 95/29/EC) imposed stocking densities based on
animal species, transport stages, and rest, watering and
feeding times. Since then, research has focused mainly
on the welfare and comfort of animals during transport:
RMT (cf. Sidebar 13) has notably studied animal
welfare evaluation systems. The end goal is to define
indicators of animal welfare during transport for each
species (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, poultry and
rabbits).
Technical agricultural and agro-industrial
institutes (IDELE, IFIP-ITAVI, ADIV) in partnership
with inter-branch organizations have done research
in diverse areas, such as:
L ong distance transport of cattle: impact of variations
in space allowances and/or group size on physiological
As on farms, the Commission’s
expert veterinarians, members of the
FVO, may verify that the regulatory
requirements for animal transport
are applied uniformly within the
European Union (cf. Figure 4). When
required, the appropriate government authority takes any necessary
measures to take into account the
inspection results.
and behavioural indicators of stress. The conclusions
show that increasing the space available per animal
does not significantly improve the welfare of grass
calves during commercial transport, and may even
be risky for the animals (IDELE, 2009).
D
rawing up a list of animal welfare indicators for cattle
(adults and calves) and sheep during transport. This
study’s goal was to create a self-monitoring tool by
offering a selection of indicators of animal welfare
during transport. Two tools for transport operators
were ultimately elaborated: a methodology guide
describing the chosen monitoring points, and three
prototype observation matrices for these points for
adult cattle, calves and lambs (IDELE, 2010).
The European Commission and the European
Parliament are financing a study aiming to draw up best
practice guides for animal transport, with the participation of specialized technical institutes. The guide on pigs
should be published in 2018, for instance.
different farms are grouped together
to form consignments or be sold. Every
year in France more than two million
animals are shown and sold in nearly
120 cooperatives and 50 livestock
markets. These places through which
animals pass and are sold are obliged,
like the rest of the industry, to comply
with animal welfare regulations.
3. ASSEMBLY CENTERS
(MARKETS, GROUPING
CENTERS AND FAIRS)
Grouping centres are subject the
same requirements as farms when
it comes to the accommodations,
feeding and health monitoring of
animals (cf. Part Two, §1.1-1.3).
Assembly centres are defined as
premises on which animals—cattle,
goats, sheep, pigs or horses—from
In addition, public establishments
such as fairs and markets must comply
with additional provisions [26]:
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Materials and facilities that
allow the safe unloading, movement,
holding and loading of animals. For
instance, in animal holding sites, the
floor must be hard, impermeable and
non-slip with a slight slope to allow
the evacuation of slurry and rainwater.
Loading and unloading docks must
be properly lighted, have grooved
floors to prevent slips, and be correctly
maintained. In addition, the slope of
ramps must be appropriate for each
species and category of animal: 20°
for calves, pigs and horses, and 26°
for sheep, goats and cattle [19].
When cattle or horses must be
tethered, tethering bars or tie rings
must be available and suitable for the
There must be enough personnel
with the appropriate professional
knowledge and skills (animal housing
and handling in calm conditions) both
within these establishments and during
transport (cf. supra, notably regarding
the fitness of animals for transport).
On arrival at public establishments,
the accompanying documentation
is presented by animal keepers and
verified and recorded by market staff.
The animals’ welfare and state of
health are also verified. Only animals
in good health can enter (no lame, ill,
injured, or psychologically suffering
animals). According to Article L 214-23
of the Rural and Maritime Fisheries
Code, this is monitored by a veterinarian with the appropriate health
authorizations.
sheep and goats: third place
behind the United Kingdom and
Spain, with 86,500 Tcwe, nearly 14%
of European production;
pigs: third place behind Germany
and Spain, with 1,950,000 Tcwe, nearly
10% of European production;
horses: fourth place behind Italy,
Poland and Spain, with 5,800 Tcwe,
10% of European production [24].
In 2013, with the slaughter of nearly
1,230,700 tons of carcass weight
equivalent (Tcwe) of large cattle and
181,000 Tcwe of calves, France was the
largest producer of beef and veal in
Slaughterhouses make it possible
to house animals, slaughter them,
Figure 6
Global Beef Production in 2013 [24]
12,000
in thousand head
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
St
at
es
Br
as
il
EU
27
Ch
in
a
In
A r d ia
ge
nt
Au ina
s tr
ali
M a
ex
i
Pa co
kis
ta
Fr n
an
ce
Ru
ss
C a ia
n
Co ada
l
o
Ne
m
b
w
Ze ia
ala
nd
Animals are fed at least every
24 hours and watered every 8 hours.
The slaughter of animals—that is, the
killing by bleeding of animals destined
for human consumption—is done in
slaughterhouses. France has nearly 280
slaughterhouses for butcher animals
called ‘slaughterhouses for domestic
ungulates’ in the regulations.
France also ranks near the top of the
list in Europe for the slaughter of other
livestock species:
d
Adjustments in materials and facilities are regularly studied to keep
animals in the best conditions for
their welfare.
4. SLAUGHTERHOUSES
Europe. It also ranks second worldwide
with nearly 2.4% of production (cf.
Figure 6) [24].
ite
For sheep, goats and pigs,
animals are usually kept loose in
enclosures, as are groups of calves
and foals not accompanied by their
mothers. Attaching the legs of kids
and lambs is strictly prohibited.
Opening and closing hours for markets and fairs are set by municipal
by-law. The maximum amount of
time animals can be brought before
opening and stay after closing are set
by regulations [26].
Un
animals in question. The associated
tethers must be in good condition, not
force animals to lower their heads, and
allow the animals to lie down. Animals
may not be shackled. Calves or foals
accompanied by their mothers are,
however, kept freely by their sides.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
47
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
48
hygienically process the carcasses,
and finally refrigerate (as required)
carcasses and offal declared fit for
consumption by the veterinary
inspection service (cf. Sidebar 17).
They must therefore comply with
European and national regulations
regarding animal welfare and food
safety. The health safety regulations
applicable to slaughterhouses are
described in a dossier published by
CIV [8].
In this Dossier only those aspects
relating to animal welfare, from their
accommodations in the slaughterhouse to the bleeding station.
The legislation in force regarding
animal welfare at the time of their
killing is based in particular on:
Decree No. 2011-2006 and
Order of 28 December 2011 on the
conditions authorizing slaughter
facilities to obtain waivers regarding
the European Convention for the the obligation to stun animals; and
Protection of Animals for Slaughter
of 10 May 1979;
Order of 31 July 2012 on the
conditions for the delivery of cer
Council Regulation (EC) No. tificates of competence regarding
1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 animal welfare in the framework of
on the protection of animals at the their killing.
time of killing;
The main objective of these regu
Order of 12 December 1997 lations is to avoid causing animals
on immobilization, stunning and any avoidable stress, pain, suffering,
killing procedures for animals distress or fear (cf. Sidebar 10). This
and animal welfare conditions in legislation therefore imposes many
slaughterhouses;
requirements regarding how the
Sidebar 17
THE VARIOUS STAGES IN THE SLAUGHTER OF BUTCHER ANIMALS AND CARCASS
PREPARATION
The slaughter of butcher animals involves the following
main stages:
Carcass preparation for its part involves the following
stages:
Reception of animals at the slaughterhouse:
Animals from farms or assembly centres are unloaded
from the transport vehicle. They are housed in stalls.
Dressing for ruminants and horses, and scalding/
dehairing for pigs. Dressing is the removal of the skin. For
pigs, scalding carcasses in water at 62˚C makes it easier
to remove hairs during dehairing.
Immobilization of animals: Procedure applied
to the animals to limit their movements and thereby
facilitate their stunning and efficient killing.
Stunning animals: Procedure applied to the animals
in order to cause them to lose consciousness and not feel
pain until they die. In the event of religious slaughter,
waivers may be granted to the stunning requirement
under certain conditions (cf. Sidebar 18).
Bleeding animals: The incision of at least one of
the two carotid arteries (supplying blood to the brain).
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Evisceration: Removal of intestines and internal
organs from the carcass.
Splitting into half-carcasses if necessary.
After these steps have been done, the entire carcass and
viscera are inspected closely by the veterinary services.
Following this post mortem inspection, the fiscal weighing
is done to determine the economic value of the carcass.
The carcass and viscera are then placed into a cold room
as rapidly as possible to be properly refrigerated [8].
facilities are organized, the materials
and equipment used, professional
training, and workflow in the slaughterhouse to prevent animals from
waiting longer than necessary.
4.1. ANIMAL ACCOMMODATIONS
Animals from farms or other assembly
centres are, to the extent possible,
unloaded from lorries immediately
and then kept at the slaughterhouse.
As with animal markets, the unloading equipment and docks must be
appropriate for the species and size
of the animals to ensure the protection of animals and slaughterhouse
personnel (cf. supra). Once unloaded,
the animals are stabled in a calm area
to rest after transport. Depending on
species, needs and age, animals may
be housed in groups (for example
lambs or calves) or individually (large
cattle, horses). In slaughterhouses
where several species of butcher
animals may be slaughtered, animals
of different species are housed separately. In addition, any animal showing
hostility towards other animals is
immediately isolated.
In all cases, animals must have enough
room to exhibit normal behaviour,
stand and lie down. The facilities
must be designed in such a way as to
minimize as much as possible the risk
of injury to animals (falls or slips) and
sudden noises that could stress them.
Animals are kept safe and in physical
comfort, notably by being kept clean
and in acceptable thermal conditions
(air quality, humidity, temperature).
Finally, they have constant access to
clean water so they can drink ad libitum.
On their arrival and then at regular
intervals, animal welfare and health
conditions are verified by slaughterhouse employees with the appropriate
skills. In addition, the veterinary service
agents perform ante mortem inspections of the animals within 24 hours
of their arrival at the slaughterhouse
and less than 24 hours before their
slaughter [18]. They check that they
are in good health and clean and that
the slaughterhouse professionals
have verified their identity. Stressed
or tired animals may be identified at
this time. Specific measures may in
this case be taken such as delaying
slaughter for 24 hours and resting
the animal.
Normally, animals must be slaughtered without unnecessary delays.
However, animals that have not been
slaughtered within 12 hours of their
arrival must be fed at regular intervals.
They must also be provided with an
appropriate quantity of bedding to
ensure that they are comfortable
during the wait.
In slaughterhouses, animal welfare
depends greatly on proper daily
management of operations. In compliance with European regulations,
the personnel in contact with animals
must be trained and qualified to
ensure their own and the animals’ protection during unloading, the various
handling activities, and movement to
the bleeding station. Handlers may
hold certificates of competence in
‘animal welfare’ for one or several
operations and for one or several categories of animals. The delivery of this
certificate is conditional on successful
completion of an examination (with
the exception of people who have
several years’ experience and have
been granted an equivalency). It may
only be delivered if the applicant has
not committed any serious infraction
of national or European animal welfare
legislation in the three previous years.
These certificates are delivered by the
appropriate authorities themselves or
by an independent body designated
by the appropriate authorities.
Finally, since 1 January 2013, Council
Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 has
required the presence of an animal
welfare officer (AWO) in every slaughterhouse except for those slaughtering
less than 1,000 livestock units per year.
Appointed by the slaughterhouse
operator, the animal welfare officer
receives additional training over and
above that given to all slaughterhouse
staff. The officer holds a certificate of
competence for all operations and
all categories of animals present in
the slaughterhouse. This certificate is
issued by the appropriate authorities
of the member States and the officer’s
duties are regulated. These duties
are to [15]:
ensure that all personnel have
received adequate training in animal
welfare;
provide guidance to the personnel working on the slaughter line
and check that the guidance is put
into practice;
keep a log of measures taken in
the event of dysfunctions and record
corrective action (this log must be
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
49
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
kept for a minimum of one year and
made available to official services);
advise the operator on new
animal welfare investments (notably
equipment); and
50
act as the point of contact
between official authorities and the
slaughterhouse operator for animal
welfare issues.
In particular, the AWO draws up standardized modes of operation based
on a risk assessment at each stage of
the slaughter line. In compliance with
regulations, each operating mode
must have clear objectives, one or
more designated responsible parties,
a modus operandi, measurable criteria,
monitoring and recording procedures,
and finally corrective measures in the
event of dysfunction. These documents
must be made available and clearly
explained to operators. They contribute to good operational planning
and, consequently, animal welfare at
each step in the slaughter process,
in particular during immobilization,
stunning and bleeding (cf. infra).
4.2. IMMOBILIZATION AND
STUNNING
4.2.1. Transit to Immobilization
and Stunning Stations
The corridor between the animal
holding pens and immobilization
and stunning station must be cleaned
regularly to prevent any risk of slipping
due to animal faeces. Animals are
driven to the stunning station at
a regular pace without jostling or
panic and with a minimum of human
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
intervention and consequently with
maximum safety for the personnel.
In order to limit agitation, animals are
moved in small groups, for example
4 to 6 cattle, 15 to 20 calves, or 8 to
18 pigs. Sheep walk side-by-side,
two at a time at most, given their
gregarious instincts. In all cases, the
path must be lighted uniformly and
non-aggressively so as to avoid stressing the animals. Similarly, noise must
be kept to a minimum. Facilities are
provided for the circulation and safety
of slaughterhouse personnel: human
passageways, corridor crossings,
refuges and protective equipment.
With sheep and pigs, the width of the
corridor to the stunning station must
narrow, channelling animals one by
one at the end [44; 45].
As is the case for animal transport, a
certain number of practices are forbidden in slaughterhouses. Animals
may not be struck or kicked, prods
and other pointy instruments must
not be used to move them along,
they may not be lifted or dragged
by any part of their bodes, pressure
cannot be applied to sensitive areas,
etc. Electric shock may be used on
adult cattle and pigs under certain
conditions: they refuse to move,
there is enough space to move
forward, if the shock last less than
one second and is applied only on
the muscles of hind legs [22]. If the
animal does not react, it may not
be shocked again.
4.2.2. Immobilization and
Stunning Operations
Effective immobilization of animals
prior to stunning is a guarantee of
safety for slaughterhouse personnel
and a way to protect animals by
preventing injury caused by sudden
violent movements. Stunning, for its
part, renders the animals unconscious
and stops them from feeling pain
until their death. The combined use
of these two procedures minimizes
animal suffering at slaughter. To reduce
animal stress, these steps must be
done rapidly and efficiently. Thus,
animals are immobilized only once
the people in charge of stunning and
then bleeding are ready.
Currently, the types of equipment
most frequently used in French
slaughterhouses are:
Immobilization: crush pens
for cattle, restrainers for sheep, and
conveyors for pigs. Animals must be
positioned calmly, without brutality.
The restraints must be suitable and
adjusted to the animal’s size (adjustable walls). Certain practices are strictly
forbidden, such as immobilizing
animals by hanging or suspending
them while conscious, squeezing
or attaching their legs or feet using
a mechanical system, or damaging
their spinal cords [22].
Stunning:
Penetrative captive bolt device
for cattle (Matador): A metal
bolt perforates the skull and
destroys the frontal lobe. This
destruction causes the animal to
lose consciousness and sensibility.
Electronarcosis for sheep: Application of an electric current to
the brain with the help of two
electrodes placed on either side of
the head. This triggers a massive
depolarization of neurons and, as
a result, a loss of consciousness
and sensibility.
Carbon dioxide exposure for
pigs, causing oxygen depletion and therefore a loss of
consciousness and sensibility
in the animal.
Regulations mandate the definition of key stunning parameters
in each operating mode (position
and speed for penetrative captive
bolts, for example, or tension and
intensity of the electric current for
electronarcosis).
In order to offer an environment
most favourable to animal welfare,
manufacturers must provide detailed
instructions regarding the conditions in which immobilization and
stunning equipment should be used
(species, categories, quantities and/
or weight of animals, settings) and
equipment maintenance. Indeed,
intensive use of the equipment may
require the replacement of certain
parts, and equipment used only
occasionally may be less effective
due, for example, to corrosion.
Similarly, some types of equipment
must be precisely calibrated. In the
event of breakdown or malfunction,
replacement equipment must be
available. Slaughterhouse procedures and equipment may evolve,
taking into account new scientific
knowledge and based on opinions
issued by the EFSA (cf. Figure 3 and
Sidebar 20).
Slaughterhouse personnel are
specifically trained to perform the
operations they are assigned (species
and categories of animals, equipment,
practices, etc.). For instance, the person in charge of stunning regularly
verifies the efficiency of this stage by
checking to ensure that there are no
signs of consciousness or sensibility
(cf. Sidebar 19).
Sidebar 18
RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER
Religious slaughter is the killing of an animal, by bleeding,
without prior stunning. This type of slaughter complies
with the dietary requirements of the Jewish and Muslim
religions. The meat from religiously slaughtered animals
is called ‘kosher’ in the Jewish religion and ‘halal’ in the
Muslim religion.
Ministry of the Interior: the Great Mosque of Paris,
the Mosque of Lyon and the Mosque of Evry for halal
slaughter, and the Chief Rabbinate of France for kosher
slaughter.
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 contains exceptions
for religious slaughter under very specific conditions.
Animals must be immobilized before bleeding using
compliant immobilization equipment; cattle, sheep and
goats must be immobilized using a mechanical system
(MAAF website).
Religious slaughter must take place in certified slaughterhouses that have been explicitly granted a derogation
regarding the stunning requirement (suitable equipment
and procedures, all personnel trained).
In France, this regulation was strengthened by the
Decree and Order of 28 December 2011 that obliged
slaughterhouses practicing religious slaughter to set up
systems to record animals killed without stunning. The
goal is to verify that use of the derogation does indeed
correspond to commercial demand for halal or kosher
products [29; 30].
Note: Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 repealed Directive
93/119/EC which already authorized religious slaughter by way
of derogation.
Religious slaughter personnel must hold certificates of
competence.
They must be authorized by religious bodies accredited by the Ministry of Agriculture on proposal of the
According to data from a survey conducted by the
DGAL in 2010, religious slaughter represented, in tons
of carcass weight equivalent, 14% of slaughtering in
France (49% for sheep and goats, 12% for adult cattle,
and 12% for calves).
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
51
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
Sidebar 19
INITIATIVES BY SLAUGHTER PROFESSIONALS
52
In response to European
regulations, guides on best
animal welfare practices at
slaughter have been produced
by inter-branch associations
for cattle, sheep and pigs.
These tools are the result of
collaborative work with technical agricultural institutes.
Validated by professionals,
these guides were submitted
to the Direction Générale de
l’Alimentation (DGAL [French
general directorate for food])
for acknowledgement by the
public authorities before their
application in slaughterhouses.
These guides contain recommendations on managing and
designing facilities. They also
propose standardized operating modalities for each stage,
to be adapted by facilities
based on their organization
and equipment. For example,
the best practices guide on
cattle welfare at the slaughterhouse contains instructions
for operators in charge of evaluating cattle stunning (loss of
consciousness and sensibility)
(cf. following page) [2]. These
guides are updated regularly
to take into account technical, scientific and regulatory
changes.
Stunning
Signs of Consciousness and Sensibility
MON INST 7.3
Stunning
loss of control of the body by the brain
loss of perception of the outside world and
loss of feeling
In general, stunned cattle:
fall down
and
close their eyes
stop
breathing
open their eyes
after about
4 seconds
extend their
forelegs
tremble
pedal their
hind legs
The main signs of continued or recovering consciousness are:
tracking of
surroundings
with eyes
reaction to
noise
reaction to
nose
pinching
presence of
the corneal
reflex
reaction to
threats
not
having
open eyes
and a fixed
gaze
maintaining a
‘standing’ posture
or getting up in a
‘oriented’ way
tongue
resistant to
traction
rhythmic
respiration
A stunned bovine is a living animal that must be treated as such.
A stunned bovine is a living animal that could be dangerous.
Inter-branch bodies are also conducting many research
and development projects in partnership with technical
agricultural and agro-industrial institutes. For instance,
in 2012, 30% of the cattle and meat inter-branch body’s
research and development budget was invested in animal
welfare by financing studies on, notably:
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
lowing or
mooing
en
W h ub t , .
in
do
in aga
n
s tu
the drafting of technical documents for slaughterhouse personnel; and
the identification of most relevant behavioural
and physiological indicators to best evaluate loss of
consciousness and sensibility following stunning or the
death of the animal following bleeding.
Sidebar 20
STATE OF RESEARCH INTO ANIMAL WELFARE AT SLAUGHTER
In the context of the 2008 ‘Animal and Society’ Meetings, the Ministers of Agriculture and Research formulated a request for collective scientific expertise on the
perception of pain by animals, notably at slaughter (cf.
Sidebar 13) [35]. One of the priority areas identified for
research was therefore the definition of specific sensitive
physiological indicators of unconsciousness that would
be operational in slaughterhouses. It also appeared
necessary to clarify the links between the criteria of
unconsciousness and absence of pain. Generally speaking, the roles that emotions and consciousness play in
the expression of pain need to be clarified in animals.
An animal’s state of consciousness mainly consist of its ability to
feel emotions and control voluntary
movement. An animal my thus be
assumed to be unconscious when
it loses its natural standing position
and closes its eyes, stops breathing
and extended its forelegs [2].
An animal’s sensibility corresponds mainly to its ability to feel pain.
Thus, an animal may be assumed to
have lost sensibility when it has no
reflexes or does not react to stimuli
such as sounds, smells, light or physical
contact. In this way, an animal may
be assumed to have lost sensibility
when the corneal reflex is absent or
if it does not react when its nose is
pinched [2].
These verifications must be made on
a representative sample of animals.
The frequency of such checks is
determined by the results of previous
verifications and any factors likely
Diverse research structures are working to meet these
needs and objectives:
RMT (cf. Sidebar 13) is studying animal welfare
evaluation systems. The end goal is to define indicators
of animal welfare at slaughter for each species (cattle,
sheep, goats, pigs, horses, poultry and rabbits).
Technical agricultural and agro-industrial
institutes (IDELE, IFIP, ITAVI, ADIV) in partnership with
inter-branch organizations (cf. Sidebar 19) and France
AgriMer are also conducting research.
to influence the effectiveness of
the stunning process (change in
equipment or person at the stunning
station, or change in the category of
animals, for example).
In compliance with regulations, the
procedures used to verify animal
stunning notably specify the names of
the people in charge of the verification,
the indicators chosen to evaluate the
animals’ state of consciousness and
sensibility, the criteria determining
whether the results of the indicators
are satisfactory, and the number
of animals in each sample. In the
event of non-compliance, appropriate
corrective measures are immediately
taken and then recorded by the AWO
in a log.
4.3. BLEEDING
The animal immobilization and
stunning station is separated from
the bleeding station and carcass
conveying system to lower animals’
stress. As in every step prior to bleeding, ambient noises must be kept to
a minimum.
A given operator may stun the animal,
attach the stunned animal’s body,
lift it onto the transport rail and
bleed it. In this case, the operator
performs these operations one after
the other as rapidly as possible for a
given animal before repeating them
for the next.
Bleeding must be done as soon and
as rapidly as possible so that the
animal dies as quickly as possible
after stunning. Among other things,
bleeding must be as complete as
possible for sanitary and organoleptic
reasons. Accordingly, there is a waiting
period before the dressing operations
are done for ruminants and horses
and before scalding/dehairing for
pigs. This waiting period is set in
professional best practice guides
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
53
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Part
Two
(cf. Sidebar 19). It takes into account
the transport of carcasses from the
bleeding station to the dressing or
scalding station.
4.4. GOVERNMENT INSPECTIONS
54
Within France
Veterinary service agents regularly
verify animal welfare compliance in
slaughterhouses. For this, they have
inspection checklists drawn up by the
Direction Générale de l’Alimentation
(DGAL [French general directorate for
food]). The main inspection points
deal with:
slaughterhouse design (e.g. circulation corridor width, animal
accommodations on arrival and
at slaughter) and the equipment
and materials used at each step
of the process;
the provision of instructions
for workers regarding animal
management and slaughter;
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
t he training of personnel and
their behaviour towards animals
at every stage; and
t he practices used with animals
from unloading at the slaughterhouse until killing (handling,
care, management of animal
suffering, etc.).
In the event of non-compliance
with a regulatory requirement,
corrective measures may be imposed
on the operator immediately. Such
measures may be a slowing or complete stop of production, increased
self-verification, the suspension
or withdrawal of certificates of
competence, etc.
Finally, for veterinary services, animal
welfare inspection missions are complementary to the health inspections
that allow them to verify the conditions
under which slaughterhouses are
certified, and the safety of meat sold
on the market [8].
Within Europe
As on farms and during transport, the
Commission’s expert veterinarians,
members of the FVO, may verify that
the regulatory requirements on the
killing of farm animals are applied
uniformly within the European Union
(cf. Figure 3). When required, the
appropriate authority of the member
state concerned takes any necessary
measures to take into account the
inspection results.
Imports
Meat from farm animals from non-European countries must be accompanied by a health certificate and an
affidavit certifying that the animals
were slaughtered under conditions
at least equivalent to the mandatory
requirements within the European
Union. These documents are both
delivered by the appropriate authorities of the country in question [22].
CONCLUSION
As part of a new Collection published by CIV, this
Dossier offers technical, scientific and regulatory
information to help readers form or deepen their
thinking on the welfare of farm animals.
A few of the stages that marked animal husbandry
and human-animal relations over the course of
history were reviewed, showing the influence of
changes in technical and socioeconomic conditions
on the construction of our ideas. These ideas have,
among other things, been marked by various philosophical and cultural movements. Starting in the
19th century, legislation has been a way to codify and
institutionalize these relationships by giving them
a legal expression. The status of animals is thus an
expression by society of its concept of human-animal
relations. As a result of the changes in this status and
recognition that animals are sentient beings, animal
welfare rules were elaborated in Europe starting in
the second half of the 20th century.
Following this review, the current regulatory
framework aiming to reconcile the welfare of
farm animals and the needs of farms is presented.
From farm to slaughterhouse, the main roles and
missions of major animal welfare stakeholders in
France are covered: those of professionals in these
industries, and those of veterinarians, government
representatives, animal welfare associations, etc. Each
of them helps implement the laws and regulations
as well as contributes to the on-going improvement
of farm animal welfare conditions. Finally, many
lines of research currently being pursued should
lead to progress in this area.
Given the major shifts currently underway in
regards to technology (precision livestock farming),
science (emergence of the neurosciences) and
society (progressive erasure of the lines between
humans and animals, global economy paradigm
as a source of decision-making), human-animal
relations will undoubtedly continue to evolve
even further and, as a result, so will the status
of farm animals and the regulatory framework
surrounding them.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
55
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
APPENDICES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
56
1. Académie vétérinaire de France, 2007. Rapport sur
l’utilisation du néologisme « bientraitance » à propos de la
protection des animaux.
13. Devun J. et al, 2012. In Coll. Résultats, Alimentation
des bovins : rations moyennes et niveaux d’autonomie
alimentaire. Institut de l’Élevage.
2. Adiv, Idele, 2013. Guide de bonnes pratiques. Maîtrise
de la protection animale des bovins à l’abattoir.
14. Digard J.P., 1990. L’Homme et les animaux domestiques.
Anthropologie d’une passion. 2009 reprint. Fayard, Paris.
3. Antoine S., 2005. Rapport sur le régime juridique de
l’animal.
15. European Commission, 2012. The Animal Welfare
Officer in the European Union
4. Burgat F., 1995. L’animal dans les pratiques de consommation. PUF, Paris.
16. European Union, 1998. Council Directive 98/58/EC
of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept
for farming purposes. Official Journal of 08/08/98.
5. Centre d’études et de prospective, 2013. Note
d’analyse n° 58. Statut et droits de l’animal d’élevage en
France : évolution, enjeux et perspectives.
6. Changeux J.P., 1983. L’homme neuronal. Fayard, Paris.
7. CIV, 2004. Transport et bien-être des ruminants.
8. CIV, 2012. Micro-organismes et parasites des viandes : les
connaître pour les maîtriser, de l’éleveur au consommateur.
9. CNE, Idele, 2014. Chiffres clés 2014. Productions
caprines. Lait et viande.
10. Conseil général de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture
et des espaces ruraux (CGAAER), 2011. Actes du
Colloque ‘Évolution des relations entre l’Homme et
l’animal’ [evolution in human-animal relations]. 27/11/2011,
OIE, Paris.
11. De Fontenay E. Consulted in June 2015:
http://www.franceinter.fr/article-l-animal-machine
12. Descartes R., 1637. Discours de la méthode – Pour
bien construire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les
sciences. Édition électronique La Gaya Scienza – La Gaya
Scienza – Philosophie digital issue; June 2012 (PDF version).
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
17. European Union, 2003. European Convention for
the Protection of Animals during International Transport.
Official Journal of 13/07/04.
18. European Union, 2004. Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004
laying down specific rules for the organisation of official
controls on products of animal origin intended for human
consumption. Official Journal of 30/04/04.
19. European Union, 2005. Council Regulation (EC) No.
1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and
related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC
and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 1255/97. Official
Journal of 05/01/05.
20. European Union, 2008. Council Directive 2008/119/
EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards
for the protection of calves. Official Journal of 15/01/09.
21. European Union, 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/
EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of
pigs. Official Journal of 15/02/09.
22. European Union, 2009. Council Regulation (EC) No.
1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing.
Official Journal of 18/11/09.
23. FNSEA, 2014. Bien-être des animaux. Recueil des
actions des partenaires agricoles. 2014 Edition.
animaux. Official Journal of the Republic of France of
29/12/11.
24. France Agrimer, 2014. Les filières de l’élevage français.
Les cahiers de France Agrimer.
31. French Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood, and
Forestry, 2014. Fiches conditionnalité 2014 – Domaine
« Protection animale ».
25. France Agrimer, 2015. La production de viande
chevaline en France. Les cahiers de France Agrimer.
26. French Ministry of Agriculture, 1982. Arrêté du 25
octobre 1982 relatif à l’élevage, à la garde et à la détention
des animaux. Official Journal of the Republic of France
of 10/11/82.
27. French Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries,
Rural Affairs and Spatial Planning, 2011. Arrêté du
5 octobre 2011 fixant la liste des actes de médecine ou
de chirurgie des animaux que peuvent réaliser certaines
personnes n’ayant pas la qualité de vétérinaire. Official
Journal of the Republic of France of 25/02/14.
28. French Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries,
Rural Affairs and Spatial Planning, 2011. Décret n°
2011-1244 relatif aux conditions dans lesquelles certaines
personnes peuvent réaliser des actes de médecine et de
chirurgie vétérinaires. Official Journal of the Republic of
France of 07/10/11.
29. French Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries,
Rural Affairs and Spatial Planning, 2011. Arrêté du
28 décembre 2011 relatif aux conditions d’autorisation
des établissements d’abattage à déroger à l’obligation
d’étourdissement des animaux. Official Journal of the
Republic of France of 29/12/11.
30. French Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries,
Rural Affairs and Spatial Planning, 2011. Décret n° 20112006 fixant les conditions d’autorisation des établissements
d’abattage à déroger à l’obligation d’étourdissement des
32. Harrison R., 1964. Animal machines. Reprint by
CABI, Oxfordshire, 2013.
33. Horard-Herbin M.P., 2014. Herding Practices and
Livestock Products in France for 6000 years : Contribution
of Archeozoology. In : The 65th Annual meeting of
the European Federation of Animal Science; Nantes,
26-30 August, 2014.
34. IEHCA, 2012. Symposium ‘La viande : fabrique et
représentation’ [making meat: practices and representations] 29.11-01/12/2012, CCI de Tours. Proceedings
forthcoming.
35. Inra, 2009. Douleurs animales. Les identifier, les
comprendre, les limiter chez les animaux d’élevage. Summary
of the expert report produced by INRA at the request of the
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing and the Ministry
of Higher Education and Research.
36. Interbev, 2014. L’essentiel de la filière viande bovine
française 2014.
37. Interbev, 2014. L’essentiel de la filière viande équine
française 2014.
38. Interbev, 2014. L’essentiel de la filière viande ovine
française 2014.
39. JBG Consultants et al, 2014. Analyse de la représentativité de l’activité et de la santé financière des entreprises
de négoce de bestiaux.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
57
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
APPENDICES
58
40. Jousseins C. et al, 2014. In Coll. Résultats, Alimentation des ovins : rations moyennes et niveaux d’autonomie
alimentaire. Institut de l’Élevage.
45. OABA. Guide de recommandations relatives à la
protection animale dans les abattoirs de porcs.
41. Larue R., 2015. Le végétarisme et ses ennemis. Vingtcinq siècles de débats. PUF, Paris.
46. PMAF and Animals’ angel, 2011. Transport d’animaux
vivants. Mémento de la réglementation. Un guide pour le
contrôle sur route.
42. Malebranche N., 1674-75. De la recherche de la
vérité. Flammarion, Paris.
47. Reinach S., 1996. Cultes, mythes et religions. Coll.
Bouquins Laffont Ed.
43. Mounaix B. et al, 2013. L’évaluation et la gestion
du bien-être animal : diversité des approches et des
finalités. Communication 3R 2013. http://idele.fr/presse/
publication/idelesolr/recommends/levaluation-et-lagestion-du-bien-etre-animal-diversite-des-approcheset-des-finalites.html
48. Vialles N., 1988. La viande ou la bête. In: Des hommes
et des bêtes, p 86-96.
44. OABA. Guide de recommandations relatives à la
protection animale des ruminants à l’abattoir. http://
www.oaba.fr/pdf/reglementations/Guide%20Audrey.pdf
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
49. WAFL, 2014. Symposium: 6th International
Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at
Farm and Group Level. from 3 to 5 September 2014,
Clermont-Ferrand.
50. Wolff F., 2010. Notre humanité – D’Aristote aux
neurosciences. Fayard, Paris.
GLOSSARY
Attendant: A person directly in charge of the welfare
of animals who accompanies them during a journey.
Conveyor: Equipment used to move pigs to the stunning
box at the slaughterhouse.
The coefficients are calculated based on animal feed.
The all-feed LU compares animals based on total feed
consumption, including grass, fodder and concentrates.
Crush Pen: A construction designed to limit the lateral
and vertical movement of an animal’s head, commonly
used to immobilize cattle at the slaughterhouse.
Milk Substitute: Feed for suckling calves, generally sold
in powder form, that replaces milk from mother cows on
calf breeding operations. It is composed of milk powder
to which animal or vegetable fats, starch, vitamins and
minerals are added.
Epistemology: The branch of philosophy that critically
examines the postulates, conclusions and methods
of a given science, viewed from the standpoint of its
evolution, in order to determine its logical origins, value
and scientific and philosophical scope.
Prolapse: A genital or genitourinary prolapse is characterized by the downward slippage of one or more pelvic
organs (located in the pelvic girdle). The slipped organs
push on and deform the vaginal walls or even bulge out
beyond the vulva.
Grouping Center: Private site akin to livestock operation
and managed by a dealer or cooperative where animals
of bovine, ovine, caprine or porcine species or domestic
Equidae from different farms are grouped together to
form consignments, or batches, of animals.
Restrainer: Equipment used to immobilize animals at
the slaughterhouse before they are stunned; they are
frequently used with cattle.
Livestock Fair: Public event where livestock (cattle,
goats, sheep, pigs or horses) from different farms are
gathered to be sold. Livestock fairs do not have permanent
buildings or staff.
Livestock Market: Public or private place where livestock
(cattle, goats, sheep, pigs or horses) from different
farms are gathered to be sold. Livestock markets have
permanent buildings and staff.
Livestock Unit (LU): Unit used to compare and aggregate
populations of animals of different species or categories.
Shackle: Prevent an animal from moving, hinder its
movement.
Tail Biting: An abnormal behavior among piglets wherein
they bite the tails of other piglets.
Ton of Carcass Weight Equivalent (Tcwe): Unit of
measurement used to aggregate data on live animals
and meat in all its forms by weight: carcasses, cuts (on
bone or de-boned), etc. A coefficient specific to each
type of product is applied to the gross weight: 1 for a
whole carcass by definition, 0.5 for a live large bovine,
and 1.3 for de-boned cuts, for example.
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
59
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
APPENDICES
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
60
ANSES: Agence Nationale de
Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation,
de l’Environnement et du Travail
[national agency for food,
environmental and labour safety,
France]
AWO: Animal Welfare Officer
CAP: Common Agricultural Policy
CAPTAV: Certificat d’aptitude
professionnelle au transport des
animaux vivants [professional
aptitude certificate for the
transport of live animals, France]
CIWF: Compassion In World
Farming
DGAL: Direction Générale de
l’Alimentation [general directorate
for food, France]
DGCCRF: Direction Générale
de la Concurrence, de la
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Consommation et de la Répression
des Fraudes [general directorate
for competition, consumption and
fraud prevention, France]
DGPAAT: Direction Générale
des Politiques Agricole,
Agroalimentaire et des Territoires
[general directorate for agricultural,
agrifood and territorial policy,
France]
EFSA: European Food Safety
Authority
FAWC: Farm Animal Welfare
Council
FVO: Food and Veterinary Office of
the European Commission
IFIP: Institut du Porc [pig institute,
France]
INRA: Institut National de la
Recherche Agronomique [national
institute of agronomic research,
France]
OIE: World Organisation for
Animal Health, formerly the Office
International des Epizooties
RMT: Réseau Mixte Technologique
[combined technology network,
France]
RSPCA: Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
HPG: Health Protection Group
SPA: Société de Protection des
Animaux [animal protection
society, France]
IDELE: Institut de l’Élevage
[livestock institute, France]
Tcwe: ton carcass weight
equivalent
USEFUL LINKS
Anses: Agence nationale de
sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation,
de l’environnement et du travail
www.anses.fr/
Directorate-General for Health
and Consumers:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/
health_food-safety/index_fr.htm
CIV: Centre d’Information des
Viandes
www.civ-viande.org
EFSA : European Food Safety
Authority
www.efsa.europa.eu/fr
European Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/index_fr.htm
FAM : FranceAgriMer
http://www.franceagrimer.fr/
French Ministry of Agriculture 
http://agriculture.gouv.fr/
Interbev : Association
interprofessionnelle
du bétail et de la viande
http://www.interbev.fr/
OIE : World Organisation for
Animal Health
www.oie.int/fr
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
61
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
APPENDICES
NOTES
62
ANIMAL WELFARE FROM FARM
TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
Hélène CHARDON
Hubert BRUGERE
Pierre-Michel ROSNER
Animal Société Aliment Association
The Centre d’Information des Viandes is a non-profit association under
French law of 1901. Its mission is to contribute, on a scientific basis, to
knowledge and the debates on societal issues related to livestock and
meat value chains (beef, veal, lamb, mutton, goat, pork, horsemeat and
offal products). It pays particular attention to issues of health safety, animal
health and well-being, human nutrition and food, and environmental
and societal impacts.
On these subjects, CIV produces expert information based on monitoring
and analyzing technical, scientific and social trends, and through
collaboration with public, private and civil society stakeholders that have
been recognized for the rigor of their approaches. This information is
destined for professional or well-informed audiences interested in or
concerned by the societal impacts of meat production and consumption.
In this way, CIV publishes scientific documents, keeps an up-to-date
website serving as a documentary resource center, runs discussions,
and takes part in conferences, congresses and scientific events.
Created in 1987 at the joint initiative of INTERBEV (the French national
inter-branch association for cattle and meat) and a public establishment,
FranceAgriMer, CIV conducts its activities under the patronage of a
Scientific Steering Board.
For more information visit www.civ-viande.org