UK: Animal Welfare – UK Politics Stance.


Above – The Animals In War Memorial – London.

SAV Comment

The following is taken from the UK Politics site.  As such, there are no petitions or actions required – it is for a read only.  We do not necessarily agree with everything said, but it is quite a good source of past info – dates of welfare campaign groups creation, why they were formed etc.  SAV.



The British Angle – What is Animal Welfare?

Animal welfare relates to the general health and well-being of animals and covers a wide range of issues, from the care of family pets to concerns about exploitation and abuse.

Animal rights are hotly debated. Proponents stress the helplessness and vulnerability of animals and campaign for their protection, particularly in areas such as medical research and factory farming. Others take a more pragmatic approach, insisting that the ever-increasing demand for better medicines and more food should take priority over the rights of animals.

However, few in Britain today would argue against the need to protect animals from suffering and there are many organisations which continue to campaign vigorously for animal rights.


Britain could claim to be something of a world leader in animal welfare, having been responsible for the first ever animal welfare legislation and the first animal welfare charity.

In 1822 the ‘Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle’ was steered through the House of Commons by Irish MP Richard Martin – known as ‘Humanity Dick’ because of his campaigning for both animal and human rights.

The act stated that if any person or persons “shall wantonly and cruelly beat, abuse, or ill-treat any horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep, or other cattle” they would be fined a sum “not exceeding five pounds, not less than ten shillings”; failure to pay the fine would result in a prison sentence of up to three months.

Not everyone appeared to take the new law seriously, however, and there were concerns that the legislation was not being properly implemented. Consequently, in order to provide greater protection for animals, Richard Martin, together with the Reverend Arthur Broome and fellow MP and slave trade abolitionist William Wilberforce, founded the world’s first animal welfare charity, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), in a London coffee shop in 1824.

The charity subsequently attracted the patronage of Queen Victoria and went on to become the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), well-known today as one of the world’s leading animal welfare organisations.

Other animal charities began to be established towards the end of the 19th century and some, like the RSPCA, are still going strong today.

The Mayhew Animal Home, for example, founded in 1886 to protect “the lost and starving dogs and cats of London“, is still rescuing and providing shelter for thousands of animals every year; and the National Canine Defence League (NCDL) set up in 1891 to protect dogs from torture and mistreatment of any kind, today operates as the Dogs Trust and has become the UK’s largest dog welfare charity.

Animal experimentation also became a major issue around that time. Although live animals had been used in research for many years, it was not until the late 19th century that anti-vivisection societies began to organise concerted opposition to the practice.

Five of the societies merged in 1898 to form the British Union, which later became the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Support for the movement grew rapidly and today the BUAV and many other national and international groups are continuing to campaign for an end to all animal experimentation.

The work of the various charities was supported by the introduction of further legislation which was gradually expanded to cover domestic and other animals.

The 1911 Protection of Animals Act was introduced to “consolidate, amend, and extend certain enactments relating to Animals and to Knackers”.

The Act made it an offence of cruelty to “cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, infuriate, or terrify any animal” or permit an animal to be so used; to “convey or carry, or permit to be conveyed or carried, any animal in such manner or position as to cause that animal any unnecessary suffering”; to “cause or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal”; to “administer, or cause administration of, any poisonous or injurious drug or substance to any animal; and to “cause or permit any animal to any operation which is performed without due care and humanity”.

Any person found guilty of such an offence of cruelty would be liable to a fine “not exceeding twenty-five pounds”; and/or be imprisoned, “with or without hard labour,” for a term “not exceeding six months”.

Further Acts were passed throughout the 20th century. These included the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925; the Pet Animals Act 1951 (amended 1983); the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963; the Riding Establishments Act 1964 and 1970; and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, which amended and extended the provisions of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991.

In 2006 the most significant piece of animal welfare legislation was passed. The Animal Welfare Act (in force April 2007) largely repealed and replaced the 1911 Protection of Animals Act, strengthened and updated the provisions of that Act, and consolidated and updated several other pieces of animal welfare legislation.

In addition, the Act introduced a new offence of failing to ensure the welfare of an animal. Any person responsible for an animal must ensure that five specific needs of the animal are met:

(a) its need for a suitable environment,
(b) its need for a suitable diet,
(c) its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,
(d) any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
(e) its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

The Act also made it an offence to dock the whole or any part of a dog’s tail, unless that dog is a certified working dog of not more than five days old.

Anyone found guilty of offences under the Act could be banned from owning animals, fined up to £20,000 and/or given a prison sentence.

The Animal Welfare Act also provides for secondary legislation and codes of practice to be introduced to further promote the welfare of animals. The Government has already introduced codes of practice for the welfare of dogs, cats, horses and primates and is continuing to review other areas where similar updates could be made.

European animal welfare legislation is based on the recognition that all animals, from pets to farm animals, are sentient beings – i.e. they have powers of perception and feeling. A legally binding protocol attached to the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam recognised animals as “sentient beings” and this recognition was strengthened in the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 which included animal sentience as an Article in the main body of the Treaty.

The 1998 EU Council Directive 98/58 on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes set out minimum common standards of protection for animals of all species, including fish, reptiles, or amphibians, kept for the production of food, wool, skin, fur, or for other farming purposes.

The Directive was transposed into UK law via the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (amended 2007). Although the Community legislation lays down only minimum standards, the EC has said that national governments “may adopt more stringent rules provided they are compatible with the provisions of the Treaty.” Specific rules continue to apply to laying hens, calves, pigs and broilers.

In 2006 the European Commission presented its first Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals which mapped out the Commission’s planned animal welfare initiatives for 2006-2010. 

The EU subsequently published a new Animal Welfare strategy for 2012-2015, which lays the foundation for improving welfare standards during that period and aims to ensure the same high standards are applied and enforced in all EU countries.

According to the EU, the new strategy has “important implications” in that it seeks to improve how Europe’s 2 billion chickens, egg-laying hens and turkeys, and 300 million cows, pigs, goats and sheep, are housed, fed, transported and slaughtered. In addition, it covers animals used for experimentation (about 12 million per year) and animals living in zoos.

However, several animal welfare organisations and individuals remain concerned that animals in other parts of the world do not have the same kind of legislative protection and are supporting a campaign, organised by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), to secure a commitment at the United Nations for a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW).

The UDAW would be an international agreement that animals are sentient beings, that animal welfare needs must be respected and that animal cruelty must end. The campaign is reported to have over two million supporters worldwide and the WSPA believes that securing such a commitment at the UN would create the required pressure for governments to put in place firm laws and enforcement for animal welfare.


Animal welfare and animal rights seem to attract more controversy than almost any other issues, one of the most obvious examples being the antithetical views of vegans and livestock farmers.

Vegans believe that animals are intelligent creatures capable of feeling pain and are “not ours to eat”. They oppose the use of all animal products and claim that vegan or vegetarian diets are more healthy and nutritious. They also believe that rearing animals for food is bad for the environment and inefficient and suggest that world food shortages could be solved by farming crops rather than animals.

However, vegans and vegetarians are still in a minority in the UK and the demand for meat and dairy products shows little sign of diminishing. Nevertheless there is a growing interest in the way food is produced and the treatment of animals in that process.

This has been largely a response to disturbing reports about the cruel treatment of animals in ‘factory farming’ – one of the most controversial and emotive issues – where the maximum number of animals are crammed into the minimum amount of space, unable to move freely, denied any kind of normal life and reduced to nothing more than products on a factory production line.

Horrific reports of hens trapped in tiny wire cages piled one on top of another forced unnaturally to lay the maximum amount of eggs; thousands of chickens crammed into one small shed, fattened up quickly to obtain the maximum amount of chicken meat; breeding pigs kept in small metal crates etc., have all resulted in more consumers calling for ethically-sourced products, a cause taken up by celebrity chefs such as Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver.

Relentless campaigning by animal welfare organisations has had some success. The entire European Union is phasing out battery cages by 2012 and several Directives have been issued for adoption by member states in relation to improving the welfare of calves, chickens and pigs, with provision for further measures to be introduced in the future.

Proposals for large-scale dairy farms are also opposed. Following a year of intense campaigning by groups and individuals, a plan for a 3,770 cow ‘mega dairy’ in Nocton, Lincolnshire was finally withdrawn in February 2011 after objections were raised by the Environment Agency.

Farmers, however, are adamant that animal welfare is a priority for them. The National Farmers Union has said that factory farming “is not normal” in the UK and suggests that the Red Tractor assurance scheme, launched in 2000 to raise standards right across the food chain, is “a proven indicator of good animal welfare compliance.”

The Red Tractor kitemark now appears on billions of packs of meat, poultry and dairy products and is intended to reassure consumers that these products have been produced to the highest standards of animal welfare and environmental protection.

Another highly emotive and controversial issue is animal experimentation, whether that involves testing cosmetics and household products on animals, or using animals in medical research. Opponents believe that it is ethically unacceptable for animals to suffer physical or psychological pain during these tests.

They also argue that because of the differences between humans and other animal species, test results can be misleading. The Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research claims that “in some instances, reliance on inaccurate animal ‘models’ of human disease have undoubtedly delayed medical progress.”

Proponents, however, insist that animal research has played, and is continuing to play, a vital role in treating and preventing many illnesses and diseases once thought incurable. Nevertheless, research is continuing into finding new ways to further promote the 3Rs scheme – to “reduce, refine and replace” the use of animals in research.


The fur trade is another cause of concern for animal welfare supporters. Although fur farming is banned in the UK, fur products can still be sold here. However, fur coats are no longer the must-have fashion item they once were following an intensive anti-fur campaign by animal welfare groups. Many high-profile celebrities and fashion designers have rejected fur and several stores now refuse to stock fur products.

Nevertheless the fur trade appears to be thriving, with several international designers still featuring fur in their collections. The British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) believes that “wild or farmed, fur is a natural, renewable and sustainable resource that is kind to the environment and respectful of animals’ welfare.” The BFTA is a member of the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) which claims to “promote strict codes of practice that meet or exceed established and accepted animal welfare standards for wild and farmed fur.” Both the BFTA and IFTF “strongly condemn cruelty to animals and do not trade in endangered species.”

But Animal Defenders International claims that animals raised on fur farms or trapped in the wild are subject to “very cruel methods”. According to ADI, “what is of paramount concern to the fur farmers is not the welfare of the animals, but the preservation of their fur and through these methods, although incredibly painful for the animals, the fur is kept intact.”

And despite the BFTA and IFTF insisting that they “strongly condemn trade in endangered species”, the ADI remains concerned that threatened species are being illegally poached and traded for their skins, contributing to the extinction of species such as tigers, leopards and ocelots.

These concerns are shared by the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the charity believes that the internet has created new challenges in the fight against trade in endangered species. The IFWA is calling for “robust domestic legislation” and an international action plan to tackle illegal wildlife trade on the internet.

Several organisations are also campaigning for a complete ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, arguing that the conditions in which the animals are kept, the training techniques to which they are subjected, and the tricks they are forced to perform, are demeaning, cruel and inappropriate for animals of this kind.

Following a public consultation exercise in 2010 with animal welfare organisations and the circus industry, the Government decided against a ban, and instead published a “tough new licensing scheme” in May 2011, which Defra said would ensure that any circuses in England wishing to show wild animals “will need to demonstrate that they meet high animal welfare standards” before they are granted a licence to keep those animals.

However, this failed to satisfy campaigners and in June 2011 a backbench business debate tabled by a Conservative MP, which had cross-party support, resulted in a unanimous vote in favour of a ban. Consequently MPs and campaigners are now pressing the Government to reconsider its decision in light of the vote and introduce a ban some time next year.

Animal welfare organisations are equally concerned about domestic wild animals which are often regarded as pests or predators by farmers and land owners. Badger culling to control the spread of bovine tuberculosis is one of the main controversies. Bovine TB is a major problem for farmers, but a recent long-term review has concluded that culling is ineffective and suggests vaccination is a better long-term solution. This view is supported by the Badger Trust which believes that the way forward is an injectable and/or an oral vaccine for badgers and also ideally a vaccine for cattle.

Deer stalking, fox snaring and the trapping of wild birds and mammals are all equally controversial and fiercely opposed by animal welfare organisations. But the British Association for Shooting and Conservation argues that pest and predator control is a necessary and integral part of conservation and wildlife management. However, the BASC also stresses that “it is the responsibility of all those involved in pest and predator control to ensure their methods are legal, humane and carried out with sensitivity and respect for other countryside users.”

Domestic pets, in particular dogs, are often the subject of controversy, the most recent being ‘handbag dogs’ and ‘status dogs’.

The current fashion started by ‘celebrities’ for carrying bichon frise, chihuahuas, shih tzus and other tiny dogs in handbags has been strongly criticised by animal charities who warn that the dogs’ ability to behave normally is being restricted, which can in turn lead to behavioural problems. According to The Blue Cross, the number of miniature dogs given up or abandoned has more than tripled in the past five years.

So-called ‘status dogs’ such as Rottweillers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are bought to give their owners a tougher image; they are also used for dog fighting and to intimidate other people. In addition to concerns about human safety, the RSPCA reports that these ‘status dogs’ often suffer violence at the hands of their owners and are forced to take part in fights which result in the dogs sustaining serious injuries.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) and Lord Redesdale criticised the Government for what they saw as its part in the ongoing problem of ‘status dogs’ by making them appeal to those wishing to intimidate others and rebel against the existing law.

Lord Redesdale said: “Banning the Pit Bull Terrier in 1991 was a huge mistake. Creating a picture to the general public that certain breeds of dog are dangerous and others not is hugely irresponsible.” 

Reproduced from


So there it is in short – and why the British view on animal welfare goes back a long time.

We fight on, trying to improve generally good legislation when we can.

One thing is for sure, when the UK formally leaves the EU, animal welfare legislation will improve even more.

The UK will take back control of the UK; and as a result, UK animal welfare groups will campaign even harder for even better welfare legislation.

You  could say that for the UK, the animal welfare future is looking good. SAV.



Morocco / England: A Progressive Moment For All Animals In Africa ?


Report of new work – 21/12/17.

Today we have been working with our good friend Amal in Morocco and also with our good friends at CIWF in London here in England.


Amal is associated with S/G Rapad Maroc (Morocco) and is the Anaw & Paawa Representative for the North Africa Region.

There are lots of important things going on in Morocco at the moment regarding food production and animal welfare.

Amal goes to an important meeting in Rabat on the 27th of December, in order to work with Moroccan national partners and ONSSA (National Office for Sanitary Safety of Food Products), on the elaboration of a steering committee. It is certain that this is the first time such discussion will take place in Morocco.

Amal says:

‘According to our approach and in view of the changes taking place within the AU, with the return of Morocco, our country becomes a reference of economic development with regard to the Francophone African countries. Outside the model Plan Maroc Vert (Plan Green Morocco), is already exported in some African countries, with the so-called 3A strategy (Africa Adaptation Agriculture). If we improve this strategy and implement it in Morocco, other African countries will certainly follow.

We must lobby, those who will be future lobbyists, the state’.

So, with this in mind we immediately contacted CIWF (London) to ask if they could become involved with us and give support to Amal.  As CIWF is so very experienced with all issues relating to farm animal welfare and food production this is an ideal chance to make a difference from the start.

Dr Nick (Head of Policy)  from CIWF has immediately offered help and support to Amal – especially as he was at the UNEP conference in Nairobi only last month.

Nick says to Amal:

‘We entirely understand that many developing countries face similar issues of encouraging agricultural development that does not simply duplicate the intensive farming model and more and more meat consumption which some developed countries have used and instead looks at sustainable models based on moderate meat consumption and a varied diet. It’s encouraging to see the interest in a well-considered development model, taking into account both human and animal welfare and preserving the natural resources of the Mahgreb’..

We then undertook a translation from French to English for Amal regarding better public policy on the safety in foodstuffs.  Good animal welfare is obviously a major factor in this.


The report can be read here:




(Scoping Note V1)



Human nutrition is of particular importance because it is a source of life for all human beings, regardless of their gender or age, in all regions of the world. To play its full role, it must be part of the sustainability of natural resources, especially animal and plant biodiversity, terrestrial and marine; it must also be quantitative and of a qualitative nature.

To this end, the international community, under the supervision of the specialized organs of the United Nations, has taken many steps in the form of multilateral agreements and conventions or strategy proposals. It is not without interest to emphasize that the cultural aspect of food has not escaped the international community since UNESCO is fully involved.

Morocco, as part of this global approach, has also made many provisions, which can be highlighted in particular the Framework Law and the National Strategy for Sustainable Development as well as the plan for agricultural development Plan Green Morocco, including several sectors including the of breeding. The same goes for the industrial acceleration plan and the Public Health Plan.


It should be noted that in the context of its activities, Morocco attaches great importance to cooperation with the African continent, with which it proposes to share its agricultural experience, particularly through the 3A program (Adaptation Agriculture Africa).

It is in this global context that Moroccan NGOs, especially the Rapad Morocco and the Ribat Al Fath Association for Sustainable Development, aware of their role prescribed in the Participatory Democracy clause enshrined in the 2011 constitution, have taken the initiative to launch a national debate aimed at contributing to the development of an advocacy platform for a better public policy on safe and healthy food for all.



Four observations, observable both in the world and in Morocco, are at the origin of the genesis of the project:

i / The first relates to the agricultural production modes marked by the degradation and the exhaustion of all the natural resources: Biodiversity, land, water etc …

ii / The second is the threat to food security, which has become increasingly important because of population growth and consumption patterns marked by both quality requirements and waste;

iii / The third is the worsening of the threat to food security, especially in poor countries, for a number of reasons, including only climate change,

iv / The fourth and final finding is the complexity the issue of food security involving many stakeholders and several variables.


These findings dictated the basic principles and pillars on which the objectives of the proposed project will be based:

Objective 1: As the problem is rather complex, the project will follow a progressive approach. If the development of a global platform, encompassing plants and all terrestrial and marine animal species, remains the long-term goal, the first step of this project will focus on domestic animals only. breeding in Morocco (cattle, sheep, goats, camels, chickens). On the other hand, the project will cover the entire sector, starting from production and arriving at consumption.

Objective 2: At the level of production, the project will focus on the living conditions of animals ensuring their well-being as defined at the international and national levels (food, shelter, care, etc ..) and allowing them to ensure the optimization of the economic profitability of the company. Particular attention will be given to the impact of climate change on the livestock sector so that it can adapt as well as possible and contribute the least amount of greenhouse gas emissions. 

-3rd Objective: At the processing level, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that animals suffer as little as possible during transport and slaughter. Special attention is required to ensure that all animals pass through approved slaughterhouses, that regulatory hygiene conditions are ensured and that slaughterhouses operate in a circular economy mode.

Objective 4: We know that the consumption of meat is a pillar of the food habits of Moroccan food consumption and even a sign of wealth. It seems that some people consume too much and others not enough. It is high time that specialists (Doctors, nutritionists, sociologists, etc.) look into this issue to come out with a diagnosis, a strategy and a scientifically established action plan. It should be stressed that the fight against waste must, at this level, be of great importance.


-The institutions: While the action of the Ministerial Department for Agriculture remains predominant, it is clear that the actors remain marginalized while they can bring a great added value to the sector. In particular, the territorial communities, the NGOs, the promoters of the SMEs, etc … The improvement of the governance of the sector and its performance imperatively require the establishment of mechanisms of deconcentration, decentralization and concerted and inclusive participation. of all the actors concerned. -The economic and financial instruments: The farmers certainly benefit from subsidies granted by the Ministry of Agriculture; but much remains to be done so that small farmers can benefit, that the constraints they meet in terms of financing are lifted and that they derive the maximum benefit from the conditions of sale of their products.

-Technology: It is obvious that technology is the basis of the success of any project in order to achieve the economic objectives set. The margin of progress is still quite important in Morocco in the field of breeding and production of all products of animal origin, the proposed project sets as a priority to focus on the aspects of scientific research, training and popularization of all successful techniques and all successful experiences. Demonstrative pilot projects can be set up.

Legislation and regulation: As mentioned above, nutrition is of great importance in terms of quality. An effort has been made in the area of ​​legislation and regulation to monitor product quality at both the production and consumption levels. This legislative and regulatory arsenal needs to be completed or updated, but above all it needs to be put in place in good conditions. The project will work in this direction.


-Technology: It is obvious that technology is the basis of the success of any project in order to achieve the economic objectives set. The margin of progress is still quite important in Morocco in the field of breeding and production of all products of animal origin, the proposed project sets as a priority to focus on the aspects of scientific research, training and popularization of all successful techniques and all successful experiences. Demonstrative pilot projects can be set up.

Legislation and regulation: As mentioned above, nutrition is of great importance in terms of quality. An effort has been made in the area of ​​legislation and regulation to monitor product quality at both the production and consumption levels. This legislative and regulatory arsenal needs to be completed or updated, but above all it needs to be put in place in good conditions. The project will work in this direction.



A hard core of project leaders already exists, it consists mainly of Rapad Morocco and Ribat AlFath. -Several other actors, at the national and international levels, have already shown their support. -A meeting will soon be organized to refine the project and complete it by the staff to ensure its implementation, by the division of tasks between its members and by the establishment of a timeline and a monitoring mechanism / Evaluation. -Once the project is finalized, it will be submitted for enrichment and validation during an international symposium in which the African partners will participate.                A.Bennis

The 23/11/2017


Being animal welfare organisations; both us and CIWF are committed to improving the welfare of all animals at all times – their life on the farm; a reduction to a minimum the time they undergo live transport; and also ensuring that if and when they are slaughtered; this is done in the most stress free and best conditions for the animal that is possible.  We are very aware that ritual type slaughter is undertaken in many parts of Africa at present; but we hope that by setting new and up to date standards within Morocco; this approach and policy will then spread to other nations on the African continent.

Our friends, headed by Lesley at ‘Eyes on Animals’ (EoA) –   in the Netherlands have very recently undertaken investigations into animal slaughter in Ghana, Africa.  EoA have for the first time supplied captive bolt pistols to slaughterhouses in Ghana to ensure that animals are fully stunned prior to the slaughter process rather than having their throats cut whilst still fully conscious.

Here is a link to the EoA Press Release on this particular issue:

The situation will be very new for Morocco, so care needs to be taken at meetings in Morocco not to be too pushy to block any negotiations. Diplomacy is paramount.

At the moment it is impossible to discuss veganism and vegetarianism, and the authorities there do not really have any regard for the welfare of animals, let alone meat free diets.  A step by step; gradual movement, is the correct way to approach this subject.  We have to keep the thought in our heads that generally in Morocco, the population look at the prices of meat most importantly rather than the welfare of the animals that it (the meat) comes from.

Currently, this view is stronger than our attitudes; but over time and with careful diplomacy; some of our views and methods associated with animal farming, transport and slaughter  may get accepted as the norm; and importantly, then spread to other areas of Africa.  This is also the view of Amal; and can only be good news for animals with regard future practices.

Across Asia, moon bears may be “vulnerable” but in Vietnam their plight looks much worse.


Across Asia, moon bears may be “vulnerable” but in Vietnam their plight looks much worse


For almost a decade moon bears have been classified as “vulnerable” in the wild, but has bear bile farming actually pushed them to the edge of extinction in Vietnam?

By Animals Asia’s Vietnam Director, Tuan Bendixsen, a member of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and IUCN Bear Specialist Group

There’s no doubt that the number of moon bears in Asia has been rapidly declining since the 1990s when demand for their bile exploded, fuelling a sharp rise in poaching and the cruel and illegal practice of bear bile farming, particularly in Vietnam and China.

But how dramatic is the decline? That’s one of the most important – and toughest – questions for experts to answer.

Read the full article at:







England: New Report On Live Animal Transport Shows The EU and UK Authorities Are Failing In Their Obligations To ‘Protect’ Animals During Transport.

euun0001  u-flag


Please find above a link to a new report by CIWF that shows that there is very little enforcement of EU Regulation 1/2005 on the so called ‘protection of animals during transport’ by UK and thus EU authorities (UK is currently a member state of the EU – so it all fails !).

It’s powerful stuff, copy send it and invite publication anywhere you think it will do good.  We are starting with Mr Van Goethem at the EU; as we have said so many times; the EU talk of regulations; but in reality, such as with EU animal exports to Turkey; the likes of Mr Van Goethem show no inclination to do anything about animal suffering which is recorded and documented by welfare groups who are on the road; and not stuck in cosy EU offices like Mr Van Goethem.

This report makes it clear that UK authorities are not doing enough to enforce the regulation; as with the EU authorities who just don’t give a damn about any of it; which begs the question ‘why do they exist ?’ – could we not direct our EU financial contributions into an effective force rather than to departments who have people like Mr Van Goethem – those who do nothing.

Please share this post and report to whoever yopu consider may find it useful.

Until the EU takes REAL action rather than just spouting its utterly useless mouth off about ‘EU Regulations’, we will continue to show them up for what they are – a waste !

It could be argued one of the reasons why today, 1/2/17, the UK parliament will be voting to start the implementation of triggering Article 50 to LEAVE the EU.  A nation of people fed up with EU weasel words which mean nothing in reality.

Here for example is what we mean – watch the videos of evidence and then question why the EU and Mr Van Goethem say that they cannot do anything.  They are a disgrace !

We have sent the above to Mr Van Goethem at the EU – here is confirmation that it has been rec’d:

Your message

   To: VAN GOETHEM Bernard (SANTE)

Subject: More Evidence for you to do yet more ‘nothing’ about !!
Sent: 01 February 2017 13:13:58 (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris

 was read on 01 February 2017 14:14:00 (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris.



EU: Now The EU Officials Tell EU Citizens What Has Been Bloody Obvious For Years – And They Have Set Up A New ‘Platform’ Of Experts To Process It !!!





24/1/17 – We have had the following though today from the EU – Health and Food Safety e-News update – 24/01/2017.  SAV.

So here we go yet again – now we are going to witness the creation of an ‘expert’ group called the ‘Platform on Animal Welfare’  who will work together; and who have so far produced a series of very expensive reports to inform us that citizens of the EU are very concerned about the welfare of animals !

We could have left out all of the high gloss, very expensive reports and done the job to basically tell them that for £10 at most.  But then they never listen to us (welfare groups) about anything; the huge call for a maximum journey time for animals in transport of 8 hours being just one example.  Millions of EU citizens voiced their opinion and disgust, and it resulted in ………… nothing in the way of action by EU ‘experts’.

While we are here, lets bring up the issue of live EU animals being transported to Turkey for slaughter.  Watch the videos to see how our ‘EU experts’ such as Mr Van Goethem are enforcing the 5 freedoms and EU Regulation 1/2005 protecting animals during transport as they head off for slaughter into Turkey:





As you can see in our many post which we have provided links to at the end, we are currently in a position where the EU is even currently unable to even start to enforce its own animal welfare regulations (such as Regulation 1/2005 for the so called ‘protection’ of animals in transport – what an EU JOKE !) on live animal transport – both within many parts of the EU member states, and certainly for live animals being exported to Turkey.

This is how good; or should we say ‘utterly useless’ major EU ‘official’ people are.

And so what do we hear now ? – the creation of an EU ‘expert’ group called the ‘Platform on Animal Welfare’ who will spend millions of Euros and many, many months to provide yet further reports on what we consider to be the bloody obvious to all – that most ‘ normal and sensible’ (non EU official) put animal welfare high on their list of priorities.

The very expensive, glossy, great looking reports produced so far inform us for example, we have the following statement:

Looking at country results, it appears that more than four out of five respondents in each of the Member States consider the welfare of farmed animals to be “important” but with varying degrees.

Almost every respondent (99%) in Sweden, Finland and Portugal consider animal welfare to be ‘important’, in comparison to respondents (86%) in Croatia, Hungary and Poland, the countries with the lowest proportions of respondents.


That’s really great information Mr EU; but the question is – so what action are you taking to benefit animal welfare protection ?

With over 11 years experience in the welfare of animals and their countless abuses  within Serbia, we know that for example, the vast majority of Croatians do not consider animal welfare to be very important.  But they want to join the EU and take billions of EU Euros for …  what, corruption ?

Do we have to have glossy reports from EU experts at huge cost to explain that to us Croatia is not so good at animal welfare as Sweden ? – maybe this is all that ‘expert groups’ can really do – spend lots of money to inform us of the obvious – stuff we already know – and then finally for the experts to not actually take any action to rectify what is being said, shown and petitioned throughout Europe by the welfare groups ? – What a complete and utter waste of time and money, but oh how so very typical EU officialdom  – I think the term we have here in the UK to describe this is ‘jobsworth’ – people who in reality do nothing actually trying to justify their job and existence by producing useless and obvious information for the masses – information they already know  !


It is also interesting, but no surprise at all to us, that from the report:

More than four in five respondents (82%) believe that the welfare of farmed animals should be better protected than it is now. More than two in five Europeans (44%) hold a stronger view, responding with “yes, certainly”, while more than a third (38%) of respondents believe that the welfare of animals should “probably” be better protected than it is now.

Who really cares if it is 70%, 80% or 82% ? – people want animals better protected.  They want action from the EU experts who produce such crap.  Again, something we have known for years, but something which the leaders of men at the EU do not appear to be able to pick up on without a glossy and very expensive ‘book of the bleeding obvious’ being placed in front of them.  Even after this, will they act ?

One of the best statements comes at the start of the report publication – it declares:

Animal welfare legislation has evolved during this time, in accordance with citizens’ expectations and market demands. In 1998, an important step was taken called the Council Directive 98/58/EC, which provided general rules for the protection of farm animals kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or other farming purposes.


The rules were based upon the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes and reflect the so-called ‘Five Freedoms’:

Freedom from hunger and thirst;

Freedom from discomfort;

Freedom from pain, injury and disease;

Freedom to express normal behaviour;

Freedom from fear or distress.

 (Don’t the videos from Turkey above show all this ? – we think NOT – SAV).

The Lisbon Treaty adopted in 2009, amending the ‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’, acknowledged the recognition that animals are sentient beings.


The amount of data and video evidence obtained by EU animal welfare organisations over the last 5+ years regarding EU animals exported live to Turkey has clearly shown that the EU in its official expert capacity is utterly incapable of enforcing the 5 freedoms for any of the EU animals being exported there – the 5 freedoms they bleat on about in their documentation, which in reality means absolutely nothing.  As is usual, the EU says one thing on paper, declaring that everything is hunky-dory, but the actual reality obtained by the welfare groups on the ground and in the trench shows that they are self declared incompetents (Mr Van Goethem) and cannot enforce anything even coming near to the 5 freedoms when the evidence is presented to them – they all adopt the ‘jobsworth’ stance as we have outlined earlier in this post.  I have to look like the rules are being enforced; and even when presented with evidence to the contrary, I cannot act.

Probably the most important thing to come from this report is that there is no overall ‘conclusion’ – something which you do normally witness in reports.  So whart exactly is the EU citizen supposed to conclude from all these acres of figures and declarations of the five freedoms ? – we don’t know because it does not really tell us how the experts are going to put all the figures they have obtained at great expense into meaningful practice.

Possibly the EU is embarrassed to inform us that over the years they have utterly failed to enforce the requirements of what is obvious to most that is outlined in the report anyway – we have to ask that with the statements made recently by Mr (I can do nothing) Van Goetthem; what changes for the future are we actually going to see on the ground; in Turkey, on the road in the EU ? – WHAT ? – what is the ‘expert’ group; the ‘platform’ actually going to do to ensure that member states of the EU actually take animal welfare seriously and actually do something to enforce it.  And just as importantly, what action are they going to take when it is shown clearly that the rules and regulations are NOT BEING ENFORCED throughout some EU member states ?

Or are we going to continue to witness the ‘head in the sand’ approach of Mr EU Van Goethem and his ‘experts’ in holding their hands up and saying ‘actually we can do nothing’ despite all the evidence.  Fortunately the UK is now pulling out of this utter farce of do nothings by using Brexit, and it will be able to work with excellent welfare groups to establish future trade deals with nations which for sure will be to the benefit of animal welfare.


As for the EU; does it have yet another new framework for its ‘expert’ team to work from, or after all this money being spent to inform us of the obvious, are we actually going to see the EU move ahead and do what it should have done decades ago – enforce the 5 freedoms and take aniaml welfare issues much more seriously, prosecuting for non compliance every time when necessary.

Time will tell, and we wait and watch with interest the expert actions of the newly formed Platform on Animal Welfare to witness exactly what they will do.  Somehow, experience tells us that these are just ‘weasel words’ which amount to very little apart from keeping people inventing new group names, gathering data and putting it all into pointless reports so that they can keep their useless jobs.  We hope we are wrong and that this information will enable animal welfare to benefit big time from the actions of the experts; but with the EU totally ignoring all our evidence on Serbia (currently gaining EU membership) over the past eleven years, to say that we have any hope in the experts doing anything would be a gross overstatement.

Well done UK; we are moving out and away from this utterly useless waste of space called the EU !

We shall see – Mark, SAV.


 The PR we had today from the EU:


Animal Welfare: the Commission adopts the creation of a Platform

Today, the Commission adopted the creation of an expert group on animal welfare to be called the Platform on Animal Welfare. Vytenis Andriukaitis, Commissioner in charge of Health and Food Safety, had outlined this Platform in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 14 November 2016: “The aim of the platform will be to encourage dialogue between different stakeholders on animal welfare issues (…); it should focus on a better application of EU legislation on animal welfare, the promotion of the very high animal welfare standards and the use of the Platform as a facilitator for the development and use of voluntary commitments by business operators”.

The Platform on Animal welfare will bring together all relevant actors in relation to animal welfare: business and professional organisations, organisations from civil society, independent experts from academic and research institutes, EU and European Economic Area Member States, the European Food Safety Authorities and relevant international intergovernmental organisations like the World Organisation for Animal Health.

In the coming weeks, the Commission will publish the call for application for the selection of the members of the Platform which will gather a maximum of 75 participants. The first meeting of the Platform will be held during the Maltese Presidency.


In 2015 the “Eurobarometer on attitudes of European towards animal welfare” showed that EU citizens consider animal welfare to be a very important issue and that the EU has a role to play in cooperation with the Member States and business operators.

The Commission held a first stakeholders’ dialogue on animal welfare on 23-24 February 2016 with all main stakeholders and Member States. There was a broad consensus that an enhanced stakeholder dialogue would bring added value at EU level. Based on this wide-ranged support by the Member States, the Commission continued with the operational procedure for the establishment of the Platform.


SAV reference links: – currently under compilation, but well worth reading when we publish !





England: 8 Hours Maximum Journey Time – Now We Petition The EU In Addition To German Chancellor Actions. Please Sign and Crosspost To All Contacts.




New EU Petition link –

And send an e mail to Chancellor Merkel asking for 8 hours maximum journey time –

As well as working with German friends and campaigners regarding live exports and the need for an 8 hour maximum one off journey time; we are now also going direct to the EU.

With our German campaigners and using heir helpful advice and letter writing, we have already got things under way to target Chancellor Merkel in Germany; asking her to make representations on the subject at EU level.

Here is our post:

We have also, now produced a petition to Bernard Van Goethem at the EU asking for an 8 hour maximum one off journey time for animals.  You may well remember other posts on this site where Mr Van Goethem has held his hands up and said “we can do nothing” – even when presented with the most disgusting videos of animals suffering at the Turkish border when exported from the EU.

See the videos presented to him here:



Here is our new EU Petition link –  please sign and crosspost to all your contacts;

The wording of our letter to Mr Van Goethem – a Director at European Commission, DG SANCO – Directorate G – Veterinary and International Affairs is as follows:


Dear Sir (Mr. Van Goethem),

In the context of the 8hours campaign in 2012, more than 1,200,000 (1 million 200 thousand) citizens asked the EU Commission to limit all livestock transportation to a one off 8 hours maximum. Every year due to the existing and non enforced ‘EU legislation’, millions of farm animals suffer during long-distance transport across Europe and to other Third countries such as Turkey.

They are transported for very long period and exposed to extreme variations in temperatures, both of which are non compliant with the regulations set by EU regulation. In addition, only some animals (say those near to water dispensers) making up any particular consignment are lucky enough to receive very limited rations of food and water; often many get nothing. – In addition, the legally required rest breaks detailed in the regulation are also very often ignored by EU international livestock hauliers.  Again, the EU Directorate; of which you are a Director, takes no action to make things any better for these animals.

It is inconceivable that the EU Commission has completely ignored the requests of over 1,2 million EU citizens asking to limit animal transports to a maximum one off journey time of 8 hours.  You are failing us, the citizens of the EU, and you are failing the animals of the EU.

According to EU Regulation No. 1/2005, which is supposed to ‘protect’ animals during transport, but does anything but protect; the following freedoms should apply to all animals during transport:

• Animals must be free from hunger and thirst,

• Animals must be free from pain, injuries and diseases,

• Animals must be free from anxiety and stress.

All of these freedoms are regularly being breached during long-lasting international transport, especially to locations such as Turkey from EU states.

Regulation 1/2005 exists only on paper to show the EU public there are so- called legislative rules.  But the EU, of which you are a Veterinary Director, is not enforcing the existing regulation in any way; and so the legislation really means nothing – it is utterly useless paper ‘nothing’; and the livestock haulage industry know this as well as your failures to enforce the legislation.  The demands defined in 1/2005 are not respected by several existing EU member states, and you do nothing legally to even try to enforce them.  Examples of the failures we are talking about can be seen in the videos referenced below for example; especially in this case regarding animals exported from the EU to Turkey.

Animals transports from the EU to Turkey –

Export of sheep from England to Germany –


All the video evidence above as well as meetings between you and animal welfare organisations have ended with the disappointing but simple response from you: “We cannot do anything”.  On behalf of EU citizens, we thus question the EU enforcement of Regulation 1/2005, and say that if legislation is not rigidly enforced, then why does it exist in the first place ? – as we said, just a paper, mean nothing lump of regulation.

EU officials / Commissioners, who could start to amend animal transport legislation immediately, have remained inactive and very quiet for a very long time.  Regulation 1/2005 for animals in transport ‘protection’, which originally became law in December 2004, is utterly ineffective as EU officials including yourself take no action whatsoever to enforce it.

According to the Lisbon Treaty, one million people who have to come from several EU Member States, can use the ‘citizens’ initiative’ to ask the European Commission to submit new political proposals. These 1,2 million people calling for 8 hour transport legislation have not yet been able to stop the misery of the transport of animals for time periods over 8 hours.  Times need to change and you need to be held responsible.

Therefore, we are now asking you, a ‘Veterinary Director’ at the EU, to make sure that these animal transports within EU member states, and also all exports to Third nations such as EU – Turkey transportation; are timed to a one off maximum journey time of no more than eight (8) hours.

Please use your influence as a ‘vet’ – someone who allegedly should care about the welfare of animals, so that the existing laws on the implementation on animal transports are finally adapted for once and all to reflect a one off maximum journey time of no more than 8 hours as the citizens of Europe request.  This ruling must apply for transport across the whole of the EU and for export to Third countries such as Turkey.  Only for specific situations such as Scottish animals being shipped from islands to the mainland should their be additional but limited hours.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our very important ‘citizens’ initiative’ requestWe are watching your future actions to see if the ‘EU Veterinary Director’ actually does anything for the improvement of ‘animal welfare’ – and animals currently suffering during transport.



You can sign our petition calling for 8 hours maximum (one off) journey time by visiting:


Please pass the link on to anyone and everyone you know. 

We need to make this big for the animals that you have seen in the videos above.

Mr Van Goethem is a Director at European Commission, DG SANCO – Directorate G – Veterinary and International Affairs – so we must let him know how we feel about the current legislation (EU Regulation 1/2005 of December 2004) and now demand that a maximum 8 hour, one off journey time is introduced for all animals transported within the EU and for animals transported from the EU to Third nations such as Turkey.

Regards SAV.





Germany: Send An E Mail To German Chancellor Merkel Asking For (A one off) 8 Hour Maximum Journet Time For Animals In Transport.



We are combining with German anti export campaigners to continue pressing for a one off 8 hour MAXIMUM journey time for all animals in transport.

This will be very much to the benefit of all animals, who currently endure the un- monitored and rather pathetic EU Regulation 1/2005 for animals in transport, which is the EU standard.  Under this existing EU Regulation, journey times are:

Un-weaned Calves, Lambs and Foals – 9 hours of transport – followed by a minimum 1 hour break; with then another 9 hours of transport.  Total time – 18 hours on the road with a minimum 1 hour rest period, which is taken ON the vehicle.

Pigs – 24 hours transport in a single journey.  Animals should officially have access to water throughout then journey, but we very much question if this is often the case.

Cattle, Sheep and Goats – 14 hours of transport – followed by a minimum 1 hour break; with then another 14 hours of transport.  Total time – 28 hours on the road with a minimum 1 hour rest period, which is taken ON the vehicle.  Animals officially to be fed and given liquids during break if necessary, but we very much question if this is often the case.

Horses – except registered horses – can be transported for a maximum period of 24 hours.  Must officially be given liquids, and if necessary fed every 8 hours; but we very much question if this is often the case.


Note in all cases above the ‘rest period’ is officially 1 hour minimum.  There is NO maximum; but animals normally take the rest period STILL LOADED ON the vehicle.  So you could have an example where cattle can be officially transported for 28 hours on the road.  The rest period could be 1 hour but it could also be, for example, say 8 hours.  There is no maximum rest period; but the rest period is normally taken with the animals remaining ON the vehicle.  Hence for this example you get 28 hours on the road with say an additional 8 hours rest still on the vehicle.  This would mean that animals are confined on a truck for a minimum of 36 hours, which we consider is outrageous.

We and others are calling for a ONE OFF MAXIMUM journey time of 8 hours or less.

We are mailing German Chancellor Merkel to ask her to put pressure on the EU to reduce animal journey times to a one off 8 hours maximum.  She has influence at EU level; but also has German elections next year – she needs votes ! – we want something in return.



take-action-3 get-involved-2

Below you will find a sample letter which you can copy and then send to chancellor Merkel. 

E mail your copy of the sample letter to the following address:

You can of course use the sample letter as a guide and amend it to your own requirements.

Here below is the Sample Letter – we provide both English or German versions for you to select; copy and send.




German Version


Sehr geehrte Bundeskanzlerin Frau Dr. Merkel,

im Rahmen der 8hours Kampagne im Jahr 2012 haben mehr als 1,2 Mio. Bürger die EU-Kommission aufgefordert die langen, qualvollen Tiertransporte mit lebenden Tiere auf acht Stunden zu begrenzen.

Jedes Jahr leiden Millionen von Tieren im Fernverkehr in ganz Europa.

Sie sind für Tage oder sogar Wochen in überfüllten LKWs oder Schiffen eingepfercht und extremen Temperaturen ausgesetzt.

Zudem erhalten sie nur sehr wenig Nahrung und Wasser – häufig werden auch die gesetzlich erforderlichen Ruhepausen ignoriert.

Es ist unfassbar, dass die EU-Kommission die Anforderung dieser 1,2 Mio. Bürger, Tiertransporte auf max. acht Stunden zu begrenzen, völlig ignoriert hat.

Laut EU-Verordnung Nr.1/2005 gelten für/und während der Tiertransporte folgende Richtlinien:


  • Tiere müssen frei von Hunger und Durst

  • Tiere müssen frei vom Schmerz, Verletzungen und Krankheiten,

  • Tiere müssen frei von Angst und Stress sein

Darüber hinaus ist es verboten, ihnen unnötige Schmerzen oder Leiden zuzufügen.

Dies sind nur einige der Punkte gegen die bei diesen lang andauernden Transporten verstoßen wird.

Leider existieren diese Anforderungen für einen humaneren Tiertransport oft nur auf dem Papier. Wirklich respektiert und eingehalten werden diese Anforderungen gerade bei Tiertransporten über acht Stunden nicht.

(Dies können Sie auch dem beiliegenden Video entnehmen.)


Animals transports from the EU to Turkey –  

Export of sheep from England to Germany by J. Onderwater (NL).


Alle Gespräche, die die Organisation EyesonAnimals mit den Herren Andriukaitis und Bernard van Goethem geführt hatte, endeten mit der enttäuschenden Antwort: “We cannot do anything“.

Somit sind die verantwortlichen EU-Kommissare lange untätig geblieben.

Laut Lissabon-Vertrag, können eine Million Menschen, die aus mehreren Mitgliedsstaaten kommen, mit Hilfe der Bürgerinitiative die Europäische Kommission auffordern, neue politische Vorschläge unterbreiten.

Diese 1,2 Mio. Menschen konnten die EU-Kommission bisher nicht dazu bringen das Elend der Tiertransporte über acht Stunden zu beenden.

Deshalb fordern wir Sie nun auf, sich dafür einzusetzen, dass diese Transporte zeitlich auf max. acht Stunden begrenzt werden. Bitte machen Sie Ihren Einfluss geltend, damit die Gesetze zu Durchführung der Tiertransporte endlich angepasst werden.

Vielen Dank!



English version


Dear Chancellor, Dr. Merkel,

In the context of the 8hours campaign in 2012, more than 1.200.000 citizens have asked the EU Commission to limit the long, painful livestock transportation to 8 hours. Every year millions of animals are suffering from long-distance transport across Europe.

They are confined for days or even weeks in overloaded trucks or ships and exposed to extreme temperatures. In addition, they receive only very little food and water – often the legally required rest breaks are also ignored.

It is inconceivable that the EU Commission has completely ignored the requirement of these 1,2 million citizens to limit animal transports to max. eight hours.

According to EU regulation no. 1/2005, the following bids apply during transports:

• Animals must be free from hunger and thirst

• Animals must be free from pain, injuries and diseases,

• Animals must be free from anxiety and stress

These are just some of the points that are being breached in these long-lasting transports.

All this is up to now only on the paper, it was never really respected, as you can see from the enclosed videos.


Animals transports from the EU to Turkey –

Export of sheep from England to Germany by J. Onderwater (NL).


All the talks conducted by the organization Eyes on Animals with Mr Andriukaitis and Bernard van Goethem ended with the disappointing answer: “We cannot do anything”.

Thus, the responsible EU commissioners have remained inactive for a long time.

According to the Lisbon Treaty, one million people who have to come from several Member States can use the citizens’ initiative to ask the European Commission to submit new political proposals. These 1,2 million people have not yet been able to stop the misery of the transport of animals over eight hours.

Therefore, we are asking you to make sure that these transports are timed to max. eight hours.

Please state your influence, so that the laws on the implementation of the animal transports are finally adapted.

Thank you


Here below are 3 video links from our friends and fellow campaigners at ‘Eyes on Animals’ (NL) which show a typical day with animal transport investigations.  After watching the videos, which are also included in the sample letters above, we hope you will agree with us campaigners that EU animal transport regulations at the moment are very wrong, and you will add your support to the call for a one off 8 hour maximum journey time by sending the sample letter to Chancellor Merkel at the e mail address we have given earlier.


watch the video

3 Videos (by Eyes on Animals)

Note these video links are also included in the sample letters given above:


Animals transports from the EU to Turkey –


Export of sheep from England to Germany by J. Onderwater (NL).


For the animals – please act; thank you.





Above photos – SAV.