Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Evidence gaps hinder animal welfare progress in the European Union

Nature Food volume 4, pages 348–349 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

The Farm to Fork Strategy lays down cornerstones for a sustainable transformation of food systems in the European Union (EU). As part of the Farm to Fork Strategy, the European Commission is currently revising the EU’s legislation on farm animal welfare. Scientific input has been collected at various stages of the revision process and, recently, the ex post ‘fitness check’1 of existing legislation has been completed. Due to a lack of information on the conditions under which farm animals are reared, transported and slaughtered in each EU member state, the legislation’s impacts on animals, businesses and other stakeholders could only be broadly approximated2. Better data and integration with agricultural, trade and food system policies are needed not only to monitor animal welfare but also to reward progress where it has been achieved.

Evidence gaps on food systems may be typified3 as incompleteness (either partial, that is, lack of detail; or absolute, that is, absence of information), fragmentation (when information is scattered across different public and private actors), or methodological inconsistencies. These gaps result from shortcomings in the existing EU legislation. Conceptual limitations, namely the legislation’s focus on resources and management, prevent the assessment of animal welfare directly through the animals — meaning that even the full enforcement of the existing EU legislation could only guarantee that prerequisites of animal welfare are fulfilled, while animals’ actual experiences would remain undetermined. This corresponds to an absolute evidence gap in the domain of animals’ outcomes. The directive on broilers (2007/43/EC) is a notable exception, requiring that animal-based indicators (for example, footpad dermatitis) be assessed at slaughter, as a way to gain insights into the outcomes experienced on-farm1,4. Yet, this information is not available for policymaking in more than a few member states2, because most of the current provisions are not connected to monitoring or reporting duties1,5 (resulting in absolute or partial evidence gaps) and information is fragmented across value chain actors (for example, slaughterhouses). Besides, the vague wording of many provisions leads to open norms and considerable variations in the implementation of EU minimum standards1,5. If member states collect data based on vague legislation, or define clear-cut indicators independently, methodological inconsistencies will continue to occur and hinder comparative policy evaluation3.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document Fitness Check of the EU Animal Welfare Legislation (European Commission, 2022).

  2. Wieck, C. & Dusel, S. in Commission Staff Working Document Fitness Check of the EU Animal Welfare Legislation (European Commission, 2022).

  3. Deconinck, K., Giner, C., Jackson, L. A. & Toyama, L. Overcoming Evidence Gaps on Food Systems (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2021).

  4. European Commission. Overview Report: The Use of Indicators for Animal Welfare at Farm Level (European Commission, 2022).

  5. European Court of Auditors. Special Report No. 31/2018: Animal Welfare in the EU: Closing the Gap Between Ambitious Goals and Practical Implementation (European Court of Auditors, 2018).

  6. FADN Database. Standard Results About the Economic Situation of EU Farms by Different Groups (European Commission); https://go.nature.com/3GeBFS2

  7. Devot, A. et al. Study on CAP Measures and Instruments Promoting Animal Welfare and Reduction of Antimicrobials Use (Agrosynergie, 2022).

  8. Maestre, M., Campbell, L., Etienne, J., Cook, E. & Matulina, A. Study on Animal Welfare Labelling (ICF, 2022).

  9. Becker, S., Grajewski, R. & Rehburg, P. Where Does the Money Go? Working Paper on the Common Agricultural Policy 2023-2027. Thünen Working Paper 191 [German] (Thünen Institute, 2022); https://go.nature.com/415RKSD

  10. Bock, A.-K., Bontoux, L. & Rudkin, J.-E. Concepts for a Sustainable EU Food System. Reflections from a Participatory Process (European Commission, 2022).

  11. Van der Stede, Y. et al. Theme (Concept) Paper – More Welfare: Towards New Risk Assessment Methodologies and Harmonised Animal Welfare Data in the EU (European Food Safety Authority, 2022).

  12. EU Platform on Animal Welfare. Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the Sub-group on Animal Welfare Labelling (EU Platform on Animal Welfare, 2022); https://go.nature.com/3lYEMXz

  13. Borchert Commission. Recommendations of the Competence Network on Animal Husbandry [German] (Borchert Commission, 2020); https://go.nature.com/3zvSMuU

Download references

Acknowledgements

We build on research that was supported by the European Commission (Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety) under Grant No. 2021/G5/094. The funding source was not involved in the conduct, contents or preparation of the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Food Policy, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

    Sara Dusel & Christine Wieck

Authors
  1. Sara Dusel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Wieck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Wieck.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dusel, S., Wieck, C. Evidence gaps hinder animal welfare progress in the European Union. Nat Food 4, 348–349 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00743-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00743-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene