Animal welfare and trade negotiations

Member News

Action to tackle TB in Wales should progress without delay

A disappointing blow for rabbit welfare

EU-South Korea free trade agreement

Vets back common sense approach to responsibility and cost sharing

Animal Defenders International, politicians and celebrities present a 'Stop Circus Suffering' advent calendar to the animal welfare minister

How we treat sentient animals raised in captivity for food matters, says George Eustice MP.

How we treat sentient animals raised in captivity for food matters. The importance that we place on the welfare of other species on the planet is a measure of how civilised our society is. Farming is sometimes described as an "industry" but it is not. Farming is unique and unlike any other industry. It is not just about churning out a product for consumption at a given unit price, it is intrinsically linked to life itself and entwined with the very environment of which we humans are just one part. When we take that special nature of farming for granted, we end up in trouble.

But in recent decades, that is exactly what has happened. Considerations such as animal welfare standards have been trumped by seemingly more important economic theories about free trade. That is wrong. I am a Conservative and no one believes in free trade more than me. But even I can see that the concept of free trade is a lower order consideration when compared to more fundamental issues such as animal welfare and the health of our environment.

All too often, moves to take a lead and improve animal welfare standards at home are stopped in their tracks by the threat that all we will do is export our industry to third countries which have lower welfare standards. It is a fear that is entirely justified. When the UK unilaterally banned sow stalls for pig production our industry lost out to that in other countries where pigs were treated less well. So the policy response has traditionally been to trim our ambitions and stifle our consciences because the theory of unfettered free trade has been considered beyond reproach.

It is time to challenge that muddled thinking. A civilised society should have a system which encourages competition to raise animal welfare standards, not competition to lower them. Article XX of the GATT makes very clear that animal health is a legitimate factor to be considered in trade negotiations but the EU has been weak in arguing its case under this article. It is time to make that case and give nation states the right to safeguard their markets against meat imports produced in third countries to less civilised standards. We should not be asking the WTO how to interpret Article XX, we should be telling them how to interpret it.

Some say that such an approach risks protectionism and would undermine the interests of developing countries but that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It does not follow that welfare standards are lower in developing countries. In many cases, they pursue less intensive and more traditional farming practices which are better for animal welfare and in other cases, their production processes are already informally regulated by minimum requirements set down by retailers in countries like the UK. So requiring that all export production should at least match the standards of the country for which it is destined is less radical than it sounds but could have a huge impact on culture and attitudes towards animal welfare.

George Eusticehas been Conservative MP for Camborne and Redruth since 2010 and sits on the House of Commons environment, food and rural affairs committee.

Article Comments

Have your say...

Please enter your comments below.

Name

Your e-mail address

Listen to audio version

Please type in the letters or numbers shown above (case sensitive)