Following publication of a consultation on measures on animal cloning for food production in the EU, Eurogroup for Animals – of which OneKind is a member – has called on the European Commission to ban the cloning animals for food production.

The consultation, which runs until 03 September 2012, is intended to collect views on the acceptance of the technique and the introduction of EU measures on animal cloning for food production, as well as economic, social and environmental impacts in EU and non-EU countries.

The Commission is examining possible measures on animal cloning for food production so that it can propose legislation for adoption in 2013.  Currently, food from cloned animals requires authorisation before being placed on the EU market although this does not apply to foods from the offspring of cloned animals. The impact assessment will also examine measures on pre-market approval, traceability and labelling of food from offspring and their descendants

Eurogroup states that a ban on cloning animals for food production and on the sale of imported food products from cloned animals and their offspring is the only option and clearly represents the views of Europe’s citizens. A Eurobarometer survey on citizens’ views on cloning for food production in July 2008 found that a majority (58%) of EU citizens were not willing to accept animal cloning for food production, while three quarters agreed that there were ethical grounds for rejecting animal cloning and almost as many (69%) agreed that animal cloning would risk treating animals as commodities.  A majority said it was unlikely that they would buy meat or milk from cloned animals even if a trusted source stated that such products were safe to eat, and 83% wanted food products from cloned animals to be labelled as such, if they ever made their way onto the market.

On 3 September 2008, MEPs adopted a resolution calling for a ban on the cloning of animals and a ban on the trade of food products from cloned animals. And in 2010, the Commission itself proposed to suspend the use of the cloning technique in the EU for the reproduction of all food-producing animals; the use of clones of these animals; and the import of clones and marketing of food from clones.

Eurogroup is concerned that the routine use of cloning would greatly reduce genetic diversity within livestock populations, increasing the chances of whole herds being wiped out by disease.  Promoting cloning of farm animals would also go against the rural development objective of conserving genetic diversity in farm animals.

A European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinion in 2008 acknowledged the many animal health and welfare concerns associated with the cloning of animals for food production, including an increase in failed pregnancies and increased frequency of problems during pregnancy, and higher mortality and morbidity of clones than in sexually produced animals.

Cloned animals die younger and suffer more defects than normal animals. Many clones suffer from defects such as contracted tendons, respiratory failure, limb and head deformities, heart disease and kidney problems. Dolly the sheep, the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, had to be put down at the early age of six after developing arthritis and lung disease.

Eurogroup and OneKind are disappointed therefore to see a renewed focus on regulating, rather than banning, cloning for food production.  Eurogroup has also demanded that the European Commission comes forward with clear legislation to enforce a ban and ensure that no products from cloned animals or their offspring are put on the European market.

Sonja Van Tichelen, Director of Eurogroup for Animals, said:

“Farm animals are already seen by some as commodities rather than sentient beings and cloning compounds this view, resulting in less concern for animal welfare and less willingness to address welfare issues. The cloning of animals for use in food is completely unethical and unnecessary.  We are convinced that banning these products from our markets is possible and in line with international trade rules.”

The Commission consultation can be seen at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dgs_consultations/animal_cloning_consultation_en.htm

All three were present at the launch of the Domestic Abuse Veterinary Intervention (DAVI) – in which OneKind is a partner – which addresses the shameful truth that in many homes where domestic abuse takes place, humans are not the only victims. Family pets can also bear the brunt of the abuser’s actions.

Launched under the banner of anti-violence charity Medics Against Violence and including as partners OneKind, the Links Group, Crimestoppers, Pet Fostering Scotland and the Violence Reduction Unit, DAVI aims to combat the abuse of pets and people, by informing and training veterinary surgeons about the issues that may arise in practice.

DAVI follows on from the success of MAV’s domestic abuse dental initiative, which has so far seen around 500 dentists trained across Scotland. MAV founder Dr Christine Goodall said:

“Like doctors and dentists, vets often build strong relationships with clients over years of visits. This makes them ideally placed to spot signs of abuse not only in an animal but also in their owner. Yet on the whole, like dentists, vets are unprepared for this situation. The training we are offering helps them take advantage of a “golden moment” to intervene and help.”

OneKind supporter Alesha Dixon also welcomed the initiative, saying:

“The mistreatment of animals is something that should concern all of us. Individuals who hurt and neglect animals are often likely to hurt and neglect other people. Increasingly we hear about ever more terrible cases of abuse and neglect, and it is time not only for zero tolerance towards those who harm animals, but also for more initiatives to prevent this violence in the first place.”

DAVI will offer veterinary surgeons in Scotland the information and reassurance that they need when they suspect that their patient, and possibly sometimes the patient’s owner, may have suffered non-accidental injury (abuse). These cases are rare, but research over the last decade has consistently shown that they do arise in practice. 

The MAV Practice Note for dentists has been adapted by British Veterinary Association (BVA) past-President Dr Freda Scott-Park, who is also Chairman of the Links Group, to inform and advise veterinary surgeons about potential domestic abuse issues.  The new Practice Note explains how vets can apply the AVDR principles (Asking, Validating, Documenting and Recording) developed for dentists by Dr Barbara Gerbert of the University of California, San Francisco. 

Freda Scott-Park has also written comprehensive guidance for vets on the wider issues of non-accidental injury as they may be encountered in practice, and this has recently been endorsed by the BVA.  Freda said:

“Over the years we’ve seen a growing number of cases where animals have been used as a way of manipulating and controlling victims of domestic abuse. The threat or actual abuse of a pet can often prevent women from leaving situations of domestic abuse. By training vets to be aware of the signs of animal and domestic abuse, we can hopefully support those who are suffering towards getting help.”

Download the veterinary guidance (PDF).

Crucially, DAVI will also enable the safe reporting of animal abuse, or suspected animal abuse, by members of the public.  A poster (see right) has been produced for distribution to all vets in Scotland, highlighting the fact that animals and humans can be victims of the same abuser.  The poster encourages people to report anonymously to Crimestoppers Scotland, where their information will be acted on and they need have no fear about speaking up.

Another important strand is the provision of practical assistance to people with pets who need to escape domestic abuse.  Because many shelters for people fleeing abuse are unable to accept animals, Pet Fostering Service Scotland, supported by OneKind, is establishing a corps of foster carers prepared to take on the challenging and open-ended role of caring for pets from abusive homes.

OneKind is delighted to have played a part in establishing this new partnership. Pets are part of many families and their welfare is closely linked with that of the people they share their lives with. Equally, they can be hurt or terrorised by the same abuser, and this is why the DAVI project, helping people and animals together, is so important.

Public opinion on this matter was made clear in 2010, when 94.5% of those responding to a previous DEFRA consultation supported a full ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. The same consultation gave respondents the option to support either a ban or inspections – and only 29.5% supported inspections. 

More recently, backbench MPs at Westminster passed a motion directing the Government to introduce a ban.  And on 1 March, the Government announced its long-term commitment “to pursue a ban on the use of [wild] animals [in circuses]”

At the same time, however, the Government declared that a ban would take time to introduce and in the meantime it would focus on introducing a complicated licensing regime.

Taking the view that the Government’s draft proposals actually represent a step backwards for animal welfare, the animal protection groups have decided not to take part in the public consultation.  Participation could be seen as endorsement of an approach which not only creates unacceptable delay, but also risks creating an unjustified sense of public confidence in an inadequate regime. 

In creating a licensing regime that sets some standards at far too low a level (less than the poorest zoo), the Government is ignoring the views of the majority of animal welfare organisations, the public and elected politicians.   

Even more concerning is the fact that the consultation and Impact Assessment (IA) documents do not include clear provision supporting the commitment to introducing a ban, and no timetable is offered for moving towards a ban.  The IA contains no reference to a ban as the ultimate aim of Government policy, even though the Government’s statement on 1 March indicated that “work to set out the ethical basis for a ban will proceed alongside the development of a licensing scheme.”

A joint statement condemning the Government’s approach has been issued by Animal Defenders International, Animal Aid, Born Free Foundation, Captive Animals’ Protection Society, Four Paws, OneKind and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  We understand that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has also decided not to participate in the consultation.

All of the groups believe that there is ample legal justification for introducing legislation to ban circuses with wild animals; and all urge the Government to bring it in, sooner rather than later.

Consumer concerns around the welfare of animals bred for food have increased in recent years, but with so many labels claiming high welfare standards how can the public be sure what they are buying really is ethically produced food?

Download the Executive Summary

Download the main report

The standards set by farm assurance schemes can vary a great deal in terms of where the animals live, how they are treated and the food production process itself. The joint report looks in detail at the welfare standards of the main farm assurance schemes in Scotland and England, and not only compares them with each other but also with the minimum welfare standards agreed within the UK farming industry.

The report, entitled “Farm Assurance Schemes & Animal Welfare” compares schemes including Red Tractor, Lion Code, Quality Meat Scotland, The Soil Association and RSPCA Freedom Food and analyses their written standards based on a range of criteria, grouped into five sets comprised of:

• Environment (the animal’s living conditions)
• Husbandry
• Stockmanship, handling, transport and slaughter
• Genetics and breeding
• Auditing

While the report found that there was significant room for improvement across all the schemes (no scheme achieved a gold rating overall for any animal) some of them were found to offer significant welfare benefits compared with the minimum legal requirements and standard industry practice. The Soil Association came out best overall in the analysis, as did the Scottish Organic Producers Association and RSPCA schemes.

However, Red Tractor, Quality Meat Scotland, Lion Code and the Scottish Finfish Code schemes were found to offer little welfare benefits beyond meeting the UK minimum legal requirements and standard industry practices. It should be added that those UK minimum legal requirements do still offer much better welfare standards than those in other countries.

Both Compassion in World Farming and OneKind hope these findings will encourage the originators of the various farm assurance schemes to incorporate the welfare assessments from the report into their standards.

Download the Executive Summary

Download the main report

Written Declaration 49/2011, which establishes a maximum 8-hour journey limit for animals transported in the European Union for the purpose of being slaughtered, was finally adopted by the European Parliament during last week’s plenary session in Strasbourg.

In total, 395 MEPs supported the Declaration, which originated in the Europe-wide 8Hours campaign launched by the German organisation Animals’ Angels and Dan Jørgensen MEP and supported by OneKind and other animal welfare groups.

The declaration calls on both the European Commission and Council to review the current live animal transport legislation – Regulation 1/2005 – with  the intention of reducing the maximum time allowed for transport and ensuring that animals do not suffer from thirst, stress, injury or even death.

“This is a key moment in a campaign that will end only when it has limited the transport of animals over long distances for slaughter. The Declaration and the collection of one million signatures are part of the 8 hours campaign which calls for a limitation on the transport of live animals for slaughter to a maximum of eight hours. Travel today can last several days, causing extreme suffering to many animals, especially the old and young especially during the warmer seasons and this is completely unnecessary and unacceptable,” commented Dan Jørgensen MEP.

“Animals should be slaughtered as near to their home as possible and the transport of live animals over long distances should be replaced with the transport of carcasses, for the sake of the animals, the environment and the economies of rural areas,” he concluded.

OneKind contacted all UK MEPs asking them to sign the Declaration and received many positive responses. The Written Declaration will now be forwarded to the European Commission for consideration.

It would probably be premature to rejoice over the UK government’s announcement today (Thursday 1 March) that it “will seek to introduce primary legislation at the earliest opportunity to achieve its much stated desire to ban travelling circuses from using performing wild animals.”

While obviously to be welcomed, the statement fails to answer the crucial question of when the long-awaited ban is to be brought in.  And if it is really on its way, why does the government intend to invest time and money on a complex licensing scheme, rather than moving straight into preparation for a ban?

All that has actually happened today is the publication of a consultation document on a proposed licensing scheme for circuses in England.  While the “eventual aim” is to pursue a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses on ethical grounds, the document stresses that views are not being sought on the possibility of a ban. 

The document continues:

“The precise detail of a ban must be carefully thought through to ensure it has the intended effect. This will take time. In the meantime, this consultation is about a proposed licensing regime that would include strict welfare standards and that could be introduced within months.

“Knowledge gained from operating the proposed licensing scheme may be used to supplement the evidence base on the welfare standards of travelling circuses in England for any future policy considerations.”

OneKind certainly welcomes the fact that the government now has a ban in contemplation.  But what if the interim introduction of a licensing scheme risked actually delaying the introduction of a full ban?  A ban is what the public wants, and to reassure them – and us - at this point, there is a need for greater clarity.  At the very least, we require clear information about the timescale for implementation of the ban, a clear explanation of how the interim regulations will be handled and phased out, and a clear commitment that the government will work with key stakeholders to ensure that the process goes smoothly.

National measures to prohibit or limit the use of animals in circuses have already been adopted in Bolivia, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary,  Poland, Peru, Portugal, Sweden, Singapore, Costa Rica, India and Israel and similar laws are being discussed in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Greece.

North of the border, OneKind has been lobbying the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to ban circuses with wild animals.  The Scottish Government is awaiting advice from its legal officers before deciding how to proceed.  Meanwhile, OneKind continues to encourage local authorities to reflect public opinion, and last month was successful in persuading East Ayrshire Council to ban all animal circuses from its land.

At present, there are three travelling circuses with wild animals operating in England, making use of an estimated 39 wild animals.  A DEFRA public consultation on animal circuses in England, carried out in 2009, resulted in a huge 94.5% public support for a ban. The newly -proposed regulations are expected to cover issues raised in the previous consultation, including accommodation, transport, training, performance, diet and veterinary care.

Action for animals or a route to delay?  See the consultation at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/03/01/circus-animals-1203/

and let us know what you think.

The Council had already decided, in 2008, not to allow circuses with wild animals to rent any of its parks or public spaces.

Two animal circuses - Zippo's and Bobby Roberts have visited Kilmarnock regularly in recent years. In future, however, they will not be able to bring performing animals with them.

Speaking on behalf of OneKind, Animal Defenders International (ADI) and the Captive Animals' Protection Society (CAPS), we told councillors: "We have no objection to circuses, when the performers are willing humans. 

"Non-animal circuses are becoming increasingly popular, and for that reason we hope that Kilmarnock will be able to welcome a circus like Zippo's in future, with its spectacular human acts.  But we don't think Kilmarnock would miss seeing horses standing on their hind legs, or budgies pulling little caravans across a table.

"The Council's existing policy reflects the widespread public view that it is unethical to impose stress, unnatural conditions and, in some cases, outright cruelty on sentient animals, simply in the name of entertainment. Unfortunately these concerns are not confined to wild animals and we very much welcome recognition of that fact."

Council members also learned of the frequent, extended travelling times that all circus animals undergo. Horses and ponies, normally social and gregarious animals are confined on lorries for long periods, and once in their stable tents are often tightly tethered in their stalls.

Local OneKind supporter Maureen Rankin, who has worked tirelessly to keep circus animal welfare on the East Ayrshire Council agenda, also attended the Council meeting, and was delighted with the decision.

A total of 58 separate licences have been granted for 2012, allowing a maximum of 1,100 seals to be killed – a reduction of 15 per cent on the total allowed in 2011. Around half of the licences granted are for fish farms and half for wild salmon rod and line or net fisheries.

In 2011, 68 licences were granted for a maximum of 1,340 seals. According to Marine Scotland, in the first three quarters of 2011,  a total of 362 seals were shot – 27 per cent of the permitted maximum under licence. With a further fall in permitted totals for 2012, the Scottish Government is confident that the guiding principle of last resort will continue to be followed.

Libby Anderson, Acting CEO at OneKind, said:

“OneKind is entirely opposed to the killing of seals in Scotland and a total of 362 dead seals in the first nine months of the licensing scheme represents an unnecessary toll of suffering. 

“Nonetheless we acknowledge that, for the first time, the new reporting system gives us a credible picture of the extent of legal seal killing in Scotland which has never been available before. 

“Non-lethal alternatives including tensioned anti-predator nets at fish farms, acoustic deterrents and low intensity electric fields are becoming more effective and more widely used, and this progress must be built on to reduce seal killing further and faster.  Marine Scotland is right to reduce the permitted licence figures for next year but we also want to see increased monitoring and enforcement of the requirement to use these non-lethal methods first.

“Given the results of the first nine months, we are calling on the Scottish Government to focus now on the need to provide a closed season to protect mother seals and their pups at breeding times.

"Shooting a pregnant seal means that her pup dies too; and shooting a lactating mother leaves her orphaned pup to die slowly from stress, starvation and dehydration – an unacceptably inhumane death for any animal. It’s disappointing therefore that the third quarter (June – September) results show an increase in the number of common seals shot, as this period includes their breeding and moulting seasons. ” 

The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 Part 6 prohibits the killing of seals in Scotland, except under licence. At the consultation stage, supporters of the LOOK OUT for SEALS campaign organised by OneKind (then Advocates for Animals) sent almost 4,000 messages to the Scottish Government, calling for a full ban on seal killing. 

When it became clear that the Scottish Parliament would not support an outright ban, OneKind worked with MSPs to achieve changes to the Bill to ensure that the licensing scheme would be as rigorous as possible, including a requirement for quarterly reporting of all seals killed. Other conditions include the requirement that appropriate non-lethal alternatives must be considered first. 

The licensing scheme replaced the outdated Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and also provided that:

• non-lethal methods of excluding or deterring seals must be tried before a seal licence is granted;
• seals must not be shot by untrained marksmen; in bad visibility; from over a set distance away; from an unstable platform; and measures must be taken to reduce the risk of seals suffering unnecessarily when shot;
• only a specified type of firearm may be used, and carcases should be recovered if possible;
• the Scottish Government can prohibit the killing of seals at certain times such as the breeding seasons, when seals may be heavily pregnant or have dependent pups;
• seals are protected from intentional or reckless harassment at a haul-out site;
• the numbers of seals killed under a licence must be reported quarterly; 
• the licensing regime will be formally reviewed every five years.

Read the 2011 returns figures

Read the 2012 licence figures

Research clearly shows that European citizens care deeply about animals and expect governments to take responsibility and improve animal welfare. The strategy completely ignores this and the positive impact good animal welfare has on animal health, food safety and quality and sustainability. However, the new strategy misses the opportunity to highlight the role the EU can play in translating citizens’ concerns into action.

The Strategy follows an evaluation of 20 years of animal welfare policy which concluded that current rules need to be better enforced and that some animal types currently outside the scope of EU protection - such as dairy cows and pets - could benefit from harmonised EU laws. The strategy disregards these findings and does not recommend actions to address the concerns raised.

“The animal welfare movement relies on the EU to take its responsibility seriously and to regulate on those areas where animals suffer.  It is astonishing that no future laws are planned and that high profile issues such as live animal transport, the cloning of animals for food and animal testing for cosmetics are not even mentioned in the strategy,” said Sonja Van Tichelen, Director of Eurogroup for Animals.

“We are extremely alarmed that despite there being no evidence that EU animal welfare policies have undermined the competiveness of EU producers, the European Commission has listened to the industry and farming lobby and ignored the concerns of Europe’s citizens and the European Parliament as well as the animal welfare sector. The Commission is in effect bringing policy development to a standstill,” she concluded.

All that is left in the Strategy is a focus on enforcement activities and soft policy tools, such as training and communication. The Strategy supports a general framework law which should be established to introduce general principles, but it must also include the use of animal based indicators and the establishment of a European network of reference centres.

Eurogroup says it is also concerned about the lack of attention to policy coherence and to the use and abuse of animals as a result of other policy decisions. The EU Treaty requires consistency between its policies and Article 13 demands that full consideration needs to be given to animals as sentient beings when drafting legislation in different areas.

However, except for agriculture policy and trade, the Strategy does not mention the need for coherence with other policies such as research, wildlife protection, consumer protection or sustainable development and this will undoubtedly cause animal suffering.

OneKind policy director, Libby Anderson, added: “The European Commission tells us that the new strategy aims to provide a comprehensive animal welfare legislative framework, and proposes a simplified legislative framework, priority action to improve compliance, and support for international cooperation. But all of these are set in an economic context, rather than taking an ambitious new approach to protecting other sentient creatures.”

For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/actionplan_en.htm

OneKind welcomes the latest Early Day Motion (EDM), number 2563, sponsored by Jim Cunningham MP, the Labour member for Coventry South.   

"That this House, recalling its support for the motion approved at the backbench debate held on 23 June 2011, directing the Government to use its powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to introduce a regulation banning the use of all wild animals in circuses to take effect by 1 July 2012, recognises that despite unanimous support for the motion from hon. Members on a cross-party basis, the Government has been unclear in its willingness to listen to the will of the House; believes that a licensing system will not address the main welfare problems that circus animals endure and may inadvertently encourage a new era of wild animal imports for circus use; underlines that routine abuse against animals will continue to occur in circuses until there is an outright ban; and urges the Government to take immediate action to fulfil the will of the House by enacting a ban on wild animals in circuses."

Following last month’s news that the challenge to a ban on wild animal circuses was rejected by the Austrian Constitutional Court, there can now be no obstacles to this long-awaited reform. Please ask your MP to sign this motion and keep the momentum going.

Is your MP on this list? View the motion and the list of signatories

Not on the list? Take action! - contact your MP directly