(9-30-13)
 EU farmers are adapting to a range of animal care regulations implemented over the last decade, including: bans on layer cages, sow stalls, antibiotic use, tail docking, etc.
 Results of increased animal care regulations in the EU: o larger farms (to improve economies of scale, farms increase animal numbers) o increased industry concentration and segregation (piglets born in Denmark finished in Germany) o more competition within and between nations (despite a standard law across all) o production declined short term causing higher consumer prices (2012) o meat imports increased in some nations formerly self-sufficient (UK) o EU’s animal sector as a whole is becoming less internationally competitive
 Most EU animal welfare decisions are driven by activist pressure and retail marketing (to sell products) rather than by science or data on what’s actually better for the animal. o Because of those drivers, EU farmers expect ever-increasing animal welfare regulations. o Group housing for sows and round barns for laying hens are selling points to help consumers feel good about their purchases. o When asked for input into hen housing systems, consumers made input and some were also willing to pay more for the finished product. o While EU animal care directives work in a temperate climate, they would be impractical and not better for the animal in the U.S. due to more extremes in weather here (hot and cold).
 EU Commission experts cite activist, industry, and consumer pressure as reasons for regulation, but stress that the EU allowed itself to become ripe for consumer backlash against the livestock sector: o The EU farm sector is multiple generations removed from most consumers. o The EU agri-food sector experienced several unfortunate product scandals (tainted olive oil, blood, and poultry) and animal diseases (FMD, BSE, and Avian Influenza) since the 1980s.
 The EU Commission’s animal welfare section sees animal care as a constantly evolving regulatory area that will receive frequent input from scientific/academic institutions/sources.
 As in the U.S., EU regulations are enacted by lawmakers who have no background or involvement in agriculture. More needs to be done in terms of getting lawmakers onto farms to increase their understanding of agriculture and of the impact of their decisions – according to Commission experts.
 EU farm groups are cognizant of the need to maintain transparency and dialogue with consumers while also trying to stay unified as an industry. o IFB EU trip participants heard many favorable comments about the way U.S. farm groups are working to actively dialogue with consumers and legislators. o They also heard complaints by EU farmers about their peers who intentionally introduce marketing campaigns that have nothing to do with better animal care.
 EU restrictions on antibiotic use in livestock production began in 1986 when Sweden banned their use as growth promoters. And in 2006, an EU-wide ban on all antibiotic growth promoters took effect.
 Over the same period, additional restrictions on antibiotic use in livestock were implemented with the goal of allowing treatment of sick animals, while also achieving decreased microbial resistance in humans. After initially declining, total antibiotic use has increased (although not to earlier levels) and microbial resistance in humans remains flat (i.e., there has been no major decline).
 Efforts to ban hormones in the EU began in 1980 after a series of scandals in Italy (despite lack of scientific data linking hormone use in livestock production to human health risks). As occurred with antibiotic use, later EU directives restricted other hormones such that all use is now banned.
 EU farmers indicate there are severe penalties for non-compliance with hormone and antibiotic bans.
1

 EU farmers are strong advocates for animal identification and find it essential to herd management.
 Animal ID is imperative given the EU’s other animal welfare laws and requirements (e.g., antibiotic use).
 Animal care regulations and labeling “schemes” are reflected in the size and content of retail labels: o Eggs individually stamped and cartons contain EU codes and other language (cage-free, organic, etc.) o Meat and other products labeled by country, region, and animal care practices used.
 Opinions vary among government officials, trade groups and consumers regarding how well the consumer understands various government schemes, animal treatment, and product labels. Many consumers look for the label, but have no idea what the various programs entail.
 On GMOs, livestock farmers that are not certified organic were either feeding or showed interest in feeding GM grains and oilseeds and also expressed an interest in growing GM crops. EU farmers also indicated that concern over GMOs in the EU had waned and they expected future use.
 Farmers across the EU employ various methods to deal with the different requirements for housing layer hens depending on their own farm, buildings, market potential, and EU requirements.
 A majority of layer production facilities have hens primarily indoors in large populations. We saw no evidence of increasing numbers of small scale layer facilities due to a ban on battery cages.
 A variety of egg choices are available including enriched colony, free-range, barn, and organic eggs.
 The unique Rondeel franchise in Holland uses a building concept and amenities inspired by consumer desires regarding the living environment for layers. The franchises (there are three in Holland) are expensive to construct and the eggs cost three times more to produce than enriched colony eggs.
 The next EU poultry regulation will likely be on debeaking hens. Different methods exist for beak trimming and several farmers stressed that a complete ban is not necessarily better for the animal.
 The EU Commission reports nearly 100% compliance with the sow stall ban. However, EU farmers complain that numerous member states (Greece, Italy, Spain, etc.) are out of compliance.
 EU farmers say they would not go back to prior sow housing systems. o Costs to change were high (including a decline in production efficiency). o Some nations (France) partially subsidized the changes, while others (England) did not. o Now that sow buildings are changed, farmers are working towards profitability and more changes would place additional burden on farmers. o Some benefits were realized, including increased milk production by sows. o Production shifts occurred because of the legislation and its uneven application (e.g., Denmark provides piglets to Germany for finishing).
 Livestock farmers are selecting different genetics to deal with some of the results of the stall ban; e.g., one farmer noticed more leg injuries in group housing and is now selecting genetics to mitigate that.
 EU farmers and politicians expect more regulations in the future and they don’t expect them to be based on science (although the producer groups, universities, and EU commission experts continue to place science high on the decision tree).
 a working animal ID system
 better information about what our antibiotic use is (class, species, time period used, size of farm, etc.) so that we can better talk about its use
 increase numbers of U.S. farmers participating in livestock quality programs
 effectively communicate to consumers and industry the legitimacy of such programs
 continued dialogue with consumers and lawmakers on these issues while also allowing access to our farms in order to ensure science and common sense are part of future regulations
2