How I Learned to Love Shrimp

Alice Di Concetto on why EU animal welfare reforms failed (and what we can do next)

• Amy Odene & James Ozden

Share episode

The EU is one of the most important institutions in the world. They had amazingly ambitious plans to transform the lives of the billions of farmed animals in the EU which sadly, were put on hold last year. Today, we speak to an expert in EU animal welfare policy, Alice Di Concetto from the European Institute for Animal Law & Policy, about what happened, what animal advocates might hope to win in the next few years and how we might improve our lobbying efforts.

Resources: 

If you enjoy the show, please leave a rating and review us - we would really appreciate it! Likewise, feel free to share it with anyone who you think might enjoy it. You can send us feedback and guest recommendations via Twitter or email us at hello@howilearnedtoloveshrimp.com. Enjoy!

Speaker 1:

The moment you pass standards for your domestic producers, the domestic producers are coming to say well, those standards should apply to imports too, otherwise you're just putting us at a very competitive disadvantage. So those domestic bans are not going to work unless you apply them to the imports coming in. And that's where DG Trade so the administration in the European Commission that's responsible for trade policy says no, we're not implementing those standards to imports, because if we do, then we're going to be retaliated against in trade agreements because we are restricting imports and therefore our trade partners are going to restrict their imports too, because that's how trade works. So yeah, that's definitely the issue, and I'm not saying it's not a good reform. I think it's one of those things that is very systemic and should definitely be solved. If we solve the trade issue, we're going to have better standards, and we're talking about animal welfare standards, but also environmental standards, labor standards. But it's just very, very difficult to get, and I think it's even more difficult to get compared to other reforms like ban on cages, common agricultural policy reform.

Speaker 2:

The European Union is one of the most important institutions in the world. They had incredibly ambitious plans to transform the lives of billions of farmed animals in the EU, which, sadly, were put on hold. Last year, I spoke with an expert in EU animal welfare policy, alice Di Conchetto from the European Institute of Animal Law and Policy. We spoke about what animal advocates might hope to win in the next few years and how we can improve our lobbying efforts. This is a super insightful episode, full of some great real life experience of what went wrong and how we can improve. So I hope you all enjoy the conversation. We all enjoy the conversation.

Speaker 2:

Today we are joined by Alice Di Conchetto, who is the Executive Director and Chief Legal Advisor at the European Institute for Animal Law and Policy, which is an organization she founded in 2021. Alice is also a lecturer in EU Animal Law and Ethics at Cienci Po in Paris, france, and she was previously a fellow in the Animal Law and Policy program at Harvard Law School from 2016 to 2018. And the European Institute for Animal Law and Policy, which we'll call the Institute for Shorts, is a think and do tank based in Brussels and whose mission is to advance the treatment of animals in EU law and policy. So welcome Alice.

Speaker 1:

Thank you, James. Thank you for having me on the podcast.

Speaker 1:

Something we like to start every conversation with is what's something you changed your mind on recently, and why something I've changed my mind on quite radically is corporate campaigns, the idea that some animal advocacy organizations go and do outreach work to corporations to try and change their practices, try to have them sign commitments to voluntarily treat animals better, especially in the food industry. And I used to be very skeptical of those campaigns, especially in the EU context. I definitely saw the value of those campaigns in jurisdictions where it was really hard to get any change in the laws, but I didn't think the EU really set that profile. And the reason I was skeptical of it is because I thought it worked really well for the egg industry so getting egg-laying hens out of cages but I didn't see the potential of replicating those campaigns for other situations like pigs or broiler chickens. And the reason for it is because there's been really a change in the political context at EU level in the early 2000s where the EU was much more intentional in positioning itself as a trade power on the global market and so really sought to conclude trade agreements with non-EU countries and saw any sort of higher standards, be it animal welfare or something else, as a way to undermine that trade agenda. So I thought corporations are not going to be receptive to this because they're aligned with that pro-trade agenda that the EU has.

Speaker 1:

Another reason also was because I thought corporate campaigns would really undermine legislative reform.

Speaker 1:

So I think those voluntary commitments that corporations would take would signal legislatures that they didn't need to regulate the industry because the industry was able to self-regulate, which wasn't exactly the case. I mean, even if you have voluntary commitments, we all know that those are not perfect and don't change practices entirely. And so, while, sir Nan Mon, we saw corporate-based campaigns as something paving the way towards legislative change, in my opinion it was actually creating an obstacle to such a change. And the context changed again a couple of years ago, and I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to discuss that a little more. Yeah, the context changed to the extent that the EU is more and more reluctant to adopt legislation in favor of animals when it doesn't benefit the industry. It actually makes sense to try to improve practices working, you know, to try to improve practices working hand in hand with corporations, and then go back to the legislature and say see, those good practices are actually common industry practices and therefore you can codify them in the legislation.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think definitely. The second point is something that I've heard lots of is that, yes, where you have maybe the majority of an industry is already doing a practice, it's much easier to get legislation because the industry is generally supported. They're already changing practices. But can you just maybe explain the first point on trade a bit more?

Speaker 1:

sure. So the idea is that the corporations are not going to be willing to engage in good practices because they don't feel the threat that the legislature is actually going to codify those practices at some point, because the legislature is very much into liberalizing exports and imports and therefore the legislature isn't going to pass new standards that would sort of, you know, restrict imports based on production standards, imports or exports you know, restrict imports based on production standards, imports or exports.

Speaker 2:

I figured that I don't know. If you, for example, ban cages in the EU, that wouldn't actually affect imports coming in, so it'd still be okay for imports, but is the bad reason for that is then it undercuts EU farmers, because then maybe people can import cheaper, let's say, caged eggs, from somewhere else. Is that why maybe it was bad?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, yeah, producers will not agree to engage in good practices and and whether you do that through legislation or something else, as long as they're competing with exports that do not comply with the same production standards.

Speaker 2:

because, exactly what you said because of the price issue it seems like this can't be totally true because in a way, the eu and uk does generally have better standards than the rest of the world and we have influenced welfare reforms that other places haven't. You know, I think in the eu there's a partial ban on gestation crazy. Uk has a complete one. Most other places in the world don't have this and I think there's other examples we can think of. It must be like it's somewhat possible that we can get some welfare improvements, but do you think it's just relatively limited or that the size of the welfare wins we can get actually quite small unless we deal with the imports issue?

Speaker 1:

yeah, I think it's going to be limited if you don't impose those standards on what's coming in on the market and and it's true that the eu and the UK have welfare standards and the rest of the world doesn't. But when you actually see the details of those measures, it's not that you know, it's not that big. Like you said, the ban on cages in the EU is partial. There is no ban on cages for egg laying hens, it's just there's a requirement to enrich cages. But perhaps, like actually the egg sector is a bad example because the EU doesn't import eggs. But you know, if you're talking about pigs, poultry, EU poultry standards, broiler chicken standards are really bad and the trade flow between the EU and non-EU countries when it comes to poultry meat is huge.

Speaker 1:

And when you talk to the Commission about improving standards on broiled chicken, the first thing they say is well, it's going to be a problem if we want to keep exporting and importing foodstuffs.

Speaker 2:

This, I guess, sets up nicely for what I would like to spend most of our time together talking about, which is your organization, the Institute we'll call it sounds very serious, the institute. You guys, I guess your kind of sole focus is eu policy for animal welfare and obviously, hopefully many advocates will know that over the last couple years there was some quite big proposed reforms for eu animal welfare measures which are pretty broad ranging. Sadly, most of them didn't happen, most of the the most exciting ones. Do you just want to give an overview of, maybe in brief of, what the proposed measures were and kind of what ultimately ended up happening?

Speaker 1:

Five years ago the European Commission, which is the EU government, the executive branch of the EU, proposed quite a big reform of farm animal welfare legislation. A big reform of farm animal welfare legislation, and the idea was to modernize that legislation because it was out of date, it was out of sync with what we know now of farm animals and their needs, and also as a response to a European Citizens Initiative, which is a form of official petition that EU citizens addressed to the European Commission, and that petition was specifically asking the European Commission to ban the use of cages in animal agriculture. So the European Commission took that into account, realized that farm animal welfare legislation, beyond the sole issue of cages, was just outdated, and so decided, ok, we're just going to reform that whole package. And so decided, okay, we're just going to reform that whole package. So it's seven pieces of legislation and we're going to modernize the animal farm and welfare standards in the EU.

Speaker 1:

There's been a lot of studies.

Speaker 1:

So those reforms were about banning cages, but also enacting new standards for fish, for instance, banning really cruel practices like the use of CO2, stunning for pigs, slaughterhouses, the end of chick killing a really broad program of reforms.

Speaker 1:

And then around, yeah, 2023, I think, was the year where the European Commission, after producing all those studies, impact assessment, try to evaluate, you know, what the impact of those reforms would be on producers, on farmers, consumers obviously animals decided not to go ahead with the reform, and so, of the four pieces of legislation that we should have had, only one survived, which is a revision of the transport regulations, that regulation that regulates the ways in which animals are transported in the EU, but the other three proposals for new legislation were abandoned. So last year there were elections in the EU, with the New York Parliament, and those elections resulted in a stronger majority for those parties who do not want to have any form of reforms for animals, and so the context is even more difficult than a couple of years ago, with the commission now talking about maybe banning cages, maybe in certain sectors, but certainly not, uh, reforming farm animal welfare legislation as a whole.

Speaker 2:

Maybe in some way like those are very big set proposals and the transport one actually is kind of like on the way to becoming a reality, although this is maybe the least consequential in terms of improvements for modern welfare compared to, let's say, like banning cages or some of the other other things. And, like you said, there's been an election since then, such as maybe even more kind of anti-animal welfare improvement representation in parliament. So, yeah, it seems like things are not a good place, but I guess I'm sure you and others who work on eu animal welfare policy I've spoken about this. But I guess what are your kind of key takeaways on? Why did this happen? And you know, like what, what lesson should we take away in terms of? Is that we should be less ambitious, we should focus on this institution or this institution? Yeah, I guess what are your key kind of takeaways from this all?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, actually, the two takeaways you just gave as examples are definitely two important things like try to prioritize what we want as a movement. I think asking for the end of cages was already very ambitious and when, all but you know. And then the commission started talking about, oh no, we're going. I think asking for the end of cages was already very ambitious, but, you know, the commission started talking about, oh no, we're going to do more than that. So everybody got really excited, and us included. I mean, we were pushing for all of those reforms.

Speaker 1:

But I think a big takeaway as far as I'm concerned is really to not underestimate the power of dominant private interests, even when the government sides with animal welfare advocates.

Speaker 1:

I think that we have to expect and we have to understand how the private sector works, which is that they're going to throw everything at the government until they have the government cave in. And that's exactly what happened. We had the government on our side, we had all those studies, we had everything lined up for those reforms to happen and it didn't happen because the industry did everything they could to show the government that it was going to bring, you know, all those horrible things like food shortage, inflation, all those things and the government got convinced by it, for good and bad reasons, and I think us animal advocates were kind of, you know, just witnessing all this without realizing what was really happening, because we were too confident that the government was going to stick to their position. That's my biggest takeaway is really remember that this is how private dominant interests work. This is what they do, and we can spend, you know, our time complaining about this, or we can try to understand and prepare you know our response and adapt our tactics and methods.

Speaker 2:

Can you maybe give a little color on, I guess, what the I guess the different parts of the animal ag industry did to actually, I guess, be successful in kind of shutting down most of these reforms? Is it that, like you're saying, maybe they were commissioning some slightly dodgy studies on the impacts on food prices and this was very scary for some politicians? Or I guess, yeah, what did they actually do that tip things in their favor, because I'm sure there's also lobbying on our behalf and kind of wondering what, why they ultimately, I guess, won out from most things yeah, I mean, it wasn't that original or novel.

Speaker 1:

I mean they really followed the usual playbook that any lobbyists would use uh, including ourselves, you know, they staged protests, they produced studies from, yeah, more or less dodgy, but also from reputable institutions and, yeah, they just hammered their talking points Day and night. They met with policymakers Overall, very traditional tactics. It's just that, obviously, they have more resources than we do. I think this had an impact on policymakers.

Speaker 2:

Do you know how much? I don't know how EU kind of donations work, but our industry groups are a big source of political donations for MEPs or politicians. How does the actual kind of? Because obviously in the US donations are a huge thing, uk less so. I'm wondering where the EU falls on that spectrum.

Speaker 1:

It depends on the member state. So members of the European Parliament are elected at national level and political campaigns are regulated in national laws. So I can't really give you an overview of what's happening. Yeah, it will be. You know 27 different legislation but overall it's definitely better than the US to the extent that corporate donations are heavily regulated Usually. Also, campaign spending is capped, so you can't spend millions and billions on political campaigns and you have to declare it.

Speaker 1:

So I'm speaking of what I know of French legislation, which is more or less the standards in all of the EU, is that everything transparency register. So everybody who's lobbying the EU institutions is supposed to register themselves in the transparency register. But it's voluntary, it's not law and not everybody does it. And you have a badge and every time you enter the EU institutions you've got to meet people. Yeah, your meeting is recorded, but you can easily meet people outside of the European Parliament. You don't have to declare everything you do as a lobbyist and there are a lot of things that kind of you know are in a gray zone of if you organize events and you invite scientists, is this a lobbying event or is this, you know, presenting objective research to policymakers? It's not, obviously it's not entirely clear, clear and this is interesting.

Speaker 2:

I I've never looked at this register and I think I I've heard about before, but I guess have you kind of looked through yourself and did you see just like the number of meetings that you know the animal groups have with politicians versus the animal agriculture industry politicians, like, did you see huge, like get any kind of interesting insights that come out when you look at this register?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it's interesting when there's a group that we don't know and that we see as very present in EU institutions. It's always so the transparency, it's good information to find out if they're even registered in the transparency register, because, again, it's not a you know it. Registered in the transparency register Because, again, it's not a requirement, and it gives you a pretty good idea. If someone is doing lobbying but isn't registered in the transparency register, it means that they don't want to disclose any of their lobbying activities. And then the people who are registered, it's always interesting to know they have to disclose how much funding they're getting, who they're getting their funding from and how many employees they have in Brussels, for instance. So it gives you a pretty good idea of the resources that they have.

Speaker 1:

But again, it's all you know, it's self-declaratory, so we have to. We were in the transparency register, but nobody actually calls me to check. Oh, can you give me that grant agreement with the amount that you said you received? What is actually double checking? So you kind of have to trust people. But, again, if people are playing the game, it gives you a pretty good sense of their resources and and impact on policy making yeah, that makes sense.

Speaker 2:

So it seems like, well, there's like one or two lessons you've identified. Yeah, well, maybe one you kind of said be be more focused and prioritize more in terms of the ask we're going for and, rather than asking for extremely broad range, you know, be a bit more deliberate. And then another one is. One is like general awareness that we should have expected maybe the industry would have fought back harder and we should have been maybe a bit more prepared for that and, I guess, been willing to. I guess, throw more firepower. What we only saw, this, this happening or expected this. Is there anything else that sticks out for you as lessons advocates should take away?

Speaker 1:

I mean there is a big lesson for our movement internally, which is and I'm sure every social justice movement is actually going with this but just to be more organized and coordinated. And it's hard because of course you want to be coordinated but you also want to leave some space for groups to do what they do best, especially more radical groups. You know, sometimes it's actually great to have a very radical group protesting in Brussels and it makes, you know, the other groups look more reasonable. Or, you know, sometimes you want to do the opposite. So you want to have those dynamics in place, but you also have to make sure that everybody is coordinated and asks for the same thing, which is really hard. I mean, it's definitely a challenge for us in the animal advocacy movement, but I think all movements really.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, definitely. The farmer protest is an example of this, like what you're alluding to, which is like the radical flank effect. Right, it's like some farmers are going to you know dump, you know feces and manure outside, you know some politicians building or some supermarket and then everyone else is made doing more respectable things. It's interesting pressing on to you know the future of eu animal welfare that there was recently announced I think it's called like the vision, like for eu agriculture and food which kind of came out, which I guess the again you're saying they want to do some things, but maybe do you want to share any similar things that might have been involved in what they said and like if you actually believe what they're saying so it's actually very hard to understand what they're saying because I don't know if you read the document, but it doesn't say anything.

Speaker 1:

It's actually remarkable hard to understand what they're saying because I don't know if you read the document, but it doesn't say anything.

Speaker 1:

It's actually remarkable to have such a long document that really doesn't say anything substantial. So it's a bit of a actually it's a source of frustration for us, because the EU, especially the European Commission, does that a lot. They produce a lot of documents that don't really say anything. They say keywords in a way that you can tell they're trying to please everyone, but obviously we're looking for really substantial things like oh, there's going to be an animal welfare reform and this is going to be the scope and here's the timeline of that reform. There's nothing like that in the vision.

Speaker 1:

The vision document is a policy document about what the Commission intends to do in the field of agriculture and food over the next four years, so it's really the program of the new EU government and there really isn't much when it comes to animal welfare or food transition. We were really hoping and we try to convince the European Commission to include something really specific on farm animal welfare legislation, but there really isn't anything there. The same goes for food transition. There is the common agricultural policy reform coming up, so the reform of the EU Farm Bill that's coming up. We were hoping that the commission would make strong statements in favor of, you know, plant-based transition, less subsidies going to to animal agriculture. But there really isn't much in that vision one way or the other. Actually, you know there's there's nothing that says that they're going to keep subsidizing animal agriculture either.

Speaker 2:

so it's all very vague yeah, I guess I read this document maybe like a month, a couple months ago, so I vaguely remember it talked about some plant-based action plan, maybe for the eu, maybe reducing imports that don't meet minimum standards. I don't remember if there's anything on cages, but is your view like they mentioned some nice things but actually that there's so little specificity you don't really feel confident that they'll? They're actually like planning on following through?

Speaker 1:

exactly and I what you just said is a great example. What's an action plan? I mean, we've had a plan, an eu protein plan, eight to nine years ago, so we already have all those plans, you know. And also, it doesn't take four years to publish a plan. What we're looking for is what type of regulatory action? Again, what's the timeline? Is the European Commission going to propose a new legislation? Is it going to be a directive, a regulation? So those are the two types of laws that we have in the EU. What's the timeline? Is it going to be voted as the objective, to get it enacted before the end of the term, or just to have a proposal for the next administration to to adopt? So yeah, it's.

Speaker 2:

It's very unclear most countries, governments move slowly, but it feels like the EU moves maybe particularly slowly because obviously it's a combination of like 27 different institutions. So you know, if you think one country moves slowly, imagine 27. So I guess that bears over all this conversation. What are some things you think that animal advocates are working within the EU should be focusing on, maybe from a policy angle? Are there particular asks or things that they should be pushing for?

Speaker 1:

Yeah.

Speaker 1:

So I already mentioned, the reform of the common agricultural policy is coming up and I think it's a great opportunity to work at a more systemic level, because I think one of the reasons also why the reform of farm animal welfare laws failed is because our you know, the subsidy system in place doesn't actually favor good animal welfare practices.

Speaker 1:

So it's going to be very crucial to try and influence those conversations that are starting to happen right now actually in Brussels to talk about okay, what kind of food system do we want? How do we subsidize it? Maybe we should subsidize less animal agriculture, especially industrial farm animal production, and support more plant-based food products. So we have a lot of, you know, really nice protein crops for human consumption in the EU and those crops are totally not supported currently under the cap. And, yeah, how to help farmers engage in good animal welfare practices, because at the moment, if you're a farmer and you're, you know you actually care about the welfare of your animals you get almost zero subsidy for it a very little compared to factory farmers. So I think this is going to be a great opportunity for us to try and influence, yeah, at a much more systemic level than just like farm and wheelchair.

Speaker 2:

Subsedes comes up a lot within discussions around animal farming, maybe because, yes, the amount of money given to intensive farming is intensive animal farming is kind of obscene compared to, I guess you know, fruit and vegetables and more healthy things. We haven't had much traction on this because I think it's often very hard to take money away. I guess maybe the reason you said before is there's these entrenched private interests that are very powerful and they want to keep a hold of this money. Like you know, you can only receive this subsidy if you're a cage-free farmer or you know you use slow-growing breeds. Is that the kinds of stuff you think you're excited about in terms of reforming the common agricultural policy, or do you think there's more to it?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I think there definitely needs to be clear standards that would make someone eligible to get public funding and agricultural subsidies, but also other form of public funding. One thing we're really pushing for at the Institute is having even a definition of what is factory farming, because currently, if you look at EU law, the EU legislature doesn't really recognize that there are different production methods in place and that some production methods are more intensive, more riskier than others. So one thing we want to put in place is really the regulatory framework for this distribution system to be in place. And then you know, we don't actually advocate for increasing the level of subsidies.

Speaker 1:

I think if we make a more efficient use of subsidies, the government could spend much less than it actually than it currently is. The government could spend much less than it actually that it currently is. So that's also one argument we're constantly reminding policymakers is oh well, you know, if there isn't any money left, which really is the case in the EU. I mean, there's definitely a budget like a public spending issue, and if you're really serious about using taxpayers' money in a way that's the most efficient possible, think about subsidizing the crops that are actually healthy to people and that are more efficient from a production level than factory farms, which are producing really unhealthy food, that are impoverishing farmers, creating all those environmental externalities that are costing taxpayers.

Speaker 2:

How optimistic do you feel about reforming the Common Agriculture Policy? Do you think my understanding of what I've heard about it is, like it's extremely complicated but, like I said, also extremely important? Do you think it's something that's possible within the next kind of five years, or do you think this is the start of a much bigger effort to change how that money is distributed?

Speaker 1:

I think we definitely have a shot. Uh, because I think everybody is really unhappy with that policy, including, you know, industrial farm animal producers. It's true it's a complicated topic, but it's it's actually not that complicated. The? U makes, especially the european commission, makes it sound super complicated and they use all those acronyms and all this jargon, but really it's not complicated. I mean, it's taxpayer's money going to subsidize production. It works like any sort of subsidy program and I think what's been missing but it's really starting to change in the animal advocacy movement is people who understand how those things work. We, with another couple of organizations in Brussels, can definitely have those conversations with with policymakers and go deep and at a very technical level to discuss and even bounce ideas. You know. I mean it's really interesting to see that sometimes you go into a meeting thinking you know you're going to have a very hostile crowd and then it turns out that no people actually want to make this system better and they're open to hearing ideas and there are problems that the people in the EU institutions can understand.

Speaker 2:

Maybe let's talk about two more particular reforms. I think are both major and potentially on the cards and it would help a lot of animals. One of them is like you mentioned before, is banning the use of cages animals. One of them is like you mentioned before is banning the use of cages. So obviously this was previously would apply to many different species of animals, but maybe actually the most straightforward version is asking this for layer hens, I guess. Yeah, how important do you think that particular policy is or how likely does it happen over the next three or four years?

Speaker 1:

yeah, no, I'm actually really optimistic about a possible ban on cages for egg-laying hens. I think it might be the only thing we actually achieve in the next four years, because, even though the European Commission is super vague and doesn't commit to anything, there's one thing that they I don't want to say that they stayed clearly, but that they're willing to discuss a ban on cages in the egg industry, and the reason for this and that circles back to what we were discussing about corporate campaigns is that the private sector is ready. So, yeah, more than half of egg laying hens are outside cages in the EU, so the European Commission doesn't really have any problem to codify this ban. Basically, the market is ready and they have corporate buying to enact this reform. So there's still a lot of uncertainty over the timeline, like, I'm not entirely sure the EU will manage to get that ban voted and in place before 2029. But I'm confident we'll get a proposal for new legislation banning cages for hands in the next three to four years.

Speaker 2:

Nice and you think that there'll be some kind of phase out timeline, which you think will be on the order of like five or 10 years. What do you think that would look like?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, so transition periods that how the european commission calls them. I would be very surprised if it's more than five years okay, because corporations are already transitioning away from cages. I mean, there are and there are a few bands of national level in the eu member states. There are still some countries that are really let let's say late compared to others. I'm thinking of France, but even France was talking about banning cages for egg-laying hens or imposing a moratorium on the construction of cages for hens three to four years ago.

Speaker 2:

And what kind of additional work or pressure do you think is needed to kind of solidify and guarantee that win on ending cages? So the expanding the ban on cages to other cages than just for egg-laying hens, no, no, just more like what can advocates do to make sure we actually achieve that?

Speaker 1:

Oh, yeah, I mean, we just got to keep pressuring. So I think something that's really important is to remind the EU institutions that this is a popular demand from people. This isn't something, you know, that only animal advocates want, and I think something that the ECI showed is that, yeah, citizens are actually against cages. Citizens are against factory farming in general, but the one thing that they really hate are cages for animals. So, yeah, just remind the European Commission that it's not just something we want and it's actually a good argument, because the EU is always afraid of. You know, the EU is perceived by many as a very non-democratic government, so the EU is very receptive to hearing that, yeah, citizens actually support certain measures very non-democratic governments.

Speaker 2:

So the eu is very receptive to hearing that, yeah, cities, I guess, actually support certain measures do you get a sense that or is your kind of view that there should be more public related campaigning on animal welfare in the eu? And because I guess the two main approaches is like the inside focused lobbying and advocacy, which I guess is probably what you're doing, and there's the more mobilizing the public to either, you know, contact their local legislators, put pressure on their MEPs, do protests, etc. And do you think we need a bit more of the latter in terms of making sure the European Commission actually feels the, I guess, the strength of opinion on this?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, but it's very hard because the EU is kind of this remote place. Nobody actually goes to Brussels. When people go to Brussels, you know they go as tourists to visit, you know, Belgium, but not to visit the institutions. Most member states are really far from Brussels. I realize there are ways to show popular support without actually being in person protesting in front of the institutions, but it's still very challenging to show this without having you know people protesting in front of the European Commission or the European Parliament. So you talked about, yeah, can citizens maybe call their MEPs, email their MEPs? We kind of have the same problem is that in the member states people don't really know who their MEPs are. It's not the same as national politicians. Like, if you talk about national politics, everybody knows who the president is, People know their representatives, their senators, but people usually don't know their MEPs, their senators, but people usually don't know their MPs. So it's actually very challenging to mobilize people and have them engage in EU politics.

Speaker 2:

Do you think there's more of a need for the outside pressure and kind of lobbying of MPs by their kind of local representatives and protests relative to maybe the more inside game lobbying of the Commission and other kind of more technocratic institutions?

Speaker 1:

yes, definitely there definitely needs that. But it's very challenging because the eu is still this very, this institution that's very remote from the people. It's not that simple, like people don't necessarily know or even understand how the EU institutions work. Some people don't even know who their MEP is. I definitely think that there needs to be more presence in Brussels of grassroots activists. I think it would help a lot also for EU policymakers to understand that those are very popular demands that people actually want. You know, improvement in terms of how we treat farm animals. But it's very challenging and I think a lot of organizations are working on this. I'm thinking of L214, for instance, in France, has been doing, has been more involved at EU level and has been doing more. You know, protests in front of the EU institutions, but I think there needs to be more research and more thinking around how to do this in a way that's that's effective there's many more levers or ways you could influence them.

Speaker 2:

In the UK, for example, you know you can like love your local MP and then maybe you can go to parliament and do something essentially. But here there's the European Commission, the council. It's not even clear which one is the most relevant for this and who needs the most pushing and how you can influence them. So, yes, you see that as more of a puzzle to work out here.

Speaker 1:

For sure, and actually very few people know that the European Parliament cannot adopt legislation in the EU legislative process. So you have a lot of people oh, we should go to the parliament and ask the parliament to ban this practice. And you have to tell them that's not how it works, like only the European Commission can propose legislation and the European Parliament can only amend that proposal.

Speaker 2:

So just to give you an example of how complicated and intuitive the EU institutions are, Another welfare reform that we touched on in the beginning the banning of imports that don't meet, in this case, eu minimum and welfare standards. So, for example, the EU has banned battery cages, so the EU therefore couldn't import products that either contain battery-caged eggs or know the shell eggs themselves. Is it something that you guys are working on, or is it something you feel like that is particularly promising, or do you think, actually, you know, we should only focus on one or two things, and you think that those things are cages for egg laying hens and also the common agricultural policy?

Speaker 1:

I think there's absolutely no eagerness on the part of the EU institutions to implement such a ban At the moment. The EU is very much eager to strengthen its position as an agricultural power on the global market and it's been actually, you know, a real challenge. You know, a real challenge and I think this is what partly derailed the farm animal welfare legislation reform is because the administration responsible for trade was actually very much against improving animal welfare standards because they saw that as a potential threat on trade agreements that were being and are still being negotiated with non-EU countries like the Mercosur countries.

Speaker 2:

I don't think this kind of reform could ever pass in the next few years in the eu oh well, and that's because essentially, like the trade kind of team or trade department within the eu, they don't want any restrictions, or they're. I guess maybe a is one thing that they're worried about other countries almost retaliating and giving them like or like less favorable trade conditions, and are these the main reasons that negatively impact, I guess, trade coming in and therefore they don't want to, I guess, essentially annoy other countries.

Speaker 1:

Exactly, that's exactly this. So the moment you pass standards for your domestic producers, domestic producers are coming to say, well, those standards should apply to imports too, otherwise you're just putting us at a very competitive disadvantage. So those domestic bans are not going to work unless you apply them to the imports coming in in the European Commission that's responsible for trade policy says no, we're not implementing those standards to imports, because if we do, then we're going to be retaliated against in trade agreements because we are restricting imports and therefore our trade partners are going to restrict their imports too, because that's how trade works. So yeah, that's definitely the issue, and I'm not saying it's not a good reform. I think it's one of those things that is very systemic and should definitely be solved. If we solve the trade issue, we're going to have better standards, and we're talking about animal welfare standards, but also environmental standards, labor standards.

Speaker 2:

But it's just very, very, very difficult to get, and I think it's even more difficult to get compared to other reforms like ban on cages, common agricultural policy reform do you think in a way it's because I guess either way let's say animal advocates almost like picking up fights, and in one case we're picking a fight with caged farmers, another case we're picking a fight with like dg trade, and you think actually maybe we can beat the one versus caged farmers, but it's almost impossible that we'll ever kind of outmaneuver or kind of out compete dg trade. Is that how you think about it? Yeah, I.

Speaker 1:

I think I mean definitely a big lesson for us in the past five years is that basically the people who were really hostile to animal welfare were not the people in DigiAgri but the people in Digitrade because of that pro-trade ideology. Hopefully that's changing now. Maybe this is one silver lining. You know, with what's happening in terms of trade policy in the US is that we're going back to, you know, more protectionist and all that. So we'll see and it could benefit animals in the EU context. We'll see how that develops in the next few years, but at the moment the trade policy of the EU is not favorable to farm animals.

Speaker 2:

A couple of final questions on the big EU question is so this is Neil Delahan from Rethink Priorities, this great piece which I think I can link below and I can for people who can request it and read it and one of his, I guess, proposals was that we should be spending a bit more efforts relatively building up capacity in member states, so in one of 27 countries in the EU, and, I guess, building up pressure for them to advocate, I guess, to central EU institutions, for more progressive animal welfare, relative to maybe a tiny bit less efforts on doing stuff by the European Commission, parliament and the Council and, yeah, I guess, any thoughts on this kind of slight reallocation of resources and that we should go more by member states versus central wise institutions.

Speaker 1:

Makes sense because the legislative process does include, you know, the position of each of the member states at a certain point. So you already mentioned the three EU institutions. So there's the European Commission, which is by far the more powerful of those three institutions, because it's the only institution that can propose legislation or decide to revise existing laws. And then there's the Council of the EU, which gathers the heads of all 27 member states and they have the power to amend whatever comes out of the European Commission. So it's amending powers and they're quite big amending powers. And then there's the European Parliament, who also has amending powers, and they're quite big amending powers. And then there's the European Parliament, who also has amending powers.

Speaker 1:

So if you're working to try and influence EU policy and EU legislation, you have to work with the member states anyway at some point, because they have amending powers and you can also, just like the Parliament, they can also influence the European Commission in enacting new legislation or amending existing legislation. Obviously, the European Commission, before they make a decision, consults with the member states and the European Parliament. So in any case, you have to work at national level as part of the EU legislative process and I agree with Neil that over the past five years, we've definitely seen more progress for animals at national level compared to EU level. So EU law, as a matter of fact, only usually sets minimum standards and then member states are allowed to go above and beyond those standards, and some have not many do in the context of farm animals, but some do. Yeah, we actually produced a report that assesses, you know, the changes in national laws over the past five years and you can see there's a lot more happening at national level than EU level, for sure.

Speaker 2:

What is the European Institute for Animal Law and Policy's role in all this work, and what are the kind of things that you focus and specialize on?

Speaker 1:

We're really a think and do think in the sense that we really do law and policy research, but we also do legislative advocacy and our position is usually we're not afraid of being very vocal. We can be very critical of the institutions, but whatever we put forward is really strongly anchored in research. So we're able to have those very technical discussions with policy makers, and we also work a lot with organizations in the member states. Also, one thing we do that we think is very crucial is to monitor what's happening in the EU at EU level, to explain to advocates in the member states how the EU works, what it does, what are the latest legal and policy developments, and also to try and find out what's happening in the member states how the EU works, what it does, what are the latest legal and policy developments, and also to try and find out what's happening in the member states, because there's actually very little communication between national groups and we're a union of 27 member states, so you can imagine there's actually a lot of people doing a lot of things and often similar things, but we don't really share what's happening because of many.

Speaker 1:

There are many reasons for that. Obviously, language is an issue, but yeah, so I'm really personally interested in what people are doing, but I think it could also be very impactful to have all those people communicate and make sure to know what's happening, because it's really interesting to see. So litigation is starting to pick up in the animal advocacy world in the EU and you realize like some people are actually litigating on the same things and those things are actually EU legislation. It's usually, you know, national legislation that implements EU law. It could help, potentially, animal advocates in all 27 member states. So we do a lot of that. We do a lot of monitoring and publishing of all those different efforts in the member states.

Speaker 2:

Nice, sally. We won't be able to go into too much more detail because there's another interesting topic that I would like to talk about. You published a few pieces on the differences and overlaps between animal ethics and environmental ethics, and do you want to just maybe outline a couple of interesting things you found in terms of relatively large differences between how animal and environmental advocates, I guess, think about their work and what they ultimately care about?

Speaker 1:

We usually say that environmentalists are more interested in protecting ecosystems and animals to the extent that animals belong to species as opposed to animal advocates, who tend to be more interested in protecting individuals and improving their welfare. So that's usually how people present those differences. Actually, yeah, during this research and I didn't do it, it wasn't just me, it was me and a colleague, adepstein spectrum in environmental ethics and those two spectrums actually overlap. So animal ethics and environmental ethics actually overlap to a large extent and there's more that unifies us as movements than things that differentiate us. So, yeah, the mind finding being well, we're actually not that different, you know, and those differences that may exist have been largely exaggerated has been how we engage in theory of government, in the sense that I think animal advocates are much more willing to engage with liberal economics and market-based dynamics, whereas environmental advocates tend to be reluctant to this. They tend to be operating by more socialist ethos and they trust the government and they think big government is good and they believe in government intervention, whereas animal advocates are like, well, why not?

Speaker 1:

Government intervention might work. But you know, sometimes we have to resort to market-based solutions, and corporate outreach campaigns are actually one example. It's like how do we exploit market dynamics in a way to achieve change? And if that change needs to go through government intervention, we'll do that. But if it doesn't need to, we don't have to. We can just use market dynamics to do that. But if it doesn't need to, we don't have to, we can just use market dynamics to do that.

Speaker 2:

Maybe having been involved in both environmental and animal advocacy movements, I see them with lots of overlaps, some similarities, and it's funny. I guess there's multiple layers. There's more socialist big government but also more anarchist no government, so it definitely goes further to the left, whereas maybe in the people I know in the animal world it doesn't often go that far left or like. Maybe like the concentration of people on that side of the spectrum is like relatively small and I definitely don't see our movement as like very, I guess like politically diverse. Still, I think most people would self-identify, as you know, left of center. So is it that we're like, we're like slightly more as centrist but like we don't still quite attract people on the right lip of the spectrum, like I guess? Yeah, how, how are you going to explain that kind of like lack of diversity, so like that, from the right lip of the spectrum?

Speaker 1:

so the animal advocacy movement is more diverse than the environmental protection movement, but I mean probably not as diverse, as you know we would like yeah, exactly when you would buy in the wild.

Speaker 1:

What really strikes me is that when I talk to environmental advocates, they, their solutions, are almost inevitably more subsidies, more state intervention, like there's almost no room for other types of of strategies. And when we talk about whoa, what about, you know, more consumer information, so consumers make choices that are more in line with their values. What about less subsidies and more market dynamics when it comes to alternative proteins, for instance? It's we don't really like that because you know, we're actually very suspicious of corporations and the market in general.

Speaker 1:

And there's definitely those suspicions also exist in the animal advocacy movement, for sure, but it's not. There's less of a sort of a knee-jerk reaction when you mention no solutions. That's been my experience 's. It's not at all. You know, I haven't done any research. It's not science-based, but that's, yeah, the feeling I've.

Speaker 2:

I've had um since working, yeah, yeah yeah and maybe, I guess, give some examples. I guess some of the stuff that maybe on our side of, like, the animal advocacy side, is more economically liberal. This is stuff like, yeah, you said, removing subsidies, not banning cultivated meats exactly yeah, I guess, removing.

Speaker 2:

You know, in the us there's ag gag laws which stop you from filming inside slaughterhouses, which are, yeah, obviously very restrictive, and I guess your general view is like we are generally more favorable of these relative to the amounts of movement, which are more or less exclusively, I guess, regulatory rather than kind of let the free market do its thing. Do you think this is changing for the environmental movement as, in a way, their alternatives become, I guess, like cheaper and more competitive, like, ie you know, solar panels and EVs, and renewable energy is actually becoming more competitive with fossil fuel-based energy or transport, such that actually being a bit more free market and deregulatory actually could be good for them in some ways? Or do you think that's, I mean, not quite yet happening?

Speaker 1:

So my sense has been that those discussions happened a long time ago, but the kind of state interventionists took over the movement. So even when they talk about alternative energies, it's about oh, we should subsidize solar panel, it's like well, but if it's cheaper on the market, why would you subsidize it? You know, if the market dynamics make it cheaper as it is, why would your default be the government should subsidize this which has distortion effects I mean distortive effects on those dynamics and also creates a lot of a sense of rejection, makes it political. Basically it makes it like a leftist measure when it really doesn't have to be.

Speaker 2:

I guess. I mean, I can see that, just because you know if you like something, you just want more money to go to that thing, just similar to, I guess, animal. I think people would propose, you know, subsidies for cultivated meat, which is also just source the market. But it's like you know, it's more, more of a good thing, more of a thing they like, and also you know you can make a case that for me, for us more particularly, you know we need more r&d. It's very expensive, blah, blah, blah. So you kind of need some intervention beginning. But I'm sure people would always want additional support because it's free money essentially. And we like to round up all the conversations with three final questions. So maybe the first one is what's one bit of news you're grateful about recently?

Speaker 1:

The announcement of the Dutch government that they were going to ban the killing of chicks, basically make it a requirement for hatcheries to resort to innovo-sexing. So this is great news, because the Netherlands is a big producer of eggs in the EU and it's not often that we have one major agricultural producer in the EU that announces what I consider to be a major animal welfare improvement. So it's been great news and we'll see what happens. So far it's been, you know, just an announcement, but I think the Netherlands is pretty serious about it, so it's supposed to enter into force by the end of 2025. This is pretty good news.

Speaker 2:

That's amazing Because I guess Germany I thinking germany's the only country in the world that have banned chick culling to date, so no one would be the second. Is that right?

Speaker 1:

france has banned it, germany, italy has banned it, but they haven't passed the regulation, so it's not in place yet. I think aust Austria has banned it, but they have a pretty big exemption, so basically they allow the killing of chicks if those chicks go to wild animals in captivity. You know there is definitely traction at national level to ban this practice, which is really good news.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, what are your thoughts? It seems like the exemption is pretty good actually if you do have some kind of exemption for animals in captivity, because then you're stopping more mice being eaten, or how much research or like looking into that question have you done and like, does it actually cause more mice to die if you end chick culling in some places?

Speaker 1:

I think what happens is that hatcheries just kind of reorient the chicks to zoos so they actually don't. There's no reduction in the number of chicks that are being killed because they just sell them to zoos. And then there's the bigger issue of should zoos even exist, because obviously you know those animals in the zoos don't eat chicks in the natural world. So yeah it seems just like a yeah, really messed up system. So, yeah, we're against the exemption. We think that exception shouldn't exist, because it's just not solving anything for anyone.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, makes sense. What's two or three media recommendations you'd have for listening to books, podcasts or anything else?

Speaker 1:

So I went with Kraftwerk, which is a German techno music band, I guess from the 90s. That's really good. And Kafka, franz Kafka, so pretty classic European literature. But I think it gives you a good sense of what the EU is Like at a very spiritual, intellectual level. What is this creature, this creature that the EU is? So Kraftwerk is very post-industrial, so in their songs they talk a lot about European culture. So it's not just music. There's actually, you know, a message. And Kafka, obviously you know the bureaucracy and persecution of people in bureaucratic maze, which I think is very powerful and inspired a lot of the European culture. That's at the inception of the new. So it's pretty dark, but it's actually. There's actually, you know, good things in those two recommendations.

Speaker 2:

Nice, those are great. I don't think we've had any music before, so this is exciting that we've had our first kind of like. Finally, I guess how can people get more involved with your work? Are you hiring, do you need more volunteers? Or how can people support your, your work, in your you can definitely subscribe to our newsletter.

Speaker 1:

So I was talking about earlier how we do a lot of monitoring work, try to document what's happening in member states, provide updates on new cases, new legislation, new policies, and we communicate about all this in our monthly newsletter. We have an English version and we have a French version, and the French version is not just the translation of the English version. So if you're a French speaker or want to practice your French, I encourage you to subscribe to both newsletters. Follow us on social media. Follow us on LinkedIn, on X Blue Sky yeah, that's how you can follow and support our work.

Speaker 2:

Nice. Yeah, I can attest I follow your English newsletter. Yeah, I find it very useful in terms of getting a lowdown on stuff that you know I'm not very plugged into, I don't fully understand, but I think you guys present things in very digestible.

Speaker 1:

and yes, yes, that's true. Yeah, because it's not just. We're not just reporting on what's happening, you know, in the member states and the EU, but we try to explain. This is what's happening with the transport regulation, this is what the vision for agriculture is and what it says, so we we try to make it understandable for non-eu people nice alice.

Speaker 2:

Thanks so much for your time and for your work and, yeah, really appreciate you joining and yeah, thanks for what you do thank you so much.