Leading researchers call for evidence: New EU legislation may end in unscientific compromise

1.6 billion animals are transported in the EU each year. From day-old chickens to pregnant cows, they vary in size, sensitivities and needs.

The current legislation on animal welfare during transport is almost 20 years old and no longer responds to modern realities or the latest scientific knowledge. The experts worry that the same can be said about aspects of the proposal currently on the table.  

The proposal was presented in 2023 and aims to “Ensure a higher level of animal welfare by bringing animal welfare requirements closer to the latest scientific evidence” and to “reduce animal welfare problems linked to long journeys and repetitive loading and reloading linked to several rest periods.”

As the legislation is currently being discussed, three leading experts in the field now join the debate, noting that there are potential problems with both of these statements.

When does a journey start?

In general, the experts’ critique is based on lack of scientific evidence backing the proposed regulation, but also uncertainties in the wording.

 For instance, regarding the definitions of journey duration.

For pigs and cattle, loading and unloading of the animals are included in the official journey time. But for poultry and rabbits, that are transported in containers inside a vehicle, it’s a different picture.

“For poultry and rabbits, the transport duration is 12 hours instead of nine. And it's not clear if the transport starts when the animals are loaded in the containers, or when the first container is placed on the truck,” says Marien Gerritzen, senior scientist at Wageningen University specializing in animal welfare.

This means that the animals can be caught, put in containers and placed outside a barn for extended periods of time. But the journey only officially starts when the containers are loaded onto the vehicle.

Another more glaring example of this uncertainty is when animals are transported by sea. According to the current proposal the counting of the journey time will be suspended from the moment the last animal is loaded on the vessel until the moment the first animal is unloaded at the port of arrival, Inga Wilk, veterinarian and animal welfare scientist at the Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut explains:

“A journey on a vessel or a boat is thus not considered transport. Some animals go to Egypt, Algeria, or much further on a boat. And if you don't consider the boat as a mode of transportation, you can put them on a boat and lengthen the journey enormously,” Inga Wilk says.

Marien Gerritzen agrees and concludes:

“This is a complete misunderstanding of EFSA’s recommendations.”

When is a break a break?

Another problem in the proposal relates to breaks in the journeys.

The proposal deals with both short, one-hour breaks where the animals stay on the vehicle, and longer, 24-hour breaks where the animals are unloaded at control posts and later reloaded again.

The one-hour breaks are already present in the current legislation for unweaned calves, but the new proposal aims to expand the requirement for a 1-hour break to most pig and cattle categories, when transported more than 10 hours.

According to Mette S. Herskin, professor in animal welfare during critical life events at Aarhus University, this is not aligned with the scientific recommendations from EFSA.  

“I question the functionality of these one-hour breaks. To the best of my knowledge, the benefit of these breaks is not documented, and EFSA clearly concluded that pigs or cattle need to be unloaded from the vehicle for a sufficiently long period of time if they are to recover from transit,” she says and adds:

“A reason for the recommendation to unload animals during breaks could be that it has not been documented that it is possible for the animals to drink and rest according to their needs in a journey break on a stationary vehicle. Thus, it is not known how long such a break should be or how it can be organised to be a functional break for the animals and not just a stationary period,” she says.

The possibility of adding more mandatory one-hour breaks, with the current level of knowledge on how to achieve functionality in terms of animal welfare, worries her.

“These short breaks look good on paper, but I'm not sure they in reality will improve animal welfare. What is certain, though, is that they will prolong the stay on the vehicle for the animals,” she says.   

The knowledge on functionality of so-called resting periods is lacking for both the shorter breaks on the vehicles, and for the longer 24-hour breaks where the animals are unloaded.  

“We don’t know what is required in terms of time, housing or management to achieve the aimed resting and mitigation of the consequences of the transit in terms of welfare,” she stresses.

Temperature and humidity

Another issue with the proposal that the researchers highlight is in the section about exposure to extreme temperatures.

“Based on what is in the current proposal, it is very difficult to see if those temperature initiatives will improve animal welfare. The text is very limited right now,” Marien Gerritzen says.

The current proposal sets a maximum temperature that is the same across species and age groups in order to define the necessary transport conditions and the maximum journey times.

This is problematic for many reasons, the researchers explain: Heat production differs among animal species and age categories of animals, and their sensitivity to heat stress differs as well. Importantly, the humidity of the air in vehicles also plays an important role for the effective temperature. 

“A solution could be to use a temperature-humidity index, as both temperature and humidity has a strong influence on the development of heat stress. It would help if there was a standard calculation for temperature-humidity index and cut-off points for the different animal categories were then developed,” Marien Gerritzen says.

But before this can be done, more research is needed to understand the relationship between the thermal conditions inside vehicles and the potential discomfort experienced by the animals, Mette S. Herskin adds. 

According to the proposal, only the temperature forecasts at the place of departure, the place of destination and, when relevant, at control posts and border control posts are to be taken into account when planning transport.

Inga Wilk explains that in order to capture temperature differences along the transport route and to ensure that transport conditions are maintained at specified temperatures, it is necessary to provide forecasts for locations along the entire route.

“The forecasts always refer to the temperature outside the vehicle. However, we know that if the vehicle is stationary, e.g. in traffic jams, the temperature inside the vehicle can deviate considerably from the outside temperature,” Inga Wilk says and adds:

“Therefore, it makes sense to have a sensor-based temperature monitoring system in the vehicle. As already provided for in the current regulation, the temperatures in the loading compartment should be recorded by several sensors at critical locations, with the driver being notified in the event of deviations.”

More space

The researchers also highlight a potential improvement in the current proposal in the section about space allowance.

“When it comes to space allowance, the proposal follows EFSA’s guidelines, so that is an improvement,” Marien Gerritzen says. 

But there are also some difficulties on this subject, he explains. Especially if the animals transported need to be fed or watered during transport, as the proposal describes for the short breaks.

“In these situations, the animals need additional space, and it should be defined how much space they need, and what the conditions should be: How many drinking points, where they should be located and so on. There needs to be more definitions of how the trucks should be designed and how they should be managed,” he says.

Unscientific compromise

All three scientists underline the fact that transport is a multifactorial stressor.

None of the welfare consequences associated with transport can be completely prevented, but they can be mitigated.

“If we keep transporting animals in the future, it is impossible to avoid that transport has negative effects for animal welfare. It is, however, important to remember that such negative effects can range from quite mild to severe depending on the conditions that the animals are transported under,” Mette S. Herskin says and adds:

 “It’s not a bad idea to transport animals less. But if journey duration is the only focus, e.g. by adding extra journey breaks (in a stationary vehicle or unloaded in for example assembly barns) we risk contradicting the core of the purpose of the new legislation because there is no evidence suggesting that this will improve animal welfare.”

In the current societal debate on animal transport, there is a strong push for shorter journeys.

“Like so many other issues in society, this is not simple. In a global world where socioeconomical factors have large influence, I think there is a risk that if we just say ‘shorter, shorter, shorter’, we risk missing the point,” Mette S. Herskin says and concludes:

“Some aspects of the new proposal follow the scientific recommendations from EFSA in order to improve animal welfare, but some do not. There can be many reasons for that, but if the scientific evidence underlying a proposed change is lacking, it is difficult to say whether it in the end will benefit animal welfare.”