Enlarge image
Pigs in the barn: what is important when it comes to animal welfare?
Photo: Marijan Murat / dpa
Animal health seals do not advance animal health.
The consumer organization Foodwatch came to this conclusion after analyzing more than a dozen veterinary studies.
Whether animals are kept on an organic farm or on a conventional farm hardly plays a role with regard to diseases.
"There are sick and injured animals on small organic farms as well as in large animal factories," said the author of the report, Annemarie Botzki.
She criticized the planned state animal husbandry label.
"It won't end animal suffering," said Botzki.
"It misleads consumers." They should be able to assume that products come from healthy animals.
An animal health strategy is not recognizable.
There is a lack of legal requirements to ensure animal health on the farms.
Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir is planning mandatory husbandry labeling, which will initially apply to fresh pork.
Later, the label will also be extended to processed products and other livestock.
The maintenance levels to be introduced are:
barn
stable+place
fresh air barn
run/outdoor
Organic as an extra category
Botzki criticized that the seal only provides information about differences in the way the animals are kept - but not about the state of health of the animals.
Whether chickens, pigs or cows are healthy does not only depend on the space available in the stables.
Stable management and the selection of animal breeds are also important.
There is no risk for consumers
Foodwatch refers to the evaluation of studies on livestock husbandry.
Accordingly, there are problems at all levels of maintenance.
The authors of the report use data from Denmark, for example, where more than a million slaughter pigs were examined.
Diseases were found in around 36 percent of the conventionally kept animals.
In the animals from organic free-range husbandry, the proportion of sick animals was only slightly lower at a good 35 percent.
There are also problems with cows on organic farms.
The Foodwatch report refers to a study of 60 organic dairy farms in Germany.
Accordingly, more than half of the dairy cows were affected by udder infections.
However, the Foodwatch experts explained that there is no specific health risk for consumers.
As long as this is not the case, veterinarians can only intervene to a limited extent.
The solution for animal health does not lie in specifications for the type of husbandry, but in the systematic collection of health data for each individual company, said the former head of animal nutrition and animal health at the University of Kassel, Albert Sundrum, who accompanied the Foodwatch report.
"Many farms have a good grip on health management, while others have persistent problems with sick and injured animals," Sundrum said.
Factors such as know-how or the availability of investment funds also played a role.
However, there is no direct connection between the size of a farm and animal health.
Sundrum criticized that reducing animal welfare to the debate on husbandry does not do justice to the complexity.
»The lowest common denominator is an animal welfare label.
That's an indictment,' he said.
Foodwatch demands monitoring of health data
He called for health data to be systematically recorded, evaluated and published for each individual company.
Such data already exist, they are recorded in slaughterhouses, for example, said Foodwatch author Botzki.
But conclusions must also be drawn from this.
Companies should be able to compare themselves with others.
This can be done without investing billions.
Foodwatch demands that farm subsidies also be based on the health data of livestock farms.
»Farms with poor animal health must be advised and asked to make improvements.
There must be consequences for farms with repeated bad results, such as the reduction of agricultural subsidies.«
Model companies, on the other hand, could be rewarded with higher prices for their products.
Bioland defends label - and warns of harm to animals
The Bioland producers' association rejected Foodwatch's blanket criticism of Özdemir's planned label.
"Anyone who badmouths this approach now achieves the opposite of what they supposedly want: it harms the animals," Gerald Wehde, head of agricultural policy at Bioland, told SPIEGEL.
Mandatory labeling of housing and exercise systems is the right approach, since consumers can then see how much space the animals have in the housing and exercise area.
"Enough space and exercise are important basic requirements for more animal welfare, but also for better animal health," said Wehde.
In addition to the mandatory husbandry labeling, a significant increase in the basic legal standard in animal husbandry is necessary.
In addition, systems would have to be established to improve husbandry management.
"The overall effect is an improvement in the health status of the animals," said Wehde.
In view of Foodwatch's criticism of animal health on organic farms, Wehde referred to an additional animal welfare check that is carried out annually on organic farms.
"The inspectors also evaluate key indicators of animal welfare such as the nutrition, care and health of the animals as well as the condition of the stall, exercise area and feed and the loss rates."
Based on the findings of these tests, the animal welfare check will be further developed in a targeted manner together with some other organic farming associations that participate in animal welfare controls.