"Animal slaughter is a holy cow in European animal welfare"
These are two of Danish philosopher Peter Sandøe's comments on the issue of humane killing in commercial whaling. Sandøe is employed at the University of Copenhagen and was appointed by the Danish authorities as chairman of the Danish Council of Animal Ethics. The Council deals with all manner of questions related to animal welfare, from industrial farming to hunting to the keeping of pets. Here, Sandøe is expressing his personal views.
Sandøe highlights one of the paradoxes of the animal welfare debate: "When the focus is on the last ten seconds rather than the entire life of the animal, there is something wrong. Animal slaughter is a holy cow in European animal welfare." He refers here to the discussion on the use of CO-2 gas to anaesthetize pigs prior to slaughter. The debate centres on whether the extremely agitated behaviour of pigs in the last 10 seconds before they lose consciousness means that they are experiencing pain or discomfort. Sandøe believes that the disproportionate attention to the actual slaughter - compared with the level of concern for the living conditions of the animal in general - is a reflection of a "deep cultural problem".
He considers the improvements in killing methods in Norwegian minke whaling, with an average time to death of a little over 3 minutes, as ethical progress. "These are excellent figures compared with, for example, hunting for sport. My impression is that there has been a lot of work to improve the efficiency of the killing, such as through compulsory training courses for harpooners. The number of animals that escape is also low compared with other forms of hunting."
"Baroque" and "incomprehensible" is what Sandøe calls the UK's position that there should be more stringent humane killing requirements for commercial whaling than for the recreational hunting of land mammals. His reasoning lies in the discussion of animal testing in the EU, where there is strong critical reaction to animal testing for the cosmetic industry, while painful experiments on animals for research on human diseases are accepted. Public opinion polls in Denmark indicate that Danes share these views.
Cosmetics are seen as a luxury. Sandøe believes that the same distinction in attitudes should apply to recreational as opposed to commercial hunting. "Sport hunting is a form of entertainment which is not essential. Commercial hunting provides a livelihood, while sport hunting is a hobby". But he also points out that it can be difficult to distinguish clearly between commercial and recreational hunting. In many cases landowners earn substantial incomes from the sale of hunting licences to sports hunters.
When it comes to the other aspect of the British position - that it is relevant to compare killing methods in minke whaling with standards for the killing of domestic livestock in slaughterhouses - Sandøe remarks that this comparison is not complete unless the whole process prior to slaughter is also taken into account. Transport and confinement can cause the animal significant stress and suffering. "The killing of animals in slaughterhouses under controlled conditions will, however, always be more effective than in the hunting of wild animals", stresses Sandøe. He has a certain understanding for organisations which are in principle opposed to all killing of wild animals.
One of the latest reports of the Danish Council of Animal Ethic concerns the production of broiler chickens in Denmark. The report, which has drawn much attention in the Danish media, is first and foremost strongly critical of the way in which broiler chickens are produced. A compromised period of growth combined with certain other elements of the production methods means that the chickens have persistent pain in their legs. The skeleton cannot keep up with the accelerated rate of growth. "Completely unacceptable" says Sandøe. The broiler industry is now obliged to come up with some means of improving the situation. But the report also raises questions about the standards of slaughtering. "When the animals knock against each other and the equipment after they are strung up by the feet but before they are stunned, this is a sign of indifference. It is quite unnecessary. This is something that can be corrected without any great economic cost" says Sandøe.
He has a pragmatic position on the solution to animal welfare problems. When the Animal Ethics Council takes measures which result in significantly greater costs to Danish producers than their competitors in other EU countries, the producers will not survive, and the production - and the problems - are moved to another country. "There are a number of measures that can be taken without great cost increases. It is often a question of developing new production techniques which can take into account both animal welfare and economic considerations. This is not always a contradiction. But many measures for improving animal welfare, such as giving each animal more space, will put costs up" says Sandøe. This is why an important part of the Council's work is to influence Danish authorities in moving the process along within the EU.
Sweden and Norway have stricter animal welfare requirements in pig production than, for example, Denmark. "I think Sweden will be forced to relax its standards if they are going to be able to survive the competition on the EU market. This is very regrettable", says Sandøe. He stresses the importance of creating common animal welfare standards in countries with a common market for domestic livestock produce while also pointing out that a lot of serious work has already been done in this area through the EU and the Council of Europe.
Sandøe's view of domestic livestock production is very much in line with the mainstream in the European animal welfare movement, but his position on hunting is more likely on a collision course with it. Sandøe explains how he sees it - "For me the overriding factor is that I can accept that we are permitted to kill animals for human use - when this doesn't inflict unnecessary suffering on the animal. If one can accept farming of free range pigs or free range chickens, one should also be able to accept whaling when the quality of killing is of the standard found in Norwegian minke whaling. The whale has a better life. Even with the best pig production there will be limits on the animal's natural expression - and discomfort associated with transport and slaughter" says Sandøe.