A world without slaughterhouses takes us back to the Middle Ages? Commonly available meat becomes an exclusive commodity

The Official Goal of the Citizens’ Initiative End The Slaughter Age (World Without Slaughterhouse)is to exclude livestock from EC subsidized activities and redirect EU funding from the CAP to animal shelters. Ultimately, the Initiative aims to eliminate and criminalize all forms of use of farmed animals. As an ethical alternative, it proposes the production of cellular meat, eggs, bones and skin in laboratories, and vegetable meat, ie a vegetable meat substitute. – says the organization Breeders Together.

The Breeders’ Agreement Together has issued a letter about the European citizens’ initiative End The Slaughter Age, which by manipulating scientific facts discriminates against animal production, negatively affects agriculture and consumer health and threatens food security. The post was delivered to the office of the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Janusz Wojciechowski:

Objectives of the European Citizens’ Initiative Ending the era of slaughter

The official purpose of the Citizens’ Initiative (hereinafter: Initiative) is to exclude livestock from EC subsidized activities and redirect EU funding from the CAP to animal shelters. Ultimately, the Initiative aims to eliminate and criminalize all forms of use of farmed animals. As an ethical alternative, it proposes the production of cellular meat, eggs, bones and skin in laboratories, and vegetable meat, ie a vegetable meat substitute.

In fact, although The initiative tries to convince people to give up the proven and used food sources by mankind for hundreds of thousands of years for solutions that have been tested for a decade and do not go beyond the experimental tests of synthetic substitutes.

The initiative’s activity coincides with information about the growing financial difficulties of companies promising cheap and mass production of meat substitutes. One can get the impression that this initiative aims to create the market success of these companies through administrative methods.

Manipulating the truth and scientific facts

To this end, the Initiative uses in its media a skilful mix of facts, opinions with a large number of errors and manipulations. Many of the initiative’s statements are simply not true. Their duplication is either due to the lack of reliable knowledge about livestock farming or is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign (unfair lobbying).

The initiative, which fights for the abolition of “animal use” with slogans about energy consumption in production and climate protection, fails to notice that livestock farming and production are changing intensively in taking animal welfare into account, eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and introducing the principles of sustainable development. Such examples are becoming more common, and the widespread popularization of modern farms that produce with respect for the needs of the environment and climate protection would jeopardize the existence of ecological and animal-friendly organizations. Hence the postulates for a total ban on livestock farming and production.

Consumer health

The proposed changes will cause consumers to lose access to natural nutrients from animal products recommended by nutritionists and scientists in favor of products whose long-term effect is difficult to predict. He is known for this the cost of producing “artificial meat” – even several times higher than conventional production, also in terms of generating a very high carbon and water footprint. We are concerned about the health of consumers and the proper development of children and adolescents who need essential nutrients from animal products in their daily diet.

The proposed changes will result in: publicly available meat and its products, as in the Middle Ages, will become an exclusive commodity, only available to the elite. For the rest of society, there will be artificial surrogates.

Effects on agriculture

The activities of the initiative can not only lead to an increase in food prices and a decrease in the consumption of animal products (eggs, milk, meat), reduction of livestock, deterioration of production profitability, but also the collapse of sectors supporting livestock production (feed industry, veterinary services, livestock equipment industry, etc.). In the long run, this could mean an irreversible collapse of livestock farming and production.

Food Safety

Global meat consumption averages 33.7 kg per capita (ECD-FAO, 2020) and is rising in line with society’s increasing prosperity. About 325 million tons of meat are consumed every year. In the EU, this consumption is twice as high (69.0 kg/person) and culturally determined, with many products being regionally and locally branded. With the growing human population in the world, it is agriculture, not laboratories, that should ensure food security.

As a result of the war in Ukraine, food security in many countries around the world has been endangered. The Ghost of Hunger and the difficult situation in the countries of the Middle East, Africa and Asia could affect more than 200 million people, according to current UN estimates, and lead to an unprecedented wave of population migration. In addition, the proposal to forgo the production of meat from ritual slaughter could lead to conflict with religious minorities who cannot accept dietary changes.

Animal welfare, subsidies in strategic programs

The initiative introduces the misconception that livestock is mistreated. In fact, concern for animal welfare has been reflected for decades in legislative solutions at EU and Member State level, as well as in didactic content at different levels of education.

Animal welfare has been recognized as the main direction for change, and the financial support measures in the CAP Strategic Plans 2023-2027 focus in many countries on priority actions to improve living conditions, transport and slaughter of animals.

Under the guise of building a future, they offer a world without a future

Concerns about unethical animal production, which at the same time destroy the environment and cause climate change, are formulated by people who in many cases are not related to rural areas, and their knowledge does not come from agricultural universities, but is based on unreliable information reiterated on social media. The demolition of scientific authorities in the name of populist solutions is unfortunately becoming a common global trend. In addition, the authors of these slogans, aware of the experience and criticism of older recipients, focus their message on children and adolescents, ie groups most prone to manipulation. Under the guise of building a future, they offer a world without a future. As a civilization, we face the challenge not only of feeding a growing population on a global scale, but also of resisting distorted communications messages that spread misinformation and blur the desired directions of development.

Leave a Comment