Berlin (dpa) – How can you see from the chop in the refrigerated counter that the pig once had it better? A logo for supermarket customers that creates more clarity about the conditions in the stalls has been struggling for a long time.
A national label planned by Federal Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner (CDU) for higher standards than prescribed did not materialize. At the same time, retail chains are promoting their own labeling and have already announced plans to change the meat range. In the Bundestag election, too, the question is: Is there anything else on the packs when it comes to animal welfare?
Klöckner made it clear that a more comprehensive logo was not done for them after the advance of the supermarkets. “There is a clear desire of many consumers for a state animal welfare label that is credible and quickly recognizes an increase in animal welfare,” she told the German press agency. It is about the conditions in the entire lifespan of an animal. “The trade markings only reflect the posture in the mast. But animal welfare has something to do with piglet growth in pigs, for example, and transport also plays a role. “
Aldi rushes forward
Large supermarket chains introduced uniform labeling for meat in 2019. The logo with the inscription “HALTform” has four levels, but they start with the legal minimum standard and not just above it. The discounter Aldi wants to stop selling meat by 2030 that comes from animals in the lower two levels – that is, from pure stables without outside air. Other retailers have also announced gradual changes in the range to higher levels that provide for more space or outlet. In the case of pigs, around 80 percent came from the lowest level 1.
On the political stage, however, the debate continues, including the whole thrust. Klöckner said the new government had to answer the question: «Does it just want to reflect the status quo? Then she makes a posture mark. Or does it want to promote a transformation towards more animal welfare and make it visible? Our model is positive – it reflects higher standards that are above the law. ” This is also the case with the organic seal. Anyone who, like the SPD, says that they want this to be nationally mandatory is violating EU law. Therefore she initiated a European animal welfare label. “The ball rolls, so to speak.”
The current coalition partner promptly came against it. Klöckner’s statements about a state label are “nothing but hot air and completely untrustworthy,” said SPD parliamentary deputy Matthias Miersch of the dpa. He referred to a commission of experts headed by the former minister Jochen Borchert, who worked out broad criteria for a logo. So that the next federal government can introduce it quickly, the commission should present it by the start of coalition negotiations.
Künast: “A crashing failure”
Green expert Renate Künast accused Klöckner of having “crashed” with her own plans for a voluntarily usable label. It has also been completely outdated since the trade announcements. “State labeling can only create trust if every piece of meat on the counter is labeled.” The consumer advice centers continue to rely on a state logo, which, however, should not be made mandatory in the EU internal market alone. “But I am firmly convinced that Europe will only come to a binding label when large nation states have taken a step forward,” said the head of the Federal Association (vzbv), Klaus Müller. It is the next head of department to implement that.
There are also some unanswered questions about the animal welfare advances made by Aldi and Co. “One can only hope that this is not a PR campaign,” said Klöckner. So far, there has been no guarantee that animal owners will pay higher prices for the additional costs required when switching to higher standards. “Aldi says nothing about the payment, or whether the goods will then come from abroad instead of from the region.” The farmers’ association and other organizations have already followed up on this and warned that people should be included: «Words have to be followed by deeds.» So it is “a question of credibility” not only to provide criteria for keeping animals for fattening. Without the previous sow husbandry and piglet rearing, one ignored an essential part of life.