Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 103kWORD 16k
10 April 2017
P-002607-17
Question for written answer P-002607-17
to the Commission
Rule 130
Mark Demesmaeker (ECR)

 Subject:  Slaughter without stunning
 Answer in writing 

On 29 March, the Flemish Government reached agreement on a total ban on slaughter without stunning. From 2019, when slaughtering sheep, small ruminants or poultry, it will be compulsory to use reversible electronarcosis. As soon as the technology has also been perfected for calves and cattle, it will also be used for them. Until then, post-cut stunning is compulsory for these animals.

This puts Flanders in the vanguard (albeit not alone) for improvements to animal welfare: un-stunned slaughter is already banned in Denmark, parts of Finland, Germany, Cyprus, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Post-cut stunning is standard in Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Slovakia.

In his final report, independent intermediary Piet Vantemsche concludes: ‘The way in which EU Member States deal with the derogation from the requirement to stun animals in the case of ritual slaughter at slaughterhouses is very diverse. This means that there is not a playing field, and this has a number of (undesirable) side effects (relocation).’ He considers it necessary to introduce a stricter definition of the derogation allowing un-stunned slaughter under EU legislation.

Further to my Question P-012070/2015, I should like once again to ask the Commission whether it is considering revising Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 in view of developments in the Member States concerned and the unmistakable concern which exists among members of the public to protect animal welfare more effectively? If so, when? If not, why not?

Original language of question: NL 
Legal notice