It remains a fact that avoidable pain, harm, and suffering of millions of farm animals in the agricultural sector of the EU internal market bring cost advantages and thus competitive advantages. It has long been scientifically proven and is abundantly clear to many practitioners: The finest barn and the largest outdoor area are no guarantee of healthy animals. The decisive measure of whether a farm animal feels well during its usually very short life is its state of health. Yet in public discourse and politics, the term “animal welfare” is used to conduct a diversionary debate about larger barns, more outdoor access, or straw as bedding and enrichment material.

nature solidarity demands: Meat, milk, and eggs from sick animals have no place in supermarkets. We advocate for animal welfare laws that meet the requirements of the World Organisation for Animal Health [World Organisation for Animal Health, WOAH for short] – throughout the entire EU. All EU member states have long committed to this on paper, but implementation is inadequate. This must change. Out of solidarity with animals.

Putting the animal at the center
The term “animal welfare” is an invention of agricultural marketing. While the word now appears on many meat and dairy packages, animal suffering is often inside: Depending on the livestock species, some farmers have 20, 30, 40 percent of individuals with veterinary findings in the barn or at the slaughterhouse – even among animals from organic farms. This means: Many consumers unknowingly purchase products from sick animals.

Even the highest husbandry level is no guarantee that the animals were healthy. For this reason, nature solidarity considers the “animal welfare” initiative of the food retail sector with its 5 husbandry forms to be a mere diversionary tactic. [Initiative Tierwohl, husbandry forms from 1 to 5 | 31.10.2025]

Our conclusion: Animal welfare that deserves this name exists only with the greatest transparency about the true health status of the animals. Because only animals that live largely free from “pain, harm, and suffering,” as stated in the Animal Welfare Act, can truly feel “well.”

Science has long known: Every livestock farm differs from another, even if it may appear identical in terms of framework data and husbandry level. The decisive variable is the farm management of the farmer: Can they take time for regular observation of their animals? Do they have a knack for animals, the right eye to recognize the onset of diseases early or prevent them entirely? It would be easy to reliably identify problem farms and combat animal suffering in a targeted manner.
Animal health databases could ensure greater competition for better animal welfare and fair compensation for good animal welfare performance: Those who raise the healthiest animals receive the highest price premiums.

Exaggerated, unrealistic? Or merely unfamiliar, because in the “animal welfare” and “animal protection” debate, the focus is primarily on barns and their equipment, rather than on the animals themselves? Yet the European member states have themselves solemnly and democratically written the benchmark for genuine animal welfare into their “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.” Article 13 states that “full regard” must be paid to “the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.” [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Art. 13]