Consultation on fur import ban and declaration requirements for animal products - TIR and three further organisations submit joint statement
Last April, the Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA) launched the consultation on the revision of several animal welfare-related ordinances. The planned amendments aim to introduce a ban on the import of fur products produced in a cruel manner, and a declaration requirement for foie gras products and certain animal products obtained abroad using painful procedures without anaesthesia. Zurich Animal Protection, Vier Pfoten, Swiss Animal Protection STS and the Foundation for the Animal in the Law (TIR) have submitted a joint statement in which they comment in detail on the planned amendments to the ordinance.
July 3, 2024
The four organisations expressly welcome the Federal Council's intention to ban the import of fur products obtained in a cruel manner. Such an import ban is the only way to prevent domestic demand from fuelling cruel production methods abroad, which are clearly rejected by a large proportion of the Swiss population. According to the draft ordinance, furs may only be imported into Switzerland in future if they originate from countries that legally prohibit cruel forms of production or if they were obtained on certified farms that adhere to corresponding production guidelines.
In their statement, however, the four organisations also point out various shortcomings in the planned ban. From an animal welfare perspective, for example, it is incomprehensible that furs from animals hunted with snap traps are to be exempt from the import ban according to the Federal Council's explanations on the draft ordinance. Due to their unreliable mode of action, such traps often lead to the slow, painful death of the animals, which is why their use is clearly defined as cruelty to animals. They also harbour a high risk of false catches, which is why they are questionable from a species conservation perspective. It should also be criticised that, according to the Federal Council's explanations, the import ban specifically covers the keeping of animals in cages with mesh floors in relation to fur farming. However, such a scope of application would be too narrow. The keeping of fur animals in cramped cages with no opportunities for activity is to be categorised as cruel to animals even if the cages have solid floors. It is true that cages with grid floors are currently used almost exclusively in fur farming. However, it must be ensured that the import ban cannot simply be circumvented by covering the cage floors with solid materials in the future.
With regard to the planned declaration obligation for imported animal foodstuffs, it is strongly envisaged that beef, pork, chicken and turkey meat, hens' eggs and frogs' legs will have to be labelled as having been obtained by means of painful interventions without anaesthesia if certain practices described in the relevant regulation are used during production.
Secondly, products from stuffing fatteninggavage (force-feeding), such as foie gras, should be labelled as coming from force-fed geese or ducks. In their statement, the four organisations welcome the labelling requirement as a step in the right direction, but do not consider it to be sufficient. In their view, an import ban would also be appropriate from an animal welfare perspective with regard to the products affected by the labelling requirement, as the corresponding production methods are to be classified as clear cruelty to animals by Swiss standards and are therefore prohibited in Switzerland. Furthermore, the selection of acts covered by the declaration obligation appears arbitrary. Conversely, a comprehensive declaration of animal welfare-relevant practices in connection with the production of animal products would make sense.
Another weak point of the proposed labelling requirement is the distribution of the burden of proof. The authorities should only be able to object to missing labelling if they can prove that the products in question were actually obtained using a method that requires labelling. To do this, however, they would have to inspect the production facilities located abroad, which would involve disproportionate effort on the one hand and legal difficulties on the other. This would make it largely impossible to seriously check the compliance with the labelling obligation. In their statement, the four organisations therefore call for a regulation according to which the burden of proof lies with the sales outlets. They should therefore have to prove that undeclared products were actually obtained without the cruel methods to be declared.
You can find the full statement on the planned amendments to the ordinance here. In the interests of animal welfare, the four organisations hope that their proposals and suggestions will be taken into account as far as possible.
More information:
- Joint statement by the organisations Zürcher Tierschutz, Vier Pfoten, Schweizer Tierschutz STS and TIR (in German)
- Consultation documents (in German)
- Medienmitteilung des Bundesrats vom 10.4.2024: "Pelz- und Stopfleber-Initiative: Bundesrat empfiehlt Ablehnung"
- Kampagnenseite "Stopp Pelz" mit weiteren Informationen rund um das Thema Pelz
- Rüttimann Andreas/Gerritsen Vanessa/Blattner Charlotte, Zulässigkeit von Beschränkungen des Handels mit tierquälerisch hergestellten Pelzprodukten, Schriften zum Tier im Recht, Band 16 (in German)
- Stohner Nils/Bolliger Gieri, GATT-rechtliche Zulässigkeit von Importverboten für Pelzprodukte, Schriften zum Tier im Recht, Band 4 (in German)