The future of EU livestock transport: MEPs remain divided over welfare and economic reforms

Campaigners are calling for clarity following a recent debate among EU MEPs over amendments to the bloc’s animal transport policies. These policies determine how the meat industry can move livestock, dead or alive, throughout Europe and to foreign trading partners. Proposed changes to transport times and conditions, like temperatures and space allowances, were addressed but opinions about animal welfare issues are proving to be polarized. 

MEPs tried to reach a consensus on legislative proposals put forward in a draft report published by the Agricultural and Transport Committees at the European Commission (EC). The report seeks to achieve welfare improvements without causing significant economic damage to food companies, which will be required to make logistical changes throughout their supply chains. 

Susanna Blattner, Eurogroup for Animals’ farmed animals program officer, tells Food Ingredients First that the debates show some promising signs of progress, but it is not enough to produce the needed change. She also says the industry and consumers should be better informed of how livestock transport impacts produce quality and public and environmental health. 

“The discussion was highly polarized, reflecting deep divisions among policymakers. On one side, some MEPs defended the Commission’s proposal or even called for improvements to strengthen animal welfare further. On the other hand, a number of MEPs — mainly concerned with the potential economic impact — argued for significantly weakening the proposal, claiming that, as it stands, it would place too heavy a burden on the agricultural and transport sectors,” she explains. 

“If the EC’s proposal remains mostly unchanged, we can expect stricter rules for animal transport during extreme temperatures, space allowances per animal that reflect the latest EFSA scientific opinions, and stronger protections for vulnerable animals, such as unweaned ones. Journey times would be reduced, particularly for animals transported for slaughter.” 

Outdated legislation 

Blattner explains that the current EU debate over animal transport centers around the “urgent need to modernize outdated legislation.” 

Over 1.6 billion animals are transported across the EU each year, often in overcrowded, stressful conditions.The current regulation dates back to 2005. Since then, numerous tragic incidents involving live animal transport have occurred, sparking regulatory debate. In response, the European Parliament established a committee to produce a detailed report highlighting systemic issues in the sector. In 2022, the EFSA also published five scientific opinions outlining species-specific welfare risks during transport. 

Barry Cowen, Ireland’s Minister of Food and Agriculture, says that while reduced transport times are welcome, some other aspects of the proposals must be revised. 

“I believe the EC struck the right balance between scientific evidence and economic realities on the ground. However, there are areas where the proposal needs to be amended. The five-year transition period is too short, given the scale of changes required. Transporters are facing major capital investments in new technologies and vehicles — they need more time to adapt,” he says.

Despite the proposal to raise the minimum age for transportation of some livestock, such as calves, Cowen says the scientific evidence is conflicted on this issue. 

“Such a drastic change would disrupt existing farm management practices and drive up costs in housing, in feed, in veterinary care, and manure management.” 

Insufficient change? 

Blattner says that the EC’s proposal is “a significant step forward, but it is still not sufficient.” She says stricter rules are needed to fully align with the latest scientific research, which would stipulate more species- and category-specific provisions, shorter journey times, tighter limits on temperature, and stronger protections for vulnerable animals such as unweaned ones. 

Transport by sea should also be included in the calculation of total journey time, Blattner says, which is currently not the case. “Most importantly, a complete ban on live exports is needed.” 

Millions of animals die in transit every year due to heat stress, exhaustion, or injuries. Reports suggest that in some cases, mortality rates exceed 5% for poultry and 1% for pigs and sheep.Once animals leave the EU, it becomes impossible to ensure compliance with EU animal welfare standards — something the European Court of Justice has acknowledged. “Case studies have already demonstrated the economic, environmental, and social benefits of shifting to the transport of meat, carcasses, and genetic material. While the EC has included this transition among the objectives of its proposal, a clear and enforceable roadmap is necessary to make it happen.” 

Some countries, including New Zealand and the UK, have already adopted or announced bans on live exports. 

Impact on food supplies 

Blattner stresses that transport standards play a key role in shaping the resilience, safety, and sustainability of public food supplies. Inadequate transport conditions can lead to animal stress, injuries, or mortality, affecting the quality of animal products. Increased contamination risks, bruising, or reduced carcass quality are common results of poor transport standards.

“Poor welfare also undermines public trust, as consumers increasingly demand food that is produced ethically, including during transport,” she highlights. 

“Critically, EFSA has underlined that live animal transport, particularly over long distances and across borders, contributes to the spread of zoonotic diseases, and to the risk of antimicrobial resistance, both of which pose significant threats to public health. Long and stressful journeys increase animals’ susceptibility to infections, which may lead to greater antimicrobial use, further fuelling antimicrobial resistance.” 

Blattner also says that food industry companies should be aware of the benefits that costly legislative requirements would bring. 

“First, better welfare leads to improved product quality, such as reduced bruising and stress-related defects in meat, fewer injuries, and lower mortality rates, which means less financial loss along the chain. Second, aligning with higher standards can strengthen consumer trust and market competitiveness, as public demand for ethically produced food is growing across the EU.” 

“Third, improved welfare reduces the risk of disease outbreaks, antimicrobial resistance, and biosecurity failures, which can have devastating costs for the entire sector.” 

Policymakers and governments should be helping pay for the needed transition, she asserts. “Public support is essential to ensure a fair and effective transition toward higher animal welfare standards. The EU and national governments should play a role in helping the sector adapt, especially small and medium-sized farms and operators that may face difficulties in covering the initial costs.”