The European Court of Justice has ruled that meat slaughtered without prior stunning, such as in ritual slaughter, does not meet the requirements for the EU logo for organic production.
Read attorney Hans Sønderby Christensen’s article published on Monday, April 5, 2019, on Jyllands-Posten’s website here or download it as a PDF here.
It is crucial for European companies that competition takes place on an informed basis. There are strict EU legal restrictions on the desire to “borrow prestige.” This is demonstrated by a new ruling from the European Court of Justice, which prohibits the use of the organic label for ritual slaughter, and a Swedish ruling from the Patent and Market Court, which prohibited marketing organic products as healthier and more environmentally friendly than conventional products.
In its February 2019 ruling, the European Court of Justice addressed whether the EU logo for organic production can be used on products made from animals that have undergone ritual slaughter without prior stunning. The European Court of Justice ruled that such products cannot bear the EU logo for organic production.
The case concerned the French animal welfare organization, Œuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (hereinafter “OABA”), which in 2012 requested the Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (hereinafter “Minister of Agriculture”) to cease the advertising and marketing of ground beef with the “Tendre France” label. The reason was that the product was halal-certified while also being labeled with the EU logo for organic production, which OABA considered incompatible.
On the same day, OABA requested the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (administrative institution under the Ministry of Agriculture) to prohibit the use of the EU logo for organic production in connection with beef from animals slaughtered without prior stunning.
Both requests were tacitly rejected by the authorities, after which OABA filed a lawsuit with the Conseil d’État (Supreme Court for administrative law cases, France). The Conseil d’État chose to refer the case to the tribunal administratif de Montreuil (Administrative Court of Montreuil, France). However, the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil did not rule in favor of OABA, after which OABA appealed the decision to the cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal for administrative law cases in Versailles, France).
OABA was generally of the opinion that the EU logo for organic production could not be used on products from animals that were slaughtered without prior stunning, as such a slaughter method could not meet the requirement for high animal welfare standards as set out in the EU rules on organic production. In contrast, the French Minister of Agriculture believed that the EU rules did not prevent the rule on prior stunning from being waived in connection with ritual slaughter. Instead, the principle of slaughter with prior stunning could be waived with reference to freedom of religion.
The Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles was subsequently in doubt as to how EU law should be interpreted. The court therefore chose to postpone the case in order to ask the European Court of Justice whether the EU logo for organic production could be issued for products made from animals that had been subjected to ritual slaughter without prior stunning.
Initially, the European Court of Justice referred to the considerations behind the EU rules on organic production, which were fundamentally that organic production was characterized by the application of high animal welfare standards. The European Court of Justice also referred to the fact that the obligation to keep the animal’s suffering to a minimum, which was laid down in the EU rules on organic production, contributed to fulfilling the objective of ensuring a high level of animal welfare.
The European Court of Justice noted that the EU legislator had repeatedly emphasized its desire to ensure a high level of animal welfare in connection with organic production, which made it clear that organic production was characterized by compliance with high standards in the area of animal welfare in every area and every phase of production.
The European Court of Justice then noted that the EU rules on organic production, however, did not expressly define the method(s) for slaughtering animals that were suitable for keeping the animal’s suffering to a minimum and thus fulfilling the objective of a high level of animal welfare. The European Court of Justice then included the general EU rules on the slaughter of animals, which stated that animals should be spared any avoidable pain, mental stress or suffering during killing. In addition, the European Court of Justice included the fact that scientific studies had shown that anesthesia was the technique that was least harmful to animal welfare at the time of slaughter.
The European Court of Justice then ruled that the performance of ritual slaughter without prior stunning was only exceptionally permitted in the EU, as the form did not ensure that the animal’s suffering was kept to a minimum. The slaughter method was also only permitted to ensure compliance with freedom of religion.
In conclusion, the European Court of Justice referred to the fact that it was essential to ensure that consumers were guaranteed that the products labeled with the EU logo for organic production had actually been manufactured in compliance with the highest standards in the area of animal welfare.
Against this background, the European Court of Justice concluded that the EU logo for organic production could not be used on products made from animals that had been subjected to ritual slaughter without prior stunning.
In July 2017, the Swedish Patent and Market Court ruled that it was in violation of the Swedish Marketing Act for a retail chain to market organic foods as healthier and more environmentally friendly than conventional foods. In other words, the marketing of organic foods could not “borrow prestige.” It is likely that Danish courts will reach the same result if similar questions arise in Denmark.
The rulings show that the food industry in the EU is subject to firm requirements for fair marketing, and that neither producers nor retailers can borrow prestige.