Switzerland has just introduced new animal welfare labelling laws that will force companies to write on packaging if certain farming practices have been inflicted on animals. However, while this has been met with huge amounts of praise online, including from vegans, is there more to this story that we might be missing?
In today's episode, I discuss my thoughts around the new labelling laws, highlighting what is positive about them, while also explaining why I think we should be more cautious about how we are viewing them.
For more exclusive content and personal writing from me, check out my Substack here.
On my Substack, I share not only my own reflections and personal thoughts on veganism, but also my journey and struggles. You’ll get a deeper insight into the issues that matter most to me and, in doing so, I hope it helps you feel more connected to your own veganism as well. It’s a space where we can connect and explore the intersection of compassion, reason and rationality together. By joining my Substack you also support the work that I do!
Through my Substack you can also receive regular free 'Good News Roundups' - a collection of positive and inspiring stories from the world of veganism.
If you’d like to support my work separately to Substack, you can also make a one-off or monthly donation here or through my PayPal.
If you’re interested in reading my books, you can find them here:
📚 My latest book How to Argue With a Meat Eater (And Win Every Time) + if you’ve read the book, you can leave a review here!
📚 My first book This is Vegan Propaganda (& Other Lies the Meat Industry Tells You).
Additionally, if you enjoyed this episode, I’d be so grateful if you could leave a review or rating. Your feedback helps the podcast reach more people, and it truly means a lot to me. If you think this episode would resonate with someone you know, please share it with them too.
Thank you so much for listening to this episode and for all of your support. I look forward to speaking to you again in the next episode!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
So a new law has just come into effect in
Switzerland, which changes howcertain animal products must be
labeled.
And importantly, it states thatcertain animal products that
come from animals that have gonethrough certain procedures,
those procedures must be listedon the animal products in
question.
The point of this new law is toincrease transparency for
(00:20):
consumers and to highlight whichanimal products contain some of
the worst forms of animalcruelty found in animal farming.
A lot of vegan organizations andvegans This is the Disclosure
(00:43):
Podcast.
(01:23):
Welcome to the DisclosurePodcast.
If you enjoy this episode andthe work that I'm doing here,
then please consider checkingout my sub stack where I post
regular articles.
You can also support my work bybecoming a paid member of my sub
stack through which you willalso gain access to weekly
articles or by making a donationthrough my website.
Links for everything can befound in this episode's show
(01:44):
notes.
For those of you who do supportmy work, thank you so much.
I am incredibly grateful andappreciate it very much.
Leaving a review for thispodcast is also really helpful
and encourages more people tolisten to it.
I hope you find this episodeinteresting and informative and
thank you for listening.
So let's talk about these newlabeling laws that have been
(02:07):
introduced in Switzerland.
They were introduced in Julythis year, but there's a
two-year transitional period.
So as far as I understand it,these labels haven't been
updated yet.
I tried to find an example ofthese labels in a supermarket in
Switzerland or in a business inSwitzerland, but they don't seem
to be there yet because there'sthis transitional period, which
is there to give these companiesand these retailers enough
(02:31):
chance to update their supplychains or to find out If these
practices that are now needingto come with a written label are
being carried out in theirsupply chain so that they can
update their packaging.
And I suppose deal with thepractical aspects of what this
change will mean for businessesin Switzerland.
So as far as I understand it, wedon't yet have any photographs
(02:53):
or any images which show exactlyhow this will look like.
on packaging, but we do have agood idea of what it needs to
involve on packaging.
So essentially, these new lawshave been introduced, which are
there to try and increasetransparency for consumers in
Switzerland.
That's the idea anyway.
And for example, I'll read outexactly what this law states.
(03:16):
Essentially, if any animalproducts come from systems that
use the practice I'm just aboutto describe, it needs to say so
on the packaging for thoseanimal products.
So When I read that for thefirst time, I was shocked.
(03:56):
I mean...
If you'd asked me before I cameacross this if an aesthetic
would need to be involved, Iwould have presumed no, because
surely the frogs have beenkilled.
I mean, if you're taking thelegs off them, they're not going
to survive.
So surely they'd be killedbefore the legs are removed from
them.
But apparently that's notnecessarily the case, and it's
(04:16):
actually widespread for frogs tohave their legs removed while
they're alive, and then are justdiscarded to die.
Sometimes being a vegan meansyou...
come across things which justreally reaffirm to you how
terrible the situation is.
I mean, what are we doing as aspecies?
(04:37):
What are we doing as a specieswhere we even need to try and
stop people from pulling thelegs off live frogs without
anesthetic?
I mean, it shouldn't behappening at all.
And at the very, very, veryleast, you'd think the frogs
would have been killedbeforehand.
And actually, there's somethingquite disturbing about this,
(04:59):
which is they're not evensaying, oh, the law is that you
have to kill the frogs beforeyou remove their legs.
This new piece of legislation isjust saying that consumers
should know if anesthetic wasused on these live frogs as
their legs were removed.
I mean, when you think about itthat way, the idea that this law
(05:20):
is helpful for frogs, at least,becomes a little bit...
suspect to me because surely ata bare minimum it should be stop
stop the the live dismembermentof frogs that would at least be
the most basic minimum you wouldimagine because painkillers and
pain relief i don't know howlong they're alive for but they
(05:41):
might not feel pain but doesthat take away emotional
suffering does that take awayfear and anxiety and terror I'm
not so sure if it does, right?
I mean, you could give someoneanesthetic, but if they're still
conscious, if their legs havebeen removed and they're dying,
bleeding to death, that's stillnot a humane experience.
It's still not a kind ofcompassionate experience.
(06:04):
So I do think it's quiteinteresting with the frog
example, because to me, thatclearly shows that the idea that
this labeling is allencompassing of animal cruelty
and suffering, Well, that's justclearly not the case, is it?
Because even with thisprogressive or so-called
progressive labeling, people inSwitzerland can buy frog's legs
(06:24):
and they only have to beinformed if those frog legs came
from frogs who were dismemberedwithout anesthetic.
What are we doing?
How repugnant, how repulsive,how clearly wrong is that?
I just, I find myself sodisappointed.
And I've been vegan now for adecade, but...
You still come across thingsthat shock you, which is
(06:45):
mind-blowing because you'dpresume that after 10 years of
being in this community, ofliving with an awareness around
all of the terrible things thatare happening to animals, you'd
think that you'd have a goodgrasp of all of these things.
And yet, you still find thingsthat just completely...
shock you in the worst way.
(07:05):
Just fill your stomach with thispit of disappointment.
And so when I read that, I waslike, why is this even something
that needs to be on a label?
Surely this is just redundant.
And then I looked into it and Iwas like, actually, this isn't
redundant necessarily becausefrogs are dismembered while
alive.
I mean, how awful.
And the final thing that needsto be noted on labels is for
foie gras, which is if the foiegras comes from force-fed ducks
(07:29):
or geese.
Now what's interesting isforce-feeding geese is banned in
Switzerland, but of courseimports from places like France
still mean that people inSwitzerland can buy foie gras
that comes from animals who areforce-fed.
Much like in the UK, we havebanned foie gras farming and we
have banned fur farming in theUK.
They've been banned for a long,long time.
And yet we can still importthem, which is kind of
(07:51):
completely nonsensical.
It's the same with gestationcrates for pigs.
They're outlawed in the UK.
And While I don't often findmyself siding with animal
farmers, I do actually findmyself siding with them in this
example, because animal farmersin Britain will often say, well,
why is it fair that we havethese laws imposed on us?
But then retailers or businessescan just import these products
(08:14):
from abroad where these laws areallowed.
And in essence, what we'resaying is these things are so
terrible that they need to beoutlawed.
but they're not so terrible thatwe can't import them and consume
them that way instead.
And it just doesn't make anysense at all.
And that's one of those exampleswhere I kind of go, these
farmers here in the UK have gota pretty good point.
I mean, why do they have theselaws applied to them?
(08:37):
But apparently for the widersociety, this isn't enough of a
problem that we should stopbuying them or that we shouldn't
be allowed to buy them, thatretailers shouldn't be legally
allowed to stock them.
It doesn't make any sense atall.
I suppose what's interestingabout the examples that I've
just listed, the ones that thisSwiss law pertains to and
involves, these things aren'tallowed in Switzerland.
(08:59):
So actually, these processes arenot ones that occur in
Switzerland, or at leastshouldn't be occurring in
Switzerland.
And I think that opens up areally interesting question,
which is what's the motivationbehind these laws then?
Now, before I get into that, Ido want to stress something,
which is, It is important thatwe as a community look at things
and find positivity in things.
And we look at new laws and wesay, wow, okay, that's good for
(09:21):
this reason and that reason.
And we should find positivethings where they are.
But I do also think that we haveto be cautious and mindful that
we don't overstate thepositivity of something or that
we don't misrepresent something.
Now, the reason I saymisrepresent something is
because there has been a lot ofconversation online from vegan
outlets, vegans in general, sortof talking about these laws.
(09:43):
And I think...
that some of the ways that we'veapproached this conversation has
overstated what these laws are.
For example, I'm going to readyou just a quote from one such
outlet.
It doesn't really matter who itis because it's not their fault
necessarily.
This is just kind of a generaloverview of how this law has
been covered, let's say.
But I just thought it kind ofsummarized quite nicely.
(10:03):
When I say nicely, I think itsummarizes well, maybe the point
I'm trying to make here, whichis that we've got to be careful
with how we word this and how wesort of say that the law is and
what it means.
So for example, this particularoutlet said, the Swiss
government has approved newlabeling laws that mandate
(10:24):
businesses to declare if themeat and dairy products they're
selling are linked to animalsuffering.
So all animal products then.
Every single one of them, right?
Because all meat and dairyproducts are linked to animal
suffering.
So therefore, every single onemust contain a written statement
saying that this productcontains animal suffering.
(10:45):
But that's not what's happening.
We've gone through the examples,and these examples are the
absolute worst things you couldthink of.
Castrating pigs withoutanesthetic.
I mean, it's just...
It's so deplorable.
So it's not that this labelingmeans that all products now have
to carry this label saying thatthey contain animal suffering.
(11:05):
It's actually a select few.
And it's about things that arejust the absolute worst.
I mean, factory farming andintensive farming is absolutely
despicable and awful.
But even within systems offactory farming, there are some
things that take it that nextlevel, that go that step beyond,
like dismembering frogs ordehorning cattle without...
(11:26):
any pain relief.
So, This isn't the case.
It's not that all meat and dairyproducts, or it's not that
businesses are being mandated todeclare animal suffering.
It's the absolute worst of theworst of the worst of the worst
have to declare six things, youknow, have to go through sort of
a list of six or sevenrequirements to make sure their
(11:48):
animal products don't come fromthese systems or don't have
these practices inflicted onanimals within them.
And I'm not criticizing the waythat's been reported by these
organizations in a way that ismeant to reflect badly on these
organizations and outlets who'vereported on it in this way.
But I just think that whathappens often is maybe a
statement gets shared around orone organization might lead with
(12:08):
a headline, or there might be apress release that gets put out
there that has a certain type ofwording.
And then that wording gets usedover and over again, or that
phrasing gets used over and overagain.
And sometimes the phrasing isn'tinvestigated enough to make sure
that it covers all the nuancesand details of the particular
law in question.
So when we say, There's newrules that mandate businesses to
declare if the meat and dairyproducts they're selling are
(12:30):
linked to animal suffering.
We're actually sort of implyingto the reader that this is going
to be this big, all-encompassingthing where these labels are
going to be everywhere on animalproducts when that's not really
the case.
And what's interesting aboutSwitzerland, which I just sort
of mentioned, is that many ofthese things are already illegal
in Switzerland.
So these sort of writtenstatements are not going to
(12:51):
apply to Swiss farmed products.
So there's an interestingincentive there for Switzerland
and Swiss farmers when it comesto these labeling laws
themselves.
Now, does that mean that it'sbad?
No, I don't think it'snecessarily bad because
obviously if you are inSwitzerland and you have the
choice between buying pigs thatwere castrated with painkillers
(13:13):
or without, obviously withpainkillers is better, but just
because we can buy products thatcame from pigs that were
castrated with painkillersdoesn't mean doing so is the
ethically right thing to dohowever undeniably it is better
and obviously undeniably asystem of farming that didn't
have these things that i'velisted included in it would be
(13:36):
preferable to one that does sofrom that perspective from a
suffering perspective yes thereare lots of positives about
this.
And I'm not saying that this isa wholly negative law.
I think there are lots ofreasons why we should feel
positive about this law becauseit might reduce the demand in
Switzerland for these products.
And maybe, just maybe, it mightincentivize certain companies
(13:59):
and businesses outside ofSwitzerland to try and stop
these practices as a consequenceof their sales maybe being
impacted in Switzerland.
Maybe the foie gras one's a goodexample because there are lots
of French-speaking people inSwitzerland who have a lot of
French culture within their ownSwiss French culture.
And obviously foie gras is apart of that as well.
(14:21):
And so maybe if sales of foiegras start dipping in some of
these French speaking areas,that might encourage French
producers of foie gras to changetheir standards.
But that will only work ifthere's a financial incentive.
So then the question becomes,will foie gras farmers in France
see the financial benefit ofswitching to a non-force feeding
(14:41):
system, which will have tightermargins and make them less
money, but in doing so, maybeopen up a little bit more of
that market in Switzerland?
It really depends how consumersrespond.
And that's kind of theinteresting thing about this.
It depends how consumersrespond.
These things aren't beingbanned.
They're just being labeled toconsumers.
And I think if we really wanteda progressive law, then that law
(15:04):
should be that foie gras importsare banned, that the imports of
these products are banned.
Why are they available toconsumers?
Just ban them.
I mean, are people inSwitzerland really in favor of
castration without pain reliefand dehorning without pain
relief?
I doubt it.
I don't think it would cause ahuge problem.
But then of course there's tradeissues and there's issues with
(15:25):
allies in France or in Belgiumor in Italy or wherever it might
be where some of these practicesmight be occurring, unlike in
Switzerland.
So there are reasons to feelpositive and there is a good way
of looking at this, which meansthat we shouldn't view it as
being a negative thing.
There are positives ultimatelyto be found in it.
(15:46):
But I guess what I'm interestedin is not necessarily that side
of things, but more how we as acommunity should approach them.
And do we have a sort ofcontradictory mindset between
this legislation and maybe justwelfare laws in general, because
this is labeling, but it'sanimal welfare labeling.
So it's a welfare law at itsheart, isn't it?
(16:06):
And what's interesting aboutthis particular law is what
we're used to when it comes tolabeling is we're used to animal
products saying what they are.
In other words, saying we'rehigh welfare, we're free range,
we're organic.
And we're used to these termsbeing used as a marketing ploy.
And the thing that's quiteunique about this is It's one of
the only times where animalproducts have to state when
(16:28):
they're doing things which theydon't want the consumers to
know.
Because normally it's the otherway around.
They want consumers to know, oh,this is free range.
This is organic.
So they tell consumers.
And if it's not, they just don'tsay anything.
So it's quite interesting inthis case because it is a little
bit of a different way ofapproaching labeling laws.
But it's not the only time.
There is another example, whichis eggs.
In the UK, for example, if youbuy a carton of eggs, it should
(16:49):
contain a number.
0, 1, 2, or 3.
0 is organic, 1 is free-range, 2is barn, 3 is caged.
And so essentially that numbershould tell the consumer what
system of farming these eggscame from.
Now, of course, a number is notvery clear, and you have to know
that.
If you don't know it, thesenumbers don't mean anything.
You probably just think they'rethere for...
(17:10):
sort of a supply chain or sortof batch numbers or whatever it
might be, you probably don'tthink, oh, this is about the
system of farming where theseeggs came from.
So numbers are not particularlyclear, but of course the written
description of it is farclearer.
So there is a difference.
So it's not the first time thatthere has to be something on
(17:30):
packaging which tells theconsumer about the system of
farming, but it is the firsttime, as far as I understand it,
where there's something sort ofwritten in black and white
terms, this product contains orcomes from a farm where this
happened to the animals, ifthat's exactly how it will be
phrased, something along thoselines.
So it is quite good in that way,and it will be really
interesting to see how thischanges consumer behavior.
(17:53):
But what's my worry then?
Why do I feel...
Why do I feel a little bithesitant about how the vegan
community has sometimes beenapproaching this?
I think because it's notnecessarily as transformative as
we want it to be.
I think a lot of people haveprobably perceived it as being
something that is along thelines of, oh, businesses have
(18:14):
been mandated to show thatanimal suffering was involved in
the supply chain.
This is big, this is huge, thiswill do something really
massive.
But that's not reallynecessarily what it is.
It's these select examples.
And if you're in Switzerland,for example, and you're a Swiss
animal product consumer, whatdoes this incentivize you to do?
Does it incentivize you to govegan?
(18:35):
No, it doesn't incentivize youto go vegan.
It incentivizes you to buyanimal products that don't have
these problems found in thesupply chain, which would be
Swiss animal products.
This is a nationalistic piece oflegislation, which at its core
is there to incentivizeconsumers to buy Swiss animal
products.
It's kind of like the redtractor label in the UK.
(18:57):
Now as a vegan community, wethink the retroactive label is
terrible and it is, but why isit terrible?
Well, it's terrible because it'swelfare washing, because it's
trying to convince consumersthat these products are ethical,
when they're not, and because itdoesn't really mean anything.
I mean, the red tractor laws byand large are just the legal
(19:18):
requirements.
So essentially when you see ared tractor logo and a piece of
meat in the UK, it's essentiallytelling you two things, that
that animal product came from ananimal raised and slaughtered in
the UK, and that that animal wasraised to legal standards.
That's more or less what it'stelling you.
There might be some smalldiscrepancies and nuances, but
fundamentally the core of redtractor legislation is just
(19:39):
government legislation anyway soit doesn't really mean anything
but then if these labels thatwill be on swiss animal products
are about alerting consumers toproducts that were imported from
abroad and as a consequence areincentivizing people to buy
swiss produced products becausethose swiss produced products by
(20:01):
law can't contain the thingsthat will be listed on the label
is it not essentially doingsomething similar to Red
Tractor, which is trying to getconsumers to buy the animal
products produced in thatcountry?
And if we think that RedTractor's terrible, why don't we
think this is something weshould view a bit more
skeptically?
(20:22):
We might say, well, the reasonis because it's good that it's
written down as a statement.
And yes, that does separate it,and it does make it better to a
Red Tractor label.
But the Red Tractor label...
if you look at it in this way,will tell you something similar.
The red tractor label also tellsyou that that animal product
came from an animal who, wasn'tcastrated without pain relief.
(20:43):
Because actually castration inpigs in the UK is not common
practice.
We slaughter them a little bitearlier.
The reason that pigs arecastrated is because of
something called boar taint,which taints the meat and makes
it not very appetizing for aconsumer.
So in many countries, theycastrate the pigs to stop this
boar taint from happening.
But in the UK, we slaughter thema little earlier so as to avoid
the castration and the boartaint.
(21:05):
So if you're buying red tractorBritish pork products, then
you're also buying products thatcame from pigs who didn't have
to go through castration withoutpain relief or anesthetic.
And I think the issue with kindof welfare labels in general,
the idea of this is it createstransparency in the mind of a
consumer, but it's not reallyabout that.
(21:27):
The idea is that it creates theconnotation that animal products
that don't carry this writtenwarning are ethical as a
consequence of not carrying thiswritten warning.
Now, again, Is it good thatpeople are buying that over
something worse?
Yes.
And is it good, therefore, thatpeople are buying red tractor
meat in the UK over meat thatmight have been imported from an
(21:49):
animal who did go through thesethings in the country where they
were raised?
Well, by that logic, yes.
So I do think we have to besomewhat cautious about how
we're approaching this, becauseI don't want us as a community
to fall into the trap ofreaffirming perhaps the more
dangerous consequence of thislabeling law.
It's a movement in the rightdirection, but it's a movement
(22:11):
in the right direction that'snot necessarily coming because
of a view of trying to protectanimals, but a view of trying to
push Swiss animal farming.
Now you might say, well, Ed, whyare they doing this?
And I think there is a reallyinteresting reason why they
might be doing this.
There was a referendum that tookplace in Switzerland back in
2022, I believe.
In Switzerland, they havesomething called direct
(22:33):
democracy.
And essentially what that meansis that if you get enough people
in Switzerland to sign aproposed referendum, you can
actually have the country voteon that referendum.
It's not necessarily somethingthat has to go through the same
parliamentary routes that wehave in other countries, like in
the UK, for example.
It creates a little bit morepowerful for the public in
(22:56):
Switzerland.
And so back in 2022, there was areferendum in Switzerland
because of this direct democracythey have, which was about
banning factory farming inSwitzerland.
In the end, the referendum wasrejected by about 63% of people.
So there was a 63% majority ofpeople who voted against it.
(23:18):
So factory farming has not beenbanned in Switzerland.
But what I think is quiteinteresting is 63% is not
necessarily a small majority fora referendum.
13% is a smallish number,relatively speaking, but it's
also quite a large number oftenin political terms.
So it's not that it was on aknife's edge when the vote
(23:38):
actually happened and theresults came through.
But I do think it's quitenotable that 37% of people in
Switzerland voted against this.
I mean, 37% of Switzerland isnot vegan, not even vegan
vegetarian.
So clearly there was a number ofpeople, a not so insignificant
number of people who voted forthis referendum who consume
(24:01):
animal products and probably buyanimal products that do come
from factory farms.
but they're probablyideologically opposed to it.
But when they're in thesupermarket, they're not
necessarily making decisionsbased on that ideological
position, let's say.
So I think it's quiteinteresting because you would
think that a referendum likethat would maybe be 90% of
people vote against it because90% of people are buying animal
(24:23):
products regularly and want toconsume them.
And it would be a much smallerpercentage of people who would
vote in favor of banning factoryfarming.
So why do you think For thisexample, 37% is not such a small
minority.
And if direct democracy meansthat you can have a referendum
again in the future, what's tosay if in 15 years time or 20
years time, that 13% of peoplehave sort of changed their
(24:45):
position?
I mean, by that point, there'llbe more younger people who have
passed the voting age, who arepotentially more progressive,
more open-minded, more inkeeping with the sort of
principles of veganism.
You know, maybe there are moreopen-minded to animal rights or
even just the environment.
There is a lot that can happenin 10, 15, 20 years which might
(25:06):
take that 13% majority and flipit.
And if you're a Swiss animalfarmer or you're the Swiss
agricultural industry or theSwiss government and animal
products are a big part of theeconomy and there are lots of
lobbying efforts and there'slots of ties related to
governments and agriculture likethere are in countries all over
the world, perhaps thisreferendum was a bit of a
(25:29):
warning.
Not because it's changedanything right now, but because
maybe in 10, 15, 20 years, itcould change.
And if you're an animal rightsorganization in Switzerland,
this is a really great incentivefor you to say, there's actually
something here that we can gofor.
And if we push this and we keeppushing factory farming and we
keep doing exposés and we keepreleasing footage and we keep
(25:49):
showing people and we keep thepressure up, maybe we can change
that 13% of people over thecourse of a decade or two.
So if this referendum, hashappened like it has.
And there's a potential warninghere.
What do you want to do if you'reSwiss agriculture or the Swiss
government, let's say, what isit that you might be interested
in doing to try and stop thisfrom happening again or to stop
(26:12):
this shift from maybe occurringin the way that I just
described?
We want people to get behindSwiss animal farming.
You want to increase thepositive sentiment to Swiss
animal farming.
You want people to think morefavorably of Swiss animal
farming.
What could be one way that youdo that?
Well, you create a very cleardistinction in the minds of the
consumer between Swiss animalfarming and non-Swiss animal
(26:33):
farming.
How do you do that?
You create a clear distinctionwhich highlights all the
terrible practices that don'tnecessarily happen in Swiss
animal farming.
So now if you're a Swissconsumer, you might be thinking,
well, I'm not going to buy theseproducts.
These are terrible.
But in Switzerland, we don't dothat.
In Switzerland, we don't dothat.
How often do we hear this?
Oh, in the UK, we don't do that.
(26:55):
In Switzerland, we don't dothat.
It's so interesting to me howthis potential mechanism has
played out.
Now, I'm not saying that'sdefinitely what has happened.
I'm not saying that thisreferendum caused a conversation
where they said, maybe we shoulddo something about this.
Could this be a problem in thefuture?
I'm not saying that that issomething that has happened.
I don't know if it has, but I dothink it's interesting that
(27:18):
there was this referendum that anot so insignificant minority of
people voted in favor of banningfactory farming.
And now we have labeling laws,which at their core are going to
promote Swiss animal farming andmake it seem more favorable than
it really should be viewed asbeing.
Switzerland does have some ofthe best animal welfare laws in
(27:40):
the world.
So does the UK.
But what we know is those animalwelfare laws don't actually
really mean anything.
Just because you're better thanRussia or China or the US or the
worst countries in the worldwhen it comes to animal welfare
does not in and of itself meanthat what you're doing is good.
Just because the UK is not asbad as Texas does not mean that
(28:02):
what happens in the UK isethical as a consequence.
So I do think it's...
I do think it's really importantthat we maintain that because
for animals and Swiss farms,their suffering is not being
alleviated just becauseconsumers might feel more
favorably towards theirsuffering and exploitation.
(28:24):
There is another element to thisas well, which is a law is only
as good as its enforcement.
And To find out about theenforcement of such a law, I
think it's interesting to maybecompare it to another labeling
requirement that has existed inSwitzerland, I think since 2013.
And those labeling laws areabout the species of animal, the
(28:44):
origin of those animals.
So when you're buying a furitem, you should be told what
the species is and where theanimal came from.
So this law was looked into.
And what was interesting is theFederal Food Safety and
Veterinary Office did someinspections.
And what they found is thatthere was a 79% rate of
noncompliance.
(29:04):
79, so nearly 80%.
They carried out 180 inspectionsand 142 of them showed
noncompliance.
So then the question becomes,well, what happened?
You know, if these places wereshown to be not compliant, what
was the punishment?
Well, this is where it getsinteresting again.
110 of these cases wererectified within the time limit.
(29:26):
So presumably what that means isthat the inspections were
carried out, noncompliance wasfound, and the inspectors said,
you have X number of weeks, Xnumber of months, whatever it
might be, to sort this out, toget rid of this animal product
from your supply chain, to makesure this fur is correctly
labeled or no longer beingstocked.
And 110, so the majority of thebusinesses, did that.
(29:49):
So what does that mean?
It means there's no punishment.
It means that these businesseswere not compliant, either
through neglect, incompetence,or deliberately.
And all they had to do was juststop stocking that product or
update the label to reflect thelabeling laws.
So there's no punishment forthat.
And then it becomes moreinteresting again.
So then you have 32 cases wherethey say orders were issued.
(30:12):
So in other words, the timelimit expired.
The correct procedures were notfollowed.
So now the FSVO step in and theysay, all right, we're gonna put
an order on you.
In other words, you need to dosomething about that.
So 32 issues were ordered.
And of those 32, there were fourcriminal proceedings that were
instituted.
So after the orders were issued,four of those places either
(30:33):
decided, hey, We don't thinkthis is fair.
We want to maybe go to acriminal proceeding because we
believe that what we're doing isacceptable.
We don't believe it's our fault.
We don't believe we need tochange.
So maybe these four places,rather than just be negligent or
purposefully refusing to change,maybe decided that they had
grounds to try and appeal and gothrough a slightly longer
(30:54):
process with them.
And what's interesting is wedon't know the outcome of those
four criminal proceedings.
We don't know if there was anycriminal misconduct found or if
the cases were dropped.
That wasn't published as far asI can see online.
So we have a huge amount ofnoncompliance when it comes to
fur labeling.
The vast majority of thoseresult in no punishment
(31:15):
whatsoever.
And four go to criminalproceedings of which we don't
know what the outcomes were.
And we also don't know if thoseoutcomes just were fines.
Because when these labeling lawshave been breached, the first
port of call is to try and getthe business to update their
labels, to reflect the law.
And if they don't, it might be afine.
So then the question becomes,let's say they're a business, a
(31:37):
restaurant in Switzerland.
And let's say that you'reselling foie gras that comes
from force-fed duck and geese,and it's cheaper for you to buy
because it comes from theseterrible farms.
And you're thinking to yourself,right, if I'm inspected, all I
have to do is say, okay, I'llchange.
that might provide you with anincentive not to do it because
it's self-regulated, thislabeling law.
(31:59):
It's up to the businessesthemselves to do the due
diligence and declare it.
And then we hope that there'sgoing to be audits and
inspections to make sure thatthese laws and labels are
actually being fulfilled in theway that they need to be.
So what does this really mean?
Well, if there's beennoncompliance before, will there
be noncompliance again?
(32:21):
Quite possibly.
And if noncompliance is found,what will happen?
Well, probably not a great deal.
A slap on the wrist and a don'tdo it again.
But it doesn't necessarilyprovide a huge amount of drive,
let's say, for businesses tomaybe be as scrupulous as they
need to be when it comes tothese things.
And there is an extra layer ofthis, which is these products
(32:42):
have been imported from abroad.
In the case of Frog's Legs, theymight be being imported from
Vietnam.
So then there's an extra layerof complication in this, which
is you might have a Swissorganization doing these
inspections and it might say,yes, don't worry, these pigs are
fine.
We ticked this box or filled outthis form.
And yes, the frogs are from hereand it's fine.
We've been given assurances.
(33:03):
But do these Swiss authoritieshave...
the legal jurisdiction to go toVietnam and make sure the farms
are in compliance, or to go toSpain and make sure that the
pigs are receiving pain reliefwhen they're castrated.
I don't think they do, right?
That would be a potential legalbattle with the other countries
where these potential inspectorsdon't have the jurisdiction to
(33:24):
go and do inspections on thesefarms.
And so then the questionbecomes, well, how do we know?
How can we be certain that withthese labeling laws, there even
is compliance?
And how can we know for certainthat the products being sold in
Swiss businesses are actuallycompliant with these laws?
Because they might just beticking a box because the
suppliers in Vietnam and they'veemailed the supplier or
(33:45):
contacted the supplier and say,hey, you don't do this, do you?
And the supplier says, no, ofcourse we don't do that.
But no one's checking.
No one knows that it's not inthe interest of the supplier in
a different country around theworld, to be honest,
necessarily, because they're notbreaking the law where they
live.
So there's not a legalconsequence for them for doing
it.
And there's not necessarily alegal consequence for the
business in Switzerland if theyjust tick the box and then say,
(34:08):
well, we were told it's fine.
What then happens?
How do you really get to thebottom of this compliance?
becomes quite tricky, doesn'tit?
But these labels might then notbe being applied to products
where they should.
And we're trusting that becausewe're trusting the industry to
self-regulate.
And this is an industry that hasa long, long history of being
(34:28):
very, very bad atself-regulating.
Whether or not the restaurantsin Switzerland want to be
compliant, whether or not theretail stores in Switzerland
want to be compliant, thatdoesn't necessarily mean that
suppliers in other countrieswill be compliant for them.
Because if you've got a bigSwiss retailer reaching out to
you and saying, hey, just so youknow, we might stop stocking
(34:49):
these products if you do thesethings.
If you're a big farmingorganization in a place in Asia
or even in a place somewhereelse in Europe, you might just
want to say, hey, yeah, it'sfine, don't worry.
We have made sure that thesethings don't happen.
Or don't worry, we have theseguidelines which say that they
shouldn't happen.
(35:10):
Because here's another thing,there might be guidelines in
certain countries, but thoseguidelines might not be being
adhered to.
In the UK, for example, taildocking isn't supposed to be
done as a routine procedure onpiglets, but it is.
Because the guidelines statethat it should only be carried
out in special circumstances orin certain circumstances.
(35:30):
It just means it's being carriedout all the time because it's
not being made illegal.
I know that might all sound alittle bit negative, and I don't
mean it to be.
I do think these laws are good,and I do think this labeling is
important, and I am reallyinterested to see if it pushes
the dial, if it maybe changesconsumer habits, because if it
does, that's great, and it'simportant to know.
(35:51):
My apprehension is more abouthow we are representing them,
generally speaking, and if wemight be overstating them.
And from the perspective ofveganism, what I think is
interesting is the high court inSwitzerland has just ruled, or
recently ruled, that veganproducts can't be labeled as
being chickens.
You can't say vegan chicken orvegan beef or vegan pork, which
(36:13):
is a really regressive way ofviewing food labeling.
So on the one hand, we want toincrease transparency for
consumers, but then on the otherhand, we don't want consumers to
be able to buy a product thatsays vegan chicken or vegan
beef.
And what's interesting aboutthat is studies have shown that
when products aren't allowed touse words like chicken and beef
(36:33):
when they're plant-based, itactually confuses consumers
more.
I mean, the point of these wordsis to create an idea in the mind
of the consumer about what theproduct is.
The reason we say vegan chickenis so that a consumer thinks,
ah, this is a plant-basedversion of chicken, so I can
cook with it like I would animalchicken.
Or if this is vegan beef, I canthink of this in the same way
that I might do beef andmarinate it and cook it and use
(36:55):
it in the same recipes that Iwould beef.
That's the point of those labelsis to allow the consumer to know
what they're buying.
And studies show that when youdeny that to consumers, it
actually increases consumerconfusion.
And so that's not increasingtransparency for consumers.
So you have this sort ofcontradiction where it's like,
this labeling law for theseanimal products is to help
(37:15):
consumers make more ethicalchoices and to increase
transparency because we careabout consumers.
But at the same time, we alsohave a law that bans plant-based
companies from using words likechicken and beef.
That's a contradiction.
So why is there a contradictionthere?
Is it to try and stifle veganproducts?
Well, why would you want to dothat?
(37:36):
Why would Switzerland want tostop vegan products from being
as competitive in themarketplace?
Especially for a company likePlanted, which is a Swiss
plant-based food company.
If you're trying to stop a Swissplant-based food company from
saying chicken and beef, whodoes that protect in
Switzerland?
(37:56):
animal farmers.
And so what's interesting aboutboth of these pieces of
legislation is that they'recontradictory, but they do one
thing, which is they protectSwiss animal farmers.
So I do think that thislegislation is ultimately a
positive thing in many, manyregards.
And I don't think that it's badthat it's been introduced.
(38:16):
That's not what I'm trying tosay.
But I guess what I'm trying tosay is i think that the way that
we as vegans approach it shouldbe perhaps with more caution
than i've seen from differentplaces and from different people
that's not to say that weshouldn't view the positive
things as being positive whenthey arise absolutely but i
don't think that we should jumpon something and view it as
(38:38):
being more positive than it isbecause we might then overstate
it and i think that for anon-vegan if they come across
some of the way that ways thatthis has been reported on, their
impression might be that inSwitzerland, there's going to be
these really vast orencompassing labeling laws,
which are going to tell everyonewhich products have animal
cruelty and which don't.
But we as vegans know that allanimal products have animal
(39:00):
cruelty.
That's why we're vegan, becauseall animal products come from
animal exploitation and arecruel to animals.
That's why we're vegan and notwelfarists who buy high welfare
meats.
So I think that the way that weapproach this should be a little
bit more cautious because at theend of the day, I don't think
that these labeling laws arebeing introduced really to help
(39:23):
animals.
I think they're being introducedto protect Swiss farming and to
incentivize consumers to opt forSwiss animal products over
imported ones.
And I think at its core, that'swhat it is.
I hope I've not created anoverly negative view.
I've just tried to, in my mindat least, create a more balanced
view and a more nuanced viewthat reflects the way that I've
(39:44):
been feeling about it.
But now I would really love toknow what you think in the
comments.
So let me know down below if youthink that what I've said is is
potentially true.
If you share some of theseconcerns and worries that I
have, or maybe you disagree withme and you think that I've maybe
overthought about it, I'veruminated too much on it and I'm
approaching it in a way that'spotentially unfair.
Maybe I've missed something, acrucial detail, which changes
(40:06):
something.
Please do let me know down belowin the comments because this is
one of those conversations whereI think it's really interesting
for us as a community to get abroader view of what we all
think about it because it isinteresting and it's also quite
complex, I think.
So I would love to know what youall think as well so I can
change my view or update my viewor solidify my view depending on
what you all say.
So yeah, let me know, please.
(40:28):
I would love to find out.
I'm very eager to find out.
Anyway, thank you so much forlistening.
I really do appreciate it.
And I look forward to speakingto all of you in the next
podcast episode.
Thank you so much for listening.
If you've enjoyed this episode,make sure to subscribe to the
(40:51):
Disclosure Podcast on whicheverplatform you listen to it, as
doing so means that you canalways stay up to date with new
episodes.
Leaving a review and sharing thepodcast is also really helpful.
And if you'd like to support thepodcast and my work more
generally, you can either make adonation through the link in the
show notes or sign up to my substack where I post weekly and
share my thoughts and feelingsabout the experience of living
(41:13):
vegan.
In the show notes, you can alsofind links to purchase my books.
Thank you again for listening.
So a new law has just come into effect in
Switzerland, which changes howcertain animal products must be
labeled.
And importantly, it states thatcertain animal products that
come from animals that have gonethrough certain procedures,
those procedures must be listedon the animal products in
question.
The point of this new law is toincrease transparency for
(00:20):
consumers and to highlight whichanimal products contain some of
the worst forms of animalcruelty found in animal farming.
A lot of vegan organizations andvegans This is the Disclosure
(00:43):
Podcast.
(01:23):
Welcome to the DisclosurePodcast.
If you enjoy this episode andthe work that I'm doing here,
then please consider checkingout my sub stack where I post
regular articles.
You can also support my work bybecoming a paid member of my sub
stack through which you willalso gain access to weekly
articles or by making a donationthrough my website.
Links for everything can befound in this episode's show
(01:44):
notes.
For those of you who do supportmy work, thank you so much.
I am incredibly grateful andappreciate it very much.
Leaving a review for thispodcast is also really helpful
and encourages more people tolisten to it.
I hope you find this episodeinteresting and informative and
thank you for listening.
So let's talk about these newlabeling laws that have been
(02:07):
introduced in Switzerland.
They were introduced in Julythis year, but there's a
two-year transitional period.
So as far as I understand it,these labels haven't been
updated yet.
I tried to find an example ofthese labels in a supermarket in
Switzerland or in a business inSwitzerland, but they don't seem
to be there yet because there'sthis transitional period, which
is there to give these companiesand these retailers enough
(02:31):
chance to update their supplychains or to find out If these
practices that are now needingto come with a written label are
being carried out in theirsupply chain so that they can
update their packaging.
And I suppose deal with thepractical aspects of what this
change will mean for businessesin Switzerland.
So as far as I understand it, wedon't yet have any photographs
(02:53):
or any images which show exactlyhow this will look like.
on packaging, but we do have agood idea of what it needs to
involve on packaging.
So essentially, these new lawshave been introduced, which are
there to try and increasetransparency for consumers in
Switzerland.
That's the idea anyway.
And for example, I'll read outexactly what this law states.
(03:16):
Essentially, if any animalproducts come from systems that
use the practice I'm just aboutto describe, it needs to say so
on the packaging for thoseanimal products.
So When I read that for thefirst time, I was shocked.
(03:56):
I mean...
If you'd asked me before I cameacross this if an aesthetic
would need to be involved, Iwould have presumed no, because
surely the frogs have beenkilled.
I mean, if you're taking thelegs off them, they're not going
to survive.
So surely they'd be killedbefore the legs are removed from
them.
But apparently that's notnecessarily the case, and it's
(04:16):
actually widespread for frogs tohave their legs removed while
they're alive, and then are justdiscarded to die.
Sometimes being a vegan meansyou...
come across things which justreally reaffirm to you how
terrible the situation is.
I mean, what are we doing as aspecies?
(04:37):
What are we doing as a specieswhere we even need to try and
stop people from pulling thelegs off live frogs without
anesthetic?
I mean, it shouldn't behappening at all.
And at the very, very, veryleast, you'd think the frogs
would have been killedbeforehand.
And actually, there's somethingquite disturbing about this,
(04:59):
which is they're not evensaying, oh, the law is that you
have to kill the frogs beforeyou remove their legs.
This new piece of legislation isjust saying that consumers
should know if anesthetic wasused on these live frogs as
their legs were removed.
I mean, when you think about itthat way, the idea that this law
(05:20):
is helpful for frogs, at least,becomes a little bit...
suspect to me because surely ata bare minimum it should be stop
stop the the live dismembermentof frogs that would at least be
the most basic minimum you wouldimagine because painkillers and
pain relief i don't know howlong they're alive for but they
(05:41):
might not feel pain but doesthat take away emotional
suffering does that take awayfear and anxiety and terror I'm
not so sure if it does, right?
I mean, you could give someoneanesthetic, but if they're still
conscious, if their legs havebeen removed and they're dying,
bleeding to death, that's stillnot a humane experience.
It's still not a kind ofcompassionate experience.
(06:04):
So I do think it's quiteinteresting with the frog
example, because to me, thatclearly shows that the idea that
this labeling is allencompassing of animal cruelty
and suffering, Well, that's justclearly not the case, is it?
Because even with thisprogressive or so-called
progressive labeling, people inSwitzerland can buy frog's legs
(06:24):
and they only have to beinformed if those frog legs came
from frogs who were dismemberedwithout anesthetic.
What are we doing?
How repugnant, how repulsive,how clearly wrong is that?
I just, I find myself sodisappointed.
And I've been vegan now for adecade, but...
You still come across thingsthat shock you, which is
(06:45):
mind-blowing because you'dpresume that after 10 years of
being in this community, ofliving with an awareness around
all of the terrible things thatare happening to animals, you'd
think that you'd have a goodgrasp of all of these things.
And yet, you still find thingsthat just completely...
shock you in the worst way.
(07:05):
Just fill your stomach with thispit of disappointment.
And so when I read that, I waslike, why is this even something
that needs to be on a label?
Surely this is just redundant.
And then I looked into it and Iwas like, actually, this isn't
redundant necessarily becausefrogs are dismembered while
alive.
I mean, how awful.
And the final thing that needsto be noted on labels is for
foie gras, which is if the foiegras comes from force-fed ducks
(07:29):
or geese.
Now what's interesting isforce-feeding geese is banned in
Switzerland, but of courseimports from places like France
still mean that people inSwitzerland can buy foie gras
that comes from animals who areforce-fed.
Much like in the UK, we havebanned foie gras farming and we
have banned fur farming in theUK.
They've been banned for a long,long time.
And yet we can still importthem, which is kind of
(07:51):
completely nonsensical.
It's the same with gestationcrates for pigs.
They're outlawed in the UK.
And While I don't often findmyself siding with animal
farmers, I do actually findmyself siding with them in this
example, because animal farmersin Britain will often say, well,
why is it fair that we havethese laws imposed on us?
But then retailers or businessescan just import these products
(08:14):
from abroad where these laws areallowed.
And in essence, what we'resaying is these things are so
terrible that they need to beoutlawed.
but they're not so terrible thatwe can't import them and consume
them that way instead.
And it just doesn't make anysense at all.
And that's one of those exampleswhere I kind of go, these
farmers here in the UK have gota pretty good point.
I mean, why do they have theselaws applied to them?
(08:37):
But apparently for the widersociety, this isn't enough of a
problem that we should stopbuying them or that we shouldn't
be allowed to buy them, thatretailers shouldn't be legally
allowed to stock them.
It doesn't make any sense atall.
I suppose what's interestingabout the examples that I've
just listed, the ones that thisSwiss law pertains to and
involves, these things aren'tallowed in Switzerland.
(08:59):
So actually, these processes arenot ones that occur in
Switzerland, or at leastshouldn't be occurring in
Switzerland.
And I think that opens up areally interesting question,
which is what's the motivationbehind these laws then?
Now, before I get into that, Ido want to stress something,
which is, It is important thatwe as a community look at things
and find positivity in things.
And we look at new laws and wesay, wow, okay, that's good for
(09:21):
this reason and that reason.
And we should find positivethings where they are.
But I do also think that we haveto be cautious and mindful that
we don't overstate thepositivity of something or that
we don't misrepresent something.
Now, the reason I saymisrepresent something is
because there has been a lot ofconversation online from vegan
outlets, vegans in general, sortof talking about these laws.
(09:43):
And I think...
that some of the ways that we'veapproached this conversation has
overstated what these laws are.
For example, I'm going to readyou just a quote from one such
outlet.
It doesn't really matter who itis because it's not their fault
necessarily.
This is just kind of a generaloverview of how this law has
been covered, let's say.
But I just thought it kind ofsummarized quite nicely.
(10:03):
When I say nicely, I think itsummarizes well, maybe the point
I'm trying to make here, whichis that we've got to be careful
with how we word this and how wesort of say that the law is and
what it means.
So for example, this particularoutlet said, the Swiss
government has approved newlabeling laws that mandate
(10:24):
businesses to declare if themeat and dairy products they're
selling are linked to animalsuffering.
So all animal products then.
Every single one of them, right?
Because all meat and dairyproducts are linked to animal
suffering.
So therefore, every single onemust contain a written statement
saying that this productcontains animal suffering.
(10:45):
But that's not what's happening.
We've gone through the examples,and these examples are the
absolute worst things you couldthink of.
Castrating pigs withoutanesthetic.
I mean, it's just...
It's so deplorable.
So it's not that this labelingmeans that all products now have
to carry this label saying thatthey contain animal suffering.
(11:05):
It's actually a select few.
And it's about things that arejust the absolute worst.
I mean, factory farming andintensive farming is absolutely
despicable and awful.
But even within systems offactory farming, there are some
things that take it that nextlevel, that go that step beyond,
like dismembering frogs ordehorning cattle without...
(11:26):
any pain relief.
So, This isn't the case.
It's not that all meat and dairyproducts, or it's not that
businesses are being mandated todeclare animal suffering.
It's the absolute worst of theworst of the worst of the worst
have to declare six things, youknow, have to go through sort of
a list of six or sevenrequirements to make sure their
(11:48):
animal products don't come fromthese systems or don't have
these practices inflicted onanimals within them.
And I'm not criticizing the waythat's been reported by these
organizations in a way that ismeant to reflect badly on these
organizations and outlets who'vereported on it in this way.
But I just think that whathappens often is maybe a
statement gets shared around orone organization might lead with
(12:08):
a headline, or there might be apress release that gets put out
there that has a certain type ofwording.
And then that wording gets usedover and over again, or that
phrasing gets used over and overagain.
And sometimes the phrasing isn'tinvestigated enough to make sure
that it covers all the nuancesand details of the particular
law in question.
So when we say, There's newrules that mandate businesses to
declare if the meat and dairyproducts they're selling are
(12:30):
linked to animal suffering.
We're actually sort of implyingto the reader that this is going
to be this big, all-encompassingthing where these labels are
going to be everywhere on animalproducts when that's not really
the case.
And what's interesting aboutSwitzerland, which I just sort
of mentioned, is that many ofthese things are already illegal
in Switzerland.
So these sort of writtenstatements are not going to
(12:51):
apply to Swiss farmed products.
So there's an interestingincentive there for Switzerland
and Swiss farmers when it comesto these labeling laws
themselves.
Now, does that mean that it'sbad?
No, I don't think it'snecessarily bad because
obviously if you are inSwitzerland and you have the
choice between buying pigs thatwere castrated with painkillers
(13:13):
or without, obviously withpainkillers is better, but just
because we can buy products thatcame from pigs that were
castrated with painkillersdoesn't mean doing so is the
ethically right thing to dohowever undeniably it is better
and obviously undeniably asystem of farming that didn't
have these things that i'velisted included in it would be
(13:36):
preferable to one that does sofrom that perspective from a
suffering perspective yes thereare lots of positives about
this.
And I'm not saying that this isa wholly negative law.
I think there are lots ofreasons why we should feel
positive about this law becauseit might reduce the demand in
Switzerland for these products.
And maybe, just maybe, it mightincentivize certain companies
(13:59):
and businesses outside ofSwitzerland to try and stop
these practices as a consequenceof their sales maybe being
impacted in Switzerland.
Maybe the foie gras one's a goodexample because there are lots
of French-speaking people inSwitzerland who have a lot of
French culture within their ownSwiss French culture.
And obviously foie gras is apart of that as well.
(14:21):
And so maybe if sales of foiegras start dipping in some of
these French speaking areas,that might encourage French
producers of foie gras to changetheir standards.
But that will only work ifthere's a financial incentive.
So then the question becomes,will foie gras farmers in France
see the financial benefit ofswitching to a non-force feeding
(14:41):
system, which will have tightermargins and make them less
money, but in doing so, maybeopen up a little bit more of
that market in Switzerland?
It really depends how consumersrespond.
And that's kind of theinteresting thing about this.
It depends how consumersrespond.
These things aren't beingbanned.
They're just being labeled toconsumers.
And I think if we really wanteda progressive law, then that law
(15:04):
should be that foie gras importsare banned, that the imports of
these products are banned.
Why are they available toconsumers?
Just ban them.
I mean, are people inSwitzerland really in favor of
castration without pain reliefand dehorning without pain
relief?
I doubt it.
I don't think it would cause ahuge problem.
But then of course there's tradeissues and there's issues with
(15:25):
allies in France or in Belgiumor in Italy or wherever it might
be where some of these practicesmight be occurring, unlike in
Switzerland.
So there are reasons to feelpositive and there is a good way
of looking at this, which meansthat we shouldn't view it as
being a negative thing.
There are positives ultimatelyto be found in it.
(15:46):
But I guess what I'm interestedin is not necessarily that side
of things, but more how we as acommunity should approach them.
And do we have a sort ofcontradictory mindset between
this legislation and maybe justwelfare laws in general, because
this is labeling, but it'sanimal welfare labeling.
So it's a welfare law at itsheart, isn't it?
(16:06):
And what's interesting aboutthis particular law is what
we're used to when it comes tolabeling is we're used to animal
products saying what they are.
In other words, saying we'rehigh welfare, we're free range,
we're organic.
And we're used to these termsbeing used as a marketing ploy.
And the thing that's quiteunique about this is It's one of
the only times where animalproducts have to state when
(16:28):
they're doing things which theydon't want the consumers to
know.
Because normally it's the otherway around.
They want consumers to know, oh,this is free range.
This is organic.
So they tell consumers.
And if it's not, they just don'tsay anything.
So it's quite interesting inthis case because it is a little
bit of a different way ofapproaching labeling laws.
But it's not the only time.
There is another example, whichis eggs.
In the UK, for example, if youbuy a carton of eggs, it should
(16:49):
contain a number.
0, 1, 2, or 3.
0 is organic, 1 is free-range, 2is barn, 3 is caged.
And so essentially that numbershould tell the consumer what
system of farming these eggscame from.
Now, of course, a number is notvery clear, and you have to know
that.
If you don't know it, thesenumbers don't mean anything.
You probably just think they'rethere for...
(17:10):
sort of a supply chain or sortof batch numbers or whatever it
might be, you probably don'tthink, oh, this is about the
system of farming where theseeggs came from.
So numbers are not particularlyclear, but of course the written
description of it is farclearer.
So there is a difference.
So it's not the first time thatthere has to be something on
(17:30):
packaging which tells theconsumer about the system of
farming, but it is the firsttime, as far as I understand it,
where there's something sort ofwritten in black and white
terms, this product contains orcomes from a farm where this
happened to the animals, ifthat's exactly how it will be
phrased, something along thoselines.
So it is quite good in that way,and it will be really
interesting to see how thischanges consumer behavior.
(17:53):
But what's my worry then?
Why do I feel...
Why do I feel a little bithesitant about how the vegan
community has sometimes beenapproaching this?
I think because it's notnecessarily as transformative as
we want it to be.
I think a lot of people haveprobably perceived it as being
something that is along thelines of, oh, businesses have
(18:14):
been mandated to show thatanimal suffering was involved in
the supply chain.
This is big, this is huge, thiswill do something really
massive.
But that's not reallynecessarily what it is.
It's these select examples.
And if you're in Switzerland,for example, and you're a Swiss
animal product consumer, whatdoes this incentivize you to do?
Does it incentivize you to govegan?
(18:35):
No, it doesn't incentivize youto go vegan.
It incentivizes you to buyanimal products that don't have
these problems found in thesupply chain, which would be
Swiss animal products.
This is a nationalistic piece oflegislation, which at its core
is there to incentivizeconsumers to buy Swiss animal
products.
It's kind of like the redtractor label in the UK.
(18:57):
Now as a vegan community, wethink the retroactive label is
terrible and it is, but why isit terrible?
Well, it's terrible because it'swelfare washing, because it's
trying to convince consumersthat these products are ethical,
when they're not, and because itdoesn't really mean anything.
I mean, the red tractor laws byand large are just the legal
(19:18):
requirements.
So essentially when you see ared tractor logo and a piece of
meat in the UK, it's essentiallytelling you two things, that
that animal product came from ananimal raised and slaughtered in
the UK, and that that animal wasraised to legal standards.
That's more or less what it'stelling you.
There might be some smalldiscrepancies and nuances, but
fundamentally the core of redtractor legislation is just
(19:39):
government legislation anyway soit doesn't really mean anything
but then if these labels thatwill be on swiss animal products
are about alerting consumers toproducts that were imported from
abroad and as a consequence areincentivizing people to buy
swiss produced products becausethose swiss produced products by
(20:01):
law can't contain the thingsthat will be listed on the label
is it not essentially doingsomething similar to Red
Tractor, which is trying to getconsumers to buy the animal
products produced in thatcountry?
And if we think that RedTractor's terrible, why don't we
think this is something weshould view a bit more
skeptically?
(20:22):
We might say, well, the reasonis because it's good that it's
written down as a statement.
And yes, that does separate it,and it does make it better to a
Red Tractor label.
But the Red Tractor label...
if you look at it in this way,will tell you something similar.
The red tractor label also tellsyou that that animal product
came from an animal who, wasn'tcastrated without pain relief.
(20:43):
Because actually castration inpigs in the UK is not common
practice.
We slaughter them a little bitearlier.
The reason that pigs arecastrated is because of
something called boar taint,which taints the meat and makes
it not very appetizing for aconsumer.
So in many countries, theycastrate the pigs to stop this
boar taint from happening.
But in the UK, we slaughter thema little earlier so as to avoid
the castration and the boartaint.
(21:05):
So if you're buying red tractorBritish pork products, then
you're also buying products thatcame from pigs who didn't have
to go through castration withoutpain relief or anesthetic.
And I think the issue with kindof welfare labels in general,
the idea of this is it createstransparency in the mind of a
consumer, but it's not reallyabout that.
(21:27):
The idea is that it creates theconnotation that animal products
that don't carry this writtenwarning are ethical as a
consequence of not carrying thiswritten warning.
Now, again, Is it good thatpeople are buying that over
something worse?
Yes.
And is it good, therefore, thatpeople are buying red tractor
meat in the UK over meat thatmight have been imported from an
(21:49):
animal who did go through thesethings in the country where they
were raised?
Well, by that logic, yes.
So I do think we have to besomewhat cautious about how
we're approaching this, becauseI don't want us as a community
to fall into the trap ofreaffirming perhaps the more
dangerous consequence of thislabeling law.
It's a movement in the rightdirection, but it's a movement
(22:11):
in the right direction that'snot necessarily coming because
of a view of trying to protectanimals, but a view of trying to
push Swiss animal farming.
Now you might say, well, Ed, whyare they doing this?
And I think there is a reallyinteresting reason why they
might be doing this.
There was a referendum that tookplace in Switzerland back in
2022, I believe.
In Switzerland, they havesomething called direct
(22:33):
democracy.
And essentially what that meansis that if you get enough people
in Switzerland to sign aproposed referendum, you can
actually have the country voteon that referendum.
It's not necessarily somethingthat has to go through the same
parliamentary routes that wehave in other countries, like in
the UK, for example.
It creates a little bit morepowerful for the public in
(22:56):
Switzerland.
And so back in 2022, there was areferendum in Switzerland
because of this direct democracythey have, which was about
banning factory farming inSwitzerland.
In the end, the referendum wasrejected by about 63% of people.
So there was a 63% majority ofpeople who voted against it.
(23:18):
So factory farming has not beenbanned in Switzerland.
But what I think is quiteinteresting is 63% is not
necessarily a small majority fora referendum.
13% is a smallish number,relatively speaking, but it's
also quite a large number oftenin political terms.
So it's not that it was on aknife's edge when the vote
(23:38):
actually happened and theresults came through.
But I do think it's quitenotable that 37% of people in
Switzerland voted against this.
I mean, 37% of Switzerland isnot vegan, not even vegan
vegetarian.
So clearly there was a number ofpeople, a not so insignificant
number of people who voted forthis referendum who consume
(24:01):
animal products and probably buyanimal products that do come
from factory farms.
but they're probablyideologically opposed to it.
But when they're in thesupermarket, they're not
necessarily making decisionsbased on that ideological
position, let's say.
So I think it's quiteinteresting because you would
think that a referendum likethat would maybe be 90% of
people vote against it because90% of people are buying animal
(24:23):
products regularly and want toconsume them.
And it would be a much smallerpercentage of people who would
vote in favor of banning factoryfarming.
So why do you think For thisexample, 37% is not such a small
minority.
And if direct democracy meansthat you can have a referendum
again in the future, what's tosay if in 15 years time or 20
years time, that 13% of peoplehave sort of changed their
(24:45):
position?
I mean, by that point, there'llbe more younger people who have
passed the voting age, who arepotentially more progressive,
more open-minded, more inkeeping with the sort of
principles of veganism.
You know, maybe there are moreopen-minded to animal rights or
even just the environment.
There is a lot that can happenin 10, 15, 20 years which might
(25:06):
take that 13% majority and flipit.
And if you're a Swiss animalfarmer or you're the Swiss
agricultural industry or theSwiss government and animal
products are a big part of theeconomy and there are lots of
lobbying efforts and there'slots of ties related to
governments and agriculture likethere are in countries all over
the world, perhaps thisreferendum was a bit of a
(25:29):
warning.
Not because it's changedanything right now, but because
maybe in 10, 15, 20 years, itcould change.
And if you're an animal rightsorganization in Switzerland,
this is a really great incentivefor you to say, there's actually
something here that we can gofor.
And if we push this and we keeppushing factory farming and we
keep doing exposés and we keepreleasing footage and we keep
(25:49):
showing people and we keep thepressure up, maybe we can change
that 13% of people over thecourse of a decade or two.
So if this referendum, hashappened like it has.
And there's a potential warninghere.
What do you want to do if you'reSwiss agriculture or the Swiss
government, let's say, what isit that you might be interested
in doing to try and stop thisfrom happening again or to stop
(26:12):
this shift from maybe occurringin the way that I just
described?
We want people to get behindSwiss animal farming.
You want to increase thepositive sentiment to Swiss
animal farming.
You want people to think morefavorably of Swiss animal
farming.
What could be one way that youdo that?
Well, you create a very cleardistinction in the minds of the
consumer between Swiss animalfarming and non-Swiss animal
(26:33):
farming.
How do you do that?
You create a clear distinctionwhich highlights all the
terrible practices that don'tnecessarily happen in Swiss
animal farming.
So now if you're a Swissconsumer, you might be thinking,
well, I'm not going to buy theseproducts.
These are terrible.
But in Switzerland, we don't dothat.
In Switzerland, we don't dothat.
How often do we hear this?
Oh, in the UK, we don't do that.
(26:55):
In Switzerland, we don't dothat.
It's so interesting to me howthis potential mechanism has
played out.
Now, I'm not saying that'sdefinitely what has happened.
I'm not saying that thisreferendum caused a conversation
where they said, maybe we shoulddo something about this.
Could this be a problem in thefuture?
I'm not saying that that issomething that has happened.
I don't know if it has, but I dothink it's interesting that
(27:18):
there was this referendum that anot so insignificant minority of
people voted in favor of banningfactory farming.
And now we have labeling laws,which at their core are going to
promote Swiss animal farming andmake it seem more favorable than
it really should be viewed asbeing.
Switzerland does have some ofthe best animal welfare laws in
(27:40):
the world.
So does the UK.
But what we know is those animalwelfare laws don't actually
really mean anything.
Just because you're better thanRussia or China or the US or the
worst countries in the worldwhen it comes to animal welfare
does not in and of itself meanthat what you're doing is good.
Just because the UK is not asbad as Texas does not mean that
(28:02):
what happens in the UK isethical as a consequence.
So I do think it's...
I do think it's really importantthat we maintain that because
for animals and Swiss farms,their suffering is not being
alleviated just becauseconsumers might feel more
favorably towards theirsuffering and exploitation.
(28:24):
There is another element to thisas well, which is a law is only
as good as its enforcement.
And To find out about theenforcement of such a law, I
think it's interesting to maybecompare it to another labeling
requirement that has existed inSwitzerland, I think since 2013.
And those labeling laws areabout the species of animal, the
(28:44):
origin of those animals.
So when you're buying a furitem, you should be told what
the species is and where theanimal came from.
So this law was looked into.
And what was interesting is theFederal Food Safety and
Veterinary Office did someinspections.
And what they found is thatthere was a 79% rate of
noncompliance.
(29:04):
79, so nearly 80%.
They carried out 180 inspectionsand 142 of them showed
noncompliance.
So then the question becomes,well, what happened?
You know, if these places wereshown to be not compliant, what
was the punishment?
Well, this is where it getsinteresting again.
110 of these cases wererectified within the time limit.
(29:26):
So presumably what that means isthat the inspections were
carried out, noncompliance wasfound, and the inspectors said,
you have X number of weeks, Xnumber of months, whatever it
might be, to sort this out, toget rid of this animal product
from your supply chain, to makesure this fur is correctly
labeled or no longer beingstocked.
And 110, so the majority of thebusinesses, did that.
(29:49):
So what does that mean?
It means there's no punishment.
It means that these businesseswere not compliant, either
through neglect, incompetence,or deliberately.
And all they had to do was juststop stocking that product or
update the label to reflect thelabeling laws.
So there's no punishment forthat.
And then it becomes moreinteresting again.
So then you have 32 cases wherethey say orders were issued.
(30:12):
So in other words, the timelimit expired.
The correct procedures were notfollowed.
So now the FSVO step in and theysay, all right, we're gonna put
an order on you.
In other words, you need to dosomething about that.
So 32 issues were ordered.
And of those 32, there were fourcriminal proceedings that were
instituted.
So after the orders were issued,four of those places either
(30:33):
decided, hey, We don't thinkthis is fair.
We want to maybe go to acriminal proceeding because we
believe that what we're doing isacceptable.
We don't believe it's our fault.
We don't believe we need tochange.
So maybe these four places,rather than just be negligent or
purposefully refusing to change,maybe decided that they had
grounds to try and appeal and gothrough a slightly longer
(30:54):
process with them.
And what's interesting is wedon't know the outcome of those
four criminal proceedings.
We don't know if there was anycriminal misconduct found or if
the cases were dropped.
That wasn't published as far asI can see online.
So we have a huge amount ofnoncompliance when it comes to
fur labeling.
The vast majority of thoseresult in no punishment
(31:15):
whatsoever.
And four go to criminalproceedings of which we don't
know what the outcomes were.
And we also don't know if thoseoutcomes just were fines.
Because when these labeling lawshave been breached, the first
port of call is to try and getthe business to update their
labels, to reflect the law.
And if they don't, it might be afine.
So then the question becomes,let's say they're a business, a
(31:37):
restaurant in Switzerland.
And let's say that you'reselling foie gras that comes
from force-fed duck and geese,and it's cheaper for you to buy
because it comes from theseterrible farms.
And you're thinking to yourself,right, if I'm inspected, all I
have to do is say, okay, I'llchange.
that might provide you with anincentive not to do it because
it's self-regulated, thislabeling law.
(31:59):
It's up to the businessesthemselves to do the due
diligence and declare it.
And then we hope that there'sgoing to be audits and
inspections to make sure thatthese laws and labels are
actually being fulfilled in theway that they need to be.
So what does this really mean?
Well, if there's beennoncompliance before, will there
be noncompliance again?
(32:21):
Quite possibly.
And if noncompliance is found,what will happen?
Well, probably not a great deal.
A slap on the wrist and a don'tdo it again.
But it doesn't necessarilyprovide a huge amount of drive,
let's say, for businesses tomaybe be as scrupulous as they
need to be when it comes tothese things.
And there is an extra layer ofthis, which is these products
(32:42):
have been imported from abroad.
In the case of Frog's Legs, theymight be being imported from
Vietnam.
So then there's an extra layerof complication in this, which
is you might have a Swissorganization doing these
inspections and it might say,yes, don't worry, these pigs are
fine.
We ticked this box or filled outthis form.
And yes, the frogs are from hereand it's fine.
We've been given assurances.
(33:03):
But do these Swiss authoritieshave...
the legal jurisdiction to go toVietnam and make sure the farms
are in compliance, or to go toSpain and make sure that the
pigs are receiving pain reliefwhen they're castrated.
I don't think they do, right?
That would be a potential legalbattle with the other countries
where these potential inspectorsdon't have the jurisdiction to
(33:24):
go and do inspections on thesefarms.
And so then the questionbecomes, well, how do we know?
How can we be certain that withthese labeling laws, there even
is compliance?
And how can we know for certainthat the products being sold in
Swiss businesses are actuallycompliant with these laws?
Because they might just beticking a box because the
suppliers in Vietnam and they'veemailed the supplier or
(33:45):
contacted the supplier and say,hey, you don't do this, do you?
And the supplier says, no, ofcourse we don't do that.
But no one's checking.
No one knows that it's not inthe interest of the supplier in
a different country around theworld, to be honest,
necessarily, because they're notbreaking the law where they
live.
So there's not a legalconsequence for them for doing
it.
And there's not necessarily alegal consequence for the
business in Switzerland if theyjust tick the box and then say,
(34:08):
well, we were told it's fine.
What then happens?
How do you really get to thebottom of this compliance?
becomes quite tricky, doesn'tit?
But these labels might then notbe being applied to products
where they should.
And we're trusting that becausewe're trusting the industry to
self-regulate.
And this is an industry that hasa long, long history of being
(34:28):
very, very bad atself-regulating.
Whether or not the restaurantsin Switzerland want to be
compliant, whether or not theretail stores in Switzerland
want to be compliant, thatdoesn't necessarily mean that
suppliers in other countrieswill be compliant for them.
Because if you've got a bigSwiss retailer reaching out to
you and saying, hey, just so youknow, we might stop stocking
(34:49):
these products if you do thesethings.
If you're a big farmingorganization in a place in Asia
or even in a place somewhereelse in Europe, you might just
want to say, hey, yeah, it'sfine, don't worry.
We have made sure that thesethings don't happen.
Or don't worry, we have theseguidelines which say that they
shouldn't happen.
(35:10):
Because here's another thing,there might be guidelines in
certain countries, but thoseguidelines might not be being
adhered to.
In the UK, for example, taildocking isn't supposed to be
done as a routine procedure onpiglets, but it is.
Because the guidelines statethat it should only be carried
out in special circumstances orin certain circumstances.
(35:30):
It just means it's being carriedout all the time because it's
not being made illegal.
I know that might all sound alittle bit negative, and I don't
mean it to be.
I do think these laws are good,and I do think this labeling is
important, and I am reallyinterested to see if it pushes
the dial, if it maybe changesconsumer habits, because if it
does, that's great, and it'simportant to know.
(35:51):
My apprehension is more abouthow we are representing them,
generally speaking, and if wemight be overstating them.
And from the perspective ofveganism, what I think is
interesting is the high court inSwitzerland has just ruled, or
recently ruled, that veganproducts can't be labeled as
being chickens.
You can't say vegan chicken orvegan beef or vegan pork, which
(36:13):
is a really regressive way ofviewing food labeling.
So on the one hand, we want toincrease transparency for
consumers, but then on the otherhand, we don't want consumers to
be able to buy a product thatsays vegan chicken or vegan
beef.
And what's interesting aboutthat is studies have shown that
when products aren't allowed touse words like chicken and beef
(36:33):
when they're plant-based, itactually confuses consumers
more.
I mean, the point of these wordsis to create an idea in the mind
of the consumer about what theproduct is.
The reason we say vegan chickenis so that a consumer thinks,
ah, this is a plant-basedversion of chicken, so I can
cook with it like I would animalchicken.
Or if this is vegan beef, I canthink of this in the same way
that I might do beef andmarinate it and cook it and use
(36:55):
it in the same recipes that Iwould beef.
That's the point of those labelsis to allow the consumer to know
what they're buying.
And studies show that when youdeny that to consumers, it
actually increases consumerconfusion.
And so that's not increasingtransparency for consumers.
So you have this sort ofcontradiction where it's like,
this labeling law for theseanimal products is to help
(37:15):
consumers make more ethicalchoices and to increase
transparency because we careabout consumers.
But at the same time, we alsohave a law that bans plant-based
companies from using words likechicken and beef.
That's a contradiction.
So why is there a contradictionthere?
Is it to try and stifle veganproducts?
Well, why would you want to dothat?
(37:36):
Why would Switzerland want tostop vegan products from being
as competitive in themarketplace?
Especially for a company likePlanted, which is a Swiss
plant-based food company.
If you're trying to stop a Swissplant-based food company from
saying chicken and beef, whodoes that protect in
Switzerland?
(37:56):
animal farmers.
And so what's interesting aboutboth of these pieces of
legislation is that they'recontradictory, but they do one
thing, which is they protectSwiss animal farmers.
So I do think that thislegislation is ultimately a
positive thing in many, manyregards.
And I don't think that it's badthat it's been introduced.
(38:16):
That's not what I'm trying tosay.
But I guess what I'm trying tosay is i think that the way that
we as vegans approach it shouldbe perhaps with more caution
than i've seen from differentplaces and from different people
that's not to say that weshouldn't view the positive
things as being positive whenthey arise absolutely but i
don't think that we should jumpon something and view it as
(38:38):
being more positive than it isbecause we might then overstate
it and i think that for anon-vegan if they come across
some of the way that ways thatthis has been reported on, their
impression might be that inSwitzerland, there's going to be
these really vast orencompassing labeling laws,
which are going to tell everyonewhich products have animal
cruelty and which don't.
But we as vegans know that allanimal products have animal
(39:00):
cruelty.
That's why we're vegan, becauseall animal products come from
animal exploitation and arecruel to animals.
That's why we're vegan and notwelfarists who buy high welfare
meats.
So I think that the way that weapproach this should be a little
bit more cautious because at theend of the day, I don't think
that these labeling laws arebeing introduced really to help
(39:23):
animals.
I think they're being introducedto protect Swiss farming and to
incentivize consumers to opt forSwiss animal products over
imported ones.
And I think at its core, that'swhat it is.
I hope I've not created anoverly negative view.
I've just tried to, in my mindat least, create a more balanced
view and a more nuanced viewthat reflects the way that I've
(39:44):
been feeling about it.
But now I would really love toknow what you think in the
comments.
So let me know down below if youthink that what I've said is is
potentially true.
If you share some of theseconcerns and worries that I
have, or maybe you disagree withme and you think that I've maybe
overthought about it, I'veruminated too much on it and I'm
approaching it in a way that'spotentially unfair.
Maybe I've missed something, acrucial detail, which changes
(40:06):
something.
Please do let me know down belowin the comments because this is
one of those conversations whereI think it's really interesting
for us as a community to get abroader view of what we all
think about it because it isinteresting and it's also quite
complex, I think.
So I would love to know what youall think as well so I can
change my view or update my viewor solidify my view depending on
what you all say.
So yeah, let me know, please.
(40:28):
I would love to find out.
I'm very eager to find out.
Anyway, thank you so much forlistening.
I really do appreciate it.
And I look forward to speakingto all of you in the next
podcast episode.
Thank you so much for listening.
If you've enjoyed this episode,make sure to subscribe to the
(40:51):
Disclosure Podcast on whicheverplatform you listen to it, as
doing so means that you canalways stay up to date with new
episodes.
Leaving a review and sharing thepodcast is also really helpful.
And if you'd like to support thepodcast and my work more
generally, you can either make adonation through the link in the
show notes or sign up to my substack where I post weekly and
share my thoughts and feelingsabout the experience of living
(41:13):
vegan.
In the show notes, you can alsofind links to purchase my books.
Thank you again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!