Skip to main content

Tail docking in the EU: a case of routine violation of an EU Directive

  • Chapter
The ethics of consumption


The question of tail docking in pigs is an ongoing problem despite the fact that it should have been solved long ago. In the Council Directive 2008/120/EC it is clearly stated that routine tail docking in pigs are prohibited and enrichment materials for the pigs must be provided, which is in line with the high animal welfare standards that the European Union aim for. This directive is in force in all member states. The habit of tail docking is widespread as a simple comparison by two reports by EFSA shows. We present these results together with results showing that some countries, like Sweden, Finland and Lithuania manage to still keep their production without tail docking routinely. We therefore suggest that the gap between the strong intentions of prohibiting tail docking in the directive and the weak (or non-existent) enforcement of it in most countries in the EU needs to be closed. Of the arguments saying that this will be a troublesome task, we will here focus on two of them. The first is that the directive is unclear or actually allows tail docking. The second is that the habit of routine tail docking is economically profitable. Both these arguments will not hold. There are three ways to bridge the gap. The first is to lower the threshold, lowering the animal welfare level in the directive. We believe strongly that this solution is contradictory to the trend in today’s legislation about animals and not in line with the Lisbon treaty. The second is to demand stronger enforcement which is in line with the EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012–2015. The third is to accept that different countries will not enforce the directive, then leaving it to the consumer to choose between more or less animal friendly pork. EU seems to adopt this way in contrast to the EU AW Strategy. To properly inform consumers about animal welfare is a good help although it demands a lot of resources and is a rather slow process. Therefore, in order to have a rapid solution to the gap one need to have a stronger enforcement of the law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions


  • Algers, B. (2011). Animal welfare - recent developments in the field. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 6: 10. Available at:

  • Algers, B. (2012). Contemporary issues in farm animal housing and management - swine. In: Jakobsson, C. (ed.) Sustainable agriculture. Ecosystem Health and Sustainable Agriculture 1. Baltic University Press, Uppsala, Sweden, p. 329–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camm, T. and Bowles, D. (2000). Animal welfare and the treaty of Rome - a legal analysis of the protocol on animal welfare and welfare standards in the European union. Journal of Environmental Law 12(2): 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council Directive 2008/120/EC. Laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (codified version). Official Journal of the European Union 2009/L 47/5-13.

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2007a). Scientific Report on animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. The EFSA Journal 564: 1–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2007b). Scientific report on the risks associated with tailbiting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for taildocking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. The EFSA Journal 611: 1–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU (2013).

  • Larceneux, F., Benoit-Moreau, F. and Renaudin, V. (2012). Why might organic labels fail to influence consumer choices? Marginal labelling and brand equity effects. Journal of Consumer Policy 35: 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, H. (2008). The concepts of health, well-being and welfare as applied to animals. A philosophical analysis of the concepts with regard to the differences between animals. Ph.D. thesis. Linkoping Studies in Arts and Science No. 438, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, H., Algers, B., Gunnarsson, S. and Nordgren, A. (2012). Stakeholders on meat production, meat consumption and mitigation of climate change: Sweden as a case. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26: 663–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjärnström, E. (2010). Ethical impact on EU animal welfare policies: the example of Article 13. Student report. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden, 25 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vryonides, D. (2012). Letter to Dyrenes Beskyttelse concerning ‘Deres klage af 29. februar 2012 og brev af 1. august 2012 (Ref.:, mit brev af 5. juli 2012 (Ref. Ares(2012)815277) - (Vores réf.:CHAP(2012)00655)’. European Commission Ref. Ares (2012) 1023736 - 03/09/2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg, B. (2011). Reglering och förvaltning av produktions- och slaktdjurs valbefinnande. En offentligrattslig undersökning. Ph. D. Thesis. Åbo Akademi, Åbo, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Lerner .

Editor information

Helena Röcklinsberg Per Sandin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Wageningen Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lerner, H., Algers, B. (2013). Tail docking in the EU: a case of routine violation of an EU Directive. In: Röcklinsberg, H., Sandin, P. (eds) The ethics of consumption. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics