Parliamentary Debates Concerning the Living Conditions of Pigs in Sweden’s Factory Farms Between 1980–2018

Sweden’s Animal Welfare Act of 1988 stated that regulations and directives within the law should be in favor of animals’ wellbeing, protect them against unnecessary harm, allow them to express their natural behavior, and prevent behavioral disorders. However, ethological studies present several welfare problems found in animals held legally in factory farming settings. By using one of Sweden’s most commonly slaughtered animals—the pig—this paper scrutinizes how politicians consider different interests while debating animal living conditions in factory farms. The results demonstrate an overall absence of discussions addressing welfare problems in Swedish pig farming. When such welfare issues are addressed, they are often overlooked in favor of interests that cannot directly be associated with animal welfare. Political claims of having the best animal welfare legislation in the world are used when arguing for decreasing as well as enhancing the living conditions.


Introduction
Over 20 years ago, Benton (1998) stated that one of the most systematic, organized, and far-reaching forms of animal abuse was taking place in factory farming.He described how the harsh treatment of farm animals radically differs from the keeping of companion animals, which are generally better cared for.He specifically mentioned two concepts that are relevant to this study.First, Benton used the concept of harm as a point of departure when addressing the legal animal abuse that takes place within factory farming.While doing so, he distanced himself from the traditional method of reproducing a legislative concept of harm, which predominates criminological research (Lynch & Stretesky, 2014).Second, Benton addressed how animals in factory farms are treated differently as a result of their relationship with humans.Even though Benton's article was published over 20 years ago, his argument regarding harm done to factory farm animals can still be considered relevant today.Factory farming still contributes to a significant amount of welfare problems for a staggering number of animals in the agriculture setting (Jensen, 2012;Wyatt, 2014;Sollund, 2017).Specifically, farm animals, are a rare and neglected subject within criminology (Benton, 2007: 5, 21-29, Cazaux 2007;Taylor, 2011;Wyatt, 2014: 14).When such animals are discussed, they are often portrayed in a speciesist fashion, a critique mentioned by both Beirne (1999) and Cazaux (1999).This is especially true when considering victimological studies where animals are not even regarded as victims despite their ability to be subjected to both criminalized acts and harm (Escobar, 2015;Flynn & Hall, 2017;White, 2018).White (2014) suggests that harm should be considered the general point of departure when conducting criminological enquiries.That harm is relevant to study regardless of its legality and should by no means be restricted solely to harmful actions against the human species.Such an approach would allow scholars to examine how harmful acts are constructed in relation to animal welfare legislation-i.e., why some harmful behaviors are deemed illegal while others are not (White, 2008a(White, , 2008b)).However, defining harm in practical terms is a complex issue, especially when it concerns animals that cannot communicate using any human language.One way is to follow Wyatt's (2014) and Sollund's (2017) approach and use ethological research as a point of departure when describing the harm that occurs in factory farming-that is, to combine the notion of harm from the context of green criminology with ethological welfare research in a rendezvous fashion (Hayward & Young, 2004;Downes, 1988).Wyatt (2014) and Sollund (2017) not only highlight that legal harm does, in fact, exist in factory farming but also demonstrate that such an interdisciplinary approach can generate important knowledge in the criminological study of harm against animals.My intention with this study is to take the work of Wyatt (2014) and Sollund (2017) a step further and explore the political mechanisms that enable legal harm within factory farming.The aim of the paper is to analyze how members of the Swedish parliament consider different interests while debating the living conditions of pigs situated in factory farms between 1980 and 2018.These living conditions are regulated within the Animal Welfare Legislation, thus contributing to the production of knowledge on how it is constructed and results in the enhancement, deterioration, and/or upholding of the legal harm that occurs in factory farming.

Animal Welfare Legislation
Sweden's Animal Welfare Legislation dates back to 1945, and, at the time, constituted a new way of regulating how humans should care for animals in captivity (Svärd, 2015).Instead of punishing wrongdoing (e.g., so-called "cruelty" against animals), the welfare legislation was intended to govern the animal owner toward a correct way of caring for the animals.At the same time, the definition of apparent harm in the animal cruelty legislation was altered into the more permissive term of inappropriate harm.Svärd (2015) suggests that this was a way of solving a discursive crisis and legitimizing the infliction of apparent harm on some animals in certain given situations, such as in vivisection.Hence, certain appropriate harm against animals in society could be legitimized without contradicting the law.After the introduction of the Animal Welfare Legislation, a distinctive rural transformation took place in Sweden.The traditional way of farming, where income was derived from multiple sources, was gradually abandoned, and a process of specialization took place, with income instead becoming mainly derived from one single source (Jensen 2012).According to Flygare and Isacson (2003), this process did not only apply to livestock farming but to the overall rural setting in Sweden.Consequently, fewer farmers took care of more animals and the farmers were positioned in specific parts of the production chain rather than carrying the whole chain alone.From a production point of view, this specialization constituted a far more effective way of raising animals while at the same time lowering production costs (Jensen, 2012).As a result, animal welfare was also lowered and, in many ways, disregarded to benefit the effectiveness of production.During the peak of this specialization in the 1980s, the legislation was no longer suitable for this new way of industrialized farming.After all, the initial legislation was crafted for traditional livestock farming, which was now being abandoned.Thus, a new Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1988, revising Sweden's Animal Welfare Legislation.It was constructed as a framework law and consisted of overall directives that stipulated how regulations within the section of the law should be considered.The overall directive stated the following: [...] animals should be protected against unnecessary suffering and disease.Regulations and directives within the law should be in favor of the animal's wellbeing, protect them against unnecessary harm, allow them to express their natural behavior, and prevent behavioral disorders.(1988: 534).
Only parliament can change this directive or any other legal directives according to Sweden's constitutional law.After a law is passed in parliament and inbound, decrees are then produced by the government to clarify the guiding principles of the law.The Department of Agriculture then generates regulations and general advice regarding the decrees, dictating what specific conditions must be made to uphold them.It is a process in which the overall directive led to the creation of specific minimum living standards that describe in detail the handling of factory farm animals (Jensen, 2012, Striwing & Åslund, 2005).This regulates, for example, how large a stall must be, at what age the piglet can be separated from the sow, and how transport and slaughter can be carried out.If these minimum living standards are not met by the farmer, he or she can be subjected to prosecution regarding waste-or, in more serious cases-cruelty against animals.There is no legal impediment that prevents farmers from exceeding the minimum living standards, but, higher animal welfare will, nonetheless, bear an economical burden for the farmer, since extended welfare is more expensive.
Critique Against the Animal Welfare Legislation Francione (2008) argues that animal welfare legislations fail to protect animals from harm, since animals are regarded as property.As property, animals can not possess a legal capacity and are not regarded as judicial persons, i.e., a physical person or someone who can possess a potential legal capacity, such as children (Lagen, 2018).If an animal is subjected to a crime, it does not exist as a judicial victim.The crime will instead be regarded as against the state or as the destruction of private property.Moreover, Francione (2008) argues that this property status prevents animals from obtaining an inherent value, and, without an inherent value, human interests can more easily be prioritized over animal welfare considerations.Animals in factory farming are also often treated as a commodity (Cudworth, 2017), with welfare considerations imbedded in the capitalist system where accumulation of profit is central (Taylor & Fraser, 2017).In such cases, pigs are usually reduced to the commodity of pork and discussed in relation to industrial conditions as well as supply and demand within the economic markets.This process of dehumanizing animals situated in the food industry by treating them as commodities is a way of creating distance between humans and animals, thus enabling legal harm according to Sollund (2017).
The current Animal Welfare Legislation as well as the anticruelty legislation in Sweden allows for a certain infliction of harm on animals as long as it is deemed necessary.
However, there is no definition of what constitutes this necessary harm, and this is rarely questioned, according to Francione (2008).Following the minimum living standards can be regarded as a necessary form of harm, since welfare cannot be met from an ethological standpoint (Wyatt, 2014;Sollund, 2017;Jensen, 2012).In other words, to treat farm animals in a way that causes them harm is deemed necessary.Farm animals do not generally acquire the same level of care as pets, such as dogs, cats, and horses.The treatment of farm animals is governed by their use value which explains their social situation as well as their relationship with humans (Sollund, 2012).A way of legitimizing the necessity of harming animals is by advocating that it serves a higher purpose (Ibid.).In the case of factory farming, such a higher purpose could be understood, for example, as a prioritized economic consideration over welfare.
According to Taylor and Fraser (2017), animal slaughter within factory farming is an expression of a normative and institutionalized form of animal abuse allowed by society.Factory farming should not, therefore, be regarded as an extreme occurrence but rather as a consequence of the lack of relationship between humans and animals.Cudworth (2017) also suggests that the social formations between humans and animals in factory farming should be considered an international phenomenon that cannot be ascribed to one single nation.Indeed, Sweden's membership in the European Union (EU) in accordance with the appurtenant supranatural regulations indicates a more international process underlying factory farming.Svärd (2012) argues that the Animal Welfare Legislation in Sweden primarily upholds a fantasy of an ethically unproblematic relationship between humans and animals (see also Taylor & Fraser, 2017).One part of maintaining this fantasy is by claiming to "have the best animal welfare legislation in the world," which is a reoccurring theme in Sweden as well as in other countries.Svärd (2012) argues that this is primarily a way of saying that there is no need for change, thus giving legitimacy to the current form of the speciest animal welfare system.If a scandal or incident occurs in relation to factory farming, it is treated as an anomaly and the work of a "few bad apples" that threatens the integrity of the overall system.In other words, incidents are viewed as caused by individuals and not as representing a failure of the animal welfare system, which should be protected.

Method
Parliamentary debates are an essential part of the legislative process in Sweden, since they are where ideas, thoughts, and opinions converge before any voting or decisions take place that may or may not change the current legislation.In this forum, politicians have the opportunity to influence fellow members of the same party as well as members of other parties.It is also an arena in which politicians can make their voices heard by the public.

Material
After every debate in parliament, a written transcript is produced in which all the discussions are accounted for.These transcripts constitute the material of the present analysis and are free to obtain from the Swedish parliament's own homepage1 (www.riksd agen.se).
Specifically, transcript documents from between 1980 and 2018 were included in the analysis, since they cover debates before and after the first legislative change made to the Animal Welfare Legislation of 1988 and as well as the debates leading up to the second legislative change made in 2018.The pig was chosen as an example of a common factory farm animal in Sweden.This is both a way of limiting the material and contributing to the depth of the analysis.It would be difficult to simultaneously address all animals in the factory farm setting, since this would require a clear distinction between the similarities and differences among the different species.It is therefore important to stress that, without additional research, the knowledge garnered from the parliamentary debates concerning the pig is not directly applicable to other factory farm animals.

Selection
The selection of relevant transcripts was conducted in four steps (see appendix A) in accordance to Schreier's (2012) model of qualitative content analysis.The model facilitates the search for a specific attribute from within the context of this paper in a systematic fashion.First, I carried out a general search to extract every transcript in the given time period that included the word "pig" [gris] or "swine" [svin].Second, I examined the context in which these words were used to effectively remove irrelevant transcripts.Third, I conducted a more comprehensive reading of the selected transcripts (n = 115).My objective was to establish an overall picture of the material and examine how the recorded parliamentary debates were conducted.In the last step, I selected the transcripts that represented the most intense discussions (n = 7)-that is, when most political parties participatedwhich thus revealed a clear standpoint regarding the welfare of the pig and where the discussions resulted in a resolution.The final selection of transcripts was primarily focused around three major political occurrences.The first time the Animal Welfare Legislation was revised was in the later part of the 80 s, in the mid-90 s, when Sweden became a member of the EU, and the second time was during the second half of the 2010s.Depending on the nature of the discussed issues, the debates (and their related voting) featured different parties and members of parliament.Some of the speakers reoccurred in the analyzed documents during their time in office, although they disappeared after a while as their term of office ended.The Minister of Agriculture often played a central role in the debates, since he or she was regarded-primarily by the opposition-as responsible for agriculture questions.It is also important to note that some debated questions created a lot of publicity, while others went more or less unnoticed outside parliament.

Analysis
In order to understand how the members of parliament considered different interests, I applied Spector and Kitsuse's (2001) concept of interests from their theory of claims-making.The theory is somewhat generic, but their concept of interest was quite useful in this endeavor.According to Spector and Kitsuse (2001), interests is the existence of an actual or materiel advantage, or a presumptive loss, that the individual or group is claiming to consuming to examine since it was not possible to conduct electronical searches using keywords within the document.
Footnote 1 (continued) own or claiming that another group is owning.In short, interests are centered around what an actor can gain or lose while advocating for a specific stance regarding a certain question.The concept of interests transcends beyond mere rhetorical skills, since a stance can never be considered neutral.However, an actor can consider another person´s or a group´s interest in an altruistic sense.A point of departure in the analysis is that members of parliament do not consider interests in a social vacuum but are governed by their social position-that is, if they wish to uphold their position as member of parliament, they will face motivation to act in a way that does not compromise their position.

Limitations
The analyzed material was derived from a relatively small sample of discussions, which reflects how rarely parliament discusses the living conditions of pigs in factory farming.When relevant discussions arose in parliament, they could often be characterized as a short back-and-forth argument between two members of parliament that quickly died out.A small sample from a limited amount of data is more prone to a lack of generalizability, since it is more difficult to draw conclusions from such a sample; therefore, I will revisit these issues later when discussing the conclusions.

Astrid Lindgren
In the middle of the 1980s, discussions in parliament emerged regarding recent media exposure of an event at one of Sweden's slaughterhouses where pigs were accidently scalded alive due to inadequate euthanizing.The debate began by Claeson who emphasized the suffering the pigs must have endured during this maltreatment.He argues that stressed out workers could be a possible explanation but this argument would soon be abandoned.Instead, the internationally known children's book author, Astrid Lindgren, was introduced into the discussion.
The main reason is obviously the stress among employees during the slaughter-180-200 pigs an hour-a treatment of animals that Astrid Lindgren articulately described in Expressen a week ago, which I presume the Minister of Agriculture has considered […].(1986/87: 58) Here, this mention of Lindgren is by no means a coincidence so much as a strategic move to force the opponent to take a stand in relation to Lindgren's opinion.What Lindgren along with Forslund described in one of Sweden's largest newspapers is shown to have gradually become an interest that parliament must consider in their discussions regarding factory farming.This could be linked to Lindgren's celebrity status and previous success as an opinion-former.It could also be linked to the severity of scalding pigs alive.According to Sollund (2017), there is often no explicit difference between what can be considered animal abuse versus legal harm.The scalding of pigs alive is, however, presented as a clear case of animal abuse.The current minister of agriculture, Hellström, responds.
[…] the Department of Agriculture is trying to establish the source of the problem, but the high production rate is probably one of the causes; the question is what we can do about it.Is it enough to lower the production rate or is further action necessary?(1986/87: 58).
Here, the issue of accidently scalding pigs alive is described in an industrial context, which follows Taylor and Fraser's (2017) argument that welfare questions within factory farming are imbedded in the capitalist system.In the later part of the statement, the speaker altered his earlier attitude in favor of the opposition's argument.The mention of Astrid Lindgren seemed to have a considerable effect and elicit a willingness to act that was not present earlier in the debate.That more action could be needed than what was originally proposed constitutes an unusual turn-around in the transcripts.In the rest of the debates surrounding the first revision of Animal Welfare Legislation, it becomes clear that following Lindgren's stance is a high primary interest, with the absence of any apparent critique.However, one day before the final voting on Sweden´s Animal Welfare Legislation of 1988, Brunander questions whether the parliamentary proceedings had been correctly conducted.
It was not until an opinion about Astrid Lindgren arose in society that parliament became in a hurry to present a new Animal Welfare Legislation.They were so much in a hurry that the ordinary circulation for comments could not be conducted, which is fairly serious, to be honest.(1987/88: 127) The circulation of comments is when the proposed legislation is circulated around different authorities and organizations that are invited to comment on the proposition prior to parliamentary voting.It is important to stress that Brunander is not criticizing Lindgren or the legislation but rather how the party in power was conducting the parliamentary proceedings.Thus, even though the first revision of the Animal Welfare Legislation was a radical judicial event, since it represented a new legislative paradigm in caring for animals in captivity, it was not a result of exhaustive discussions; it was rather characterized by a lack of discussions.Moreover, the few discussions conducted did not address the Animal Welfare Legislation or any of the ethical issues concerning factory farming-that is, the living conditions that Lindgren and Forslund (1990) criticized in their news articles.However, Lindgren, through her celebrity status, had a profound effect on the discussions conducted in parliament.Her appurtenant opinion remained unchallenged during most of the discussions.The primary interest during these discussions, according to Spector and Kitsuse's (2001) theory, was taking on the opinion Lindgren represented.According to Stern et al. (2005), societal acceptance for the treatment of animals is a fundamental component of the current setting of pigs in factory farming.Following this argument, it is possible that the public opinion formed by Lindgren and Forslund (1990) threatened this societal acceptance, leading to a legislative revision.

Necessary Harm
In the mid-1990s, debates arose whether the unanesthetized castration of male piglets should be prohibited or not.Castration is a routine surgical procedure conducted on all male boars at a young age except those that are used for breeding.The procedure is conducted by the farmer or an animal keeper at the farm, who uses a scalpel to remove the testicles while the piglet is fixated (by the farmer's hands or in a metallic holder).After boars are slaughtered and processed as food the taste will be considered less desirable if the boar was not castrated at a young age.A proposition to prohibit unanesthetized castration was directed at the current minister of agriculture, Winberg, who replied.
Sweden has one of the most far-reaching Animal Welfare Legislations in the world and is often considered a pioneer.A correctly operating legislation needs functioning supervision.The parliaments accountants have scrutinized animal welfare questions and discovered several problems regarding the supervision … a nonworking supervision is a serious problem.… The purpose behind castration is to address problems with smell and bad taste, which will occur if the procedure is not carried out.… The government has no desire to alter current regulations or legal sanctions.(1994/95: 74) The main interest in this excerpt is to defend the presumed status of the current legislation as being "the most far-reaching Animal Welfare Legislations in the world": Since it is the best in the world, there is no need for change, and inefficient supervision is instead presented as the problem.In other words, there are only a few bad apples rather than larger systemic problems causing these problems, as per Svärd's (2012) argument.The harm caused by unanesthetized castration is presented as a necessary action; otherwise, the pork would taste and smell bad, leading to consumer dislike.Pleasing the consumer can be regarded as a higher purpose that enables and legitimizes the harm that follows the procedure of unanesthetized castration (Sollund, 2012).Lindvall will respond by arguing that pain and suffering could be avoided thus improving the Animal Welfare Legislation.
As an answer to my question about prohibiting unanesthetized castration, Winberg tells me why it is done.I am already aware of this.The question is whether castration needs to be performed without any form of anesthesia.It hurts when the scalpel cuts the skin.There is an ointment-called Embla, which is made of Xylocaine-that can be applied during procedures like this.This, Margareta Winberg, is an improvement that can be implemented in the Animal Welfare Legislation.(1994/95: 74) The premiered interest in this excerpt is avoiding pain and suffering which follows the so-called welfare perspective, which, according to Francione (2008), dominates political decision-making regarding factory farm animals.It suggests that animals should be treated well when they are alive but ignores questions related to whether humans have the right to kill them.However, contrary to Svärd`s (2012) argument, the international status of the Animal Welfare Legislation will also be used to advocate for improvement as shown by Mikaelsson who advocates for strengthening the legislation in order to keep the international status.
The Minister of Agriculture states correctly that Sweden has good animal welfare legislation.I fully agree with Gudrun Lindvall that we should preserve this and show through the animal welfare legislation that we are predecessors regarding changes within the EU membership.(1994/95) Pain and suffering of the animal, as mentioned earlier, do not comprise a primary interest while debating changes that should be made to the Animal Welfare Legislation.Instead, economic interests and consumer preferences is presented in the response by Winberg.
The problem is that around three million pigs are slaughtered every year.Half of those are male pigs.Uncastrated boars, is regarded as tasting and smelling bad.Whether this is right or wrong, it is nonetheless the position of consumers.The ointment that Gudrun Lindvall talks about is a considered alternative.However, it is unclear whether it is truly effective or if it only numbs the surface of the skin.But it is unlikely that we can accomplish a proper anesthetic right now, since it requires a veterinarian.This is practically impossible, both economically and otherwise.(1994/95: 74) The cause behind unanesthetized castration, as well as the responsibility of the pain and suffering, is constructed around the consumer, who does not favor the taste and smell of uncastrated boars, suggesting that it is not a legal problem as much as a self-regulatory problem within the market.The pig is, in this excerpt, reduced to an industrial product, presented as a number and mainly serving the purpose of becoming food.In this social context, pigs do not have an inherent value (Francione, 2008), and the consequences of harm are a less prioritized interest in relation to the demands of the economic markets (Taylor and Fraser, 2017).Following Sollund's (2017) argument, this is a way for society to create distance from the actual pain and suffering the pig endures so such procedures can be continued within the industry.Above, it can be seen that Winberg begins to shift her earlier standpoint and argues that this ointment is now a considered alternative.She does not present this as a viable option, since it requires an attending veterinarian, which would be impossible considering the sheer number of male piglets born on farms each year.It is unclear whose interests she is considering in the latter part of the excerpt when she is advocating for no legislative change.Wyatt (2014) suggests that economic considerations are more prioritized than ethical considerations.Anesthetizing such a high number of piglets is simply regarded as too costly.Following this debate, there were no legislative changes made-even though the politicians had partially reached an agreement.After the first revision-and Lindgren's involvement-the legislation is described as "the best in the world and as a predecessor" in parliament, it becomes something for swedes to be proud of and, at the same time, it provides legitimacy to the current treatment of pigs in factory farming.

Sweden's Unbeatable Animal Welfare Legislation
In 2011, the government published a report that suggested a renewed Animal Welfare Legislation.The current administration was, however, unable to finalize any proposal and was, as a result of this, criticized by the opposition.When a new administration came into power in 2014, they started their own independent inquiry, which, as for their predecessors, became a drawn-out process and opened them up for similar criticism.During this period, the Department of Agriculture approved a time-limited trial program founded by the supply association, Svenska Pig.The program allowed for the fixation of sows after fawning as a way of avoiding piglets being accidently crushed under the sow in their narrow living stalls.This evoked criticism against the current administration from Holm, who argues that this will worsen the situation for animals in factory farms.
Should we approach a more intense form of raising animals, a more industrialized setting with conditions further away from natural behavior, or do we want a raising of animals that respects what is specified in the Animal Welfare Legislation § 4, that is, the opportunity for natural behavior?(2014/15: 60) Restricting movement is here described as the opposite of allowing for natural behavior and following the guiding principles of the Animal Welfare Legislation.The considered interest is whether such a treatment is equivalent to the principles regulating the Animal Welfare Legislation.The debate does, however, quickly center around the question of whether the decision upholds Sweden's international status regarding its Animal Welfare Legislation and ignoring any legal contradictions, here expressed by Nohrén.I was dumbfounded when I heard about the animal welfare program on the radio that, among other things, allowed the fixation of sows.I believed we had abandoned those methods in Swedish animal agriculture and were proud of having better welfare than many other countries.It is indeed like the Minister of Agriculture emphasizing an improved competitiveness, something we are proud of and display overseas.(20 14/15: 60) Fixation of the sows is described as an out-of-date method that can potentially harm Sweden's international status as a predecessor regarding animal welfare.It can harm Sweden´s proud feeling that follows this exceptional position and resulting economic competitiveness.The main interest considered here is whether Sweden's international status is upheld or not, which, in turn, could hurt society's view of the legislation.Economic interest is often used to outmaneuver ethical considerations, according to Wyatt (2014), while, in this case, it is the opposite that emerges, as greater welfare could improve the country's economic competitiveness.The current Minister of Agriculture, Bucht, responds by defending the trial's legitimacy, since it could reduce the number of dead piglets, as a high number of dead piglets would not constitute good welfare.
For me, the death of that many piglets does not constitute a good welfare […] (2014/15: 60) The survival of piglets is a primary interest but at the expense of the sow's ability to move freely.This argument is situated in an industrial context, since pigs, in this case piglets and sows, are reduced to numbers within the national production of pork context.This follows Francione's (2008) argument that animals are mistreated when they are regarded as property.It also agrees with Taylor and Frasers (2017) argument that animal abuse is normative and institutionalized within factory farming.In other words, inflicting harm on a few sows in order to secure the welfare of many and also maintain production is not constructed as something ethically problematic.Fixating the sow is described as a necessary form of harm.
In 2016, a prohibition against the unanesthetized castration of male piglets came into effect in Sweden, making it illegal to conduct the standard procedure without deploying the proper anesthetic.Shortly thereafter, the Department of Agriculture suggested that the piglet could be separated earlier from the sow than what was statured.This evoked a response by Holm who questions whether the suggestion could be considered as in favor of the piglet's welfare.
In the proposed directive, it is suggested by the Department of Agriculture that piglets can be separated from the sow-a whole week earlier than current regulation.It is imperative to stress that the closeness between the sow and their offspring is immensely important … to separate earlier than current legislation is disregarding all expertise on the subject.Sven-Erik Bucht is welcome to explain whether he has found an independent scientist, or scientific report, that corroborates a strengthening of animal welfare by separating the piglets earlier from the sow (2017/18: 34).
Here, the considered interest is the piglets' welfare, since an earlier separation would affect the welfare negatively.Decreasing the welfare of pigs in factory farming could potentially damage Sweden´s presumed status of having the best animal welfare legislation in the world.The current minister of agriculture, Bucht, then ensures Sweden's international status and downplays how many piglets will be affected by this initiative.
Animal welfare and animal health in Sweden is best in the world.It is unbeatable.I have the fullest confidence in the Department of Agriculture as a source of expertise … 10 percent-at the most-of the piglets will be separated before 26 days of age.(2017/18:34) Here, the animal welfare legislation is again described as the best in the world and also as unbeatable.The Department of Agriculture is presented as a source of expertise capable of making the right decisions.This referral to an expertise can be a way of using language to sanitize the violence that occurs within slaughterhouses (Taylor & Fraser, 2017).In other words, the use of expertise ensures that proper welfare is in place while, at the same time, maintaining the fantasy of an ethically unproblematic relationship between humans and animals (Svärd, 2012).Describing the affected piglets in percentages enhances their status as products within the industry, thus distancing them from humans and enabling legal harm, according to Sollund's argument (2017).The primary interest here is to preserve the legality of the legislation and downplay the effects by emphasizing that it is only 10 percent of all piglets that are affected in this way.The later evokes further criticism from Holm, since 10 percent of piglets will generate a substantial number of piglets in absolute numbers.
10 percent of all the piglets in Sweden.I do not know if that is 100,000 or 200,000, but it is a lot of piglets to sacrifice for induced efficiency and competitiveness.(2017/18:34) When concretizing what 10 percent will make up in absolute numbers and questioning whether it is right to sacrifice that number of piglets, the considered interest is constructed around the welfare of the affected piglets.Decreasing their welfare is described in economic terms in that it will be positive for production and for economic competitiveness rather than for the piglet's welfare, which follows Wyatt's (2014) argument.Bucht response by admitting that this is an improvement in competitiveness but that it also ensures that the animal welfare continues to be the best in the world.
What we have here is an improvement in competitiveness, but it is also a way of ensuring that animal health and animal welfare continues to be the best in the world.(2017/18: 34) This is a reoccurring argument throughout the analyzed debates (e.g., that economic factors are necessary to consider); otherwise, consumers will stop buying expensive Swedish pork with a high welfare standard and instead buy foreign produced pork with a low welfare standard.That is, higher welfare is more expensive, and, because of this, consumers could abandon Swedish producers and turn to the international market.Increasing the welfare higher will, in this sense, out-competing Swedish farmers from the economic markets and the presumed higher welfare standard in Sweden.In contrast to Wyatt's (2014) argument (e.g., that ethical considerations are less prioritized in favor of economic interests), it is clear that ethical choices are dependent on whether they can be justified in an economic sense.This strengthens the notion that the capitalist system does not support animal welfare, as Taylor and Fraser (2017) argue.

Discussion
Before examining the findings of the study, it is important to acknowledge the overall absence of discussions concerning the living conditions of pigs situated in factory farming.It is a less prioritized question in parliament, even when analyzing longer time-periods, which this study can verify.Taylor and Frasers (2017) argue that animal abuse within factory farming should be considered normative and institutionalized.Accordingly, if animal abuse within factory farming is not considered a problem in society and is instead even acceptable, there would be no reason to discuss the topic in parliament.This is also true considering the lack of criminological research on legal harm against animals within factory farming.The limited discussion in parliament as well as the lack of criminological research, is a result of the speciesism that permeates both the legislation in Sweden and non-green criminological research.This is apparent in the results, which, consequently, demonstrate that human interests will be considered in favor of the pig's interest.
When analyzing the political discussions centered around the first revision of the Animal Welfare Legislation, it can be observed that following the public opinion of Astrid Lindgren is a high primary interest.There is a consensus among politicians to approve the legislation, and no criticism is presented.After the legislation was passed in 1988, it was described and referred to in parliament as the most far-reaching animal welfare legislation in the world.A sense of national pride was the main effect of Astrid Lindgren's political involvement, with her national-as well as international-status as a publicly beloved children's book author constituting the foundation of her influence.However, this method of expression is not exclusively used in Sweden but also apparent in other countries, according to Svärd (2012).Since the social formation between humans and animals that allows factory farming is an international phenomenon (Cudworth, 2017), it is difficult to conclude from where this expression originates from and what relationship it has to Astrid Lindgren without additional studies.
Having the best animal welfare legislation in the world is an expression that is used in parliament when arguing to enhance, decrease, and or uphold legal harm within factory farming.This became especially apparent during the debates surrounding the unanesthetized castration of male piglets in the mid-90s.The decision to change the current legislation was dependent on how it affected the perception of Sweden's international status rather than analyzing how the procedure causes harm to the piglet.One of the reoccurring arguments stated that no change would be necessary, since the legislation was already the best in the world.There were also arguments that Sweden needed to make changes in order to preserve this status, which contradicts Svärd's (2012) finding.The necessity to inflict harm is dependent on whether a proposed change in legislation strengthens or weakens the perceived status of Sweden's Animal Welfare Legislation when discussed in parliament.
Discussions conducted in the mid-2010s demonstrated that animals in factory farms often were described as commodities (Cudworth, 2017).Treating pigs as a commodity is an effective way of creating distance between humans and animals, which, according to Sollund (2017), enables legal harm.Welfare questions were, in this context, clearly embedded in the capitalist system, as suggested by Taylor and Fraser (2017).A reoccurring argument in the analyzed debates expressed that it would be a poor idea-in an economic sense-to enhance the welfare, since it would increase costs for farmers and prices for consumers.These increased costs would ultimately undermine the domestic market and strengthen the foreign market, portrayed as having a lower animal welfare than Sweden.The prevailing reasoning was that the domestic market could not survive higher welfare costs and Swedes could, in worst-case scenarios, be forced to buy foreign pork with a lower welfare standard.As often was the case, economic interest was considered over ethical interests (Wyatt, 2014).
Even though harmful treatment of animals such as the unanesthetized castration of male piglets was prohibited, it does not represent a steady development of an increased welfare standard over time.There were suggestions and decisions in parliament made to lower the welfare in both the long term and over shorter trial periods.This raises questions regarding the significance of the guiding principles of the Animal Welfare Legislation, since it easily can be undermined by other interests.According to Wyatt (2014), factory farming is an industry in agriculture that represents a significant number of jobs and income, interests that will affect political decision-making.This is an important aspect when considering how politicians can act and simultaneously uphold their status as members of parliament.If they do not consider such interests, they could potentially lose votes, which could be a dilemma when, for example, advocating for extended animal welfare that affects the food industry.
The case of the pig's welfare could cautiously be used to examine the welfare of other slaughter animals situated within the food industry.It would be possible to determine similarities regarding the overall development of legislation and how it effects other domestic species.Certainly, some of the debates conducted in parliament regarding the pig were not exclusively related to the pig but to the food industry as a whole.At the same time, it is important to stress the cultural differences that governs the treatment of differentanimals in society, as pointed out by Ferreday (2011) andSollund (2017).Treating an animal that is closer to humans, such as dogs, cats, or horses, in the same fashion as animals in the food industry would produce an emotional outcry in society which is not the case regarding animals in factory farming.Further research is needed to scrutinize how legal harm is constructed within the food industry and how animal welfare legislation can be understood.The list shows the selection process regarding the parliamentary transcripts.In the third and fourth selections, the identification number of the transcript is accorded for