Analysis by the experts
Animals have no choice! The “Krone” readers do…
Not a single party has stood up for animals in the election campaign, there are probably even bigger issues. But politicians should actually know that animal welfare can tip the scales. The "Krone" therefore asked the leading candidates a few questions. The answers are surprising - if you know how the issues have been dealt with so far.
The ÖVP, for example, which sees itself as a party for the farming community, is very strange. Instead of relying exclusively on meat from Austria in public canteens, a labeling requirement was passed that is not worth the paper it is written on. The FPÖ supports the training of guard dogs for private individuals and believes that this is in line with the will of the voters. A serious misjudgement!
There are only around 6,000 supporters of this "arming". Ridiculous - because we receive calls and letters every day to finally stop this form of dog training. It also seems strange that the SPÖ's animal welfare spokesperson is doggedly going hand in hand with the FPÖ here. The Greens have campaigned, but have also sacrificed many things at the altar of the coalition. It's nice that the NEOS finally have an animal welfare spokesperson.
An election without agony
The parties' answers were assessed by five experts. I hope that this will help you make your decision on election day. After all, it shouldn't be a waste of time, and we certainly don't want to go to the dogs.
Your Maggie Entenfellner
"Krone" animal corner
If the chicken in a Styrian fried chicken salad comes from Poland and the Wiener schnitzel is served with Dutch veal without the guests knowing about it - then that is hypocritical. The fact that mandatory origin labeling has not been extended to the food service sector is a clear failure on the part of the government. It is unacceptable for the economy to be blocked and for political parties to simply accept this! It is worrying that not all leading candidates recognize how important this issue is for consumers and domestic agriculture.
It is worrying that not all top candidates recognize how important this issue is for consumers and local agriculture.
Hannes Royer, Verein „Land schafft Leben“
Bild: Land schafft Leben
Origin labeling in the catering trade and labeling of the farming method for animal products in supermarkets and restaurants must be included in the next government program. This is the only way to give people the chance to make informed choices - and to stop being forced to pay for food that they would never choose themselves. The government must finally take responsibility here.
The organic share of federal procurement is an important aspect of promoting the organic sector. However, this should also be adhered to. At the moment there are already requirements, but they are not being adhered to because they are obviously not being sanctioned. Babler has correctly recognized that public procurement is an extremely important lever, but the federal level alone does not go far enough: what about the provinces and municipalities?
The FPÖ would like to strengthen direct sales, but whether a farmer wants this is his or her own decision. For some, it suits them, for others not at all. You can't dictate that. Yes, it is true: Organic products bring farmers more money. But the thing is that next to the more expensive organic products are the cheap products, some of which come from abroad. Incidentally, it is a misconception that domestic products automatically mean better animal welfare: 70 percent of fattening pigs and cattle in Austria live on fully slatted floors. And even on small family farms that engage in direct marketing, animals often suffer from poor husbandry standards.
The meat portions should be smaller anyway - but they should come from better husbandry. This also makes it affordable.
Eva Rosenberg, „Vier Pfoten“
Bild: VIER PFOTEN
As expected, the Greens have good proposals here and have also recognized public procurement as a lever. Monitoring and budgets are also important, as is change in food production.
The NEOS proposal on consumer education is of course correct. But price is often the deciding factor. It would also be important for us to raise husbandry standards and make them available to all farmed animals. Then the responsibility no longer lies "only" with the consumer. Pure "educational work" by consumers unfortunately falls short; only with transparent husbandry labeling can consumers be informed about what is actually behind a product and make their own decisions. Incidentally, we see a slight contradiction to Meinl-Reisinger's answer regarding labeling.
The "Sustainable Procurement Action Plan" mentioned by Karl Nehammer is often mentioned by politicians, but unfortunately it only applies to the federal ministries. What we need are guidelines for the whole of Austria! What about the federal states and municipalities? One comment, because the price is always mentioned: The meat portions should be smaller anyway - but they should come from better farming. This would also make it affordable.
The VGT welcomes the approaches of the Greens and the NEOS, who are in favor of a restructuring of responsibilities towards the federal government. We also see an improvement in communication, for example with databases, between the individual authorities and control bodies as progress. However, there is also an urgent need to increase the density of inspections - we believe that financing this via an adjusted distribution of funding, as proposed by the SPÖ, makes sense.
In our experience, abuses are often not "isolated cases", but are due to systemic problems in animal use
Denise Kubala, VGT Kampagnen
Bild: VGT
In our experience, abuses are often not "individual cases", but are due to systemic problems in the use of animals - this is shown by our continuous exposure of the worst animal cruelty in Austria's animal factories and slaughterhouses. That is why we are not satisfied with the FPÖ's response. In its response, the ÖVP unfortunately completely ignores the existing animal suffering abuses. Instead of coming up with real proposals for improvement, it only responds with empty phrases.
It is exciting that all parties want to reform the Animal Experiments Act, as unfortunately no efforts have been made to date. In this area, the suffering and death of countless animals could be reduced without even having to address the question of abolishing animal experiments. A brand-new report shows the legal loopholes and the extent ("use" of over 200,000 animals per year - the equivalent of approx. 550 animals per day) in Austria.
After a period of empty words, all parties should definitely take action here!
Eva Persy, Wiener Tierschutzombudsfrau
Bild: TOW/Christian Houdek
There is already a need for reform in the run-up to animal experiments: it can be assumed that the number of animals bred for experiments but then killed as "surplus" exceeds the number of animals "used". Unlike in Germany, there is a lack of transparency and reduction measures here. Together with other animal welfare organizations, we have already criticized in 2017 that the assessment of whether an animal experiment is justified at all (so-called cost-benefit analysis) in Austria consists only of a subjective assessment of the project applicant and without differentiation according to the purposes of the experiments. Also alarming: once a violation in animal experimentation is reported, such as the terrible case of 100 animals starving to death in a university research laboratory, the perpetrators often cannot be held accountable because the law lacks important penal provisions. After a period of empty words, all parties should definitely take action here!
Unfortunately, the answers from all of them are very vague. "Pious wishes" to the independent judiciary will simply not help if they seem to be taking account of the overcrowded prisons with extremely lenient sentences, diversions or even acquittals. Our long-standing demand for an increase in the judicial sentencing range for deliberate cruelty to animals, abandonment or killing to at least five years' imprisonment (including a minimum sentence of six months) has once again been ignored by the government.
The issue must also be taken very seriously because criminal psychologists have long warned that animal abusers are "just practising" and often attack humans next.
Jürgen Stadler, Pfotenhilfe
Bild: Amazing Paws - Lisa Breckner
But this is the only way that serious animal cruelty can finally lead to serious prison sentences of one year or more, which will have a deterrent effect on perpetrators and, above all, possible future perpetrators (general prevention). After all, animal welfare has constitutional status in our country! The issue must also be taken very seriously because criminal psychologists have long warned that animal abusers are "just practising" and often attack people next.
This article has been automatically translated,
read the original article here.
Kommentare
Willkommen in unserer Community! Eingehende Beiträge werden geprüft und anschließend veröffentlicht. Bitte achten Sie auf Einhaltung unserer Netiquette und AGB. Für ausführliche Diskussionen steht Ihnen ebenso das krone.at-Forum zur Verfügung. Hier können Sie das Community-Team via unserer Melde- und Abhilfestelle kontaktieren.
User-Beiträge geben nicht notwendigerweise die Meinung des Betreibers/der Redaktion bzw. von Krone Multimedia (KMM) wieder. In diesem Sinne distanziert sich die Redaktion/der Betreiber von den Inhalten in diesem Diskussionsforum. KMM behält sich insbesondere vor, gegen geltendes Recht verstoßende, den guten Sitten oder der Netiquette widersprechende bzw. dem Ansehen von KMM zuwiderlaufende Beiträge zu löschen, diesbezüglichen Schadenersatz gegenüber dem betreffenden User geltend zu machen, die Nutzer-Daten zu Zwecken der Rechtsverfolgung zu verwenden und strafrechtlich relevante Beiträge zur Anzeige zu bringen (siehe auch AGB). Hier können Sie das Community-Team via unserer Melde- und Abhilfestelle kontaktieren.