16/09/2011

(2011, September 16th.)

FVE, the FEDERATION OF VETERINARIANS OF EUROPE, has recently released a statement that has caused a lot of discussions.

As we know in Europe, Italy included, the horse, by a legal point of view, is a species that could be put in a middle way between the “animal of affection” (pet) and the “animal of profit”. In fact, to every single equine, the owners gives a “destination”: Food-Producing Animals (FPA) or Not- Food-Producing Animals (not-FPA). Basically, if an owner decides to declare their horse FPA, the animal will be free to be slaughtered, but it will be submitted to certain rules pertaining the drugs that can be used on it; a sort of compromise between the need to cure certain diseases or injuries, and the theoretical need to keep the meat suitable for human consumption. Should the owner decide to declare their horse not-FPA, then, after this irreversible choice, they will never be able to slaughter their animal, but there won’t be any restrictions in the drugs they can use, allowing them to make best choices in order to heal their animal.

The cultural process behind this law seems clear to this writer: the horse, considered for a very long time as an animal for profit, is now with increasing frequency considered as animal of affection, a pet. For an ever increasing number of owners, especially in certain areas of Europe, the possibility of slaughtering their life companion causes only horror.

The successive, logic step would be, in due time, to totally exclude the possibility of slaughter, so that the legislation will be able to be in tune with most citizens’ moral canons.

However, according to the European Veterinary Federation’s official statement, “FVE recognizes the need for humane slaughter and disposal of horses as a natural consequence and a natural part of keeping horses for sport, pleasure and/or food production.”

Now, while such a declaration by a veterinary institution would be, by itself, cause of censure, its motivation leaves us dumbfounded: “The removal of the option of slaughter for human consumption (...) is likely to lead to animals being abandoned or neglected.”

The aberrant logic of this statement is more than clear: instead of educating people to the respect of life, thus preventing crimes (we remind to FVE Council members that in all the EU countries, the abandonment of an animal is a crime, and the same goes for its unjustified killing), instead of repress, even harshly, the criminal activities involving animals, instead of continuing the progress of civilization we have already started, it has been chosen to step back in time and sensibility, for fear someone will commit a crime.

In Italy, the plague of abandonment and/or killing of dogs before the summer and at the start of the hunting season is unsettling. Why don’t we allow their slaughter, then?
In this way, the family wanting to go on vacation without their furry friend (or the hunter not wanting to support a dog turned out to be unsuitable for his “sport”), can easily slaughter it, maybe even making some money, instead of committing a crime by abandoning or drowning it.

IHP asks to FVE copy of the records of the meeting during which it was decided to publish such aberrant statement and invites FVE Board of Directors to retire such statement or to quit and leave their position to other members more in tune with Europe’s cultural evolution.