21/04/2026

IHP was heard today by the XIII Agriculture Committee of the Chamber of Deputies during the examination of draft laws C. 48 Brambilla, C. 2187 Zanella, C. 2270 Cherchi and C. 2585 Evi. A long-awaited hearing, in which the association brought not only its support for the proposal, but above all a precise analytical contribution: technical arguments, data, and a direct challenge to the positions of those who, until now, have opposed the ban on equine slaughter.

The ban as a lever against systemic exploitation

In the public discussions that preceded and accompanied the parliamentary process, the debate has often crystallised around a cultural question: are horses animals "to be eaten" or not? IHP chose to shift the focus, bringing to the Committee an argument that has so far remained in the background and that radically changes the perspective.

The ban on slaughter — and the parallel ban on the sale and import of horse meat — is not merely a response to a growing sensitivity in Italian public opinion, which increasingly considers these animals "inedible". It is, first and foremost, a structural tool to interrupt a system of exploitation that relies precisely on the possibility of "disposing" of animals when they are no longer profitable.

A horse lives on average thirty years. But its productive use — in racing, in riding schools, pulling carriages, in "traditional" events — ends around sixteen to eighteen years of age. After that it becomes economically burdensome: it requires care, space, feed, without generating any return. In the absence of a ban, slaughter represents the most convenient way out for those who have based their economic model on the exploitation of the animal. Eliminating it means forcing the entire sector to take responsibility for the complete life cycle of each animal, not just the profitable part.

The litmus test IHP put to the Committee

During the hearing, IHP put forward a simple, almost elementary verification, but one of extraordinary demonstrative effectiveness. It asked the committee members to reason from the numbers: how many elderly horses are found in riding schools, racecourses, and facilities that employ them for productive purposes? The answer, for those who know the sector, is well known: almost none. No facility that retained them even after retirement could remain financially viable beyond six or seven years, because it would end up with more elderly horses than young ones — animals that, unlike dogs and cats, live for decades.

The absence of old horses in productive facilities is no accident: it is a photograph of a system that eliminates them when they cease to be useful.

The paradox of the DPA/non-DPA distinction

IHP also brought to the Committee a legal and logical argument that will be difficult to ignore in the further parliamentary examination. The distinction between animals destined for food production (DPA) and non-DPA is at the centre of many of the objections raised by those opposed to the law: it is argued that controls already exist, that the rules are already sufficient, that the problem is merely one of compliance with existing regulations.

IHP overturned this position with a precise question: if the DPA/non-DPA distinction actually worked, the first to be in favour of introducing the slaughter ban should be FISE and the competent Ministry. Both claim — with pride — that all horses employed in equestrian sports and at racecourses are classified as non-DPA. If that were the case, the ban would change nothing for them. Yet they oppose it. Which demonstrates, unequivocally, that the distinction does not work: that the legal and illegal supply chain contaminate each other, that horses "officially" not destined for food nonetheless end up at the slaughterhouse — as IHP has documented in numerous cases, starting with the emblematic one of Evenafterall.

Objections dismantled one by one

The hearing was also an opportunity to respond directly and in a documented manner to the two objections that those opposed to the law put forward most frequently.

The first: by banning slaughter, some horse breeds also farmed for food purposes risk extinction. IHP reversed the perspective: in Italy there is no problem of horse scarcity, but exactly the opposite. Overproduction is structural, driven by the need to always have young, high-performing animals for the various sectors of use. The ban would not create a demographic void: it would impose a brake on indiscriminate production and, with it, on exploitation.

The second objection: regulations to protect equines already exist, a new law is unnecessary. IHP responded with a systemic argument. Slaughter is not a fact separate from use and exploitation: it is the natural epilogue, the relief valve of a system that uses horses as production tools. Regulating the epilogue without addressing the system would be ineffective. But, above all, this is not about regulating what is already illegal: it is about closing the "grey areas" — legal and para-legal — that today make it possible to dispose of animals without anyone being held accountable.

The conditions for the law to work

IHP brought to the Committee not only criticisms but also a series of precise technical requirements, which represent the minimum conditions for the proposed law to produce real effects and not become an unenforceable text in practice.

• First: reform of the equine registry is a priority and cannot be deferred. The inefficiency of the tracking system is the real "weak link" in the entire supply chain: that is where fraud, clandestine slaughters and falsified records find their way in. IHP has documented this for years; the recent judicial case in Perugia — with horses made to "disappear" from records through the complicity of a National Database official — is the most concrete confirmation.
• Second: the terms of the law must be defined with surgical precision. Concepts such as "stress", "pain" and "training" cannot be left to interpretation: every ambiguity becomes a loophole for evasion. IHP has made itself available to provide technical and scientific contributions in this direction.
• Third: the proposal to establish "public retirement facilities" for equines must be accompanied by mandatory minimum standards for the management of animals. It is not enough to guarantee food and water: true animal welfare requires the fulfilment of the ethological characteristics of the species. This is why it is necessary to introduce the so-called "licence" — mandatory training — for anyone who keeps and manages equines.
• Fourth: adequate resources must be allocated. For the reconversion of farms and for the training of local authorities and inspection personnel. And — this IHP underlines forcefully — for recovery centres that already today house animals seized by the judiciary without receiving a single euro of public funds.

The context: where we stand

Today's hearing is part of a parliamentary process that, for the first time in over ten years, has brought the issue of equine protection to the formal examination of a parliamentary committee. The draft laws under examination — C. 48 Brambilla, C. 2187 Zanella, C. 2270 Cherchi and C. 2585 Evi — form a bipartisan framework that includes both the majority and the opposition. The Brambilla text, whose original structure owes much to IHP's work in previous years, is the most comprehensive: it introduces the ban on slaughter, the ban on use in historical and folk events when it entails suffering, restrictions on coercive training, and the concept of post-career reception structures.

We are far from a definitive approval. But the road is open.