The “animal deprivation” law smells like burnt meat

Before the carcasses of more than 350 pigs that burned alive in the Alcanede fire in Santarém, now extinguished, had cooled down, the President of the Republic promulgated a law that ran counter to the already weak and reduced preventive measures for protecting animals: a Decree-Law that eliminates the mandatory installation of SADIs (Automatic Fire Detection Systems) on livestock farms.

The alleged justification for the existence of this DL and the subsequent promulgation by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa further accentuates the counter-cycle with a country that sees itself burning day after day: the obligation now withdrawn proved to be inadequate, given the difficulties of implementing the obligation among producers, both in terms of logistics and due to the huge financial costs.

Since this measure represents less of a burden for livestock producers, it may even seem welcome, as the goal is to support national economic development. However, at what cost? Will the losses suffered by the breeders who owned the more than 350 animals that died in the Alcanede fire be less than the installation of the SAIDs? Does the death of these animals in excruciating suffering justify any kind of economic development? These are rhetorical questions whose answers are unnecessary.

Issues related to animal exploitation in the food industry raise ethical and legal debates that we stubbornly refuse to address. Either because they lack sufficient sensitivity in government forums, or because they are so sensitive to the electorate that it's unlikely anyone will want to bring this political nitroglycerin to the table.

Regarding procedures during a disaster and animal self-protection measures for the food industry, the Basic Law on Civil Protection (Law No. 27/2006, of July 3) states that one of the fundamental objectives of Civil Protection is to "rescue and assist people and other living beings in danger," as well as to "protect environmental assets and values." With the enactment of this DL, the responsibility falls entirely on Civil Protection, as any upstream prevention measures on the part of producers are no longer mandatory.

The challenges related to defending animal rights highlight the complexity of the topic and the diversity of opinions within the debate. These issues raise the imperative of careful, thoughtful analysis and the consideration of multiple perspectives. The idea should be to build solid bridges to find balanced and effective solutions that result in preparedness and prevention measures for animal rescue. Progress in this area will be difficult to achieve without the responsibility and ethics of all stakeholders.

It's increasingly dangerous not to establish red lines in the name of an economy built on formulas created centuries ago and lacking a vision for future generations. Setting limits and, at the same time, rethinking the approach, if not, let's see: what kind of decisions can ignore, for example, that the national pet food market generated €90.2 million last year, a growth of approximately 11% compared to 2023? Just read the Sell Out Pet Food GS1 Portugal report, released a few days ago, to understand that growth in this sector is not slowing down.

Data like that in the aforementioned report—which is an example of the strengthening of social awareness for balanced coexistence between humans and animals—clarify the need to view economic development as the challenge it represents when it comes to animal welfare. By acting counter-cyclically, we risk the more than 350 pigs burned alive in the Alcanede fire having a strong chance of rising to 3,500 next year—and the same for other species used for food production. If this means protecting the economy, producers, animals, or whatever, then it would be best not to be afraid to call it consecutive scorched earth policies.