Animal Welfare and International Trade Law

Farm to fork strategy: Animal welfare, EU trade policy, and public participation

“…It should be noted, however, that case law on the breadth of the notion of “public morals” indicates that a WTO member enjoys broad discretion to determine for itself what “public morals” entails (WTO Appellate Body Report, 2014, EC–Seal Products ; WTO Panel Report, 2010, China–Audiovisuals ). In that regard, EC–Seal Products , the first case to examine animal welfare measures with trade implications for WTO law, confirmed that “WTO law does indeed allow generous scope for the expression of moral positions in legislation” and recognized that animal welfare could serve as justification for measures with effects on trade (Sykes, 2021, p. 12).…”

“…However, certain evolutionary interpretations are possible as it was suggested that animals could also be protected from non‐sanitary, for example, welfare risks, by a WTO panel (WTO Appellate Body, EC–Seal Products ; Howse et al, 2014). The reading of the WTO Appellate Body's reasoning in the EC–Seal Products case could suggest that WTO members are allowed “to legislate progressively on animal welfare without violating trade obligations” (Sykes, 2021, p. 155). An evolutionary interpretation may further acknowledge that improving animal welfare is a prerequisite for good animal health (Peters, 2021, p. 289).…”

“…Apart from compliance with WTO law, the EU advances its animal welfare agenda via the conclusion of bilateral agreements with third countries. Sykes writes in this regard that bilateral or multiparty agreements negotiated outside the WTO context offer a new impetus for advancing animal welfare standards with trade impacts (Sykes, 2021, pp. 155–156).…”