A cross-party group of 14 MEPs has demanded that the European Commission set a binding timeline for phasing out the use of carbon dioxide stunning of pigs before slaughter, arguing that the method causes severe suffering and that feasible alternatives already exist. In a written parliamentary question dated 4 June 2026, the MEPs — led by Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE) and including Petras Auštrevičius (Renew), David Cormand (Verts/ALE), Anja Hazekamp (The Left), Manuela Ripa (PPE), Krzysztof Śmiszek (S&D), and others — pressed the Commission on when it will revise Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing.
The question cites European Food Safety Authority opinions from 2004 and 2020 that identified CO₂ stunning as a serious animal welfare concern, concluding that the suffering is inherent and cannot be mitigated by technical improvements. The MEPs note that the Commission has acknowledged, in replies to earlier written questions, that the EU-funded PigStun project identified feasible alternatives already authorised under Annex I of the regulation. However, no timeline has been provided for revising or phasing out the method. The MEPs argue that relying on voluntary industry transition is not supported by evidence, as the PigStun project found slaughterhouses are unlikely to abandon established systems due to cost, reliability, and competitiveness concerns.
when will the Commission present the revision of the regulation, and if no revision is planned, what are the reasons? The MEPs frame the continued delay as raising serious questions about compatibility with Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which requires the EU to pay full regard to animal welfare as sentient beings. The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks; its answer will signal whether it intends to move forward with binding rules or maintain the status quo.
The initiative targets a practice affecting over 150 million pigs annually in the EU. Key stakeholders impacted include pig slaughterhouses, which would face investment costs to switch to alternative stunning methods; pig farmers, whose supply chains could be disrupted; animal welfare NGOs, which have long campaigned for a ban; and EU consumers, who may see changes in pork prices or labelling. The question reflects a push for stronger EU regulatory intervention in animal welfare, pitting animal protection against industry concerns over cost and competitiveness.