About the campaign

Every year, over 100 million land animals are killed at slaughterhouses in Sweden. The total is multiplied when fish are included. Before the animals are killed, the majority live a life full of suffering, both physical and mental.

The purpose of this campaign is to, via policy change and legislation, stop the slaughter and, thereby, the suffering of these animals. Such action would, in effect, end the animal agriculture industry in Sweden..   

The animals in the Swedish animal agriculture industry are regularly afflicted by mental and physical suffering: confinement, stress, separation, broken limbs, inflammation, hunger, denial of the opportunity to express their natural behaviors, and anxiety during transport and slaughter.1 A common misconception that persists is that animals do not suffer as much as people do, but more and more research is showing how alike animals and people are in their capacity for suffering.2

Many people agree that the suffering that afflicts the animals is unacceptable but believe that slaughtering the animals is acceptable. This is a false conclusion. The conditions that contribute to the suffering of the animals in the animal agriculture industry cannot be separated from the slaughter of the animals. The suffering in its many forms is a direct result of the animal being raised to be slaughtered.

Since people do not need to consume animals in order to live healthy lives, the suffering of animals is not compatible with the Swedish Animal Welfare Act.3 It is unnecessary and something from which the animals should be protected. Therefore, we should enact laws and policies that outlaw the slaughter of animals.

The climate crisis is yet another reason to outlaw slaughter and the parts of the animal agriculture industry that involve slaughter. There is a consensus among the world’s climate scientists that changes within several fundamental sectors of society are necessary. One of these sectors is food production, which has greater greenhouse gas emissions than transportation. The animal agriculture industry is responsible for the majority of these emissions.

Human health is also negatively impacted by meat consumption. The covid-19 pandemic has increased awareness of the animal agriculture industry as a source of new viruses. The American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that 75 % of all new infectious diseases originate in animals.4

Due to the reasons described above, the animal agriculture industry must be regarded as a societal problem with widespread ramifications; it is not only the source of suffering for many millions of individuals but also a serious threat to humanity and the environment. The solution to such a complex problem should not rest on the individual. Instead of reducing this problem to a consumer question, the solution should be political.

It is inevitable that a ban on slaughter includes a major change for an animal-focused agriculture industry. These types of shifts are never simple but can be facilitated by the state providing support to farmers in the form of financial grants and training to switch to plant-based farms.

This campaign is a paradigm shift to a society where we no longer harm and kill animals for food. We want to lay the foundation for a democratic and open conversation about how we can switch to a system of food production that is better for animals, people, and the environment. Our campaign is based on nonviolence, openness, and democracy.

This campaign was initiated by the organization, Save Movement Sweden. Everyone who stands behind our goals and our methods is welcome to support the campaign. If you would like more information about how you can become active in this campaign, please contact us!

References

1 As an example Lina Gustafsson (2020): Rapport från ett slakteri.

2 John Webster (1994): Animal Welfare: a cool eye towards Eden. s. 252.
Richard Dawkins on vivisection: “But can they suffer?” (https://boingboing.net/2011/06/30/richard-dawkins-on-v.html)
Marc Bekoff (2007): The emotional lives of animals: a leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow and empathy.
Marion Stamp Dawkins (2006): The scientific basis for assessing suffering in animals. I Peter Singers (red.): In defense of animals: The second wave

3 Swedish Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket) has declared that a diet completely based on food from plants is both nutritious and healthy for all stages of life. https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/matvanor-halsa–miljo/kostrad/vegansk-mat

4 https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Yes, as long as it does not affect a third party. If you like Thai or more traditional flavors, we have no opinion, as long as the choice does not hurt anyone. However, as the consumption of meat, eggs and milk entails great suffering for the animals who are exploited and killed, this choice is no mere personal choice. There are already many things in our society that are regulated by laws and political action so that as few as possible are harmed. Examples of such areas are traffic laws, pollution regulations, and child welfare. In a similar way, we want laws to be implemented that protect animals from suffering. In a democratic way, we want to implement a closure of slaughterhouses in a similar way as we in Sweden have previously implemented protection of other vulnerable or oppressed groups, such as women, minorities, and children.

Yes! We appreciate that individuals do their part by excluding animal products from their diet. However, we also understand that for many, a major societal change will be required for them to be able to make such choices. We are all affected by what people around us do and think, for better or worse. If a decision is made to stop the slaughter, this will help us all to act in accordance with the ethics we already carry, namely, not to contribute to harm and death to others. It is possible to draw parallels to the climate crisis. Many of us are trying to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. This is an important contribution, but to solve the climate crisis, it is not enough that we act on an individual basis; significant political changes are also needed. You are welcome to sign the petition to stop the slaughter, just as there is no contradiction in demanding climate action even if you drive a car or fly occasionally.

We have good news! Fantastic things have happened to vegan products in recent years. Today, the range of plant-based products is large. Burgers, minced meat, "meat" balls, kebabs, and much more are available with good quality and at reasonable prices. The same applies to the options available at restaurants. A tip is not to think so much about what disappears from the plate when we no longer eat meat, but instead focus on all the wonderful food that is added from the plant kingdom. Most of us grew up eating meat products so it is natural to miss them when switching to a plant-based diet. It usually only takes about 2-3 weeks before you get used to the new foods. Many people discover a new love of food when they make the shift! For those who like the taste and texture of meat, new products are constantly being developed. Once society bans slaughter, much more will be invested in even better plant-based food. Then it will be even more delicious and nutritious.

Just because we've been doing something for a long time does not necessarily mean it's right. We have probably been waging war, raping, and murdering for the same period of time, but this is rarely used as a justification for continuing to do so. The same should be true of killing animals. Earlier in Sweden's history, eating meat was a matter of survival for many. That is no longer the case. Today we have an abundance of nutritious and fantastic food from the plant kingdom to choose from.

There are very few animals that have acceptable living conditions in the Swedish animal agriculture industry. Even on organic farms, where conditions can be better for certain animals, the animals are still exposed to extreme selective breeding and family separations. Furthermore, farmers today are forced to have more and more animals in order to earn a profit, which means that they do not have time to take care of everyone properly. It is also unrealistic that all the animals we eat today would have access to outdoor activities. The meat would be so expensive that most people would not buy it anyway and it would occupy so much land that there would be no room for anything else.

It is an utopia that killing at slaughterhouses could be painless. Slaughter is a highly stressful experience for the animals and cannot be otherwise; they must be transported to the slaughterhouses, driven through narrow corridors, confronted with a totally foreign environment, and smell the blood and sense the fear of other animals. Like humans, they panic when they feel that their lives are threatened. Death itself can also be extremely painful because many animals are not stunned and die fully conscious. 

To begin with, it is not uncommon for countries to claim to be the world champions of animal welfare, so one should always take such claims with a pinch of salt. In fact, Sweden grossly overestimates its animal welfare. For example, we still have a mink industry and zoos, which many countries have banned. Even in areas where Sweden is slightly better than other countries, the animals still suffer. For example, confinement of sows is allowed in Denmark but not in Sweden (except in certain cases) and in Sweden the space for each pig is a little larger than in our neighboring country. Despite the fact that Swedish animal welfare here is slightly better, it is still very crowded with only about one square meter per pig. The pigs are kept locked up throughout their lives on a hard concrete floor. They are denied the opportunity to express natural behaviors such as rooting or building nests. Even with Sweden’s strong animal welfare laws, the farms where animals wade in their own feces and starve are not always closed down by the authorities, as shown by the episode of the Swedish Television program, “Mission: Investigate,” entitled "Arlagården." 

When slaughter is banned, farmers will not want to raise animals because it will not be profitable. Therefore, the number of animals in the animal industry will gradually decrease when the ban is announced. The state will probably give farmers several years to make the transition from animal to plant agriculture. Therefore, no animals in food production will be bred if they are not allowed to be slaughtered.

Won’t cows, pigs, and chickens go extinct if they are no longer raised for food? Is that what you want? 

The animal species that exist today in the animal agriculture industry are bred so that we humans can take as much as possible from their bodies in the shortest possible time. The extreme selective breeding for rapid growth takes its toll on the animal. Author Jonathan Safran Foer calls the bodies of animals in the industry "prisons of pain." This is not a life worth living. It is therefore better to give more space to wild animals that have not been bred by humans.

It is great that you are concerned about the environment! In fact, one of the main factors in environmental and climate problems is our consumption of meat and other animal products. The UN's collective climate researchers say that we must radically reduce our meat consumption if we are to be able to fix the climate crisis. But what about our open landscapes if we stop raising animals that graze in our fields? The think tank Vethos has written wisely about this, here is a google translation of their article on this: https://www-vethos-se.translate.goog/artiklar/oppna-landskap-och-biologisk-mangfald/?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=sv&_x_tr_pto=nui

We do! It is not reasonable that they should lose out on a transition to a plant-based food system. Therefore, the workers who lose income and the increased costs the companies incur due to this shift should be offered a conversion grant by the state and the opportunity to retrain if necessary. Since society also benefits from a transition to plant-based agriculture, it will ultimately be profitable. For the slaughterhouse workers themselves, changing jobs would often be beneficial because the work at a slaughterhouse is often both physically and mentally taxing. 

Let's start with Sweden, and similar rich countries, where food is readily available, and where it is therefore much easier to introduce a slaughterhouse ban. We can then help other countries with aid so that they also have the opportunity to eat without taking anyone's life.

Meat imports could increase if Sweden were to be among the first to ban slaughter. There are possible solutions to this problem, such as imposing a substantial customs duty on foreign meat or banning meat imports altogether. Regardless of how much imported meat would be consumed in Sweden, the ban on slaughter would be a major breakthrough and could influence other countries to follow Sweden’s example until slaughter becomes something that belongs to history.

No, but unfortunately, it seems unrealistic that this would happen without political action. There are very few, if any, major societal changes that have been implemented solely due to individual changes. It is great that more people are becoming vegans on their own initiative. As more people become vegans, it becomes clearer for others that it is not only possible but also good and nutritious. However, at the same time, political action and legislative changes are needed for us to make an end to the killing of animals a reality.

It is true that meat consumption has decreased in Sweden and other countries in recent years. It is a welcome change and shows that more people have embraced the many different arguments that exist against consuming meat. However, Sweden is still one of the countries in the world that eat the most meat. Even with further reductions in the coming years, it is unlikely that meat consumption would decrease to zero in the long run. To achieve this, political and legal changes are needed.

It’s great that you have reduced your meat consumption! Perhaps you have done as many others have done and replaced meat with more and more vegan alternatives. This is a positive step. There is no reason why you shouldn’t sign the petition to stop the slaughter.

That is true, but if slaughterhouses are banned, we will remove the biggest source of exploitation and killing of animals. It would be an incredibly important step to ban slaughter, even if it is not the only and last thing we can or should do for the animals.

We recognize that such a societal change is neither quick nor easy, but it is entirely possible. Perhaps it can be even quicker than we think if many people get involved. A first step is to begin to discuss a ban on killing animals for food. When the question is raised again and again in society, we believe that it will not seem so impossible. Other movements have succeeded in bringing about major societal changes that had not previously been seen as probable.

Yes! Most societal changes happen in a stepwise manner, and this is likely to do the same. Important steps along the way can include the following: setting local/national goals for decreased meat consumption, eliminating subsidies for animal agriculture, implementing a tax on meat, introducing more meat-free days, establishing the right to be served vegan food in all aspects of society, challenging or ban propaganda from the meat lobby, creating meat-free zones, and inspiring and facilitating the growth of plant-based foods through increased investment in research and advertising.

It’s great to hear that you are interested in our campaign! Read more here to get tips for what you can do. Please send an e-mail to kontakt@stoppaslakten.se if you are interested in setting up the campaign in your country.