CBB Rules State Secretary Must Enforce Pig Tail-Docking Ban

This decision, issued on October 13, 2026, requires the government to assess whether three specific pig farmers are in compliance with the long-standing prohibition, according to reporting by NOS.

Enforcement of the 1991 Tail-Docking Ban

Since 1991, the routine amputation of piglets’ tails has been prohibited under European regulations. While farmers are permitted to dock tails in exceptional cases—specifically for piglets no older than four days—this is only allowed after injuries from tail-biting have been observed and other preventive measures have failed. Despite this, the foundation Varkens in Nood asserts that the practice remains widespread, affecting approximately 99 percent of Dutch piglets, as reported by De Telegraaf and TPO.NL. The foundation notes that this systematic practice affects 21 million pigs annually.

Erkens argued that the existing rules lacked sufficient clarity, specifically regarding the severity of injuries required to justify docking and the types of preventive measures farmers must implement before resorting to the procedure. According to TPO.NL, the ministry maintained that it was unclear how inspectors from the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) should verify these conditions. The government had previously dismissed these requests in 2023, citing the difficulty of enforcement.

The Court’s Ruling

The College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (CBb), acting as the highest court in this case, has now dismissed the government’s position. The court determined that the current regulations provide sufficient criteria for the NVWA to monitor compliance. While the court did not impose a penalty payment as requested by Varkens in Nood, it has ordered the State Secretary to issue a new decision regarding the three farms within six months.

Het hardnekkig gedogen van verboden praktijken kan niet eindeloos doorgaan.

Varkens in Nood

The court emphasized that while the burden of proving an infraction lies with the government, any farmer who performs tail-docking bears the responsibility to demonstrate that they have met the strict legal requirements, TPO.NL reported.

Stall Conditions and Future Compliance

The debate over tail-docking centers on differing views regarding animal welfare. Farmers generally contend that shortening tails is a necessary measure to prevent pigs from biting one another, a behavior often triggered by stress or boredom in intensive farming environments. Conversely, Varkens in Nood argues that the solution lies in improving living conditions—such as providing more space and enrichment—rather than performing the painful, often unanesthetized procedure of tail-docking. The foundation adds that pigs use their tails for communication, with a tucked tail indicating fear and a curled, wagging tail indicating contentment.

The foundation has characterized the court’s ruling as a significant breakthrough after what it describes as 35 years of a “policy of tolerance” toward illegal docking. Hanneke Wellenberg, the attorney representing Varkens in Nood, described the ruling as a “crucial decision for millions of pigs in our country,” according to De Telegraaf. The ruling is expected to force pig farmers to evaluate their current stall management practices to comply with the law. This follows wider scrutiny of the sector, as Varkens in Nood pointed to NVWA inspection results from August showing that 101 of 170 audited farms had violated animal welfare rules.

Pending Decisions from the Ministry

As of October 13, 2026, the Ministry of Agriculture has not confirmed how it will proceed beyond the court’s requirement for a new decision. A spokesperson for State Secretary Erkens stated that the ministry is currently studying the judgment and will formulate its next steps within the six-month deadline established by the court. Until that time, no immediate changes to the current practices in the stables are expected to be enforced, TPO.NL noted. It remains unknown whether the ministry will ultimately move to penalize the three farms or maintain its previous stance on the ambiguity of the existing regulations.