In the dispute over shocking pig stunning images from a slaughterhouse in Lohne, animal rights activists have secured a milestone victory. In a recent ruling dated January 27, the Oldenburg Regional Court allowed the distribution of the secretly filmed footage via social-media channels. A broadcast of the videos on the Animal Rights Watch (Ariwa) homepage had been prohibited by the court in July 2025.
The footage shows the animals being driven into the carbon-dioxide chamber of Brand Qualitätsfleisch GmbH. The slaughterhouse operator had attempted, by court order, to stop the corresponding reels on the account “Der Schlachthofprozess.” The court has now determined that its July ruling does not extend to these and other publications of the video material.
The distribution of the images via social media is of central importance for the activists. In addition to current reporting — for example on an intervention during the appearance of the Minister of Agriculture at the Green Week in Berlin — they use the account for fundraising campaigns to help cover the costs of the legal proceedings.
They also point to the progress of the case: Before the Oldenburg Higher Regional Court, a hearing is scheduled for April 28. “We have today filed an immediate appeal against the decision,” Brand’s lawyer Walter Scheuerl told on Monday when asked.
Animal Welfare Causes Animal Suffering
The films also depict the problems of CO2 stunning. In the early 20th century, it was introduced as a standard of animal welfare in slaughter. Forcing pigs into cage-like compartments and moving them into a lift system to a carbon-dioxide-saturated atmosphere has proved to be a factory-like solution adapted to mass consumption: Most pigs in Germany are stunned in this way.
Animal rights activist Anna Schubert believes there is “hardly anything more torturous to animals” than this method. At least, the fact that it causes substantial animal suffering has been the scientific consensus for decades. She notes “aversive reactions,” as described in the literature — which in turn lead to dramatic scenes. For on the one hand, CO2 combines with pig saliva to form caustic carbonic acid. That causes acute pain on the mucous membranes.
On the other hand, the gas triggers suffocation feelings. It thus causes anxiety, which then expresses itself in panicked squealing and futile attempts to escape: the animals hyperventilate, defecate, strike the dirty steel bars with their pig hooves, and stretch their snouts into the gaps, hoping to squeeze through them. Watching and hearing that is oppressive. It is filmed so rarely and shown even more rarely in public.
Meanwhile, researchers across Europe are seeking substitute methods. Also in Germany. From 2020 to 2023, under the witty acronym “Tiger,” researchers at the Celle branch of the Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut Celle and the University of Göttingen worked together. The consortium project, sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and the meat industry, was intended to determine whether stunning with nitrogen or argon would be possible and gentler in the existing systems.
The animals hyperventilate, defecate, strike the dirty steel bars with their hooves and stretch their snouts into the gaps, hoping to wriggle through them
Until then, the use of these inert gases had been assessed as not market-ready “due to concerns about gas stability, the effectiveness of the stunning, meat quality, and costs,” as stated in the project outline. Most concerns could be dispelled. Only the cost factor of nearly 1 cent extra per pig kilogram cannot be denied.
In the court proceedings against Schubert and her associate Hendrik Haßel, it emerged that the slaughterhouse operator himself had used their hidden-camera footage. He used it to document the proper functioning of his stunning system.
“We are repeatedly shocked by how aggressively Brand goes after us,” Schubert commented on the court ruling. The district court’s decision evidently did not justify a stop to the Insta-reels. “Nevertheless, Brand wanted the images deleted there as well.”
Schubert suspects that such ancillary proceedings are a strategy. The slaughterhouse wants to “intimidate, ruin them financially, and muzzle them,” she says. In short: she sees herself as a victim of a SLAPP suit.
If in Doubt, New Lawsuits
Brand’s lawyer, Walter Scheuerl, counters: The current ruling by no means implies that the “further dissemination of unlawfully obtained video recordings is allowed or even lawful.” If the decision stands before the Higher Regional Court, they would have to sue separately against this individual publication.
“That would be absurd,” Scheuerl says. “Then exactly what Ms. Schubert wrongly complains about would occur.” Because with every posting, new lawsuits would be required. Consequently, only court costs and procedural costs would continue to rise.
