Like all new prime ministers, when Mette Frederiksen won a third straight term as Denmark’s leader this week, she promised her government would work to “improve the everyday lives” of the country’s people. But unlike most new prime ministers, she made it clear that her left-leaning coalition’s policies would be for “the people in Denmark and the generations to come” — and also “for the animals.”
For Denmark, the home of Danish bacon and a country of ultra-intensive farming that produces about 30 million piglets a year (compared to roughly 60,000 human babies), this was a huge moment. A Danish government was now seeking major reform of the country’s most iconic industry.
It was also the result of two years of focused campaigning by animal welfare, environmental, and residents’ groups. They turned March’s election into what became known as “the pig election” — and won a clear victory.
“I hardly dare say it, but we got more than we asked for,” said Britta Riis, head of Animal Protection Denmark, one of the main groups behind the campaign. “We made pig farming a top political issue. And we’ve won immediate, systemic change.”
Pigs are to Denmark roughly what cars are to Germany or wine to France. But activists have long fought against the extreme breeding practices on the country’s vast, ultra-intensive industrial farms.
On average, sows in Denmark wean more than 37 piglets a year, and on the top 10% of farms, nearly 43. That’s far more than other intensive pig producers like the Netherlands, which manages 31 piglets per sow. In Denmark, sows — which usually have 14 teats — routinely give birth to up to 20 piglets per litter.
Campaigners say pushing an animal’s biology to produce more offspring than it can physically feed causes not only severe physical stress but also an unacceptable death rate. Roughly 9 million piglets die every year in Denmark — more than 25,000 a day.
Danish farms also routinely cut off the tails of about 95% of surviving piglets to prevent tail-biting caused by stress and confinement in crowded pens. Meanwhile, sows are often locked in restrictive farrowing crates where they cannot move.
But animal welfare isn’t the only issue. According to a study from Aarhus University, nearly 25% of Denmark’s land is used to grow feed for pigs. As a result, toxic pesticide residues are found in 56% of drinking water catchment areas.
Huge amounts of manure are also spread on fields around farms that can hold up to 25,000 pigs, leaching toxic nitrates into the groundwater.
“It’s pure corporate capture,” said Christian Fromberg from Greenpeace Denmark. “Denmark’s big meat exporters and the industrial farming sector have treated our shared water supply like a private, unregulated sewer for decades. Polluted drinking water is the other huge problem with intensive pig farming in Denmark.”
The worst-hit area is Aalborg in northern Denmark, in a region of intensive agriculture known as “the nitrate belt.” In February, the municipality took the Danish government to court over nitrate levels in its surface and groundwater that have exceeded legal limits for decades.
It said the state had failed to take promised action, forcing the municipality to invest in a drinking water treatment plant that would cost 1.1 billion Danish kroner (€147 million or £127 million) to build and operate over 30 years.
People living near pig farms have long complained about the smell, saying they can’t open windows, dry laundry, or enjoy their gardens. They also worry about the toxic effects.The impact on local ponds and rivers, along with the fact that people couldn’t sell their homes.
Riis said: “All these problems have been building up for a long time. We’ve been campaigning on animal welfare for years, but nothing changed. What made the difference this time was that we stepped up our efforts, focused on pigs, and worked together.”
Dozens of newspaper articles, three shocking TV documentaries on the main public broadcaster TV2, and a book by an undercover journalist followed. All of them highlighted what Riis called the “brutal” conditions for animals on industrial pig farms.
Based on evidence from one documentary, Animal Protection Denmark reported three powerful figures in the industry to the police for “clear violations” of welfare laws. This included the head of the Danish Council on Food and Agriculture, a trade lobby group.
A citizens’ initiative demanding reform gathered the 50,000 signatures needed to trigger a parliamentary debate within 72 hours—a record. Slowly but surely, the issue gained public awareness, support, and finally, political traction.
By the time of the vote in March, 53% of Danes told pollsters that animal welfare would definitely influence how they voted. Photograph: Ida Marie Odgaard/EPA
Three weeks before the election, Animal Protection Denmark, the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, Greenpeace Denmark, and the National Association against Pig Factories joined forces.
The “Alliance for a pig election” was launched by these NGOs, along with four left-wing parties, to push for a “showdown with an industry that costs our country a lot in terms of climate, nature, environment, social cohesion, and animal welfare.”
In the days leading up to the March 24 vote, pig farming became the dominant campaign issue, featuring heavily in candidates’ televised debates. Riis said: “Eventually, the Social Democrats [led by Frederiksen], and even parts of the right, saw the point. It just took off.”
By the time people voted, 53% of Danes told pollsters that animal welfare would definitely influence their vote, while 95% demanded urgent action to protect the country’s drinking water.
Frederiksen’s Social Democrat-led coalition includes two of the parties from the pig election alliance—the Green Left and the Social Liberals. The other two, the Red-Green Alliance and the smaller Alternative party (which was especially influential in the pig campaign), will provide the parliamentary support needed for a majority.
Part of the price for their support is in the new government’s programme, announced this week. It includes promises to end routine tail docking and extreme breeding, and to give sows and piglets more space to move. For systemic change, a special commission will be tasked with completely restructuring the entire sector.
The stated goal is to shift the industry away from ultra-intensive, confined, export-driven factory farming toward a low-density, sustainable, domestic-focused model.
Communities will get the power to prevent new factory farms and the expansion of existing ones. The nitrate limit in drinking water will be radically reduced from 50mg per litre to 6mg, in line with expert recommendations.
The four Danish leaders whose parties will form the new coalition. Two were in the ‘pig election alliance’. Photograph: Mads Claus Rasmussen/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP/Getty Images
Perhaps the biggest change of all: for the first time in 130 years, Denmark will not have an agriculture minister. Instead, there will be a minister for nature and animal welfare, with the agriculture portfolio split between that department and four others.
Campaigners say this marks a fundamental shift in priorities—and a huge challenge that will test whether a modern, globalised economy can balance economic prosperity with systemic protections for the natural world.
Denmark is the world’s sixth-largest pork exporter.The Council on Food and Agriculture insists that Danish pig farms comply with EU space requirements, follow legal welfare standards, and manage manure disposal responsibly. The lobby has also warned that a major cut in pig production would have serious economic consequences for the country, including job losses. The debate over how far stricter agricultural rules can and should be enforced is expected to be intense.
For now, though, Riis and Fromberg are enjoying their victories. “At the moment, we’re pretty pleased,” said Fromberg. “I think it’s fair to say that, at least on paper, this is the greenest government Denmark has ever seen.”
Riis said that hard campaigning and a sharp focus on facts—including presenting a strong financial argument that could convince the political right—had made a difference. “In the end, though, it was citizens saying: we’ve had enough.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a list of FAQs about the campaigners victory in Denmarks pig election written in a natural tone with clear concise answers
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What was the pig election in Denmark
It wasnt a real election for pigs It was a nickname for a major vote in the Danish parliament about new rules for the countrys massive pig farming industry Campaigners pushed for stricter animal welfare and environmental laws
2 What did the campaigners actually win
They won a historic agreement to phase out sow stalls by 2035 They also secured stricter rules on antibiotic use and a plan to reduce the total number of pigs farmed in the country
3 Why is this called a major victory
Because Denmark is one of the worlds largest pork exporters and the pig farming industry has huge political power Getting the government to agree to reduce pig numbers and ban inhumane crates was seen as a David vs Goliath win for animal rights and environmental groups
4 Does this mean Denmark is going vegan
No Denmark will still produce pork but the goal is to produce less of it with higher welfare standards This is a move toward more sustainable and ethical farming not a full ban on meat
5 Who were the campaigners
They were a coalition of animal welfare organizations environmental groups and some smaller political parties They used public pressure petitions and media campaigns to influence the larger parties
AdvancedLevel Questions
6 What exactly is a sow stall and why is it so controversial
A sow stall is a metal crate roughly the size of the pigs body that prevents a mother pig from turning around or moving freely for most of her 4month pregnancy Critics say it causes severe physical and psychological stress leading to stereotypical behaviors like barbiting
7 How will this affect Denmarks huge pork export industry
It will likely make Danish pork more expensive to produce which could hurt their competitiveness against countries with lower welfare standards However the government hopes to market this as a premium highwelfare product to richer markets
