AIMS questions FSA handling of welfare breach statistics

AIMS questions FSA handling of welfare breach statistics

The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS) has expressed concern over the handling of the release of data under the Freedom of Information Act by the FSA.

The data was released to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism following a Freedom of Information request. It lists animal welfare breaches over the past two years and cites critical instances, known as ‘category 4 scores’ or ‘critical non-compliances’.

However, according to AIMS, almost one billion animals are processed annually with the FSA category 4 scores representing 0.000002% of that number.

Speaking on Radio 5Live’s Breakfast Show, veterinary advisor to AIMS, Craig Kirby, said: “I hope the FSA brings industry to task, but I am curious as to how and why these statistics are being reported this time around.

According to Kirby many of the critical breaches reported happened to the animal or bird before it had reached the slaughterhouse.

AIMS policy director, Norman Bagley.

AIMS policy director, Norman Bagley.

“It’s unfair to target the slaughterhouses in particular in this report,” he commented.

“Having worked in slaughterhouses for 20 years now I can tell you we called them ‘the greatest post-mortem room in the country’ because it’s at the slaughterhouse where the officials are there and you see what’s going on in agriculture right across the country generally.”

AIMS head of policy, Norman Bagley, added: “What I cannot understand is how the comms within FSA could have taken such a cavalier and seemingly thoughtless approach to the release of this information, not even informing its own operatives in the field, nor proof reading the data before it was released.

“It brings into question, once again, how this organisation is being handled and managed at the top.”

Speaking to Meat Management, a spokesperson from the FSA responded: “The FSA is committed to openness and transparency and we, like any public body, are accountable under the Freedom of Information Act. We consider all requests on their merit and respond objectively, according to a strict criteria.”

Previous / Next posts...

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *