11 Methods for stunning poultry
| (35691)
18156/13
+ ADD 1
COM(13) 915
| Commission Report on the various stunning methods for poultry
|
| Legal base
| — |
| Document originated
| 19 December 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament
| 31 December 2013
|
| Department
| Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration
| EM of 14 January 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report
| None |
| Discussion in Council
| No date set
|
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision
| Cleared |
Background
11.1 Before slaughter, poultry are stunned
and then bled, with the main method employed in the EU to achieve
this being the multiple-bird waterbath,[47]
which is used for about 80% of broilers. The main alternative
method, used in about 20% of cases, is controlled atmosphere stunning
(CAS), where poultry are stunned by exposure to gas mixtures in
an atmosphere chamber, although other methods include head-only
electrical stunning (which until recently was not adapted to poultry
because of the high speed of the slaughterline) and low atmosphere
pressure stunning (which progressively removes air, and is thus
similar to CAS, but not yet allowed in the EU, although it is
employed in the United States).
11.2 Reports by the European Food Safety
Authority in 2004 and 2006 on the welfare aspects of stunning
identified two main problems — that inversion and shackling
is painful and may result in dislocations and fractures, and that
the amount of current delivered depends on the electrical resistance
of each bird and cannot be controlled — and recommended
that the use of waterbath stunners should be phased out. However,
as an impact assessment showed that this was not then economically
viable, Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals
at the time of killing simply set electrical parameters for waterbath
stunning, but required the Commission to produce by December 2013
a report on the various stunning methods for poultry, and in particular
multiple bird waterbath stunners, taking into account animal welfare
aspects, as well as socio-economic and environmental aspects.
The current document
11.3 This report from the Commission
fulfils that requirement, and, in addition to setting out key
data on EU poultrymeat production and external trade, analyses
for the main stunning methods economic factors (such as production
costs, revenues and markets, and building and construction costs);
working conditions for slaughterhouse employees; environmental
aspects (such as dust and odour pollution, energy and water consumption,
and cooling and greenhouse gas emissions); and EU competitiveness
on the world poultry market (which is dominated by Brazil, where
exports are a priority, as compared with the EU and US, where
they are mainly a by-product of domestic demand).
11.4 It concludes that:
· among the various stunning
methods for poultry, waterbath stunning is the most widely used
in the EU and the world, being cheap, technologically accessible,
and requiring relatively little space;
· whilst CAS is expected to
increase in some Member States because it helps to meet the increasing
demand for better quality meat, waterbath stunning is likely to
continue to be the most widely used method in the EU;
· CAS is the main commercially
available alternative to waterbath stunning, the others having
not been sufficiently developed, and has advantages as regards
animal welfare, meat quality and working conditions, but is expensive,
needs more space, and is designed at present for high throughput
slaughterhouses; and
· the mandatory phasing out
of waterbath stunning is not yet economically viable, because
there is at present no practical alternative for the many middle
or low throughput slaughterhouses in the EU.
The Commission also says that it is
important that Member States should apply new animal welfare requirements
in a uniform manner to guarantee a level playing field, and that
it will continue to follow up carefully implementation in Member
States, as well as assessing, benchmarking and disseminating best
practices and innovation in applying the existing EU rules.
The Government's view
11.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum of
14 January 2014, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George
Eustice) says that the Government agrees with the Commission's
analysis, and notes that most poultry in the UK is stunned using
CAS, with the trend being to change from waterbath electrical
stunning to CAS systems, particularly for high throughput companies.
He also suggests that, even though the Commission expects to see
a transfer from waterbath stunning to CAS in the EU as a whole,
the majority of Member States are expected to keep waterbath as
the main method.
11.6 The Government welcomes the fact
that the premium meat market is driving a move to a more welfare-friendly
method of slaughter for poultry, but supports the final conclusion
in the Commission's report, that the mandatory phasing-out of
waterbath stunning is currently not an economically viable option.
On this basis, it would like to see this issue reviewed again
in three to five years time.
Conclusion
11.7 This report provides an essentially
factual account of the current conditions applicable within the
EU to the stunning of poultry prior to slaughter, but does not
suggest any immediate changes. In view of this, we do not think
the document requires any further consideration, but, as it deals
with a subject of some public interest, we are drawing it to the
attention of the House.
47 This involves birds being hung upside down on shackles,
partially immersed in water, and receiving an electric shock. Back
|
