Return to warmwell.com

See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052347.htm#11

 

 

  2005 No. 2347

ANIMALS, ENGLAND

ANIMAL HEALTH

The Animal By-Products Regulations 2005

From Part 3 Section 11 (4) Any person who is in possession of the carcase or part of a carcase of any livestock that has not been slaughtered for human consumption must, pending consignment or disposal in accordance with the Community Regulation and these Regulations, ensure that it is held in such a way that animals and birds (including wild animals and birds) do not have access to it, and failure to do so is an offence.

 

 

Email received April 5 2007

Dear Mary.

I am very concerned that the SVS (the same people that sanctioned Bobby Waugh's operation) are allowing wild birds to have access to category three meat waste at composting centres. I have raised this issue with the CVO, Debby Reynolds, and I am awaiting a response. I was therefore very interested to read your report that Bernard Matthews is not going to be prosecuted - even though it has been identified that wild birds etc had access to waste meat at the processing plant.

I understand that one of the reasons that there is not to be a prosecution is that Bernard Matthews has circulated a report to MP's highlighting the deficiencies in DEFRA's work in dealing with the Avian flu outbreak and DEFRA was not prepared to have a Court case and risk these details being made public.

I have just been reading the Animal By Products Order 2005 and section 11 para 4 identifies that it is an offence to allow wild birds to have access to a carcase or part of a carcase 'that has not been slaughtered for human consumption'. The law is therefore saying that it is lawful for wild birds to have access to a carcase or part of a carcase that has been killed for human consumption. Please could you ask your readers to comment. Should the law be changed?

Kind Regards

Robert Persey


RESPONSE from Lynda Davies National Co-ordinator A S U Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 10:35 PM

Dear Mary.

I am writing in response to an email from Mr Robert Persey regarding the 2005 Animal By-Products Order, section 11, para 4. This section of the regulation is unenforceable and may as well be struck out. As I see it, if DEFRA enforce that section of the above order at the Bernard Matthews farm, or at any other farms in the future, then they would be admitting that they were responsible for the FMD outbreak for NOT enforcing that same regulation at Bobby Waugh's farm in 2001.

Regards

Lynda Davies
National Co-ordinator
Association of Swill Users (ASU)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Archive July and August 2005

Archive Jan 2005 - July 2005

Archive Oct 2004 - Dec 2004

Archive August 2004 -October

OTHER WARMWELL ARCHIVES(opens in new window)