Farm assurance schemes: good and bad, NOAH tells FAWC

Farm assurance schemes can be good for consumers - and for animal welfare, said the National Office of Animal Health, in its response to an inquiry by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. They can guide farmers into best practice, and make them aware of the latest codes and regulations.

But just as well handled farm assurance schemes can encourage public confidence, badly handled schemes can erode it.

The requirement to have a farm health plan, for example, can help encourage the farmer and their vet to work together. But ill-considered schemes by individual retailers or producers can mislead.

Mr Cook, NOAH director, said: "This can lead consumers to think that only the farmers in that scheme are behaving properly - if several retailers do this in competition then public confidence in all such schemes, and in British produce as a whole, will be seriously undermined.

"For this reason we have been very pleased to welcome independent national initiatives such as Assured British Meat, RUMA and the MAFF 'Code of Practice for the Responsible Use of Medicines on Farms'. We are encouraged to find that the more responsible, thoughtful, retailers have recognised this point, and also realise that by incorporating such national schemes into their own rules, they can avoid unnecessary duplication," said Mr Cook.

Some schemes make specific reference to animal medicines, but duplicate, or over-ride, established consumer safeguards. Mr Cook said: "The authors of these schemes seem either unaware of the MAFF/VMD system of licensing animal medicines, or think they know better, imposing their own requirements on the use of products which have already been subjected to the full scrutiny of UK and EU law.

One obvious example is the tendency for organic schemes to impose extended withdrawal periods with no scientific basis and the potential to deny animals necessary therapy. Other schemes sometimes focus against particular licensed products to meet a popular perception, and apparently without taking the trouble to investigate the facts," he added.

By disregarding established controls, these wayward schemes can sow seeds of doubt in consumers' minds about legitimately produced, excellent quality British livestock produce. They can deter farmers from taking appropriate preventive measures for their animals: even from seeking veterinary treatment. In these current troubled times for farming, that is the last thing we need.

14 October 1999

Notes for Editors

1. For further information contact Roger Cook or Alison Glennon at NOAH, tel. +44 (0)20 8367 3131, or visit the NOAH website.

2. The National Office of Animal Health was formed on 1 January 1986 to represent the UK companies which research, develop, manufacture and market licensed animal health products. The association has 36 corporate members and 10 associate members. In 1998 NOAH's members accounted for around 95% of the £384 million UK animal health market, with additional valuable exports.

3. NOAH's response was to a consultation by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on 'The Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes for the Welfare of Farmed Livestock.'

Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes for the Welfare of Farmed Livestock - Summary

Farm Assurance Schemes should be:-

• Clear, logical and consistent,
• Based on best principles of animal husbandry,
• Incorporating existing national codes and standards,
• Flexible, to allow farmer and vet to adapt to real-farm conditions,
• Registered and approved by Assured British Meat (or equivalent),
• Based on wide consultation with knowledge-based organisations (NOAH, BVA, NFU etc),
• Reward farmers for compliance.

Should not be:-

• Prejudice driven - based on fads, fancies and focus groups,
• Implying the rest of farming is at fault ("our animals are happier, our food safer"),
• Inflexible,
• 'Re-inventing the wheel',
• Implying others are breaking the law ("we don't use hormones"),
• Critical of approved, licensed, products,
• Expecting farmers to do 'all this' for nothing.

For Welfare:-

• The prime focus should be the animal, not false public perceptions.
• Should be based on animal health schemes drawn-up between the farmer and his vet, but should avoid falling into the trap of requiring all medicines to come from or be approved by the vet - many good maintenance and management products are available, often at more competitive prices, from registered Animal Health Distributors.