Behind Closed Doors - Animal Aid

2 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 3
An Animal Aid investigation into
British slaughterhouses
Contents 2
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 5
The Slaughterhouses 5
Poor Practice and Legal Breaches 7
Outcomes of our Investigation to Date 7
Animal Aid’s Key Objective 7
Key Aims: The Case for CCTV 8
Key Aims: Training and Retraining 9
Key Aims: ‘Fit and Proper’ Person Test 10
Additional Problems within the Industry 11
Enforcement of Welfare Regulations 11
Piece Rates 11
Short-term Vets 11
Slaughterers from Overseas 12
Self-Regulation 12
No Remedial Action Notices for Welfare Breaches 12
No Ultimate Sanction for Welfare Breaches 13
The Law on Animal Welfare 14
A Common Misconception 14
The Role of Vets 15
New EU Regulation 16
Stunning 16
Electric Stunning 16
Captive Bolt Stunning 16
Animal Aid’s Slaughterhouse Investigation 17
JV Richards, Truro, Cornwall 18
AC Hopkins, Taunton, Somerset 20
Pickstock, Swadlincote, Derbyshire 22
Tom Lang Ltd, Ashburton, Devon 24
ABP Sturminster Newton, Dorset 26
JH Lambert, Earsham, Norfolk 28
A&G Barber, Purleigh, Essex 30
Conclusion 33
References 34
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between January
2009 and April 2010,
Animal Aid filmed
secretly inside seven
English red meat
slaughterhouses
These were:
1. JV Richards, Truro, Cornwall
– filmed over 5 days in January 2009
(sheep, calves and pigs)
2. AC Hopkins, Taunton, Somerset
– filmed over 3 days in April 2009
(sheep and pigs)
3. Pickstock, Swadlincote, Derbyshire
– filmed over 3 days in June 2009 (cows)
4. Tom Lang Ltd, Ashburton, Devon
(Soil Association accredited)
– filmed over 2 days in October and
November 2009 (sheep and pigs)
5. ABP, Sturminster Newton, Dorset
(Soil Association accredited)
– filmed over 4 days in January and
February 2010 (cows)
6. JH Lambert, Earsham, Norfolk
– filmed over 2 days in March 2010
(sheep and pigs)
7. A&G Barber, Purleigh, Essex
– filmed over 3 days in April 2010 (pigs)
With the exception of the Pickstock slaughterhouse,
we recorded notable problems in all these
establishments. The many distressing scenes
we filmed included:
• Animals being kicked in the face, slapped, stamped
on, picked up by fleeces and ears, and forcibly
thrown across or into stunning pens.
• Animals screaming and struggling to escape.
• Animals going to the knife without adequate
stunning.
• Animals stunned and then allowed to recover
consciousness.
• Electric tongs used maliciously on the snouts, ears,
tails, bodies and open mouths of pigs, resulting in
the animals being given painful electric shocks.
• Pigs being jabbed viciously in the face with
electric tongs.
• Ewes being stunned while a lamb suckled them
• A sheep too sick to stand – or possibly already dead
– being brought to slaughter in a wheelbarrow.
• A pig bleeding after being deliberately hit in the
face with a shackle hook.
• Improperly stunned animals being stood on to
keep them still while shackles were attached.
• Pigs falling from the shackle line into the blood pit
and then being dragged through groups of live pigs.
• Animals being decapitated before the appropriate
statutory time had elapsed, and while the animals
may still have been alive.
• Long periods elapsing between electrical stunning
and ‘sticking’ (throat cutting), which increases the
likelihood that animals regain consciousness.
• Cows being stunned in a pen that was missing its
head shelf. This allowed animals to move around,
making an accurate head shot more difficult to
achieve and increasing the risk of botched stuns.
OUTCOMES OF OUR INVESTIGATION TO DATE
Animal Aid’s work has had a huge impact on the
industry. Developments include the following:
• Nine men were suspended or had their slaughter
licences revoked.
• Legal action was taken against those nine workers
and four slaughterhouse operators at five abattoirs –
although the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra) subsequently, and
controversially, dropped all cases*.
• Sainsbury’s suspended its contract with ABP
Sturminster Newton.
• As a direct consequence of our investigation, A&G
Barber lost its contract with a German meat
producer and has been forced to close.
• Our call to have CCTV installed in UK
slaughterhouses is now supported by the RSPCA,
Compassion in World Farming, the Soil Association
(which accredits two of the abattoirs we exposed)
and – most importantly – the government’s Food
Standards Agency.
• The RSPCA will make it compulsory to have CCTV
in all slaughterhouses accredited by Freedom Food.
• Bristol University is using our footage to train vets
and Soil Association inspectors.
• The industry, government agencies and veterinary
bodies are now taking part in ongoing discussions
about how to implement changes and bring about
animal welfare improvements in slaughterhouses.
• The move towards industry self-regulation has been
(temporarily) halted (see page 12).
Animal Aid continues to meet with government
agencies, industry executives and political
representatives to bring about much-needed changes.
ANIMAL AID’S KEY AIMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• CCTV should be installed in all slaughterhouses to
help vets and appropriate independent parties
monitor activities, to support training and
retraining, and to provide evidence for prosecutions.
The footage must be made available to independent
parties outside of the slaughterhouse and,
preferably, to a panel of people including a
representative from Animal Aid.
• All slaughterers should have appropriate,
independent training and undergo retraining and
rigorous assessment every three years.
• There should be fixed criteria for what constitutes
a ‘fit and proper person’ and those with outstanding
convictions for violence, sexual assault or animal
cruelty should be prevented from becoming
slaughterers.
• The Food Standards Agency should take full
responsibility within slaughterhouses for
enforcement of animal welfare regulations,
as well as food hygiene legislation (see page 11).
• Remedial Action Notices should be introduced for
welfare breaches (see page 12).
• The same sanctions should be introduced for
welfare breaches as exist for hygiene breaches
(see page 13).
• The revocation of a slaughter licence should be
permanent.
• The timeframe during which animal welfare
prosecutions must be brought should be
significantly extended. The current six-month
window is insufficient.
*Soon after the coalition government came to power, Defra
announced that all cases were to be dropped because the
evidence had been gathered through covert filming. It
claimed legal advice had made this decision necessary but
Animal Aid’s own legal advice suggests that this explanation
is not credible. Defra’s decision looks to be political.
Front cover: ‘Death Row’, painted on the lairage wall at AC Hopkins, Somerset

4 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 5
INTRODUCTION
When Animal Aid first gained access to a slaughterhouse in January
2009, we had little idea what we would find. Our aim was simply to
record what took place on a standard day in a typical UK
slaughterhouse and make it available to the public. But the events we
recorded at JV Richards in Cornwall – the many examples of poor
practice and legal breaches contributing to appalling and unnecessary
suffering for the animals there – were so shocking that we knew we
must expand our investigation.
By June 2009, we had covertly filmed in two more slaughterhouses
and one of them – AC Hopkins in Somerset – was even worse than the
first one. Realising that this was not a case of ‘one bad apple’, we
decided to continue gathering evidence to see how widespread and
severe the problems are.
Having now visited seven randomly chosen English red meat slaughterhouses
in seven different counties, we can identify many serious,
systemic problems. While the intrinsic nature of the industry means
that animal suffering can never be eradicated, some welfare-related
obstacles can and must be overcome.
THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES
We filmed inside the seven red meat slaughterhouses, each for
between two and five days. Our fly-on-the-wall footage provides the
only reliable evidence of what truly takes place in British abattoirs.
The footage has shocked many, including the Chief Executive of the
Meat Hygiene Service (now merged with the Food Standards Agency
and known as the Food Standards Agency Operations Group). Steve
McGrath said of our findings at Tom Lang slaughterhouse in Devon:
‘I have watched the film and have seen abject cruelty by the
slaughtermen to the animals being killed, ineffective stunning, animals
having their necks dislocated and heads decapitated before being fully
bled, pigs being kicked, shackling before stunning. These are not
technicalities.’ 1 The Chief Executive of the Food Standards Agency,
Tim Smith, wrote of the footage taken at A&G Barber in Essex: ‘The
cruelty on show is the worst I’ve seen.’ 2
The once strongly asserted belief that abattoirs are subject to stringent
scrutiny and that welfare laws are rigorously upheld has now been
discredited.
THE SEVEN SLAUGHTERHOUSES
FILMED BY ANIMAL AID ARE:
JV RICHARDS
Truro, Cornwall
5 days in January 2009
AC HOPKINS
Taunton, Somerset
3 days in April 2009
PICKSTOCK
Swadlincote, Derbyshire
3 days in June 2009
TOM LANG LTD
Ashburton, Devon
2 days in October/November 2009
ABP
Sturminster Newton, Dorset
4 days in January/February 2010
JH LAMBERT
Earsham, Norfolk
2 days in March 2010
A&G BARBER
Purleigh, Essex
3 days in April 2010
WHY FILM COVERTLY
It is exceptionally difficult for an animal protection
group to gain open access to a slaughterhouse.
Gaining access to the stun pen, while animals are
being stunned, is virtually impossible. Even the
government-appointed vets, whose job it is to
monitor the welfare of animals in slaughterhouses,
rarely get such access. A request to film would
have been denied. Besides, filming in a designated
place at an appointed time does not reveal what
happens on a typical day. And so we installed flyon-the-wall
cameras to see what really happens
inside Britain’s slaughterhouses. Animal Aid did
not break in, cause any damage or commit any
illegal acts to get this footage.

6 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 7
POOR PRACTICE AND LEGAL BREACHES
During our 18-month investigation, we filmed many
distressing scenes, many of them relating to careless
and incompetent stunning of sheep and pigs. We filmed
countless animals going to the knife without being
adequately stunned, and many animals who had been
stunned left to regain consciousness. These failures
cause terrible suffering and are illegal.
We also filmed numerous cases of deliberate and illegal
violence, including animals being kicked in the face,
slapped, stamped on, picked up by fleeces and ears,
and forcibly thrown into or across stunning pens. We
recorded one slaughterman using the electric stun
tongs maliciously on the snouts, ears, tails, bodies and
open mouths of pigs, which caused the animals to
suffer painful electric shocks. He also inflicted a blood
wound on a pig when he hit her in the face with a
shackle hook.
The fear experienced by many animals was all too
apparent. We filmed animals screaming and struggling
to escape, leaping up walls and doors, and even over
the hatch into the slaughter area where they landed in
the blood pit.
Among the scenes that were extraordinarily painful to
watch were the sheep who was too sick to stand –
or possibly already dead – brought to slaughter in a
wheelbarrow; the ewe who was brought to the ground
by the electric tongs while a lamb still suckled her; and
the pigs who had fallen from the slaughter line into
the blood pit and were then dragged through groups of
live pigs.
There were many ‘technical’ breaches of the law, which
also may have caused additional and avoidable
suffering and distress. At one slaughterhouse, animals
were decapitated before the appropriate statutory time
had elapsed and while the animals may have still been
alive. Animals at many slaughterhouses were brought
into the stun pen and left there for long periods of
time before stunning took place. And cows at one
slaughterhouse were being stunned in a box that was
missing its head shelf. This allowed animals to move
around, making an accurate head shot more difficult to
achieve and increasing the risk of botched stuns.
OUTCOMES OF OUR INVESTIGATION TO DATE
Animal Aid’s work has had a huge impact on the industry
and regulators. Workers were suspended, licences were
revoked and legal proceedings were initiated against nine
men and four slaughterhouse operators. Sainsbury’s and
the Soil Association suspended their contracts with one
Dorset-based bovine slaughterhouse, while an Essex
abattoir lost its main contract and was forced to close.
Our call to have CCTV installed in UK slaughterhouses
is now supported by the RSPCA, Compassion in World
Farming, the Soil Association and – most importantly –
the government’s Food Standards Agency. The
RSPCA will make it compulsory to have CCTV in all
slaughterhouses accredited by Freedom Food.
Most importantly, Animal Aid’s investigation has shone
a spotlight onto a world that was – we were assured –
well regulated and tightly controlled, and the dismal
reality has been exposed. The industry, government
agencies and veterinary bodies are now taking part
in ongoing discussions about how to implement
changes and bring about welfare improvements in
slaughterhouses.
ANIMAL AID’S KEY OBJECTIVE
Our investigation shows that terrible abuses take place
in slaughterhouses and that these are not being picked
up by the regulators. CCTV should, therefore, be
installed in all slaughterhouses to help vets and
independent parties monitor activities, to support
training and retraining, and to provide evidence for
prosecutions (see overleaf for more details).
STUNNING
Stunning is intended to render animals
immediately unconscious so that when they go to
the knife, they do not feel any pain and they do
not recover at any point. Sheep and pigs tend to
be stunned using electric tongs that send a
powerful current through their brains. Cows are
stunned with a gun that sends a retractable bolt
into the animals’ brains. Most of the problems we
witnessed were in relation to stunning.

8 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 9
‘The FSA would like to see CCTV cameras installed in every abattoir in the UK.
The agency will work with the meat industry over the next 6 months to build a
proposal for this scheme. Installing CCTV will help to ensure the highest health,
hygiene and animal welfare standards are being met by the abattoir.’ 6
Steve McGrath, Interim Director of Operations, Food Standards Agency
Slaughterer stands on improperly stunned calf
KEY AIMS: THE CASE FOR CCTV
Our investigations reveal many important reasons why
CCTV would help protect animals.
1) Too many duties
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) argues that abattoir
vets have many duties within abattoirs, from inspecting
animals in the lairage to checking carcasses. It states:
‘We cannot inspect every animal or bird at the point of
slaughter, and full responsibility for animal welfare rests
with the slaughterhouse operators.’ 3
Our evidence indicates that the biggest risk to the
welfare of animals at slaughter takes place at the point
of stunning, and we feel that vets should be available to
monitor this process routinely throughout each and
every day. If their other duties prevent that, then CCTV
would help.
2) Problems with plant design
Many stun pens are inaccessible to vets and, if there is
no viewing platform provided, a vet simply cannot see
what is going on. CCTV would allow vets to see what
takes place behind closed doors.
3) Hidden cruelties
One slaughterer we filmed at A&G Barber (see page 30)
appeared to know the difference between poor stunning
and legal stunning. For 762 pigs we filmed being
stunned by him, the process was agonising. But for one
group of five pigs, the process was conducted entirely
in accordance with the law. We believe that this is
because he knew that a vet (or someone else in
authority) was watching. CCTV would uncover such
abusive but hidden behaviour and would encourage
best practice at all times.
4) Bullying
One reason for poor law enforcement is revealed in
both the BBC’s 2008 Week In Week Out special and,
again, in the 2008 UNISON survey of Meat Hygiene
Inspectors and vets.
The BBC programme filmed undercover at three Welsh
abattoirs. A vet, not knowing that he was being
recorded, said: ‘We have the right to recommend
somebody for prosecution, maybe the lairage man,
maybe the manager, maybe whoever we want… but
basically we don’t. We talk and that’s it because we
don’t want enemies… We are hated in many plants,
very hated.’ 4
‘The RSPCA whole-heartedly supports Animal Aid’s campaign, calling for CCTV to be
installed in all abattoirs across the country.’ 5
John Avizienius, Deputy Head of the Farm Animal Science Department, RSPCA
The UNISON survey corroborates this. Seventy-three
per cent of the inspectors and vets questioned said they
had witnessed bullying at work, with 57 per cent
claiming that they had been bullied. More than half said
the bullying came from plant workers or managers. 7
CCTV may help put an end to bullying and provide
evidence for any disciplinary action that may be
necessary.
5) Lack of respect and support
Many vets are now sourced from overseas. Anecdotally,
we hear that significant cultural differences – and
sometimes problems with language – mean that vets
are not as respected as they otherwise might be.
Additionally, the UNISON survey indicated that vets do
not feel supported by their management. When asked
the question: Does the MHS management encourage
you to report breaches of legislation with a view to
enforcement proceedings, 43 per cent replied ‘Never’,
while 41 per cent replied ‘Sometimes’.
And when asked: If you observed a breach of the
regulations which seriously compromised consumer
protection, how confident are you that the MHS would
properly follow up any report you made, 52 per cent
replied ‘Not at all’. 8
CCTV would provide evidence that a vet could take to
the slaughterhouse operator – known as the Food
Business Operator (FBO) – and to the FSA, so that he
or she has more support when tackling failings.
6) Retraining
Many breaches of the law that we have filmed are
due to a culture of sloppiness, insensitivity or even
brutality within the abattoir. For all cases of poor
practice and legal breaches, we believe that the workers
should undergo retraining. CCTV would provide useful
footage to show clearly what actions or procedures are
unacceptable. Already Animal Aid’s undercover footage
is used to train vets and Soil Association inspectors at
Bristol University.
7) Prosecutions
CCTV – in the cases where it did not act as a deterrent
– would provide invaluable evidence for prosecutions.
Currently, proving welfare breaches, for all the reasons
stated above, is difficult.
KEY AIMS: TRAINING AND RETRAINING
Training to be a slaughterman is a four-step process.
But once qualified, slaughterers are not ever required to
undertake any retraining.
First, trainees are issued with a provisional licence. It
costs nothing and lasts for three months. Provisional
licences state the species, the type of equipment and
the operations for which the holder is licensed. While
carrying a provisional licence, a trainee can work only
in the presence, and under the direction, of a holder of
a full licence covering the same species and type of
equipment.
Next, a trainee slaughterman is assessed to determine
whether or not he has the necessary level of
competence, knowledge, skill and understanding of the
importance of animal welfare to allow a registered
licence to be issued. He must show an understanding
of the relevant statutory requirements, including Codes
of Practice, and how they work to protect animals.
There is no formal exam. Instead, practical skills are
observed. This may be in just one session or over a
period of time. The cost is £40, but up to five people
can be assessed at once, bringing down the cost to just
£8 each.
If deemed appropriate, the trainee will be issued with
a certificate of competence by an Official Veterinarian
(or OV).

10 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 11
And finally, the applicant is issued with a permanent
licence, costing £20, which is valid for life throughout
Great Britain. There is no reassessment ever.
We share the view of the government-appointed Farm
Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) that there is much
wrong with this system.
In most cases, the certificate of competence is carried
out by an OV who may, in some cases, also be
responsible for the basic training of that individual. In
reality, there is likely to be a great deal of pressure on
an OV to certify trainee slaughtermen. Surveys of vets
and Meat Hygiene Inspectors who work within abattoirs
reveal tensions that routinely escalate to these workers
being bullied and harassed by abattoir workers. 9 If an
OV were to refuse to issue a certificate of competence,
this could cause serious problems with the abattoir
management.
Of this system, FAWC states: ‘There must be some
concern that this does not sit comfortably with the
[OV’s] accreditation and enforcement roles. In our view
the same [OV] should not be the trainer, issuer of a
certificate of competence and enforcement officer.’ 10
Additionally, while the relevance of a certificate of
competence is heavily reliant on the expertise of the
individual OV, there is no requirement on the OV him or
herself to have reached any level of competence, either
on the operations or on assessment. 11
Animal Aid believes that no vet should have the
dual role of both training and licensing prospective
slaughterers, and that all slaughterers should undergo
refresher training every three years.
KEY AIMS: ‘FIT AND PROPER’ PERSON TEST
According to Defra, ‘Registered Licences may be
suspended or revoked if the holder is no longer
considered a fit and proper person to hold a slaughter
licence’. 15 However, Defra does not specify who should
make this judgement or the criteria by which a person
should be assessed to be ‘fit and proper’.
We believe that such a test should be applied before a
licence is issued and that the OV should be able to
refuse to issue a certificate should he or she judge that
the applicant is not a ‘fit and proper’ person.
A debate needs to be held about what constitutes a fit
and proper person. While it would be illiberal to suggest
that those with spent criminal convictions should be
automatically disbarred from working as a slaughterer,
we believe that anyone with outstanding criminal
convictions for violence, sexual assault or animal cruelty
should not be permitted to stun or slaughter animals.
Prison sentences of two-and-a-half years or more are
never spent and so the most violent offenders would be
permanently precluded from training as a slaughterer.
Even if a conviction is spent, any crime should be taken
into account when the fit and proper person test is
being applied.
The Defra questionnaire asks those applying to
become a slaughterman to disclose details of any
animal cruelty offences but having such convictions
does not automatically bar a person from becoming a
slaughterman. Currently, no trainee has to undergo a
Criminal Records Bureau check so there is no way of
knowing whether an applicant has failed to disclose
relevant information. Disclosure of convictions for
violent or sexual offences is not even requested.
There are many documented examples of abattoir
workers who have committed violent offences against
people and animals. While we do not know whether
slaughtermen are disproportionately represented
compared with other workers, we believe that being
convicted of certain offences should disbar individuals
from working with animals at the most vulnerable and
distressing time of their lives.
We are not privy to data about how many current
slaughterhouse workers have convictions for violence
and cruelty, although we understand from
‘whistleblowers’ who have come forward since the
publication of our investigation that such convictions
are not uncommon. The following cases serve as
examples of people we believe fail the ‘fit and proper
person’ test and who should be barred from working in
slaughterhouses until all such convictions are spent:
(The dates in brackets refer to the conviction, not the
crime.)
Crimes Against People:
• Nathan Morgan, a slaughterman from Aberaeron,
was jailed for kicking and punching a passer-by.
(2009)
• Patrick Colleran, who worked at a Bristol abattoir,
was convicted of raping two women. (2008)
• John Smith, a slaughterhouse butcher, killed his
wife. He had already been convicted more than
once of assaulting her. (2007)
• Peter Newbery, an unemployed slaughterhouse
worker, sexually assaulted and murdered two
teenagers in a care home on the Isle of Man.
(2003)
• Paul Weedon, a slaughterman from Oxfordshire, slit
the throat of a pensioner. (2003)
• Drew Affleck, a former slaughterman from Ayrshire,
set fire to a house, killing three people. (2003)
• A Lancashire slaughterman, Paul Harry Smith, was
jailed for beating up his pregnant girlfriend. (2003)
• Jason Baldwin, a former slaughterman in Surrey,
killed and butchered a neighbour. He had already
been sacked from his job for attacking a colleague.
(1996)
Crimes Against Animals:
• A Derbyshire slaughterman was ‘disciplined’ for
allowing chickens to enter the scalding tank while
still alive. (2009)
• A man was sacked from an East Anglian abattoir for
improperly killing pigs and allowing them to be put
into the scalding tank while still alive. (2006)
• Arran Parkinson, a slaughterman from Oldham, was
sacked after kicking a sheep and gloating over dead
animals. (2005)
• A former slaughterman, Paul Stevenson from
Chesterfield, was jailed after stabbing and beating
his dog to death. (2005)
• Jason Robinson, a former abattoir worker from Essex,
was convicted of illegally killing sheep. (2001)
ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS WITHIN THE INDUSTRY
Enforcement of Welfare Regulations
Currently, the FSA takes responsibility for regulating and
enforcing hygiene legislation in slaughterhouses. Its
staff undertakes ante- and post-mortem inspections and
is able to take enforcement action, including serving
notices (known as Remedial Action Notices), referring
cases for investigation with a view to prosecution, and
withdrawing or suspending approval. (Slaughterhouses
cannot operate without approval.)
As it has a presence in slaughterhouses, the FSA also
undertakes official controls on behalf of Defra on animal
health and welfare to ensure compliance with legislative
requirements. However, any enforcement action is
brought by Defra even though this responsibility is in
potential conflict with its role of championing the
farming and slaughter industries. In choosing to drop
all the prosecutions brought using Animal Aid's footage,
Defra has chosen to champion and support the industry
rather than properly regulate it.
As the FSA is already on site to regulate animal welfare,
it would be more appropriate if this independent
body undertook full responsibility for enforcement
action under welfare laws, including any prosecutions.
Piece Rates
We understand that a significant proportion of
slaughterhouses pay their workers ‘piece rates’ – that is,
they are paid per animal killed and processed. This
encourages swift work as, if they process the animals
faster, they go home earlier with no loss of pay. When
workers keep up such a pace, frightened or wary
animals are seen as an inconvenience, and this system
may go some way to explain why we filmed so many
workers beating, kicking and throwing animals into the
stun pen.
Additionally, in its 2008 report ‘Optimisation of MHS
Resources in Slaughterhouses’, the Meat Hygiene
Service voiced concerns that its staff come under
pressure when they ask for the slaughter line to be
slowed down, ‘particularly at slaughterhouses where
the FBO [Food Business Operator] employs staff on a
piece rate basis’. 13
Short-term Vets
In the past, slaughterhouse vets came from local
veterinary practices and were, by and large, respected.
Now, partly because of cost cutting, companies that
supply cheap vets from overseas have sprung up. These
vets are paid low wages and often do not stay long. It
may be that poor pay and bullying help drive them
away. We know from talking to industry insiders that
not even the Meat Hygiene Inspectors have much time
for these vets. The inspectors tend to work for the same
slaughterhouse for a number of years and have little
affinity for the foreign vets who come and go, and
outrank them in terms of authority.
Vets and hygiene inspectors may not last long at one
abattoir for another reason. If slaughterhouse operators
make a complaint about them, it is common practice
for them to be moved elsewhere. 14 There is little

12 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 13
incentive for a vet or inspector who wants to retain his
or her position to enforce laws rigorously. One Meat
Hygiene Inspector had been excluded from seven
different slaughterhouses with separate owners
because, he says, he refused to help with butchery and
other tasks that – as an enforcement officer – are not
his job. As a result, and because of his rigorous
enforcement policy, he claims the slaughterhouse
operators did all they could to get him out. 15
It is little wonder, then, that vets and hygiene inspectors
feel that when the FBOs demand something, the
MHS/FSA complies. In the 2008 UNISON survey, vets
and inspectors were asked whether they believed that
the MHS was truly independent of the industry. Eightyseven
per cent said ‘No.’ 16
Slaughterers from Overseas
We understand that around half of all slaughterers in
the UK are from overseas 17 and the low wages they are
paid is no incentive to work carefully and respectfully.
At least two of the men we filmed breaking the law are
from overseas (Poland and Russia). Even if lawbreaking
slaughterers from overseas stay in the UK long
enough to be prosecuted and convicted, they could
simply move back to their native country (or elsewhere)
and carry on slaughtering animals.
Self-Regulation
Before Animal Aid began investigating UK
slaughterhouses, there was a concerted drive by the
industry towards self-regulation. In a joint letter to the
Meat Trades Journal, the policy director and the legal
adviser from The Association of Independent Meat
Suppliers, together with a consultant from the
Veterinary Public Health Association, wrote that
slaughterhouse operators should ‘take full responsibility
for both food safety and animal welfare by removing the
MHS and subjecting the operation to unannounced
visits by a small number of veterinary experts’. 18
The Food Standards Agency appears to accept the
inevitability of such a development, possibly because
they see it as a way to cut departmental costs. Also in
the Meat Trades Journal, the Chief Executive of
the MHS, Steve McGrath, wrote: ‘The European
Commission (EC) monitors breaches in the UK, every
breach that occurs puts us on the back foot when we
suggest policy reform. The Commission can argue that
factions in the UK meat industry overtly flout the law
and do not take full responsibility for compliance. In
turn this means that intervention from the MHS is
needed. So here’s the deal, the meat industry embraces
the spirit and detail of the law, my staff are given the
respect that they are due, enforcement actions dry up,
and the risks to public health and animal welfare are
reduced to an absolute minimum. We can then jointly
go to the EC to request reform of official controls.’ 19
Animal Aid’s investigations, coupled with poor reports
from EU inspectors about hygiene practices in UK
slaughterhouses, have temporarily halted the move to
self-regulation, while the industry is forced to confront
the horrors it has been hiding behind closed doors.
Ed Bedington, editor of the Meat Trades Journal wrote:
‘Critics will look at the evidence provided by Animal Aid
and point out that if those kind of breaches are taking
place under the watch of the MHS, how much worse
would they be if the industry was allowed to police
itself But the activists’ report covers no-one in glory –
from the industry’s passive tolerance of poor
practitioners through to the MHS for failing to effectively
police the businesses.’ 20
The 2008 UNISON survey asked its Meat Hygiene
Inspectors and vets: ‘Could the meat industry be trusted
to carry out meat inspection on behalf of the
consumer’ Ninety-four per cent said ‘no’. Just one per
cent said ‘yes’. 21
With all this in mind, Animal Aid is convinced that the
move towards industry self-regulation will only make
matters worse.
No Remedial Action Notices for Welfare
Under hygiene regulations, Remedial Action Notices
(RANs) can be served. This requires the slaughterhouse
operator to correct any designated problems in a
specified period of time. A RAN can ‘prohibit the use of
machinery or part of an establishment, impose
conditions or prohibit the carrying out of certain
processes or require the rate of operation to be reduced
or stopped completely’. 22
It must be served as soon as is practicable after the
breach is found, and specify what the breach is and
what action is needed to remedy it. As soon as an
officer is satisfied that the remedial action has been
carried out, the notice must be withdrawn.
But there is no equivalent for welfare breaches. If there
was, a breach of the welfare laws, which took place
over four months at ABP Sturminster Newton
slaughterhouse – and which led to additional animal
Missing head shelf at ABP Sturminster Newton caused additional suffering
suffering – could have been quickly resolved.
At that bovine slaughterhouse, Animal Aid noticed that
the stun box was missing a head shelf, which must be
fitted by law. A stun box without a head shelf allows
animals to move around more freely and increases the
likelihood that the captive bolt, which is used to stun
cows, will miss its target. If this happens, the animal
may not be stunned outright and could suffer
additionally and unnecessarily. After seeing our footage,
Steve McGrath of the MHS agreed: ‘The need to re-stun
those animals that did not become immediately
unconscious may have been avoided had the stunning
box been fitted with a head restraint reducing the
opportunity for the animal to move its head a moment
before impact.’ 23
Incredibly, four months elapsed between this stun box
being installed (without the head shelf) and Animal Aid’s
filming there, which brought this breach to the attention
of the MHS. So, for four months, cows were stunned in
a plant that was operating in breach of the law. When
Animal Aid asked how this had been allowed to go on
for so long, Mr McGrath wrote: ‘The stunning box was
… considered to be under development.’ 24
When pressed, he described why the problem wasn’t
resolved until after Animal Aid reported it to the
MHS. He wrote: ‘As soon as the slaughterhouse recommenced
operations in November, the OV and the
Lead Veterinarian (LV) were engaged in discussions with
the operator FBO in relation to the stunning box. This
included the operator modifying the box to improve
effectiveness by allowing easier access for the
slaughterman carrying out stunning. During this period
the OV was regularly monitoring the effectiveness of
stunning. The LV undertook several more visits
before the end of December and was satisfied with
the stunning process. In the OV’s audit of the
slaughterhouse in December, the lack of a head restraint
and concern about the stunning of calves were recorded.
A completion date of 28 February to improve the
‘stability of bovines in the stunning box’ (i.e. fit a head
restraint) was noted in the enforcement programme. I
acknowledge that the head restraint was fitted 15 days
after the deadline in the enforcement programme.’ 25
If the vet could have served a Remedial Action Notice
and halted production until a head shelf was fitted, this
breach could have been resolved the same day and
hundreds of animals might have been stunned outright
rather than experience the pain and trauma of being
shot in the head several times.
No Ultimate Sanction for Welfare Breaches
If a slaughterhouse repeatedly breaches hygiene laws,
the ultimate sanction can be used – the plant can be
shut down. This sanction is not available under welfare
laws, and so slaughterhouses can breach welfare laws
over and over, and know that they will remain in
business.
Records show a great variation in the number of
prosecutions over the years. Between 1990 and 1996,
there was one single case initiated by Defra under
animal welfare legislation. That individual was found
guilty and fined just £250. 26
However, between 2002 and 2010, there were 48
successful prosecutions of slaughter companies for
animal welfare breaches. Each was fined an average of
£3,742. 27 During that same period, 31 individuals
were also convicted of welfare breaches.

14 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 15
Although some offences under the Welfare of Animals
(Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (WASK) are
punishable by a maximum of three months in prison,
all 31 individuals convicted of crimes under WASK
between 2002 and 2010 were punished with a
conditional discharge, a fine and/or a Community
Service Order. The fines for all 31 totalled £34,210,
with the average being just £1,100 per person. 28
Almost all of the individuals – 28 out of the 31 – were
prosecuted ‘in their role as Food Business Operators’,
i.e. they were tried in relation to offences committed at
their plant ‘rather than for offences that they directly
committed.’ 29 (This is likely to be because those
who actually committed the offences could not be
identified.) The remaining three individuals were found
guilty of breaking the law themselves, and they were
fined £130, £300 and £600. 30
None of the three, however, were convicted of actually
harming animals, even though Animal Aid’s
investigations show that such illegal cruelty is rife in
slaughterhouses. In six of the seven randomly selected
slaughterhouses in which we filmed, illegal cruel
treatment of animals – such as kicking pigs in their
faces – was recorded, and the authorities initially
decided to proceed with prosecutions in five out of six
of those cases. That no such overt cruelty prosecutions
have ever taken place in the previous eight years must
indicate that the official monitoring system is incapable
of detecting such offences.
During Animal Aid’s 18-month investigation, we
provided evidence to bring prosecutions against nine
slaughterers and four Food Business Operators (FBO),
with one FBO facing as many as 40 separate charges. 31
But if the penalties remain so minimal, and there is no
ultimate sanction of plant closure, what deterrent is
there to stop welfare breaches
THE LAW ON ANIMAL WELFARE
The law that is intended to protect animals at slaughter
is the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing)
Regulations 1995, which has been amended several
times. Under this law, which is known as WASK, it is
an offence to cause avoidable excitement, pain or
suffering, and there are specific rules on handling,
stunning and slaughtering animals.
For example, WASK makes it illegal to:
• Lift or drag any animal by the head, horns, ears,
feet, tail, fleece or any other part of the body in
such a way as to cause unnecessary pain or
suffering
• Strike or apply pressure to any particularly sensitive
part of an animal’s body
• Inflict any blow or kick to any animal
• Place any bovine in a stun pen unless the animal
can be stunned immediately
• Stun any animal unless the animal can be killed
without delay
• Use the electrical stunning equipment as a way to
immobilise an animal
• Stun an animal with electrodes unless the
electrodes span the brain, enabling the current to
pass through it and the strength and duration of the
current is such that the animal is immediately
rendered unconscious and remains so until death
These and many more breaches of the Regulations have
been filmed by Animal Aid.
Unfortunately, prosecutions for animal welfare breaches
must be brought within six months of the offence
happening, and one slaughterer – from AC Hopkins in
Somerset – evaded justice because of a delay in
processing the court action. This time constraint must
be lifted.
A COMMON MISCONCEPTION
It is a belief widely held that animals cannot be killed
in front of one another. So common is this belief that on
one farmers’ forum, contributors wrote of their shock,
having watched Animal Aid’s footage, at seeing this
‘illegal’ practice. 32 No one corrected them:
‘As far as I'm aware the stunning pen with several
sheep/pigs together is illegal, stressful for the animals
and dangerous for the slaughterman.’ (Joyce)
‘I believe that animals may only be taken individually
to the stunning room, ie no beast should see another
beast killed.’ (Longlowdog)
‘It is totally illegal to have more than one animal in
the room at any one time. Animals must not ever see
another stunned or dead animal at any time.
Shocking.’ (Mayo)
‘The animals must always be treated with respect,
slaughtered singly, humanely and out of sight of
their fellows, according to law.’ (Jane Barribal)
Until 2004, it was illegal to slaughter and bleed animals
within sight of conspecifics (animals of the same
species) because it was acknowledged that it caused
them distress. Moving the stunned animals away from
others to a place where they could be slaughtered
without being seen increased the stun-to-stick time,
thereby increasing the risk that animals who had been
electrically stunned would regain consciousness.
In its June 2003 report, Defra’s advisory body, the Farm
Animal Welfare Council, recommended that ‘the law in
England and Wales should be changed to permit bleeding
within sight of conspecifics for pigs and sheep. This
should be dependent upon legislation being introduced
to limit the stun to bleed interval to 15 seconds.’ 33
THE ROLE OF VETS
All abattoirs are supervised by Official Veterinarians
(OVs), who are employed by the Food Standards
Agency. It is the job of OVs to ensure compliance
with meat hygiene, animal welfare and other
statutory rules. They are guided in these duties by
‘detailed instructions’ provided by Defra. 36
According to Defra, ‘OVs take action on the spot to
correct any problems they may find: this may
include verbal or written advice or warnings and,
when necessary, a recommendation for prosecution.
If OVs see animals arriving at a slaughterhouse
which show evidence of welfare problems arising
on farm or during transport, they will report the
incident to the appropriate enforcement body which
will take the necessary follow-up action.’ 37
In reality, the 2008 Meat Hygiene Service survey,
which was conducted by UNISON, showed that the
vast majority of workers on the ground do not feel
that they are encouraged to report breaches of
legislation with a view to initiating enforcement
proceedings. And for any serious breaches that are
reported, more than half of workers surveyed said
they were ‘not at all’ confident that the Meat
Hygiene Service would properly follow them up. 38
An additional barrier to the enforcement of welfare
laws has been revealed in the wake of Animal Aid’s
revelations, namely the reluctance of both the Food
Standards Agency (FSA) and the slaughterhouse
operators to accept responsibility.
The government did indeed change the law so that pigs
and sheep could be bled within sight of their
conspecifics but chose not to legislate for a maximum
stun-to-bleed time of 15 seconds. In terms of animal
welfare, they legislated for the worst of both worlds:
sheep and pigs could see their mates bleed to death
but the government issued guidance, instead of
introducing a law, to minimise the risk of them
regaining consciousness. 34
Before the law on bleeding in sight of conspecifics was
changed, the Meat Hygiene Service found in its 1997/8
Animal Welfare Survey Report that, for many pigs,
the stun-to-stick time exceeded the recommended
maximum figure of 15 seconds. 35
Given that the law has been changed, allowing killing
The FSA, in support of its vets, declared: ‘Official
MHS vets work in every slaughterhouse across
Britain and make regular, unannounced checks to
ensure that the slaughtering process is humane.
However, we cannot inspect every animal or bird
at the point of slaughter and full responsibility for
animal welfare rests with the slaughterhouse
operators.’ 39
The industry retorted with: ‘The official veterinarian
(OV) ought to have spotted problems and drawn
them to the attention of the operator… [The FSA]
seems to imply that OVs are too busy doing other
things to spot ongoing welfare problems.’ 40
In short, each blames the other for allowing
breaches of the law to continue.
The buck-passing continues when it comes to
other responsibilities for the vets and hygiene
inspectors. At a July 2010 employment tribunal,
where an MHS inspector had been removed from
a slaughterhouse days after he had reported a
worker for deliberately breaking a cow’s tail,
debate raged as to whether he worked for the
MHS or for the slaughterhouse. As the cost of
running the inspectorate and vets is paid almost
equally by government and industry, both were
reported to have said that he worked for the other,
in a presumed attempt to shift culpability to the
other party. 41 No-one was prosecuted for injuring
the cow.

16 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 17
in sight of conspecifics, one would hope that our
films would show very brief stun-to-stick intervals.
However, in a detailed analysis of three of the five
slaughterhouses that slaughter sheep and pigs, this is
what we found:
• For 44 consecutively stunned sheep where two men
stunned and shackled them, 52 per cent were
stuck within 15 seconds. (JV Richards)
• For 90 consecutively stunned sheep where just one
man stunned and shackled, 1 per cent were stuck
within 15 seconds. (JV Richards)
• For 100 consecutively stunned sheep, 22 per cent
were stuck within 15 seconds. (AC Hopkins)
• For 100 consecutively stunned pigs, 97 per cent
were stuck within 15 seconds of their second stun,
but achieving this meant that the animals suffered
the pain of a partial first stun. This is not a humane
– or legal – way to achieve the correct stun-to-stick
interval. (AC Hopkins)
• For 25 consecutively stunned sheep, none were
stuck within 15 seconds. (Tom Lang Ltd)
NEW EU REGULATION
In January 2013, a new law will come into effect
across Europe. Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 aims to
standardise procedures for animal welfare across the
EU and give the FBO increased responsibility for
welfare. Each slaughterhouse over a certain size will
need to appoint an Animal Welfare Officer who will be
accountable for implementing the animal welfare
measures. 42 But, other than this, it will make little
difference to the welfare laws already pertaining to UK
slaughterhouses.
STUNNING
Most of the legal breaches and poor practice we filmed
were in relation to stunning, rather than sticking.
Stunning is intended to render animals immediately
unconscious so that when they go to the knife, they do
not feel any pain and they do not recover at any point.
Electric Stunning
Sheep, pigs and calves are stunned using electric tongs,
which are applied to the animals’ heads to deliver a
strong current through the brain. The law – Welfare
of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995
(WASK) – states: ‘No person shall use, or cause or
permit to be used, electrodes to stun any animal unless
the electrodes are so placed that they span the brain,
enabling the current to pass through it; the strength of
the current and the duration of the current used is such
that the animal is immediately rendered unconscious
and remains so until it is dead.’ 43
As electric stunning is reversible, it is imperative that the
stun is delivered for the correct duration, in the correct
place and using the correct current; and that the animal’s
throat is cut as soon after stunning as is possible (the
recommended time is no longer than 15 seconds).
We filmed breaches of this law in every slaughterhouse
that used electric stunning, including stuns that did not
span the brain (for example, the tongs were applied
either side of one ear, or around the body instead of the
head); the duration was insufficient (stuns of 0.5
seconds were common, when the recommended time is
3-4 seconds). Multiple stuns were used as a matter of
course in two slaughterhouses. At AC Hopkins, the
slaughterer used an initial ‘stun’ to floor the pigs, then
shackled them and only after that did he administer a
proper stun. At A&G Barber, pigs were routinely given
three stuns: a brief head stun to bring them to the floor,
followed by a body ‘stun’ (which merely gives an
electric shock), followed by another head stun.
Slaughterers at both these abattoirs were suspended as
soon as the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) saw our films.
Captive Bolt Stunning
Adult cows, and some calves and sheep, are stunned
using a captive bolt pistol. A hand-held device shoots
out a retractable bolt under high pressure from either a
blank cartridge or compressed air into the brain of the
animal. Captive bolt stunning is not reversible and so –
if done correctly – should render animals immediately
unconscious and they should not regain consciousness
at all.
In order to achieve an effective stun, the captive bolt
must enter the head at the correct velocity, in the
correct place and at the correct angle. The greatest
problem we filmed with captive bolt stunning was at
ABP Sturminster Newton, where no head shelf
was fitted in the stun pen, in contravention of WASK,
which led to increased movement of the cows and
consequently greater difficulty in hitting the ‘target’
(see page 26).
ANIMAL AID’S
SLAUGHTERHOUSE
INVESTIGATION
What follows is a breakdown of what we found at each of the seven abattoirs
that we visited. Five of them slaughter sheep and/or pigs (using electrical
stunning); two slaughter cows only (using the captive bolt method of stunning).

18 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 19
PIG KICKED IN HEAD
JV RICHARDS
January 2009
JV RICHARDS
Truro, Cornwall
Filmed over 5 days in January 2009
Legal Breaches and Bad Practice
It is a breach of the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or
Killing) Regulations (WASK) to kick animals and yet
pigs at JV Richards were routinely kicked in the face to
get them to move.
The Guidance Note on the Licensing and Training of
Slaughtermen states that: 'No person shall stun, or
cause or permit to be stunned, any animal unless it is
possible to bleed it without delay; or kill it without
delay.’ This was also breached: one group of pigs was
introduced to the stun pen and left there for 13
minutes; another group was left for 15 minutes; while
a group of sheep was left in the stun pen for almost 20
minutes.
Poor Stunning
At JV Richards, pigs and sheep are stunned using the
electrical stunning method. We filmed 1,423 sheep,
319 pigs and 12 calves being electrically stunned over
five days.
Tongs should span the brain and deliver an effective
stun that renders the animal unconscious. No animal
should be stunned more than once, and at no time
should any animal regain consciousness. In the chaotic
stun room at JV Richards, where animals ran, hid,
slipped and fell, the correct placement of electrodes on
the heads of the animals – and maintaining the
connection for the required duration – was problematic
at best.
We closely examined the stuns administered to sheep
from two successive groups: the first was when the
slaughterer worked with a colleague; the second was
when he worked alone. Sheep in the first group were
stunned for between 2.5 and 4.5 seconds, with the
average stun time being 3.3 seconds.
But in the very next group, when the slaughterer both
stunned and shackled the animals unaided, the average
stun time fell to 2.6 seconds. The shorter stun time
may be attributed to the fact that the slaughterer felt
he should work more quickly once he was on his own,
or perhaps he became less thorough when he thought
no one was watching.
Multiple Stuns
Under WASK, animals should be stunned properly once
and should not regain consciousness at all. It is an
additional offence to cause ‘avoidable excitement, pain
or suffering to any animal’. But at JV Richards, multiple
stuns were commonplace.
One sheep, who was stunned for just one second, fell
to the floor, flailing on his side. He scrabbled to his feet
and tried to run on uncoordinated legs. He eventually
hid behind the hoist machinery. Rather than end his
fear and suffering, seven other sheep were stunned and
hoisted before the slaughterer turned his attention back
to this one. Sadly, the second stun was also botched
and only when the tongs were applied for a third time,
did this sheep finally succumb.
Some animals went to extraordinary lengths to avoid
experiencing the pain of being stunned for a second
time. One sheep – the sixth out of a group of 19 –
struggled free of the tongs and ran around the room,
avoiding the slaughterer while 12 other sheep were
stunned. This left him standing with just one other
sheep. A second attempt was made to stun him but –
once again – he escaped. As the other sheep
succumbed, this terrified animal leapt through the
hatch and into the slaughter area, where he landed in
the blood pit beneath a number of shackled and
bleeding animals.
In order to assess the incidence of multiple stunning at
JV Richards, we monitored 824 sheep. Of those, 14.6
per cent were stunned more than once. One was
stunned five times, while four were stunned four times
each. Each failed stun would have given the animal a
serious and painful electric shock.
Stun-to-Stick Interval
As electrical stunning is reversible, it is essential
that animals are ‘stuck’ (i.e. have their throats cut)
immediately to avoid them regaining consciousness. For
pigs and sheep, the recommended maximum limit is
15 seconds.
We timed the duration between the animals being
stunned and them leaving the stun room and added two
seconds on to this time to get the estimated stun-tostick
interval. (If it took longer than two seconds for the
animals to be stuck once they left our view – which is
quite likely – then the stun-to-stick interval would have
been even longer.)
For 44 consecutively stunned sheep, who were stunned
by one worker and shackled by a second, just 52 per
cent were stuck within 15 seconds of being stunned,
with the longest stun-to-stick interval being an
estimated 21 seconds.
For the next 90 sheep, the slaughterer worked alone,
and the number of sheep stuck within 15 seconds of
being stunned fell to a shocking 1 per cent.
With such dismal stun-to-stick times, there must be a
very real danger that many sheep at JV Richards
regained consciousness during bleeding or even before
sticking.
Sick and Vulnerable Animals
One particularly sick – or possibly already dead – sheep
was brought for slaughter to JV Richards. A small, thin
sheep, her fleece patchy and her head dropped, was
brought into the stun room in a wheelbarrow. Unlike all
other sheep we saw stunned, she did not move at all –
not when the electrodes were placed on her head, and
not when she was shackled. We believe this sheep may
have already been dead.
SICK, OR POSSIBLY
DEAD, SHEEP BROUGHT
INTO STUN ROOM
JV RICHARDS
January 2009
Four of the animals brought to slaughter at JV Richards
had large growths on their bodies, which may have
been abscesses, cysts, prolapses or tumours. According
to industry reports, such growths are not uncommon. In
2008, the BBC aired a film shot undercover at three
Welsh slaughterhouses. Even though Meat Hygiene
Inspectors are supposed only to inspect the carcasses
presented to them, many were forced to take action to
remove abscesses that the abattoir’s butchers had
overlooked or ignored. 44
At JV Richards, three tiny calves – no more than a few
days old – were brought to slaughter. As they were to be
slaughtered in a registered abattoir and not simply shot
on a dairy farm, it is reasonable to assume that they
were being killed for their flesh: veal.
While the first calf was stunned, the other two huddled
together and looked on. Seconds later, the second calf
was brought to the floor, and lay there shaking and
kicking so violently that the slaughterer was unable to
shackle him. To hold him still, he held the calf down
with his foot but the calf continued to kick violently.
Like the first calf, he was stunned a second time as he
was being hoisted into the slaughter room. The third
young animal – showing clear signs of fear and distress
– vocalised and wriggled free of the electrodes. He did
all he could to elude the tongs but was finally caught
and stunned, and hoisted away to have his throat cut.
ACTION TAKEN
Despite evidence of several breaches of WASK at JV
Richards, no prosecution was brought. Instead, the
Meat Hygiene Service (MHS, now known as the Food
Standards Agency Operations Group) identified areas
for improvement, including shortening the stun-to-stick
interval and ordered retraining of staff members.

20 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 21
PARTIALLY STUNNED PIG
ALLOWED TO SUFFER
AC HOPKINS
April 2009
AC HOPKINS
Taunton, Somerset
Filmed over three days in April 2009
The slaughterman at AC Hopkins showed such a
shocking mix of callousness and incompetence that
Animal Aid immediately called for his dismissal and
prosecution. Other workers witnessed his actions and
yet he was not stopped, indicating, perhaps, a
company-wide insensitivity to the animals brought there
to be killed. Indeed, the general attitude of the staff
towards the animals at that plant can be deduced from
the words painted on the lairage wall: Death Row.
Sheep Stunning
Electric tongs must be placed on either side of the
animals’ heads so that the current passes directly
through their brains, and must be kept there until they
are unconscious. Although the recommended stun time
is 3-4 seconds, sheep in a typical group at AC Hopkins
were stunned for between less than a second and three
seconds, with an average stun time of just 1.9 seconds.
The slaughterer at this plant seemed unconcerned
about effective stunning and was apparently content as
long as the animals dropped to the floor so that he
could shackle them.
A significant number of sheep were stunned with one
electrode on the very tip of their nose and the other at
the back of their head, which is not effective. And, as
the tip of the nose is a sensitive part of the body, this is
also a breach of the welfare legislation. For other
animals, the electrodes were placed on either side of
their noses; one sheep was ‘stunned’ with electrodes
on either side of one ear only; and a lamb was ‘stunned’
first with both electrodes on top of her head, and then
with both electrodes on the back of her neck. Neither
of these would have rendered her unconscious.
Captive Bolt
It is unclear why the slaughterer chose to use the
captive bolt on one single sheep when all the others
were stunned electrically, although the pleasure he
gained from using this method could be seen in the
gesture he made towards a colleague: he mimed
drawing a gun from a holster and sang the theme from
James Bond.
This was the last sheep of the group and, having seen
all the others stunned and killed, he was hiding behind
the machinery. From the film, it appears that he was
shot in the back of his head at an angle towards his
eyes, which is not the correct angle for a sheep without
horns. 45 (The correct angle is directly downwards from
the top of the head, which ensures that the bolt hits
the brain.) This sheep thrashed in a manner unlike any
of the others who were electrically stunned, causing us
serious doubt about whether this sheep was adequately
stunned when he was slaughtered.
Lambs and Ewes
Four ewes with 14 tiny lambs were brought in to be
stunned and slaughtered together. The ewes watched
as the stunned young collapsed to the ground, and the
lambs desperately sought solace from their mothers in
those terrifying circumstances.
While one lamb suckled her mother for comfort, the
ewe – despite battling against the electrified tongs –
succumbed and dropped to the floor. As the slaughterer
shackled and hoisted her mother, the lamb followed her
body across the stun room before seeking out another
ewe from whom to take comfort. A minute later, while
she suckled from this second ewe, that sheep was also
stunned.
Pig Stunning
The method used to stun pigs at AC Hopkins was
particularly distressing to observe. All the pigs were
given an initial brief head stun, which was just long
enough to bring them down, but not long enough to
render them unconscious. The pain this caused them
was shockingly apparent. A number of pigs fell to the
ground screaming and began kicking and convulsing so
violently that the shackles could not be attached. It was
abundantly clear that these pigs were suffering.
The frustration felt by the slaughterer at not being able
to shackle these convulsing pigs did not lead him to
stun subsequent animals properly but, instead, he
vented his frustration by shouting and swearing at the
animals. He held them down with his foot or knelt on
them in order to hold them still enough to shackle
them. Only after they had been shackled and hoisted,
did he administer a second stun of longer duration.
Multiple Stuns
Failed stuns and consequent repeat stuns were
commonplace. For many animals, the first partial stun
was so painful that only the most insensitive worker
would not have moved quickly to end that suffering by
immediately administering a second and complete stun.
However, the slaughterer at AC Hopkins regularly
permitted partially stunned animals to suffer while he
turned his attentions to other animals. For example,
• A sheep was stunned on her nose for half a second
only. She escaped but fell to the floor, thrashing. Four
other sheep were stunned before this one was put out
of her misery.
• Another sheep reared up and fell to the floor while
the stun was being administered. The slaughterer,
perhaps assuming she would stay on the ground,
turned his back to cut the throat of the previous
sheep who was already nearing the top of the hoist.
But, instead, she struggled to her feet and made her
way unsteadily to the hoist machinery, where she
tried to hide. Still unable to get her footing, the
slaughterer noticed her but ignored her plight and
turned to stun another sheep instead.
LAMBS SUCKLING WHILE
MOTHER IS STUNNED
AC HOPKINS
April 2009
• The electrodes merely skirted the head of one pig
who screamed and fell to the floor, convulsing. While
this pig thrashed at his feet, the slaughterer calmly
adjusted the equipment. The pig struggled to his feet
but collapsed once more. While two more pigs were
stunned, this one sat on his haunches, with his head
tipped back and gasping. Leaning on another pig for
support, he collapsed back to the floor when that pig
was also stunned. Back on his feet once more, he
was goaded and finally stunned.
At AC Hopkins, 12.2 per cent of the sheep and 99.6
per cent of the pigs we monitored were stunned more
than once. Several pigs were stunned four times.
Of 100 sheep who were stunned consecutively, just 22
per cent were stuck within the recommended 15
seconds of being stunned. The longest stun-to-stick
time recorded was 37 seconds.
More Breaches
Instead of stunning, shackling, hoisting and cutting one
animal before moving on to the next, it was common for
the slaughterer to stun two, leave one on the floor while
he shackled the other, go back and shackle the first
one, then cut their throats at the same time. This meant
that some animals were left stunned on the floor for
many seconds, which increased the stun-to-stick
interval and the likelihood that the animals would
regain consciousness. This is a breach of WASK.
ACTION TAKEN
The slaughterer filmed was suspended from working
with live animals and had his slaughter licence revoked.
The prosecution against him fell apart when the sixmonth
time limit expired. He appealed the revocation
decision but lost. It is believed that he still works at the
slaughterhouse.

22 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 23
WAITING IN THE STUN BOX
PICKSTOCK
June 2009
‘Although stepped or sloped floors are there to assist with the roll-out,
they may cause animals to panic.’
Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing,
Part 1: Red Meat, 2003 Farm Animal Welfare Council
PICKSTOCK
Swadlincote, Derbyshire
Filmed over three days in June 2009
Pickstock was the only red meat abattoir where we
identified no breaches of animal welfare legislation.
However, when the footage was given to the MHS, they
did identify areas for improvement. In a letter to Mark
Todd MP, MHS Chief Executive Steve McGrath wrote:
‘The MHS Official Veterinarian (OV) has taken the
opportunity to provide refresher training to the
slaughterers working at this establishment.’ 46
Captive Bolt Stunning
It is normal practice to stun cows using a captive bolt.
By law, they must not be bled within sight of each other
and so individual cows were brought into the stun box
down a narrow ‘race’, which does not allow them to
turn round and leave. One at a time, they entered the
box and the gate closed behind them.
Head restraint devices are required by law to hold a
bovine’s head for captive bolt stunning. The purpose of
the legislation is to improve stunning accuracy. ‘Active’
head restraints hold the cows’ heads in place but cause
additional stress. Pickstock abattoir in Derbyshire,
however, uses a ‘passive head shelf’, which encourages
the animal to place his or her head in the best position
for the stun to be accurate and causes little – if any –
additional stress.
Failed and multiple stunning
Although Pickstock’s use of a captive bolt for stunning
cattle is certainly less stressful than the chaos and
carelessness of electrical stunning, this method – even
when done ‘by the book’ – is not without its disasters.
Four cows – or 2.5 per cent of those we filmed – had
to be stunned twice. For one – a pale brown bull – the
design of the stun box contributed to his prolonged
suffering. Perhaps sensing danger as he entered the
stun box, he lowered his head beneath the restraint
shelf and did not respond to the stun operator’s
attempts to get him to raise it. Rather than wait, the
stun operator leant over and took an ill-advised shot,
which floored the bull but did not render him
unconscious. He lay kicking on the floor several feet
below the stun operator and could not easily be
reached. Thirty-five seconds after the first shot, the
operator was forced to suspend himself upside down
from the cross beam in order to take a second shot and
end the suffering of this animal.
The stunning of at least three other cows at Pickstock
was questionable: one was not shot cleanly and the
cow dropped to the floor, flailing. The stun operator
prepared for a second shot but, in the end, did not
take it.
From the sound made by the captive bolt in the second
questionable incident, it misfired twice. The animal
stumbled, indicating that she did, indeed, feel some
force from the gun, but was only properly stunned on
the third attempt.
Perhaps most worrying of all, after being stunned and
rolled out to be hoisted, one bull could be seen to blink
as he lay on the ground, indicating that the stun
was not effective. According to Professor of Animal
Science, Temple Grandin: ‘Animals with eyes that do
spontaneous natural blinking are sensible.’ 47
That our camera placed at some distance from the
animal could pick this up when the stun operator –
whose duty it is to check for signs of consciousness –
didn’t, is a very worrying sign. Who knows how many
more cows go to their deaths at Pickstock while still
conscious
Other Problems
The entrance gate to the stun box is brought down
behind the animals to keep them static and to prevent
other animals from trying to enter. But staff at the
Pickstock plant used the gate as a means of
encouraging reluctant animals into the box by lowering
it onto their backs. In most cases, this had the desired
effect and the animal moved forward. But for one
frightened animal, the gate descending onto her back
virtually knocked her over and created greater panic.
She struggled to regain her footing and ended up with
her front hooves on the head shelf, from where she
was stunned.
Stun boxes are fitted with sloping or stepped floors in
order to allow the bodies of the stunned animals to roll
out into a convenient position for shackling. The uneven
floor at Pickstock caused clear distress to a number of
cows who could not get their footing while in the box.
ACTION TAKEN
Staff at the plant were provided with ‘refresher training’
after we filmed there.
COW IN STUN PEN
STUNNED COW ON GRATE
PICKSTOCK
June 2009
PICKSTOCK
June 2009

24 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 25
PIG BEING KICKED
TOM LANG LTD
October 2009
shows, in our view, a callous approach to the animals
in his care.
Having electrically stunned seven sheep out of a group
of nine, the stun operator decided to use the captive
bolt on the last two. (The following day, he used the
captive bolt on one group of sheep but these are the
only occasions he chose not to stun sheep electrically.)
The reason is not apparent to us but it does appear
from the film that these sheep were not effectively
stunned.
Neck dislocation is a defunct process in UK abattoirs.
That (at least) two workers continued to do this, despite
its illegality, indicates that it remained accepted practice
in this slaughterhouse. Any vet or effective monitoring
system should have picked this up had they watched
the slaughter of sheep.
The breaches filmed were so serious that we had to halt
our full assessment of the footage and immediately take
our evidence to the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS).
Stun-to-Stick Failures
ACTION TAKEN
TOM LANG LTD
Ashburton, Devon
Filmed over two days in October and November
2009
Three slaughterers were suspended from this Soil
Association-approved abattoir following our two-day
undercover investigation there, which revealed what
the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) described as ‘abject
cruelty by the slaughtermen to the animals being
killed’, ineffective stunning, animals having their necks
dislocated and heads decapitated before being fully bled,
pigs being kicked, and shackling before stunning. 48
Casual Cruelty
Tom Lang Ltd slaughters both organic and non-organic
pigs and sheep. Our film shows sheep being picked up
by their fleeces and forcibly thrown into the stun pen,
in breach of WASK. Pigs, throughout our film, were
coerced into moving with chains, tongs, kicks and
blows. One was dragged by his tail.
Improper Stunning
There were several serious breaches of the law with
regard to electrical stunning of sheep. Tongs should be
applied to either side of the animals’ heads so that a
current passes through the brain and renders them
immediately unconscious. If stunning is not conducted
properly, animals experience a huge and painful electric
shock and may go to the knife fully or partially
conscious. There is no good reason why the stun
operator at Tom Lang Ltd chose to stun a sheep across
her body. The animal dropped to the floor, rigid, and, as
the tongs were removed, she immediately struggled to
get up. Only at that point, having caused her serious
suffering, did the stun operator apply the tongs to her
head.
Even knowing that body stunning does not work, the
same man chose to do the same to sheep who were
already partially stunned and on the hoist. By law,
stunning should be done once and done properly, but if
an animal is not rendered fully unconscious, it is the
duty of the operator to administer a second stun to
avoid additional suffering. But this second stun must
be effectively delivered. To cause a painful body shock
to an animal who is deemed to be insufficiently stunned
There is no excuse for allowing two sheep to go to the
knife more than a minute after they were stunned. The
recommended ‘stun-to-stick’ interval for sheep is 15
seconds. This is because electrical stunning wears off
and animals come round again if they are not bled
quickly. In this instance, two sheep became tangled in
the tong cable and, once released, they should have
been re-stunned but they weren’t. Instead, one worker
joked about health and safety as he balanced on a
ladder to reach them. The stun-to-stick interval for
sheep at this plant was poor. In a random sample of 25
consecutively stunned sheep, none even left the
stunning room within 15 seconds, let alone were ‘stuck’
during that time frame.
Neck Dislocation and Decapitation
By law, animals must not be ‘dressed’ – that is have
any further procedure done to them – for a specified
amount of time after they have had their throats cut.
This is to ensure that they are, in fact, dead before
butchery begins. For sheep, the minimum period is
20 seconds but, in any case, it must not be before
they have finished bleeding. At Tom Lang Ltd, two
slaughterers dislocated the necks of sheep immediately
after the animals’ throats had been cut. And one then
decapitated the animals, well short of the 20-second
time limit, and while the animals were still clearly
bleeding. In essence, the sheep had their heads cut off
while they were still alive.
In a formal response to Animal Aid, the MHS said that,
as well as the suspension of three workers, the plant
operator has now installed CCTV ‘to record the
slaughtering process’. 49 This is in line with Animal Aid’s
key campaign objective to see the compulsory
introduction of CCTV in all British abattoirs. The MHS
also announced that ‘evidence to support a potential
prosecution of [T Lang’s] slaughterhouse operator and
slaughterers is being collated’. Defra subsequently
dropped that prosecution.
Senior MHS vets also visited Tom Lang Ltd and the
MHS put additional staff into the slaughterhouse on
a temporary basis to ensure that ‘standards of
slaughtering are acceptable’. Their on-site Official
Veterinarian was also instructed to make ‘additional
random checks on slaughtering’. 50
This abattoir is accredited by the Soil Association,
which immediately suspended its licence, saying: ‘Our
staff were shocked and saddened by the contents of the
undercover filming at the abattoir’. However, the
abattoir ‘appealed the termination of their organic
licence, and implemented significant improvements and
changes at the abattoir. These included the suspension
of staff involved, installation of CCTV cameras in the
stunning room, training for all staff and improvements
in slaughter methods and equipment.’ 51 As a result of
these changes, Tom Lang Ltd is once again accredited
by the Soil Association.
SHEEP THRASHING ON
SLAUGHTER LINE
ILLEGAL NECK-BREAKING
ILLEGAL DECAPITATION
TOM LANG LTD
October 2009

26 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 27
A COW IS STUNNED
SQUEEGEE ATTACK
TAKING A THIRD AND
FOURTH SHOT
ABP
January 2009
ABP
Sturminster Newton, Dorset
Filmed over four days in January and February 2010
Animal Aid filmed the stun box at Sturminster Newton
– a company that is owned by Anglo Beef Processors –
over a two-day period, and the killing area over a
subsequent two days.
As is usual in bovine slaughterhouses, the animals are
driven into a stun box and are then shot in the head
with a captive bolt. If done properly, this stuns the
animals and – unlike electrical stunning of sheep and
pigs – is not reversible, which means the cows should
not regain consciousness again before being bled.
Missing Head Shelf
In the very first seconds of watching the film, we
noticed a breach of the law: there was no head shelf in
the stunning box. Head shelves can be ‘passive’ (which
encourage animals to place their heads in the correct
position for effective stunning) or ‘active’ (which hold
the animals’ heads still). The latter can cause additional
stress. But whether passive or active, a head shelf must
be fitted to bovine stun boxes by law. This may sound
like a small breach but, in fact, the lack of a head shelf
leads to considerable additional suffering, as became
only too apparent as we watched the rest of the footage.
Cows do not stand still and we watched with our breath
held as time and again, the stun operator tracked a
cow’s moving head backwards and forwards before
taking a pot shot. Sometimes, he got lucky and the cow
dropped to the ground immediately but all too often the
moving target meant that cows were not stunned
adequately the first time and remained standing, scared
and in pain, or fell to the ground and lay there,
breathing hard, waiting to be put out of their misery.
Even before we had finished collating our evidence, we
informed the Meat Hygiene Service about the lack of a
head shelf and the welfare implications this was
having. They said that they would look into it and, in
their formal response, declared: ‘The stunning box was
considered to be under development.’ 52 They confirmed
that cows had been slaughtered in this illegal box for at
least three months.
MHS Chief Executive, Steve McGrath wrote: ‘The need
to re-stun those animals that did not become
immediately unconscious may have been avoided had
the stunning box been fitted with a head restraint
reducing the opportunity for the animal to move its
head a moment before impact.’ 53
Multiple Stuns
Of 114 cows who were stunned over two days, 14 –
that’s 12 per cent – had to be shot more than once with
the captive bolt. On other occasions, the bolt did not
deploy properly and, although this would have
increased the stress for the cows, we have not counted
those in this total.
One cow endured four attempts. After the second shot,
she collapsed on the floor of the stun box where she
could not easily be reached. Two workers lowered the
stun operator by his legs so that he could put her out of
her misery. Even then, it took two more shots (see
picture, above right).
Another cow endured three attempts, while the
remaining twelve cows were shot twice. In all cases, the
sound indicates that the bolt does deploy and the bolt
fires into the animals’ heads but it is either misplaced or
of insufficient power to stun the cows correctly.
Of the 152 cows filmed post-stun on 3rd and 4th
February 2010, six required a second shot, five of them
while lying on the ground, and one while already
shackled on the slaughter line.
Incompetence and Violence
two cows ended up in the stun box together. When this
happened, it was usual for the second cow to be goaded
in the face to try to get her to move backwards out of the
box. Under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing)
Regulations (WASK), no person can use an electric goad
on a cow unless ‘the animal has room ahead of it in
which to move’ and ‘such shocks are applied only to the
muscles of the hindquarters’. 54 Even if the electrical
charge was not activated when the goad was used, it
is an offence to ‘strike, or apply pressure to, any
particularly sensitive part of the body of any animal’. 55
A particularly worrying incident took place on January
27th 2010. Two cows were crammed in together and
the first could not move at all. The stun operator hit the
second cow with the goad in the face and ribs –
possibly using the electric charge – which had no effect.
He then used the butt of the goad to hit the animal in
the ribs. When that failed, he brought the gate down on
the back of the second cow, which also had no effect,
apart from causing additional pain. He continued to hit
the cows in the neck, nose, back and side with
the goad and, when that didn’t work, he fetched a
squeegee mop, which he used to ‘stab’ the second cow
on the back and in the ribs, and the first cow in the
face. The MHS called this attack ‘inappropriate’. 56
ANOTHER COW WAITING
TO BE STUNNED
ABP
January 2009
Additional Breaches of the Law
WASK states: 'No person shall place, or cause or permit
to be placed, any adult bovine in a stunning pen unless
the person who is to stun the animal is ready to do so
as soon as the animal is placed in the stunning pen.’ 57
This law was breached several times during our two
days of filming the stunning area, with four significant
breaches all taking place on the same day. One cow
was left in the stun pen for more than an hour. After 32
minutes, an employee came past and looked at her but
she was then left for a further 33 minutes.
ACTION TAKEN
The MHS (now incorporated into the Food Standards
Agency) ensured that staff were retrained in relation to
effective and legal stunning. One man had his
slaughter licence suspended, and both he and his
employer faced prosecution. Despite the FSA admitting
breaches of the law, Defra (the prosecuting body)
dropped the case, saying it was ‘not in the public
interest to prosecute’.
One clear sign of incompetence and/or poor physical
layout at Sturminster Newton was the number of times

28 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 29
WORKER DRAGS SHEEP
INTO STUN PEN BY
THE HEAD
CURSORY STUNNING
OF SHEEP
JH LAMBERT
March 2010
JH LAMBERT
March 2010
JH LAMBERT
Earsham, Norfolk
Filmed over two days in March 2010
Violence and Cruelty
We filmed a great deal of violence inflicted on the sheep
by a number of staff members at this plant. Footage
shows animals being dragged by their heads into the
stun pen by five different members of staff. Animals
were also picked up by their fleeces and ears, and
thrown forcibly into and across the stun pen. Such
violence is illegal.
Poor Stunning of Sheep
One worker increased the risk of sheep regaining
consciousness by not cutting their throats as soon as
the stunned animals reached him. Even though he was
able to stick them, he carried on butchering other
animals, seemingly unconcerned by the possibility of
the animals regaining consciousness.
Tong placement was a problem for one JH Lambert
worker in particular. His tongs often did not span the
brains of the sheep he was stunning, and so the stun
was rendered ineffective. It is recommended that sheep
are stunned for three or four seconds but – out of 98
sheep we filmed being stunned on one day – the
shortest stun time was just 0.3 seconds, and there
were many stuns of around 0.4 – 1 second. The
average stun time was just 1.5 seconds.
Licensing and Training of Slaughtermen (‘Where one
person is responsible for the stunning, shackling,
hoisting and bleeding of animals, that person must
carry out those operations consecutively on one animal
before carrying them out on another animal.’) 58 It also
significantly increases the stun-to-stick interval. As we
had cameras in both areas simultaneously, we could
track individual animals and found that, for one sheep,
the stun-to-stick interval was one minute, whereas the
recommended maximum time – to minimise the risk of
them regaining consciousness – is 15 seconds.
Poor Stunning of Pigs
The standard method used at JH Lambert to stun pigs
was shocking. The slaughterer would deliver a brief
head stun to floor the pigs, and then use the same
electric tongs to deliver what we believe was intended
to be a ‘head-to-body kill’, that is, create cardiac arrest
by sending an electric current from the head through
the body. This is legal but must be done properly and
in accordance with the law.
Having described this method to Jason Aldiss, the
Managing Director of a company that supplies vets to
slaughterhouses, he wrote: ‘To use this method a full 3
second stun should be properly administered across the
head followed then by an application of an electrocution
method. I have concerns that if basic tongs were used
they may not be correctly designed to deliver the headto-body
kill required. However, electrocution is painful
and thus a full stun is essential.’ 59 In other words, if
pigs are going to be electrocuted with a head-to-body
current, they must have a full head stun lasting three
seconds first.
The pigs at JH Lambert’s were not afforded this head
stun. The average head stun time delivered by one
worker was just 1.3 seconds. For a second worker, it
was 1.1 seconds, and head stuns of 0.2 seconds were
not uncommon.
As stated by Mr Aldiss, electric tongs used for the
intended head-to-body kill must be suitable for the task.
The tongs used at JH Lambert were the ‘basic tongs’,
over which Mr Aldiss expressed concern.
Bad Practice
Workers at this plant were filmed bringing animals into
the stun pen when they were not ready to stun them,
contravening Defra’s Guidance Notes on the Licensing
and Training of Slaughtermen. It was normal practice
at JH Lambert’s to introduce a group of animals into
the pen, and then – when between one and three
animals had been stunned – to leave the room and go
next door to stick the recently stunned animals, leaving
the others in the pen. This also contravenes Defra’s
Guidance Note, which states: ‘Where one person is
responsible for the stunning, shackling, hoisting and
bleeding of animals, that person must carry out those
operations consecutively on one animal before carrying
them out on another animal.’ 60
Additional Stress
The noise in the stun pen was deafening: machinery
was left running the whole time; the radio was blaring;
PIGS SNIFF AT THE BLOOD
JH LAMBERT
March 2010
and the men were whooping and shouting. Such a
cacophony was, no doubt, very stressful for the
animals.
Dragging bloody pigs, who had fallen off the line,
through the stun pen when live pigs are in there is bad
practice and shows a disregard for welfare. And yet this
happened several times in our footage. Additionally, the
blood from the dragged-through pig remained on the
floor for the rest of the day whereas, to reduce stress,
it should have been cleaned away before live pigs were
brought into the stun pen.
ACTION TAKEN
As a result of this investigation, three slaughterers
have had their licences suspended and a case for
their prosecution – along with their employer – was
compiled. No credible explanation has yet been
received as to why these cases were dropped.
The company retrained its staff and indicated that they
were considering installing CCTV.
Stun-to-Stick Interval
For much of the time, one man was both stunning and
slaughtering sheep. He would stun two animals, then
leave the rest of the group in the pen while he went into
the adjacent room to stick the two stunned animals.
This contravenes Defra’s Guidance Note on the

30 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 31
PAINFUL BODY STUN
A&G BARBER
April 2010
Kicking
Both the slaughterer and a colleague who sometimes
helped him shackle the pigs kicked the animals with
shocking force as a matter of routine. The kicks were
often directed at their faces, sometimes with the
presumed aim of making them move, sometimes,
apparently, for the fun of it.
Additional Stresses
The bloodiness of the stun pen, caused by animals
being cut as they rose into the air, rather than when
they were over the blood pit, caused animals to slip and
fall. No doubt, the smell and sight of the blood – which
sometimes spurted out from the stuck pigs with such
force that it hit the live pigs below – placed additional
stresses on them.
We filmed pigs so scared that they were climbing the
walls and door looking for any chance to escape.
A&G BARBER
Purleigh, Essex
Filmed over three days in April 2010
The appalling stunning technique and the casual but
sadistic violence meted out to the pigs at A&G Barber
caused us, once again, to interrupt our full assessment of
the footage so that the perpetrator could be immediately
dealt with. Tim Smith, Chief Executive of the Food
Standards Agency, wrote to Animal Aid to say of this
abattoir: ‘The cruelty on show is the worst I’ve seen.’ 61
Sadistic Violence
There were countless horrific examples of where the
slaughterer went out of his way to cause suffering to
the pigs. These include:
• The slaughterer used the electric tongs to send
powerful electric shocks through pigs’ snouts, ears,
tails and bodies.
• He inserted the tongs inside the mouth of a pig and
sent a powerful electric shock through her jaw.
• He punished a pig for being in his way by sending an
electric shock through her foreleg.
• Instead of stunning a conscious pig, who was brought
to the floor by an inadequate stun, he repeatedly and
viciously jabbed her in the face with the electric tongs.
• He hit a pig so hard in the face with the shackle hook
that he drew blood.
• He left a semi-stunned pig on the ground, regaining
consciousness for 30 seconds, while he wiped his
face.
• He left an inadequately stunned pig on the floor
because he hurt his hand. Instead of ensuring she
was properly stunned and stuck, she was left to
regain consciousness while he left the room for two
minutes. When he returned, instead of then stunning
her, he sent an electric shock through her body.
• He stood over and mocked inadequately stunned
pigs. To one pig, he shouted: ‘You motherfucker,
you’re going to get cut.’
Improper Stunning
The method of stunning pigs at A&G Barber was
appalling and in contravention of WASK, which states:
‘No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used,
electrodes to stun any animal unless: the electrodes are
so placed that they span the brain, enabling the current
to pass through it; the strength and the duration of the
current used is such that the animal is immediately
rendered unconscious and remains so until it is dead.’ 62
Larger pigs at A&G Barber’s were given a brief head
stun (not sufficient to render them unconscious but
enough to take them to the floor), followed by an
electric shock to the body (if the electrodes do not span
the brain, the animal is not being stunned but is being
given, instead, a painful electric shock) and then
another head stun, after they had been shackled and
hoisted. This is in contravention of WASK.
We believe that the painful shock to the body is
intended to make shackling easier for the workers, as
the force of the current causes the animals to shoot
their legs out rigidly. The slaughterer also used a series
of body shocks to ‘bounce’ animals closer to the hoist
for his own convenience.
The smaller pigs were not given a body shock but
were still administered a first inadequate head ‘stun’,
followed by a second more complete stun once they
were already shackled and rising in the air. Again, this
is a breach of WASK.
It is also in contravention of WASK to shackle animals
(apart from poultry) before they are stunned. Almost every
pig at A&G Barber’s was shackled before being stunned.
A Revealing Postscript
After a particularly shocking series of stuns, where the
deafening noise the pigs made drew attention from
other workers, the next group of five pigs was stunned
in accordance with WASK. For this group alone, there
were no body stuns, and the workers refrained from
kicking and hitting the animals altogether. The animals
received one long head stun each.
We believe that the terrible screaming of the previous
group may have drawn the attention of the vet or
management, and the workers were suddenly on their
‘best behaviour’. As soon as this group was killed,
however, the workers returned to their old violent ways.
OUT OF BUSINESS
A&G Barber killed a quarter of all ‘cull sows’ in the UK.
These are the breeding pigs who are slaughtered when
– exhausted from repeated pregnancies – their
productivity declines. Their meat is considered lowgrade
and is, therefore, used in processed foods.
A&G Barber’s main buyer was a German sausage
manufacturer, which cancelled its contract when it saw
our footage, prompting the slaughterhouse to close. The
slaughterhouse operator and the slaughterman faced
prosecution but all charges were dropped by Defra in
September 2010. No credible explanation has been
offered for this decision.
KICKING, MOCKING AND
PAINFUL ELECTRIC SHOCKS
A&G BARBER
April 2010

32 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 33
CONCLUSION
The current regulatory system does not adequately protect animals in
slaughterhouses. The monitoring of workers, the enforcement of welfare laws,
and the provisions and penalties available under those laws are all – in our view
– inadequate. With budget cuts and an industry demanding less regulation, or
ultimately self-regulation, we fear that welfare of animals will worsen further.
Animals deserve maximum protection at the most vulnerable time of their lives.
But we believe that there is minimal chance that they will receive that protection,
given the current system for training and licensing slaughterers; the employment
of short-term, overseas vets; the lack of sanctions available to vets; the shuffling
of responsibility and blame between vets and slaughterhouse operators; and the
reported incidents of bullying in response to enforcement action being taken.
The introduction of CCTV is a simple but potentially extremely powerful
development that would alleviate the worst suffering of animals at slaughter.
It would encourage best practice, yield valuable footage for training and
retraining workers, and provide evidence for criminal prosecutions. However, it
is imperative that the footage is seen by individuals outside of the slaughterhouse
management. Our preference would be that it is made available on request to a
team of experts and stakeholders that includes senior staff at the Food Standards
Agency, major meat retailers and a representative from Animal Aid.
The Food Standards Agency’s vets should not be inhibited from doing their job.
They should be encouraged to step in when slaughterers are not acting in
accordance with the law, and supported by their management when they do so.
Currently, vets who are rigorous in their work risk being shifted elsewhere if the
slaughterhouse operator requests it. This cannot benefit animal welfare.
The current climate of cruelty within some slaughterhouses is a more complex
problem to remedy. However, independent training and regular retraining can
help in creating a more compassionate culture. But perhaps the most important
pressure that can be exerted from outside the slaughterhouse management team
would be to bar people with outstanding criminal convictions for violence, sexual
assault or animal cruelty from becoming slaughtermen.
The Middle English word shambles, meaning a slaughterhouse, was first
recorded in 1548. Almost 500 years later, the word, with its evolved definition
(‘a scene or condition of complete disorder or ruin’) tragically still has some
resonance with regard to modern slaughterhouses and their regulation.
Animal Aid urges you to support our campaign aims of CCTV in all
slaughterhouses; independent training and retraining for all slaughterers; and a
ban on individuals with outstanding criminal convictions for violence, sexual
assault or animal cruelty from becoming a slaughterer. We must all of us commit
to helping end the shambles of modern-day slaughterhouse regulation.

34 BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 35
REFERENCES
1 Steve McGrath, ‘Naïve call for removal of OVs’, 8 January 2010.
http://www.meatinfo.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/10036/
Naive_call_for_removal_of_OVs_.html
2 Email, 17 June 2010.
3 Joel Dudley, ‘Calls for mandatory CCTV in abattoirs after exposé’,
Veterinary Times, 21 September 2009.
4 BBC Week In, Week Out Special: Meat Hygiene, October 2008.
5 John Avizienius, ‘CCTV call for abattoir welfare’, Farmers
Guardian, 30 April 2010.
6 Steve McGrath, email to Animal Aid, 2 March 2010.
7 UNISON, MHS Members Survey, 2008.
http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/MHS_Members_Survey_2008.
pdf
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Farm Animal Welfare Council, ‘Report on the Welfare of Farmed
Animals at Slaughter or Killing, Part 1: Red Meat’, June 2003,
paragraph 270. http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/pb8347.pdf
11 Ibid.
12 Defra, ‘Animal Welfare: Guidance Note on the Licensing and
Training of Slaughtermen’.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/slaughter/
guidance.htm
13 Kenneth Clarke, Asier Pagazaurtundua, Peter Boyes,
‘Optimisation of MHS Resources in Slaughterhouses’, 25
September 2008. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/
optimisationmhsresources.pdf
14 Private conversations with industry insiders.
15 Evidence before Bedford Employment Tribunal, 30 June - 1 July
2010.
16 UNISON, MHS Members Survey, 2008.
http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/MHS_Members_Survey_2008.
pdf
17 Estimate provided to Animal Aid by industry insider.
18 Norman Bagley, Stephen Lomax, Peter Hewson, ‘Won’t you join
us’, Meat Trades Journal, 18 September 2009.
19 Steve McGrath, ‘MHS matters’, Meat Trades Journal, 18
September 2009.
20 Ed Bedington, ‘A sorry chapter in the book’, Meat Trades Journal,
4 September 2009.
21 UNISON, MHS Members Survey, 2008.
http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/MHS_Members_Survey_2008.
pdf
22 Bridgend County Borough Council, ‘Food Safety – Enforcement
Options’. http://www.bridgend.gov.uk/web/groups/public/
documents/services/022176.hcsp
23 Steve McGrath, letter to Animal Aid, 25 March 2010.
24 Ibid.
25 Steve McGrath, letter to Animal Aid, 16April 2010.
26 Tim Boswell MP, Hansard Written Answers, 17 December 1996.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/
vo961217/text/61217w24.htm
27 Email from Food Standards Agency Investigation Manager, 27
August 2010.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 Telephone conversation with FSA, 30 June 2010.
32 Farming Forum, ‘Humane Slaughter’.
http://farmingforum.co.uk/forums/showthread.phpt=16789
33 Farm Animal Welfare Council, ‘Report on the Welfare of Farmed
Animals at Slaughter or Killing, Part I: Red Meat, June 2003,
paragraph 206.
34 Defra, ‘FAWC Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at
Slaughter or Killing – Part 1: Red Meat Animals. Defra Response
to Recommendations’. http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/
farmanimal/welfare/onfarm/documents/final_response.pdf
35 Compassion in World Farming, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK
Slaughterhouses’, July 2001.
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/a/
animal_welfare_problems_in_uk_slaughterhouses_2001.pdf
36 Defra, ‘Farmed animal welfare: Slaughter’.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/slaughter/
37 Ibid.
38 UNISON, MHS Members Survey, 2008.
http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/MHS_Members_Survey_2008.
pdf
39 Joel Dudley, ‘Calls for mandatory CCTV in abattoirs after exposé’,
Veterinary Times, 21 September 2009.
40 Norman Bagley, Stephen Lomax, Peter Hewson, ‘Won’t you join
us’, Meat Trades Journal, 18 September 2009.
41 Evidence before Bedford Employment Tribunal, 30 June - 1 July
2010.
42 European Commission, ‘The new Regulation in 6 questions and
answers’. www.europa.eu. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/
welfare/slaughter/proposal_6_qanda_en.htm
43 Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995,
Schedule 5, Part II, paragraph 8.
44 BBC, Week In Week Out Special: Meat Hygiene, October 2008.
45 The Highland Council Trading Standards, ‘Animal Health and
Welfare: The slaughter of sheep for private consumption’,
Diagram 2.
http://www.highland.gov.uk/businessinformation/tradingstandards
/tsadviceforbusiness/ts-business-advice-animal-health-
detail.htmfrmClient=3BE674EC-1185-6B25-
FC2125BD4B67FBDA&frmItemID=249150&frmShared=1
46 Steve McGrath, letter to Mark Todd MP, 17 September 2009.
47 Temple Grandin, ‘Interpretation of the American Meat Institute
(AMI) Animal Handling Guidelines for auditing the welfare of
cattle, pigs, and sheep at slaughter plants’, June 2007.
http://www.grandin.com/interpreting.ami.guidelines.html
48 Steve McGrath, ‘Naïve call for removal of OVs’, 8 January 2010.
http://www.meatinfo.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/10036/
Naive_call_for_removal_of_OVs_.html
49 Email to Animal Aid from Food Standards Agency, 11 December
2009.
50 Ibid.
51 Email to Animal Aid supporter from the Soil Association, 12
March 2010.
52 Letter to Animal Aid from Steve McGrath, MHS Chief Executive,
25 March 2010.
53 Ibid.
54 Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995,
Schedule 3, Part III, paragraph 11.
55 Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995,
Schedule 3, Part III, paragraph 12.
56 Letter to Animal Aid from Steve McGrath, MHS Chief Executive,
25 March 2010.
57 Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995,
Schedule 4, paragraph 4.
58 Defra, ‘Animal Welfare: Guidance Note on the Licensing and
Training of Slaughtermen’,
http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/slaughter/
guidance.htm
59 Email to Animal Aid, 19 April 2010.
60 Defra, ‘Animal Welfare: Guidance Note on the Licensing and
Training of Slaughtermen’, www.defra.gov.uk
http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/slaughter/
guidance.htm
61 Email to Animal Aid, 17 June 2010.
62 Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995,
Schedule 5, Part II, paragraph 8.

Animal Aid
The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, Kent TN9 1AW
01732 364546 info@animalaid.org.uk www.animalaid.org.uk
Published by Animal Aid October 2010 Design by tmck.co.uk ISBN: 978-1-905327-25-6