A tense period has ended with revised RSPCA welfare standards for laying hens. Michael Barker gathers the industry reaction
After nearly 18 months of rancour, the egg industry breathed a collective sigh of relief in April when RSPCA Assured confirmed the final iteration of its new welfare standards for laying hens.
The initial announcement of the plans in November 2023 had invoked the ire of producers and their representative bodies, who claimed the industry had not been properly consulted amid major concerns over issues such as the requirement for natural daylight. That led to RSPCA Assured pausing the release of the new standards to allow time for further discussion and the opportunity to find practical solutions to the various challenges raised.
Industry bodies have now aligned to express satisfaction that the final outcome meets their approval, but rumblings of discontent still remain among the producer base over the way the whole affair was handled and the cost and practicality of meeting the new requirements.
What are the new standards?
The key amendments to the natural daylight standard involve the fact that either at the time of refurbishment cycle or 1 January 2035 – whichever is sooner – free-range members must provide 3% natural daylight to hens. Internal refurbishments must include the extension of pop holes or windows within the structural framework to meet the new requirement.
From 1 October this year, free-range members building a new house or conducting major structural refurbishments to an existing house must provide 3% natural daylight through windows. This is in addition to the natural daylight provided through pop holes. Similarly, from the same date any newly built barn houses must provide minimum 3% natural daylight.
Also from 1 October, all free-range hens must have access to natural daylight through their pop holes during housing orders, for example in the event of AI outbreaks. In order to achieve this, producers could put clear material such as acrylic over pop holes, rather than closing them, when birds need to be housed during the natural daylight period. If hens are placed before 1 October, members can wait until they depopulate and place the next flock to meet this requirement.
RSPCA noted that if 3% minimum natural daylight cannot be reasonably and realistically achieved through refurbishment by 2035, a five-year derogation will be available for members to apply for, providing they can commit to refurbishing to reaching the standard by 2040.
To compensate for the delay in publishing the standards, the general implementation date for the entirety of the laying hen standards will now be 11 July 2025.
What have industry bodies said?
The NFU stressed it has been engaging with RSPCA Assured to look at the plans since they were first announced, and welcomed the fact that a number of amendments and concessions were ultimately made. “Since publishing its revised standards for laying hens, RSPCA Assured has worked with the NFU and wider egg sector to reach a compromise, while still meeting its commitments to progress hen welfare,” said NFU Poultry Board chair James Mottershead. “We welcome the 16-month extension in the implementation of these new standards and the removal of the requirement for verandas for all free-range producers. We’re also pleased to see revised timelines and scope for the provision of natural daylight, increases to minimum pop hole base height requirements, and the removal of the need for gaps under fences on the range area.”
Gary Ford, head of strategy and producer engagement at the British Free Range Egg Producers Association (BFREPA), similarly welcomed the fact that the new standards have finally been confirmed. “BFREPA, along with other industry representatives, have worked diligently and determinedly over that period to convey the strength of feeling of our members and that we need a pragmatic and workable outcome,” he said. “The RSPCA rightly paused the implementation of the original standards to engage with industry to explore a way forward.
“We believe that the outcome of those discussions meets our aims whilst, at the same time, keeping the RSPCA as part of the free-range sector – a sector that stands for higher welfare which differentiates ourselves from other systems of production and imported product. At a time of great uncertainty and threats from overseas eggs, produced to different standards, this is crucially important to help secure our future and confidence in our sector.”
Both Nick Allen, chief executive of the British Egg Industry Council, and BFREPA chair James Baxter, insisted that their organisations had lobbied hard for their members’ views and said producers’ concerns had ultimately been taken on board. Allen described the final standards as “a sensible, pragmatic solution that is workable for producers”, while Baxter said BFREPA will engage with packers, processors, retailers and foodservice operators to “secure the market clarity required to support the investment these new standards mandate”.
What have producers said?
It seems that while there is unity at a senior industry body level, there remains an underlying sense of disquiet among the producer base, some of whom still harbour frustration about the way the process was carried out and misgivings about the practical implications on the ground.
One major egg supplier, who asked to remain anonymous, was keen to stress that the industry does need the RSPCA as consumers recognise the brand for its high welfare and standards, adding that the marque helps differentiate between assured eggs and imports with lower standards. “However, these new standards haven’t felt thought through, and there has been little consultation with farmers and no evidence to suggest what they’re asking for is beneficial to hens’ welfare,” the producer continues.
“It is a huge expense to the farmer and potentially could cause implications in lay. I think using the correct evidence and working together with the farmer would have gone down a lot better, rather than them making rules and just throwing them at the people that live and breathe this job. It’s been a very disheartening time for poultry farmers and the relationship between the RSPCA and farmers seems more against than together currently, which shouldn’t be the case.”
Another leading producer underlined the need to base farmed animal welfare on science and peer-reviewed evidence. “If we don’t, we may as well draw ideas out of a hat about what we think chicken life should look like in future,” he adds.
A third told Poultry Business that after a rocky road, consensus seems to have been reached in the end. “The way it was initially done would have caused anarchy if they hadn’t renegotiated,” he says. “The timeline now seems a lot more sensible and a bit more common sense has prevailed. No-one likes change, especially if it involves cost, but the industry is in a better place working with the RSPCA rather than working against them. They did get a bit overzealous with the initial standards that came out.”
The supplier says his business will have to adjust its pop holes and will take it from there. “On a worker’s side, it may be nice to have a bit of daylight in,” he says. “We’ll be trialling it to see how it goes, and if it’s better for the birds then we’ll support it. Obviously any new builds will have to take the changes into account, and we’ll just have to swallow the cost because I can’t imagine there will be egg packs with two tiers explaining the differences to consumers.”
The industry may be keen to draw a line and move on, but the whole episode – following on from other high-profile cases of assurance scheme operators butting heads with farmers – once again highlights the need for closer collaboration and better communication on all sides.