Revealed: the dirty secret of the UKs

poultry industry
Wednesday 23 July 2014
Two-thirds of fresh retail chicken in UK contaminated with camylo!acter
"uardian findin#s romt in$esti#ations at three ma%or suermarkets
"o$ernment shel$es lans to name and shame suliers
&ood oisonin# scandal' how chicken sreads camylo!acter
Object1 l
Three of the UK(s leadin# suermarkets ha$e launched emer#ency in$esti#ations into their
chicken sulies after a "uardian in$esti#ation unco$ered a catalo#ue of alle#ed hy#iene
failin#s in the oultry industry)
Underco$er foota#e* hoto#rahic e$idence and information from whistle!lowers has re$ealed
how strict industry hy#iene standards to re$ent the contamination of chicken with the
otentially deadly camylo!acter !u# can !e flouted on the factory floor and on farms)
+ecific incidents identified in the last month include a factory floor flooded with chickens #uts
in which the !acteria can flourish* carcasses comin# into contact with workers( !oots then
returned to the roduction line and other oor ractices in$ol$in# oints in the roduction chain
that increase the risk of its sread)
The e$idence romted Tesco* +ains!ury(s and ,arks -am. +encer to launch emer#ency
in$esti#ations into their chicken sources o$er the last week)
The concern centres on the !acteria camylo!acter* which at the last count was resent in two-
thirds of /ritish fresh chicken sold in the UK) 0lthou#h the !u# is killed !y thorou#h cookin#*
around 210*000 eole in the UK are currently made ill each year !y it and 100 eole are
thou#ht to die) 2ontamination rates are known to ha$e increased in the ast decade)
The &ood +tandards 0#ency 3&+04* howe$er* decided on Wednesday to shel$e a romise to
name and shame suermarkets and rocessors for their camylo!acter rates) The clim!down
comes after 5ush-!ack6 from industry and inter$entions from #o$ernment deartments)
7ne source said they had !een told 8um!er 10 had raised concerns a!out the communication
of the results* fearin# that they could ro$oke a food scare similar to that tri##ered when the
former 2onser$ati$e minister 9dwina 2urry warned that most of /ritish e##s were
contaminated with salmonella in 1:11)
The "uardian(s fi$e-month in$esti#ation unco$ered a series of alle#ed hy#iene failin#s in the
chicken industry)
The alle#ations ha$e !een made a#ainst two of the lar#est UK oultry rocessors* 2 +isters
&ood "rou and &accenda) They relate to two factories owned !y 2 +isters that suly fresh
chicken and chicken for ready meals to Tesco* 0sda* +ains!ury(s* 0ldi* ,-am.+* K&2 and to
farms and an a!attoir owned !y &accenda* which sulies 0sda and 8ando(s)
The alle#ations are that'
2hickens which fall on to the floor ha$e reeatedly !een ut !ack on to the roduction line at
two 2 +isters sites) They comany denies this e$er haens and says all chicken from the floor
is correctly disosed of as waste)
/reakdowns led to hi#h-risk material ; feathers* #uts and offal ; ilin# u for hours on
searate occasions while roduction continued at a 2 +isters factory in Wales) The comany
says they did not sto the line !ecause they had to consider the welfare of chickens waitin# in
crates to !e killed)
0nother !reakdown led to the water in scald tanks at the same site not !ein# cleaned for three
days* so that around 2<0*000 !irds assed throu#h dirty water after slau#hter) The comany
says this was an isolated incident that lasted only one day* !acteria counts were checked and
were acceta!le)
0ccordin# to a whistle!lower chicken catcher* !iosecurity rules to sto the sread of
camylo!acter in chicken sheds at &accenda were re#ularly i#nored !y workers when he was
emloyed there) &accenda says this is not true and it has in$ested hea$ily in a hi#hly trained
and moti$ated workforce)
2amylo!acter contamination has la#ued the oultry industry for more than a decade and has
#ot worse in that time)
The &+0 ordered new tests for camylo!acter amid worries that there had !een no
imro$ements in rates) =esults were due in June* and as recently as ,arch the &+0(s chief
e>ecuti$e* 2atherine /rown* u!licly $owed to ress ahead with 5steely determination6 desite
ush-!ack from industry)
7n Wednesday* howe$er* /rown asked the &+0 !oard to re$erse the re$ious decision to
u!lish camylo!acter results for named suermarkets and rocessors e$ery ?uarter) The !oard
heard that there were now concerns* not raised re$iously* that the samle si@e for one ?uarter(s
data was insufficiently lar#e to !e statistically ro!ust)
/rown insisted that the threat of e>osin# camylo!acter results had made suermarkets and
chicken rocessors take notice of the &+0(s concerns a!out contamination for the first time* !ut
said the industry had not so far made the chan#es in roduction needed to reduce
camylo!acter on any scale)
5Time is uon us for e$eryone to work out how they are #oin# to stum u money to make the
inter$entions on Athe roductionB line*6 she told the meetin#)
The ei#ht mem!ers of the !oard were di$ided on the roosals* lea$in# the chairman and
former resident of the 8ational &armers( Union* Tim /ennett* to use his castin# $ote to ?uash
the lans to name comanies for the moment) They are lookin# at searate roosals to
ur#ently increase the testin# of retail chicken)
9rik ,illstone* a food safety rofessor at +usse> Uni$ersity* condemned the !oard(s decision)
5Cn the last few years the &ood +tandards 0#ency has !een under a #reat deal of ressure from
the #o$ernment and the food industry to ensure that it only ro$ides reassurin# messa#es* and
esecially that it should say nothin# that could ro$oke any Dfood scares(*6 he said) 5/ut the
&+0 was created to rotect consumers* not to rotect the food industry* or to #i$e ministers a
?uiet time) This decision shows that its indeendence is entirely illusory)6
The camylo!acter story
2amy
lo!acter is the most common form of food oisonin# in the UK) Ehoto#rah' 0lamy
0lthou#h the u!lic are mostly unaware of it* the scale of camylo!acter contamination and the
num!er of eole it makes ill each year ha$e !een well-known amon# industry !osses* retail
directors and #o$ernment officials for more than a decade) The annual cost to the economy is a
sta##erin# F:00m* makin# a si#nificant dent in the F3)3!n the oultry industry claims to
contri!ute to /ritain(s "GE) U to 10H of camylo!acter infections are attri!uta!le to
contaminated oultry)
The oints in the chicken roduction chain at which contamination occurs are clearly
understood* !ut durin# the ast decade the icture has #ot worse) Cn 2003 the &+0 reorted that
<IH of chicken on sale was infected) /y 2001 that had increased to I<H)
The decision o$er whether to name and shame the industry is a $e>ed one) The stakes are hi#h
; consumers are likely to shun oultry in suermarkets with the worst scores) 2leanin# u
would re?uire money* e>erts say* and oultry firms and retailers are locked in to an economic
structure of their own makin# in their race to roduce the cheaest ossi!le chicken)
Cn the factory
The "uardian has in$esti#ated the weak links in the chicken chain* #atherin# material from
underco$er film* hoto#rahic e$idence and whistle!lowers)
Just last month ; on a not untyical day* accordin# to sources ; at a $ast chicken a!attoir in
0n#lesey owned !y the UK(s lar#est oultry comany* 2 +isters &ood "rou* somethin# of the
nature of the ro!lem is re$ealed) Tesco* ,-am.+ and 0sda are amon# the customers for
chicken for ready meals sulied from this site)
The um system has !roken down a#ain* and the channel that is suosed to drain away the
innards from the tens of thousands of chickens killed and rocessed each day for suermarket
orders has !een !locked for a rolon#ed eriod) "uts and offal e>tracted durin# a rocess
called e$isceration are ilin# u to form a #ory hea of hi#h-risk material) The floor around is
wet with !lood) 2amylo!acter is carried in the #uts and faeces of chickens and e$isceration is
one of the key oints in the rocessin# chain at which contamination occurs)
5That(s un!elie$a!le* it %ust shouldn(t !e allowed to haen*6 said =on +ellman* the director
#eneral of 9W&2* which reresents meat insectors across the 9U* when we showed him
ictures the "uardian had o!tained of the incident that had !een descri!ed to us) +ellman was
a oultry insector for 12 years)
5They should sto the line and clean u) /ut that costs money* and the rocess is #enerally run
so hard and fast* if a line is down too lon# they don(t ha$e enou#h hours in the day to fulfil
their suermarket orders) 0nd if they don(t meet orders* they lose the contract)6
Cn +ellman(s $iew* the dri$in# down of rices is a key art of the ro!lem) 5The suermarkets
ha$e #ot to ha$e some resonsi!ility !ecause they ush harder and harder on rice) There is
this ercetion that suermarkets somehow kee the industry honest and hy#ienic* !ut what
we($e seen is that it doesn(t work*6 he said)
,odern oultry rocessin# is a roduction line !usiness) /irds are hun# uside down on a
mo$in# con$eyor !elt of shackles at the !e#innin# of the a!attoir* and in a sort of food
&ordism* carried seamlessly throu#h e$ery sta#e from slau#hter to washin#* chillin#* cuttin#
and ackin# at hi#h seeds) Jar#e a!attoirs tyically run lines at a rate of 11< to 1:< !irds a
minute* or nearly 12*000 an hour)
7n the e$isceration line* #uts are scooed out !y automated metal fists) Today(s chickens are
!red to fatten fast to a standard 4l! 31)1k#4 si@e in si> weeks* !ut as units of roduction they are
not as o!li#in#ly uniform as car arts) Cf the machine is not ad%usted to different cros of !irds
as they come throu#h* the metal fist can !urst the #uts* and then any camylo!acter is
automatically sread to !ird after !ird) 0d%ustin# machinery or stoin# the line to clean u
takes time and costs money)
7n a searate occasion last month in the same factory* workers witnessed another !reakdown)
Workers say these are reeated e$ents) This time it was the um feedin# the flume of water
that is suosed to carry feathers away from the luckin# machines)
The defeatherin# machines are another hi#h-risk oint for camylo!acter infection) +lau#htered
!irds ass first throu#h a scald tank of warm water to loosen the feathers and then throu#h a
series of whirrin# ru!!er fin#ers which ull the feathers out) The feathers themsel$es can !e
contaminated with faeces* the fin#ers ut ressure on the !irds and can s?uee@e out more faecal
matter* and the fin#ers can !ecome imre#nated with !acteria)
Cn the steamy atmoshere* camylo!acter from the feathers can also !ecome air!orne)
=emo$in# the feathers romtly throu#h the drains is a $ital art of food safety* !ut the
e$idence ro$ided to us su##ests they had iled u for hours as roduction was allowed to
continue at the 0n#lesey site)
0cross the industry* the water in the scald tank is #enerally only chan#ed once a day* so that !y
the end of a shift it can !ecome a sou of chicken faeces and dirt) This used to !e a hi#h-risk
oint* !ut the water is now ket hot enou#h to kill !acteria) The foam that forms on the to*
howe$er* is cooler and !acteria can sur$i$e here* accordin# to +ellman* with each !ird assin#
throu#h it as it #oes on its way)
+cald
tanks on the left with chicken de!ris on the floor) Ehoto#rah' "uardian
0t the 0n#lesey lant* sources told us of an occasion last month when there was another
!reakdown) They said the scald tank was left uncleaned for two ni#hts* so that three days of
fresh !irds ; more than 2<0*000 chickens ; were rocessed throu#h the same dirty water)
7ur sources told us that mana#ers were made aware of these different !reakdowns* !ut said the
lines must !e ket runnin# !ecause they had to meet tar#ets)
We asked 2 +isters why the lines had not !een stoed for cleanin# when these incidents
occurred) The comany told us that it and the $ets had to make difficult decisions when there
were !reakdowns in the e$isceration* defeatherin# and scald tank arts of the line) These
re?uired wei#hin# u contamination risk with the welfare of chickens waitin# in crates to !e
slau#htered)
The comany denied that the scald tank had #one uncleaned o$er three days of roduction*
sayin# it was an isolated incident which lasted only a day* and that it had tested for !acteria
counts at the time and found they were acceta!le)
2 +isters !ou#ht the 0n#lesey factory last year when it ac?uired the UK oerations of the Gutch
oultry #rou Kion) Gesite !ein# one of the lar#est meat rocessors in 9uroe* Kion had
decided to lea$e the UK market alto#ether after years of e>tremely tou#h tradin# conditions)
The industry runs on slim mar#ins from the retailers and main fast food comanies) ,akin# a
rofit deends on !ein# a!le to rocess $ery lar#e $olumes) That has dri$en not %ust the seed
of roduction !ut also the concentration of ownershi) Just four comanies account for most of
the UK market)
The alle#ed reeated !reakdown of #ood hy#iene at 0n#lesey aears dramatic* !ut our
in$esti#ation has found ro!lems elsewhere that hel account for the rate of camylo!acter on
our chicken)
We had !een told !y insider sources in se$eral different factories that one reason camylo!acter
rates remain stu!!ornly hi#h was that across the industry there was a #a !etween comanies(
olicies on #ood hy#iene and auditin# systems to check for it* and the reality on the factory
floor durin# lon# shifts and intense roduction)
Object2
7ur reorter went underco$er to look for a %o! in a chicken factory to find out what it was
really like) Le found one at another 2 +isters oultry factory in +cunthore) This site sulies
Tesco* +ains!ury(s* K&2 and 0ldi amon# others)
Le witnessed carcasses with traces of faecal contamination that had made it throu#h to ackin#
for sale) Cnsider sources with e>ertise in food safety ha$e told us this is common across the
industry and is e$en una$oida!le #i$en the way chicken is rocessed) 2 +isters said this
alle#ation did not 5reflect reality6 and that the comany had strict controls on carcass
contamination which would remo$e them from the food chain)
Workers are trained to !in any meat that falls on the floor* where it could !e contaminated* !ut
our reorter saw staff ick it u and recycle it in to the roduction line on reeated occasions
when rearin# orders)
Cn one eisode of almost #rotes?ue comedy* a carcass that had fallen on the floor was run o$er
!y a worker ushin# a trolley of crates* !efore our reorter saw it e$entually !ein# scooed u
and lo!!ed !ack into roduction !y a suer$isor who then wies their hands on their coat rather
than washin# them) We do not know where the chicken ended u) Le was told it was #oin# to
/irmin#ham* where the comany has another lant that de!ones chickens and rocesses them)
Jamie Eritchard worked as a meat cutter at 2 +isters(s 0n#lesey site last year !efore lea$in# to
%oin another meat comany) Le says durin# his time there he too saw workers ickin# chickens
off the floor and uttin# them !ack in to roduction instead of throwin# them into the waste
!ins) When auditors were resent* he said* this ne$er haened and line seeds were slowed
down)
5Cf there(d !e a site audit e$erythin# would !e a!solutely erfect* the line would !e runnin# at
the correct seed) The carcasses would !e clean* there(d !e no faeces inside* !ut on the days
when there wasn(t an audit* thin#s would ile u and dro on the floor) Cf there was a $isitor*
you(d !e told to ut them in the !in Dfor not fit for human consumtion() /ut on days when
there wasn(t an audit* !asically* %ust wie it down and ut it !ack on the line)6
=e$iewin# foota#e of the incidents at +cunthore for us* +ellman said they were unacceta!le)
Those incidents* he said* su##ests a culture in the factory that does not care that it is roducin#
human food)
2 +isters denied this could ha$e haened) The comany said it had strin#ent rocedures for
handlin# meat that falls on the floor* and only a team of trained waste oerati$es is authorised
to handle it so that it ne$er #oes for human consumtion) Cn a statement* the comany said'
5The alle#ations a!out our rocessin# sites at +cunthore and Jlan#efni A0n#leseyB are untrue*
misleadin# and inaccurate) /oth sites ha$e /ritish =etail 2onsortium D0( #rade &ood +tandards
certifications* !ased on a num!er of announced and unannounced $isits) Cn addition* we and our
customers carry out a num!er of audits of our oerations) 8one of these audits ha$e unco$ered
any concerns a!out our hy#iene standards or food safety)
57ur +cunthore site has already surassed the &+0(s 2013 tar#ets to reduce camylo!acter
le$els* and continues to work towards the 201< tar#et) We Aha$e !eenB raised as sector-leadin#
!y the &+0 )6
We asked the comany what its camylo!acter results were) Ct said that I1H of the +cunthore
chickens in the &+0 sur$ey tested ositi$e for camylo!acter) Ct added that 3MH were
contaminated in the middle ran#e of !acteria le$els and 2H were hea$ily contaminated) 0cross
the comany* 1:H of 2 +isters chickens were hea$ily contaminated* its director of
communications* 8ick ,urray* told us)
7n the farm
Cntensi
$e oultry farms tyically #i$e each !ird less floor sace than the si@e of an 04 sheet of aer) Ehoto#rah' "etty
Cma#esN&1online =&
The trou!le with camylo!acter starts e$en earlier in the chain) 7ne of the key risk oints is on
the farm)
+tandard chickens are raised in lar#e-scale industrial farms where as many as 40*000 !irds may
!e reared at a time in 5cros6 that take around 42 days to reach slau#hter wei#ht) To ma>imise
return on caital in$ested in floor sace* it is common ractice to o$erstock sheds with chicks
at the !e#innin# of the cycle and then send in teams of catchers to thin out some of the !irds so
that the rest of the chickens ha$e %ust enou#h room to meet re#ulations on stockin# densities as
they #row to full slau#hter wei#ht) 9ach !ird has less floor sace than the si@e of an 04sheet of
aer)
Object3
&armers tyically o$erstock their sheds with chicks and thin some out after a few weeks) +ource' li!rary foota#e
When teams of chicken catchers #o from farm to farm and enter the sheds* there is a hi#h risk
of cross contamination and flocks !ein# colonised with camylo!acter)
+trict rules on !iosecurity are suosed to reduce the risk* and e>tra measures ha$e !een
introduced in the last coule of years) /y the end of 2013* howe$er* they had had little imact*
accordin# to an &+0 reort) Ct susected from research that they were not !ein# followed
consistently !y roducers)
Eaul +adler was emloyed !y &accenda* another of the UK(s lar#est oultry suliers whose
customers include 0sda and 8ando(s) +adler worked there as a chicken catcher for almost 1<
years until he left last year)
+adler claims that suosedly strict rocesses were flawed and fre?uently flouted)
50s far as !iosecurity A#oesB* they used to ay li ser$ice* the emhasis A!ein#B on tryin# to
demonstrate that they comlied with the le#islation or #ood ractice rather then actually
followin# it) &or e>amle* they would ha$e disinfectant !aths outside each shed* which in
rincile* each catcher would di their !oots in !efore #oin# from one shed to another) The
ro!lem was that !aths were there and no one really used them)6
The "uardian has o!tained internal &accenda documents hi#hli#htin# how the suly of !irds
can e>ceed caacity at the a!attoir and how some end u stored in crates o$erni#ht) The &+0
has identified stress durin# transort in crates as a dan#er oint for camylo!acter sread
!ecause the !irds defecate more* sreadin# the !acteria)
Object4
Ji$e chickens are tyically transorted in crates) +ource' "uardian
&accenda says it ne$er lans to do this !ut has left !irds o$erni#ht on 11 occasions this year
!ecause of mechanical ro!lems) The chickens were* howe$er* slau#htered within the
re#ulation 12-hour ma>imum* the firm said)
&accenda told us that the alle#ations a!out !iosecurity lases were untrue and that it had
in$ested hea$ily in #ood wa#es and trainin# to make sure staff were hi#hly moti$ated to follow
the rules) Ct added that it was layin# a leadin# role in tacklin# camylo!acter* workin# closely
with the &+0* and had in$ested more than F1m in ro%ects to reduce it)
We asked &accenda for its &+0 camylo!acter results* !ut it said it had not yet !een #i$en
them) The suermarkets and restaurant #rous told us that they take the su!%ect of
camylo!acter and hy#iene $ery seriously* and that they would in$esti#ate our findin#s)
0s recently as ,arch* the &+0 !oard said camylo!acter was its to riority) Ct was adamant
then that consumers had the ri#ht to know* as test results came in* which suermarkets and
rocessors had the worst le$els of contamination* so that they could $ote with their feet and
sho elsewhere) The &+0(s director of olicy* +te$e Wearne* told us that namin# and shamin#
was necessary to make the industry take the issue and the a#ency seriously)
We asked him why the a#ency was lettin# the industry off the hook now)
57ther #o$ernment deartments ha$e reflected to us concerns which are the same as those
we($e heard directly form retailers and roducers) We(re not lettin# the industry off the hook)
We(ll u!lish the results of the retail sur$ey with all the names* when we($e comleted it ne>t
summer) Cf we u!lish the results iecemeal* other eole mi#ht draw unwarranted conclusions
from artial data and we don(t want consumer !ein# misled or confused)6
The #o$ernment knows which suermarkets( oultry is most contaminated* !ut for now we
remain in the dark* desite the fact that two out of e$ery three chickens we !uy could still make
us ill)
0dditonal reortin# !y 2aroline Ga$ies
=ead the full resonses of the oultry rocessors and retailers to our