Summary of responses and government response
Published 2 April 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/amending-poultry-meat-marketing-regulations-in-england-and-scotland/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response
Executive summary
About the consultation and the analysis of responses
This document provides an overview of the responses and substantive points raised by respondents to the consultation on 2 proposed amendments to the Poultry Meat Marketing Standards Regulations in England and Scotland, which ran from 21 October 2024 to 16 December 2024.
Specifically, the purpose of the consultation was to gather views on proposed reforms of the Assimilated Poultry Meat Marketing Standards Regulation (No. 543/2008). First, to amend the regulation of the labelling of free-range poultry meat, enabling free-range birds to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures, for example due to avian influenza (AI) outbreaks. Second, to remove a certification requirement, which has never been used in practice, for imports of poultry meat with one or more optional indications (OIs).
The Assimilated Poultry Meat Marketing Standard Regulations (No. 543/2008) is a devolved matter; however, the consultation was run jointly with the Scottish Government.
When considering this summary analysis of responses, it is important to keep in mind that public consultations are not necessarily representative of the wider population, and in this case, of all poultry meat producers and consumers. This is because anyone can submit their views - individuals, organisations and businesses. Because of this likelihood for self-selection, the approach of this analysis has not only been to count how many respondents held a certain view but also to include qualitative analysis of the additional comments provided to consider the range of issues raised by respondents and the differences in views.
Overview of the analysis of responses
We received 14 responses to the consultation. The largest number of responses were from poultry meat producer-processors. There were also a number of responses from the wider poultry meat supply chain, sector trade bodies, consumer interest groups and individual members of the public. The 2 consultation proposals; first, to remove the 12-week maximum derogation period for the labelling of free-range poultry meat, and second, to remove the certification requirement for imports of poultry meat labelled with optional indications (OIs), were to different degrees, supported by most respondents.
What will we do next?
The UK and Scottish Governments would like to thank all those who took the time to engage with this consultation for their views and feedback. We have carefully considered all the responses and comments and have agreed the following next steps.
Given existing AI outbreaks, the priority in England and Scotland will be to proceed with legislation to remove the 12-week derogation timeframe, so that when free-range poultry access to open air runs is restricted due to mandatory housing measures, poultry meat can continue to be marketed as free-range for the duration of those restrictions that apply in either nation. We will aim to lay the SI ahead of the winter period 2025 to 2026.
If mandatory housing measures are introduced for free-range poultry, this will be widely publicised. We will also seek to encourage retailers and the wider poultry industry to ensure that point of sale notices are produced and displayed to inform the public and media of their introduction.
We will pass on to the Welsh Government the potential issues and impacts that have been raised in the responses to the consultation in the event of the 12-week derogation period not being removed across all the United Kingdom (UK).
Action on addressing the second proposal covered by the consultation, to remove the requirement for a certificate to accompany imports of poultry meat from the EU with optional indications (OIs), will be considered further on a longer timescale. Responses to this consultation will inform those considerations.
Introduction
About the consultation
On 21 October 2024 Defra and the Scottish Government issued a joint consultation on 2 proposals to amend assimilated Poultry Meat Marketing Standards Regulations in England and Scotland. First, to remove the 12-week derogation period, allowing free range poultry meat to be labelled as free-range for the full duration of a mandatory housing measure in England and or Scotland. Second, to remove the certification requirement for imports of poultry meat with optional indications (OIs).
The consultation closed at 23:59 on 16 December 2024.
Who responded to the consultation?
We received 14 responses to the consultation: 12 were submitted through the Citizen Space survey, and 2 were received via email. A quantitative or qualitative analysis of the responses to each of the consultation questions is summarised under each of the headings in this report.
We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond to the consultation. The breakdown of respondents is shown in Tables 1 and 2, below.
Geographical coverage
Table 1: The geographical coverage of the responses received. The respondents add up to more than 14 as some respondents selected more than one answer.
| Geographical coverage | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| England | 17 |
| Northern Ireland | 21 |
| Scotland | 6 |
| Wales | 14 |
| Republic of Ireland | 33 |
| UK | 10 |
| Other (please state where) | 6 |
Type of respondents
Table 2: Who the respondents represented. The respondents add up to more than 14 as some respondents selected more than one answer.
| Type of respondent | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Poultry meat producer | 7 |
| Food processor/manufacturer | 4 |
| Retailer | 0 |
| Poultry importer/exporter | 2 |
| Sector trade body or membership organisation | 3 |
| Consumer interest organisation | 0 |
| Individual or member of the public | 2 |
| Other | 2 |
Responses to questions
Views on amending the 12-week derogation period for free-range poultry meat in England & Scotland
Citizen Space responses to the closed question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to remove the 12-week derogation period? This would allow poultry meat from birds that are subject to a housing measure to be labelled as ‘free range’ throughout the duration of any measure.
| Response | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 11 | 79% |
| Disagree | 3 | 21% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 0 | 0% |
Most respondents, 11 (79%) of the 14, agreed with the proposal to remove the maximum 12-week derogation period for the labelling of free-range poultry meat during housing measures. A few, 3 (21%) out of the 14 respondents, were not supportive of the proposal.
Of the 2 responses from Scotland, one respondent agreed with the proposal, whilst the other did not support it.
Qualitative analysis of Citizen Space responses to the open question: What comments do you have on this proposed legislative change if any?
There was a range of comments provided by respondents in favour of the proposal. Predominantly, respondents shared the view the proposed amendment will prevent free-range poultry producers being penalised for complying with mandatory housing measures. Many in favour of the proposal commented poultry meat producers should not be discouraged from free-range production methods, whilst several respondents suggested housing measures are implemented to protect poultry welfare.
Other views raised relate to the proposed change potentially reducing financial losses for producers, as removing the existing derogation timeframe would allow them to maintain the premium they receive for their free-range product for the duration of any mandatory housing order. Additionally, some believe that the current 12-week derogation has not impacted consumer confidence in the free-range brand. Several suggested the proposed change will protect consumers and maintain labelling transparency, whilst occasionally respondents in favour of the proposal cited the need for the faster introduction of mandatory housing measures resulting in improved disease control. A small number of respondents in favour referred to a wish to maintain alignment with the EU who have tabled similar proposals to amend their equivalent regulations. A small number of respondents in favour cited improved disease control due to faster introduction of housing measures if the existing 12-week derogation period is removed.
Most of those who disagreed with the proposal commented that the removal of the 12-week derogation period is equivalent to misleading labelling and advertising. Similarly, a small number stated changes could lead to decreased consumer trust and confidence in the free-range brand.
Citizen Space responses to the closed question: To what extent do you believe this proposed amendment to the Poultry Meat Marketing Regulations could confuse or mislead consumers in any way?
Note: The percentage total does not equal 100% due to rounding format.
| Response | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| To a large extent | 3 | 21% |
| To some extent | 1 | 7% |
| To a small extent | 3 | 21% |
| Not at all | 7 | 50% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
Most respondents, 7 of the 14 (50%), one of which was a Scottish respondent, did not think that the proposal would confuse consumers at all, whilst 3 of the 14 (21%) (one of which was a Scottish respondent) said the proposal could to a large extent confuse consumers.
Three of the 14 (21%) respondents said the proposal could confuse consumers to a small extent, none of which were Scottish respondents, whilst one respondent (7%) believed this could to some extent lead to confusion among consumers.
Qualitative analysis of comments provided to the question: To what extent do you believe this proposed amendment to the Poultry Meat Marketing Regulations could confuse or mislead consumers in any way?
Comments made by respondents who responded ‘not at all’ to the previous question argued that current 12-week derogation period has had little impact on consumer confidence in free-range labelling, therefore removal of the current derogation time is likely to have a low impact. Several respondents also highlighted that the current derogation period does not affect the majority of flocks in the free-range production systems. Some respondents stated consumers should view the changes as a benefit to poultry welfare, as well as highlighting the welfare standards for housed free-range birds are superior to standard broiler indoor-reared production systems. Additional comments included consumers wish to support farmers during disease outbreaks.
Common themes among respondents who stated the proposal would ‘to a small extent’ confuse or mislead consumers in any way include suggesting consumers are likely to be unaware of the current derogation period and therefore proposed changes will have minimal impact.
Respondents who agreed the changes may ‘to some extent’ confuse or mislead consumers highlighted that consumers trust and value accurate labelling to reflect the poultry welfare standards of each production method. Therefore, the proposed changes might mislead consumers.
Those respondents who felt the proposed changes to the derogation period could ‘to a large extent’ confuse or mislead consumers highlighted the extent to which consumers currently rely on and trust welfare standards of the free-range production system.
Qualitative analysis of Citizen Space responses to the open question: If you think there is a risk of confusion, do you have any suggestions for how the risk of confusion could be mitigated?
Of those who did provide a comment for this question, respondents made a range of suggestions on how any risk of potential consumer confusion could be reduced. Many suggested increased signage and labelling on retail shelves, or alternative or additional labelling on packaging to reflect modification to free-range production systems. Some suggestions focused on increasing government communications to raise public awareness, over stickering packaging to inform consumers of housing measures, or a total prohibition of free-range labelling when mandatory housing measures are in effect to maximise labelling transparency or provision of improved husbandry for poultry subjected to mandatory housing.
Qualitative analysis of Citizen Space responses to the open question: If the removal of the 12-week labelling derogation is not adopted within legislation in all of the GB nations (England, Scotland, Wales) what would be the implications for you, if any, and for the poultry meat industry more broadly?
Most respondents provided comments to this question. There were repeated concerns regarding the potential negative impacts in the event of the removal of the 12-week labelling derogation period not being adopted across all GB nations. Most respondents felt that this would result in a risk of regulatory divergence within the domestic market, or a belief that any divergence across the GB nations would result in free range production becoming commercially unviable, leading to producers being unwilling to stay in the industry.
Many respondents referenced either increased complexity, confusion, and regulatory burden to the supply chain, or disruption to the internal market and reduction in supply chain efficiency. There was a belief that consumers could be misled by labelling if labels differed between GB nations, resulting in reduced trust in the free-range label.
A small number of respondents referenced the risk of reduced consumer choice and poultry meat shortage as a consequence of legislation not being amended across all of GB, along with a belief this would lead to a divergence of animal welfare standards across GB nations.
Views on removing the requirement for imported poultry meat with optional indications to be accompanied by a specific certificate in England and Scotland
Citizen Space responses to the closed question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to remove the requirement for imported poultry meat with optional indications to be accompanied by a specific certificate attesting to compliance with relevant legislative requirements?
| Response | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 8 | 57% |
| Disagree | 4 | 29% |
| Don’t know | 2 | 14% |
Most respondents, 8 of the 14 (57%) agreed with the proposal for the removal of the requirement for imported poultry meat with optional indications to be accompanied by a specific certificate attesting to compliance with relevant legislative requirements. Four respondents out of the 14 (29%) were not supportive of the proposal, whilst 2 respondents (14%) did not know if they agreed or disagreed with the proposal.
Of the 2 responses from Scotland, one agreed with the proposal (50%), whilst one (50%) did not support it.
Qualitative analysis of Citizen Space responses to the open question: If you disagree, please give your reasons and the benefits you see in retaining the requirement for a certificate and why they outweigh the disbenefits set out in this consultation.
Of the 4 respondents who disagreed with the proposal suggested, a few felt the removal of official certification would reduce consumer protection and labelling transparency, whist some perceived the proposed removal might increase the volume of low welfare imports of poultry meat not adhering to domestic standards. Additionally, a small number of respondents also suggested that removal of certification requirement would result in a lack of a level playing field between third countries and domestic producers, who would have to comply with domestic regulations with no way of certifying that third country producers are producing poultry meat to an equivalent standard. One additional comment felt this would increase the opportunity for food fraud or mislabelling.
Summary of email responses
Two responses to the consultation were received via email. Where possible, these have been aligned with the Citizen Space responses. Of the 2 respondents one agreed and the other disagreed with the proposal to remove the 12-week derogation. For the proposal to remove the requirement for imports of poultry meat from the EU to be accompanied by an optional indications certificate, one respondent disagreed, and the other respondent selected the ‘don’t know’ option.
Next steps
Given the ongoing threat avian influenza poses to the free-range poultry meat industry, both Defra and Scottish Government will proceed to amend the PMMR legislation in their respective nations to remove the 12-week derogation period for the marketing of free-range poultry meat during a mandatory housing measure. This will allow poultry meat to be labelled and marketed as free-range for the duration of any restrictions that apply in either England or Scotland. We will aim to lay the SI ahead of the winter period of 2025 to 2026.
We recognise that a number of respondents, including some stakeholder groups, have concerns that the removal of the 12-week derogation period may lead to consumer confusion and reduced confidence in the free-range poultry meat industry.
If housing measures are introduced, notices will be issued in the media to inform the public of their introduction. In the event of extended housing measures, we will also encourage the poultry meat industry and retailers to communicate this to their customers.
A significant number of respondents to this consultation had commercial or personal interest across several UK nations. Predominantly these responses stated removal of the 12-week maximum derogation period in England and Scotland, but not in Wales, could have a significant negative impact on their businesses. We will pass on to the Welsh Government the potential issues and impacts that have been raised in the responses to the consultation in respect of the 12-week derogation period not being removed across all the UK.
Under the terms of the Windsor Framework, a similar change to equivalent EU legislation will, when adopted, apply in Northern Ireland. We will work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure we have optimal alignment to enable poultry meat movement between GB and NI to continue as usual.
Implementation of the second proposal, to remove a certification requirement for imported poultry meat with one or more optional indications (OIs), will be considered further on a longer timescale. This provision has never been implemented in the UK as imports of OI poultry meat have only been received from the EU and the UK has formally exempted EU imports from this requirement until February 2027.