Animal By-Products Compliance · Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009
Your animal by-products management, measured against Regulation 1069/2009 and turned into a costed action plan.
10 themes, a 5-level scale. And the action that moves each level to the next.
The framework’s 10 themes, already written from L1 to L5. One company, one business unit, or 300 at once.
Animal By-Products Compliance · Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009
10 themes, 5-level scale.
Nordhavn Industries
53 / 100
They measure their maturity with Datamensio
An example
This could be your situation.
Take one company as an example: three sites, three spreadsheets, no shared answer.
Nobody can consolidate.
Nordhavn Industries, 2,400 people in Hamburg, Lyon and Porto. A client asks where the group stands. Each site answers in its own spreadsheet, with its own scales.
Three weeks, a single base.
One Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, supplemented by Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 assessment launched across all three sites at once, from the managers’ interview notes. The framework was already written, its 10 themes and levels L1 to L5 too.
Two costs avoided before being committed.
A score of 53 out of 100, with the gap concentrated on three themes. The AI companion spotted that two actions duplicated those of another audit. The committee report took one sentence to request.
What it saved them
- 3sites measured on the same base, instead of three questionnaires to reconcile
- 2duplicate actions caught before the spend
- 1committee report, with no manual rework
These figures are an example. They could be yours.
The standard imposes processes. Datamensio says where you stand.
01
The framework is already written
Themes, questions and levels L1 to L5, all written. You do not start from an empty spreadsheet.
02
The score lands the same day
Online, by self-assessment link or in interview. Theme by theme, comparable over time.
03
The gap becomes a costed plan
Every step up carries its action. The AI prioritises on expected effect, not on the order of the standard.
04
Progress can be demonstrated
Campaign after campaign, against your target and against your own past. That is what your board asks for.
The maturity scale
One level, the next, and the action that links the two.
It is this mechanism (one level, a higher level, and the action linking the two) that turns a finding into a trajectory.
Is animal by-product categorisation defined and reliably applied across all flows?
- N1
No written rule. Materials are directed to a route by habit, with no documented reference to categories 1, 2 and 3.
- N2
A categorisation rule exists in a procedure, but it does not cover all flows and doubtful cases are settled on an ad hoc basis.
- N3
Each flow is assigned to a category in an up to date inventory. The rule is displayed at the relevant workstations and generally applied, with only occasional gaps.
- N4
Categorisation is checked by sampling outputs, decisions on doubtful cases are logged and validated by an identified function, mixing incidents trigger a recorded reclassification.
- N5
The flow inventory is reviewed on every process, raw material or contractor change, with documented tracking of revisions and lessons learnt from gaps identified.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Draw up the complete inventory of by-product flows per workshop, assign the category and authorised route to each, display the rule at the relevant collection point and check its application at the monthly quality review.
« With Datamensio, we meet our objectives far more efficiently. The ERDF inspection services and our supervising ministry particularly appreciated an approach that gives them reliable data. »
Director, CCI 94CCI Île-de-France
« We believe this is the most suitable solution to scale our transformation project and measure impact according to our needs. »
Maja SucekChief Operating Officer, Interreg Danube
Rarely on its own
Frameworks combine. Put several together to cover your business, or have the AI write yours.
Take your first measurement
What this framework covers
Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 governs everything that comes out of an animal without entering the human food chain: carcasses and parts of carcasses, slaughter by-products, products withdrawn from the market, manure, blood, hides and fats. It classifies these materials into three categories according to risk level, requires traceability through commercial documents or health certificates, requires registration or approval of establishments, and strictly limits authorised uses and disposal methods. Its implementing regulation, (EU) No 142/2011, sets out processing methods, treatment parameters and document templates.
The difficulty is not knowing the text, it is holding the line on the ground, across dispersed and often outsourced flows. Who decides the category when a material is doubtful, the line operator or the quality department? Are the commercial documents accompanying each collection reconciled against the quantities actually removed, or filed without check? Do all collection, processing and disposal contractors hold an approval that precisely covers the category entrusted to them, and is that approval verified as current? Unintentional mixing of categories is the most frequent non-conformity, and the hardest to detect after the fact.
Two points of context deserve attention. First, valorisation: category 3 processed animal proteins have seen their uses widened in animal feed, notably for aquaculture, pigs and poultry, subject to very strict conditions on segregating the streams. Second, the frequent confusion between the status of "animal by-product" and that of "waste": a material falling under 1069/2009 leaves the scope of waste legislation for most of its journey, which changes the enforcement authority, the nature of the registers and the authorised routes. Many organisations manage these flows from the environment department when the applicable regime is a health one.
A compliance audit settles matters: is the categorisation correct, is the approval valid, is the register kept up to date. A maturity assessment asks a different question: what level of control do your practices sit at, and what specific action moves you to the next level. An organisation can be compliant on the day of an official inspection and still remain fragile because the categorisation decision rests with a single person, or because contractor checks are not scheduled. The assessment makes that fragility visible and measurable.
In Datamensio, the framework is ready to use and adaptable. The AI adjusts the themes, questions and levels to your activity, slaughterhouse, cutting plant, dairy industry, rendering plant, anaerobic digestion unit, or builds a variant from your procedures and approval orders. Across a portfolio of sites, the gap to the target level generates the action plan, and the AI groups it into a prioritised roadmap.
Reference standard: Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, supplemented by Regulation (EU) No 142/2011
The themes assessed
Identification and categorisation of materials
Exhaustive inventory of the flows generated, rule for classifying into categories 1, 2 and 3, handling of doubtful cases, responsibility for the decision, reclassification in the event of mixing.
Registration and approval of establishments
Establishment status under the regulation, exact scope of the approval or registration, activities covered, updates when a process or flow changes.
Collection, storage and stream segregation
Container identification, storage and refrigeration conditions, prevention of contact between categories and with foodstuffs, management of zones and circuits.
Transport and accompanying documents
Commercial documents, health certificates, marking of vehicles and containers, temperature conditions, cleaning and disinfection after transport.
Traceability and registers
Register of inputs and outputs, reconciliation of quantities, retention of records, ability to reconstruct a lot’s downstream journey, retention periods.
Processing and treatment methods
Processing methods used, critical time, temperature and particle size parameters, operating records, equipment validation and verification.
Disposal and authorised destinations
Routes used per category, incineration, co-incineration, authorised landfill, anaerobic digestion, composting, checks on compliant use in animal feed and technical products.
Contractor and downstream chain control
Selection of collectors and processors, verification of approvals, contractual requirements, contractor control plan, receipt of destruction proof.
Skills and organisation
Operator training on categorisation, written procedures available at the workstation, backup for key functions, awareness among procurement and maintenance teams.
Monitoring, incidents and improvement
Scheduled internal checks, management of gaps and mixing incidents, follow-up on official inspections, tracked indicators, periodic review of the system.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Is Regulation 1069/2009 certifiable?
No. It is a directly applicable EU regulation, enforced by competent authorities through official controls. The assessment measures your maturity level against its requirements and prepares you for inspection, it does not deliver any approval or certificate.
What is the difference between this assessment and a compliance audit?
An audit concludes with a gap or a compliance finding against a given requirement. The assessment places your practices on a progressive scale and indicates the action that moves you up a level. The two complement each other: the assessment prepares the audit and prioritises the work, the audit validates it.
How long does the evaluation take?
The short version can be completed in a single working session. The full version, run collaboratively with quality, production and procurement, typically takes one to two weeks, most of the time being spent gathering registers, commercial documents and contractor approvals.
Can the framework be adapted to our activity?
Yes. Questions, levels and themes can be changed, and the AI produces a variant suited to a slaughterhouse, dairy industry, cutting plant or anaerobic digestion unit based on your procedures and approval order.
How does this assessment fit with food hygiene and traceability?
Animal by-products arise from the same workshops as foodstuffs and share circuits, zones and records. A 852/2004, 853/2004 or 178/2002 traceability assessment reuses much of the data collected. The cross-cutting roadmap consolidates several audits without duplicating actions.
Do we need veterinary expertise to answer?
The questions concern organisation and evidence, not health diagnosis. A quality manager can complete most of it. Some questions on processing parameters or the categorisation of specific materials are best assigned to the veterinarian or production manager, which the collaborative mode allows.
Can several sites be compared?
Yes. Assessments are comparable across business units and over time, theme by theme. This highlights sites where categorisation or contractor control is slipping, and helps direct resources where the gap to the target level is most costly.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, with OVH, backed up at Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European solutions.