Animal welfare at slaughter · Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009
Animal welfare at slaughter, measured station by station and turned into an 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 welfare at slaughter · Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009
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 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing 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.
This mechanism, a level, the level above, and the action linking the two, is what turns a finding into a trajectory.
Is the check on stunning effectiveness defined, carried out and used?
- N1
No formalised check. Assessment of unconsciousness relies on the operator’s experience at the station, with no record.
- N2
A check instruction exists in the procedure, but the sampling is not defined and records are partial depending on the team.
- N3
Sampling is defined in writing (size, frequency, indicators sought), applied on every line and recorded. Gaps between teams are occasional.
- N4
Checks are systematic and logged, every sign of regaining consciousness triggers the planned corrective action, and results are tracked by indicator and reviewed with management.
- N5
Check data feeds into the revision of key parameters and the maintenance plan. Thresholds are adjusted after incident analysis, with a documented record of revisions.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Write the check sampling procedure into the SOP (number of animals, hourly frequency, unconsciousness indicators sought, response if the check fails), add it to the station’s recording form, and verify its application during the animal welfare officer’s weekly 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 1099/2009 has applied since 1 January 2013 to the killing of animals bred for the production of food, wool, skin or fur, and to related operations: unloading, housing, restraint, stunning, bleeding. It requires standard operating procedures based on the key parameters of the stunning methods listed in Annex I, the appointment of an animal welfare officer in slaughterhouses, a certificate of competence for the operators concerned, regular checks on the effectiveness of stunning, and back-up equipment immediately available.
The difficulty is not knowing the text, it is demonstrating that the system works continuously, on every line and with every team. Are the key parameters of stunning measured and recorded, or only displayed near the station? Is the sampling procedure for checking unconsciousness defined in writing, with its size, frequency and the response to any sign of regaining consciousness? Does the animal welfare officer have a real mandate, dedicated time and a reporting line to management, or does the name only appear on an organisation chart?
The landscape has shifted on two points. First, Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and Regulation (EU) 2019/627 have clarified official control arrangements, including official veterinarian checks on animal protection, which increases exposure on the traceability of records. Second, the Commission has launched a revision of the animal welfare body of law: anticipating is better than reacting. A common confusion to clear up: derogations from stunning for particular slaughter methods do not suspend competence requirements, restraint requirements, or record-keeping.
A compliance audit concludes with a gap or no gap on a given requirement. The maturity assessment asks a different question: what level of control do your practices sit at, and what precise action moves you to the next level. On welfare at slaughter, this distinction matters: between a written procedure and one that is applied, checked and revised after an incident, there are three maturity levels and as many distinct actions.
Within Datamensio, the framework is ready to use and adaptable. The AI adjusts the themes, questions and levels to your species, stunning methods and organisation, or builds a variant from your own standard operating procedures and inspection reports. Multi-site groups assess each slaughterhouse separately, then consolidate results into a cross-site roadmap.
Reference standard: Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing
The themes assessed
Governance and the animal welfare officer
Formal appointment of the AWO, scope of the mandate, reporting line, dedicated time, authority to stop the line, escalation of findings to management.
Standard operating procedures
Existence and coverage of SOPs by species and method, definition of key parameters, availability at the station, revision and validation procedure.
Staff competence
Certificates of competence per operation, alignment between qualifications held and stations worked, initial training and refresher training, supervision of new starters and temporary staff.
Unloading, housing and handling
Waiting conditions, watering, stocking density, time before slaughter, handling without traumatic instruments, management of unfit-for-transport or injured animals.
Restraint
Suitability of equipment to the species, restraint duration before stunning, prohibition of suspending conscious animals, adjustment and maintenance of equipment.
Stunning and unconsciousness checks
Method used and parameters applied, sampling of checks, indicators of unconsciousness sought, response to regaining consciousness, back-up equipment immediately available.
Bleeding and verification of death
Time between stunning and bleeding, technique and completeness of bleeding, verification of absence of signs of life before any dressing operation.
Equipment, maintenance and metrology
Preventive maintenance plan, calibration of measuring instruments, automatic recording of parameters where equipment allows, management of breakdowns and replacement equipment.
Records and traceability of checks
Completeness and archiving of stunning records, traceability of non-conformities, usability of data during an official inspection.
Non-conformities, incidents and continuous improvement
Detection and classification of welfare incidents, root cause analysis, corrective actions and verification of their effectiveness, indicators tracked, periodic review of the system.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Does this assessment amount to a certificate of compliance with Regulation 1099/2009?
No. Compliance with the regulation is verified by the competent authority, in particular by the official veterinarian as part of official controls. The assessment measures your maturity level, documents gaps and prepares you for inspection. It issues no certificate.
What is the difference from a standard compliance audit?
An audit rules requirement by requirement: gap or no gap. The assessment places each practice on a five-level scale and identifies the action that moves it up a level. The two complement each other: the assessment builds the trajectory, the audit validates the level reached.
How long does the assessment take?
The short version takes 20 to 30 minutes per site. The full version, carried out collaboratively between the animal welfare officer, quality and maintenance, generally spans one to two weeks, most of the time spent gathering records and procedures.
Can the framework be adapted to our species and stunning methods?
Yes. Themes, questions and levels can be changed, and you can add your own internal requirements or those from a customer framework. The AI generates a variant adapted to your species and methods from your standard operating procedures.
Can several of the group’s slaughterhouses be compared?
Yes. Each site is assessed against the same framework, and scores per theme can be compared between business units and against previous campaigns. A cross-site roadmap consolidates site action plans, with the AI grouping recurring actions to avoid tackling the same gap ten times over.
How does this assessment fit with other food requirements?
The requirements of Regulation 1099/2009 overlap with those of Regulations 853/2004 and 2019/627, and with the animal welfare modules of private standards. Evidence gathered can be reused from one assessment to another, and the cross-site roadmap avoids duplicating actions.
Who should answer the questions?
The questions cover organisation, procedures and records, not detailed technical settings. The animal welfare officer answers most of them. The collaborative mode lets equipment and metrology questions be assigned to maintenance.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, with OVH, backed up with Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European providers.