The NVWA may no longer enforce injury in poultry. The court rightly ruled that the supervision did not meet legal and scientific requirements. The industry now faces a reorientation.

On 29 April 2025, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) ruled that the NVWA's control method around catch injuries in poultry is legally unsatisfactory. Eighteen penalty decisions - imposed on poultry farmers for exceeding the 1% injury limit - were overturned. The reason: it cannot be established with sufficient certainty that the injury occurred during trapping. This removes the legal basis under the NVWA's main supervisory tool in this area. What now?

The NVWA monitor: ambition versus burden of proof

NVWA this month reported positive results in its compliance measurement for the first quarter of 2025. In over 84% of the flocks checked, the injury rate remained below 1%, with an average of 0.73% (up from 1.10% in 2023). On the face of it, a sign of progress.

But at the same time, the enforceability of these figures is under pressure. The court ruled that the underlying inspection method - visual assessment of bleeding upon entry into the slaughterhouse - does not provide conclusive evidence about the origin and timing of the injuries. This does not establish which link in the chain is responsible, and lacks the legal basis for imposing fines.

The gist of the court ruling

The CBb ruling is critical of the NVWA approach on several points:

• The control method has not been scientifically validated. Counting bleeding larger than 3 cm with a dark red to purple colour (on breast, leg or wing) does give an impression of injury, but is, according to the CBb no legally conclusive evidence That this injury occurred during capture.
• There is uncertainty about when the injuries occurred. The court explicitly recognises that injuries may also have occurred during transport or unloading at the slaughterhouse. This removes the causal link required to hold a party liable.
• The defensive position of entrepreneurs is inadequate. There was no transparent and verifiable reporting of observations. As a result, entrepreneurs could not adequately defend themselves against sanctions imposed.

The CBb additionally granted intangible compensation awarded for exceeding the reasonable handling time (up to €2,500 per case) and reimbursed the full litigation costs. This underlines that this is not an administrative detail but a fundamental test of administrative practice.

What does this mean for the industry?

The ruling has far-reaching implications for animal welfare monitoring in the poultry chain:

1. Fines for exceeding the 1% standard are off the table for now. NVWA itself confirmed that it can currently no longer impose sanctions based on injury rates until the method has been revised or additionally validated.
2. The legal bar for supervision is now higher. Only with a conclusive link between injury and capture moment can companies in the chain be held accountable. This requires better monitoring in the chain itself, for example with real-time data recording, camera surveillance or inspections at loading.
3. Responsibility shifts to the industry. In the absence of external enforcement, chain parties themselves will have to invest more in prevention, transparency and assurance. The call by industry associations to register van injury scores in systems like MijnAvined is in line with this movement.

Catch injury is real, but monitoring must improve

The ruling emphatically does not mean that injury in poultry is unimportant. NVWA figures show that in a limited proportion of flocks, too many animals are still structurally injured. This may indicate poor trapping techniques, time pressure or poor staff training. But as long as it cannot be proven where and when those injuries occur, supervision can only signal - not sanction.

No settlement, but recalibration

The CBb ruling is not a defeat for animal welfare, but a necessary correction to the way supervision is set up. Entrepreneurs in the meat sector, whether they are slaughterers, poultry farmers or transporters, are entitled to clear, fair and enforceable standards. Animals are entitled to careful transport and treatment. Between those two rights, supervision must find its place.

The time is now to redesign catch injury surveillance: more transparent, scientific and chain-based. The industry has proven that injury-free trapping is possible. Now it is time to prove that supervision can also mature.

Source: https://www.nvwa.nl/nieuws-en-media/nieuws/2025/07/15/naleefmeting-pluimvee-kan-zonder-letsel-gevangen-en-vervoerd-worden