One occupation hazard in journalism is seeing old research figures being used by campaigning bodies to prove a point. But it seems to be getting out of hand.
First we had the Soil Association publishing a press release at the end of January claiming that new DEFRA-funded research revealed that salmonella levels are over five times higher in intensive eggs than those from organic flocks.
But on closer inspection, the claims were based on a paper published in Vet Record back in October 2007 from a survey carried out in 2004-2005.
A lot has happened since 2005 practically making the findings void. One notable change is that the egg sector is actively testing and monitoring flocks for the presence of salmonella under new zoonoses rules that came into effect on Feb 1. If found, producers face having to heat treat eggs before they can enter the food chain, resulting in intensive producers going to even greater lengths to eliminate salmonella.
And then BBC was at it on 6 February on its "BBC Ten O'Clock News" programme. The second item focused on “new” research findings that show that more than one-quarter of broiler chickens have difficulty walking as result of their high growth rates.
However, what the BBC failed to mention was that the three-year project was carried out from 2003 to 2006 and that the industry had already put the findings into place as it was fully involved with the project.
I’ve never seen such an unbalanced news item and I expected better from the BBC.
It seems the corporation [and the tabloid papers have also been guilty of this with poultry welfare in the past] is putting its full trust in animal welfare bodies and failing to objectively question the involvement of the welfare bodies in poultry stories.