Hi, thanks for your questions - I have tried to cover all of them below:

The RSPCA welfare standards and the RSPCA Assured certification scheme exist because the way in which farmed animals are treated is simply not good enough and legislation is insufficient to protect their welfare; there is simply no con or sleight of hand in that. Change takes time, but we are progressing farmed animal welfare every day. We will continue to work with the farming industry for as long as it takes to see all animals treated with kindness, compassion and respect. We update our standards roughly every two years to incrementally improve welfare, based either on advances in knowledge and evidence, or by continually working with industry, other organisations, government and experts to push changes through over time. We will always be improving our standards to achieve higher levels of welfare, that is an inherent part of the strategy behind the scheme. Setting standards and running an assurance scheme is challenging - but we challenge ourselves to do what we believe is going to impact the lives of animals for the better. I am convinced that a welfare focussed assurance scheme like RSPCA Assured improves the lives of millions of animals. We have called on the government repeatedly to set a date for ending the use of CO2 stunning and have repeated this in our work with political parties in advance of the next general election. Our standard requires 90% concentration of CO2 (compared to 80% by law) which reduces suffering and reduces the time to death. 

RSPCA Assured labelled salmon comes from farms that are inspected up to 500 standards aimed at improving their welfare. These cover every stage of a salmon’s life from hatchery to slaughter. The standards have been a catalyst for change throughout the entire salmon industry with most farms now adopting these standards. If it wasn't for the RSPCA and RSPCA Assured choosing to work with the salmon farming industry these, and many other significant welfare improvements, would never have been made.  We respect that there are many different views on salmon farming and we share concerns about the challenges the industry is facing. Sadly, there are no quick fixes for these challenges and it takes time to develop science, evolve understanding and change practices, but we are constantly furthering learning and driving towards finding solutions.  It would be the infinitely easier option to just turn our backs, but we don’t believe that is conducive to improving fish welfare. Salmon farming exists whether we are present or not, and currently there is no specific legislation to protect the welfare of salmon. Without voices like ours, encouraging the food and farming industries to adopt higher welfare standards, many millions of fish could be farmed to lower welfare standards. We are due to release a new set of salmon standards in the coming weeks, which will further drive welfare standards up. 

RSPCA Assured works closely with all members to ensure that the RSPCA welfare standards are being met. All RSPCA Assured members have thorough annual assessments conducted by specially trained RSPCA Assured assessors as well being subject to unannounced spot checks. Additionally, RSPCA Assured works with SCI (Supply Chain In-Sights) assessors to inspect processors and packers and ensure a full chain of custody for products that carry the RSPCA Assured logo. RSPCA Assured takes all complaints of poor animal welfare very seriously, we will not hesitate to suspend or remove any member from the scheme if appropriate. Sadly, there are individual cases where failures have been identified, but steps are always taken to immediately address and rectify any issues. It is important to remember that for every animal shown on covertly-filmed video, there are millions more who've had a better life thanks to RSPCA Assured. We are right in the middle of a piece of work looking at our assessment model, which is considering exactly these questions. This piece of work is due to be finished over the next 18 months. 

In order to join the scheme a farm must be assessed and then have an annual assessment (and more frequent if concerns are found or raised). Farms can be removed in a number of ways; temporarily, permanently, placed in special measures etc. The scheme has been running for 30 years so I am afraid I don’t know the number of farms that have been permanently or temporarily removed in that time. We currently have around 4,000 farms on the scheme. Most recently a hen catching team has been permanently removed from the scheme.

We use a robust and independent process to set our standards. We try to be as transparent as possible and the full process is set out here. As you would expect when we are implementing changes we do get push back from industry, other times we get support. We work with a wide range of farmers, producers, retailers and others to inform the standards - but they are always based on the approach of increasing welfare and a strong evidence base. 

Our email campaign secured about 44,000 actions which we were very pleased with. My view is that the strength of the animal welfare sector is really felt when we have a diversity of approaches calling for a unified goal; if we all adopt the same tactic we reduce our impact. We are committed to encouraging retailers to adopt the BCC and celebrating those that do. 

Yes we see the BCC and the RSPCA standards for chickens as being complementary. Our standard goes much further as it covers the full life of the birds, and has hundreds of welfare requirements which must be met; including handling and transporting for example. Our hope is that as the BCC grows so will the number of birds raised under RSPCA standards.

We have a strong meat reduction (and farmed animal reduction) message. We call for an end to all intensive farming and a reduction in both consumption and production of animal products, and a reduction in the number of animals farmed. This is one of the messages of our general election manifesto work for example. We’ve also sponsored three reports recently looking at the role of alternative protein and in 2022 we devoted our annual Wilberforce Lecture to exploring food and farming systems. We are currently working on a foresight report about the future of the relationship between humans and animals which will further examine the role of diet. 

All our requests to political parties can be found here: https://politicalanimal.rspca.org.uk/2024-general-election 
 

The XLB has been referred to recently as a 'fighting breed derived from the pit bull', however, other sources of information dispute the origins of this dog. Multiple sources refer to this breed of dog as one who was selected as a companion and family dog. For example, the United Kennel Club refers to this dog as ‘first and foremost, a companion, exhibiting confidence with a zest and exuberance for life. Although there are breeds and types of dogs originally bred and selected for fighting, this does not mean that individuals within a particular breed or type are inherently aggressive or pose any greater risk of aggressive behaviour towards people or other animals. The selection for specific physical and temperamental attributes can result in serious injuries. However, the extent to which these characteristics are expressed or displayed will vary within individuals and are influenced by the way in which the dogs are bred and their lifetime experiences therefore, not all individuals of the same type will behave in the same way. 

There is a distinct lack of verifiable evidence of the types of dogs involved in bite incidents, with data not regularly and uniformly recorded by police. The XL Bully has largely come to attention by social and traditional media sources where the breed or type of dog involved in an incident often can not be substantiated. There is no conclusive evidence that shows any breed as being more aggressive than another or inherently aggressive, although we acknowledge that the larger the breed the greater the capacity for harm if they display aggressive behaviour. Focusing on specific breeds potentially provides a false assumption that all other dogs are safe, where in  reality any dog has the capacity to be dangerous if irresponsibly bred, reared and socialised. This is why our focus has always been on tackling the causal factors of aggressive behaviour which includes the way in which dogs are bred, reared and their lifetime experiences.

Some of the stats you have included in your answer are not ones I would recognise, however I have tried to answer the spirit of your question. 
 

We do our best to be here for all animals. But that means showing up in different ways. For example we work hard to secure a phase out of the use of animals in research through engagement and lobbying (and have seen severe suffering in animal experiments fall by 61% since 2014), whereas our work on cruelty and neglect is focused more on prevention and rescue interventions. Given our size and scope I do think it is important that we leverage that in the work we doing, using it to look at cross-species issues eg extreme conformation breeding which impacts companion animals and farmed animals, or the bigger questions around the relationship between humans and animals 

Scientific evidence has shown that breed/type is not a robust indicator of bite risk. The causal factors of aggressive behaviour are a complex interaction between genetics and lifetime experiences. Research has also shown that legislation like the the Dangerous Dogs Act which bans types of dog based on how they look is ineffective in protecting the public. This policy position is consistent across  Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, Hope Rescue, the Scottish SPCA, USPCA, Woodgreen, PDSA and The Kennel Club. There are more effective models for tackling dog-bite risk and keeping people and dogs safe. These are in operation in other parts of the world. Tackling irresponsible breeding, irresponsible ownership, the need for training, public education, licensing etc is all required to address this issue in a meaningful way. 

From 1999-2019, the number of hospital admissions for the treatment of dog bites has increased by 154%, despite the prohibition of certain types of dogs. The UK Government must tackle the root issue by dealing with the unscrupulous breeders, who are putting profit before welfare, and the irresponsible owners whose dogs are dangerously out of control.

As well as being ineffective in protecting the public, these laws based on the appearance of the dog mean that many dogs whose behaviour has never been a concern are targeted. 

We are an unusual organisation in that we provide rescue, rehabilitation, rehoming, release, education, public information, prevention, investigation and prosecution activities as well as our evidence, advocacy and campaigning work - and our farmed animal welfare assurance scheme. Our work is delivered through a family for independent branches, our centres and the national ‘hub’ organisation.  

This means we balance priorities across different functions and audiences. For example our priorities for our education work might be different from that for our rescue work, or our campaigning work. However in general the factors we consider are the severity, scale and duration of suffering (we use the 5 domains model as the basis for our welfare assessment), and then internal and external factors such as our skill sets and specialisms, the work of other organisations, the likelihood of achieving change and the timescales. We strive to have a data and insight informed approach, but this can be challenging. For example one of our specialisms is around animal neglect, whilst there is some data and evidence around contributing factors to neglect, there is very little research into the comparative effectiveness of different interventions. We also try to contribute to the sector as a whole, so for example when we identify a data or evidence gap, like the one just mentioned, we think about how we could contribute to filling that gap. 

We also try to take an ambitious-pragmatism approach to creating change - challenging ourselves to consider what will be the most effective route to creating change. 

I would hope in the first period following the election any government would face into the urgent need for reforming farming standards and phasing out the use of animals in research. I think the biggest political barrier to these kinds of changes, and the others that we would like to see, is breaking out of the practice of siloed policy making, and instead understanding the interactions between e.g. human health, the environment and animal welfare. 

My role is to oversee the lobbying, public campaigning, international, education, thought leadership and policy work of the organisation - and the evidence base that supports those functions. I am also a member of the leadership team working to manage running of the organisation as a whole. Recently we have worked on the Act Now For Animals Campaign, working to ensure the government lives up to the commitments it has made around ending live exports, banning the keeping of primates as pets, tackling puppy smuggling, consulting on ending the use of cages in farming etc. We have also been working on ending greyhound racing, supporting the Better Chicken Commitment, banning trail hunting and phasing out the use of animals in research.  

I have always worked in campaigning and advocacy roles, across sectors like disability, youth justice, deprived neighbourhoods etc. In 2011 the wonderful Joyce D’Silva gave me my first job in animal welfare and it felt like coming home. I have always been a volunteer and supporter of animal causes. I started a Save the Worm club at school, moving worms from pavements, though looking back now I am sure the worms would have much rather I left them alone. I grew up in a very rural “ huntin’, shootin’, fishin’ “ area and found plenty to be concerned about on my doorstep. Since 2011 I have been lucky enough to work for Compassion in World Farming, World Animal Protection, Global Canopy, the Animal Health and Welfare Board and now the RSPCA. 

As part of our new strategy, we are exploring transferring our prosecutions role to the CPS. APHA undertakes prosecutions for farmed animals. This is to ensure we avoid any possible conflict of interest with our farm assurance scheme. More information on the changes we want to make to our prosecution role is here: https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/strategy/prosecution

I think I have covered the standards setting process above (JBentham's question), but please do ask if you would like any more information. In terms of the laying hen standard, we have retained the requirement to provide natural daylight, but permitted  an additional 12 months for this to be achieved. We have committed to doing an in-depth review of installing verandas on free-range systems. We still require verandas to be installed for all barn systems by 2030. The original standards concerning free range producers required them to install verandas new builds and building undergoing major refurbishments. It’s only these two requirements, which would have affected a minority, that have been redacted (pending the review).  

We agree with you about the welfare benefits verandas can provide and it is still our intention to progress with these, but we have committed to doing a review with the industry to see what the potential challenges and barriers may be (so we understand these better and can consider solutions to these) and then progress depending on the outcome of that review 

What a great question. This is probably one for a discussion over a coffee but as a general approach we would use the kind of process I have set out above (Nathan Young's question) which considers scale, severity and duration of suffering against the 5 domains model, and then considers other internal and external factors. However, from that list I would particularly identify the Better Chicken Commitment (particularly addressing fast growing breeds) and legal protections for fish as high priorities. 

I think we have seen a prioritisation of ‘the deal’ over ‘the content’. I agree with the tone of your question - there is widespread agreement on the need for this, and an agreed approach around core standards. 

This is one of the issues we are prioritising for the election and I am very hopeful whichever party forms the new government it will go up the agenda rapidly. 

We are here for all animals, including fish and insects. For example we have RSPCA Assured Standards for salmon and trout to try to drive up standards on farms, and we are working to secure legal protections for farmed fish. 

We also work to end the use of animals in research (that causes them harm) and these animals are often fish. Whilst we work to end their use, we also work on improving their lives and have improved industry practices around environment and slaughter which has reduced the suffering of many fish in laboratories. 

We take a precautionary principle approach to sentience i.e. unless there is evidence an animal isn’t sentient, we treat them as though they are. Our work on insects is less developed than other areas from an advocacy point of view, but it is something we focus on extensively in our work around human behaviour and education. As an aside, I also founded the Wasp Appreciation Society some years ago. 

Thanks for your question. I think it is fair to say that the majority of RSPCA’s efforts to date have gone into your first option. We have skills, expertise, reach and resources to enable us to make a real difference to the lives of animals in this way through both our RSPCA Assured scheme, and through campaigning for changes to legislation and corporate behaviour. This work has resulted in real and significant (and evidenced) better lives for millions of animals than they would otherwise have lived.

However, we recognise that to get to a world without intensive farming, we also need to significantly reduce the number of animals farmed. We are developing our strategy here, but have already begun looking at the role of alternative protein in improving welfare (i.e. how could it have the most welfare benefit). For example we sponsored this report: https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/alt-proteins-animal-suffering/ which concludes: “If alternative proteins reach the 30% market share predicted by respondents by 2040, it would result in over 300 million fewer animals being raised in factory farms and slaughtered every year.”

As our strategy work develops in this area we will be considering how we best play our role in contributing to all three of these approaches. 
 

Alongside other organisations like Cats Protection and the British Veterinary Association we would not recommend a vegan diet for cats. However we are aware that research and evidence in this space is growing and keep it under review. We do ask people to consider higher welfare brands of pet food like McAdams which uses RSPCA Assured ingredients. 

Our current policy is that all catering must be plant based or RSPCA Assured. This is being reviewed by our Trustees in light of the AGM resolution.