Protests against charges for livestock passports Traceability: farmers refuse to pay more Farmers are resisting a government attempt to make them contribute to the costs of the national cattle identification and movement tracking system designed to protect public health and restore consumer confidence in beef following the BSE crisis. Protests against charges for livestock passports' issued by the British Cattle Movement Service highlight conflicting attitudes to responsibility for product quality and safety along the meat marketing chain. The billions of pounds paid to help farmers after the BSE disaster have already provoked resentment among processors and retailers, who believe they would have been penalised rather than compensated had the problem originated in an abattoir or supermarket. This new dispute illustrates again the much lighter burden of food safety liability assumed by primary producers. Protests led by NFU president Ben Gill began on July 8 when food safety minister Jeff Rooker proposed charging farmers £7 for each animal's BCMS document. The NFU cannot have been surprised as the government warned long ago it would meet start up costs but not running expenses. As Rooker said when disclosing the proposed fee, farmers were "the main beneficiaries" of the system as the BCMS was "helping the livestock industry to provide assurance to its customers". Gill based his opposition partly on hardship: "Britain's beef and dairy farmers simply cannot afford any more cuts in their already pathetic returns." But he also objected on principle: "The cattle passport system is part of the overall framework of comprehensive food safety measures in this country. "The government has a responsibility to meet these costs." {{MEAT }}