Consumers can forget ‘local‘ meat if abattoirs are hit with a hefty rise in hygiene inspection costs, says Norman Bagley
The Food Standards Agency's consultation on charging abattoirs an additional £30m a year for meat hygiene inspection has put the structure of the UK meat industry in jeopardy.
The slaughtering industry is the most regulated industry there is. Food business operators are supposed to be responsible for food safety, but in the case of slaughterhouses, EU legislation prevents them from operating without an FSA vet being present with FSA officials inspecting every carcase.
Ironically the FSA accepts that meat inspection does not identify the common causes of meat-borne infection and is trying to get the legislation changed. At the same time it is insisting on remaining the monopoly supplier of meat inspection, and now it wants to charge the full cost of what it considers to be an ineffective control. Why? Could it be it is a very nice earner for the FSA when times are hard?
The FSA has made much of the savings it has made through "transforming the MHS" (Meat Hygiene Service). What it has hidden from its board and stakeholders is that, of the £23.2m saved, only £1.2m has been shaved off the cost of supplying the controls charged to industry, at a time when the industry has contracted. It appears the cost savings have only been achieved by doing less work for government as a result of redundant BSE controls being removed.
Members of the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS) process more than half of all the livestock slaughtered in England and Wales. Many are medium and small-sized abattoirs. While a large slaughterhouse might be able to afford the cost of having a vet all day and every day, medium and small-sized businesses cannot, and many would have to close. Jobs would be lost and animals consigned to much longer travelling distances while consumers would have to kiss goodbye to buying local meat.
The consultation document hides the true impact the proposal would have on small and medium businesses, although it does say one medium-sized plant would pay £450,000 more. AIMS modelling of FSA data reveals that in medium-sized enterprises average inspection costs for each animal processed are roughly twice those in large slaughterhouses, and in "low throughput" slaughterhouses they average 10 times as much. In terms of cattle these average costs are £67 for low throughput slaughterhouses and £6.70 for large slaughterhouses.
One major issue in the consultation is the refusal by the FSA to reveal what it includes in the overheads it charges for. These are restricted by EU regulations, which also require publication. A lot of the delivery of meat inspection is already outsourced by the FSA to the private sector but the FSA adds a thumping 50% when it charges the industry for the vets and meat inspectors provided. Why? Is it to fund its army of civil servants and their offices? Offices for the vets and meat inspectors are, of course, provided free of charge by the industry!
When the EU rules were first imposed the government accepted that SMEs could not be expected to fully fund the cost. Since then years of mismanagement have seen costs soar. AIMS believes a combination of cost savings and a charging system based on stratified headage could produce a win-win-win for the FSA, consumers and industry.
Norman Bagley is policy director of AIMS.
The Food Standards Agency's consultation on charging abattoirs an additional £30m a year for meat hygiene inspection has put the structure of the UK meat industry in jeopardy.
The slaughtering industry is the most regulated industry there is. Food business operators are supposed to be responsible for food safety, but in the case of slaughterhouses, EU legislation prevents them from operating without an FSA vet being present with FSA officials inspecting every carcase.
Ironically the FSA accepts that meat inspection does not identify the common causes of meat-borne infection and is trying to get the legislation changed. At the same time it is insisting on remaining the monopoly supplier of meat inspection, and now it wants to charge the full cost of what it considers to be an ineffective control. Why? Could it be it is a very nice earner for the FSA when times are hard?
The FSA has made much of the savings it has made through "transforming the MHS" (Meat Hygiene Service). What it has hidden from its board and stakeholders is that, of the £23.2m saved, only £1.2m has been shaved off the cost of supplying the controls charged to industry, at a time when the industry has contracted. It appears the cost savings have only been achieved by doing less work for government as a result of redundant BSE controls being removed.
Members of the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS) process more than half of all the livestock slaughtered in England and Wales. Many are medium and small-sized abattoirs. While a large slaughterhouse might be able to afford the cost of having a vet all day and every day, medium and small-sized businesses cannot, and many would have to close. Jobs would be lost and animals consigned to much longer travelling distances while consumers would have to kiss goodbye to buying local meat.
The consultation document hides the true impact the proposal would have on small and medium businesses, although it does say one medium-sized plant would pay £450,000 more. AIMS modelling of FSA data reveals that in medium-sized enterprises average inspection costs for each animal processed are roughly twice those in large slaughterhouses, and in "low throughput" slaughterhouses they average 10 times as much. In terms of cattle these average costs are £67 for low throughput slaughterhouses and £6.70 for large slaughterhouses.
One major issue in the consultation is the refusal by the FSA to reveal what it includes in the overheads it charges for. These are restricted by EU regulations, which also require publication. A lot of the delivery of meat inspection is already outsourced by the FSA to the private sector but the FSA adds a thumping 50% when it charges the industry for the vets and meat inspectors provided. Why? Is it to fund its army of civil servants and their offices? Offices for the vets and meat inspectors are, of course, provided free of charge by the industry!
When the EU rules were first imposed the government accepted that SMEs could not be expected to fully fund the cost. Since then years of mismanagement have seen costs soar. AIMS believes a combination of cost savings and a charging system based on stratified headage could produce a win-win-win for the FSA, consumers and industry.
Norman Bagley is policy director of AIMS.
No comments yet