Meat charging rule changes will hurt but “not destroy” industry - BMPA

By Rory Harrington

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags Food standards agency Uk food standards agency

New UK rules on meat charging inspection will not destroy the industry but will heap on costs and hit the competitiveness of the sector, said the British Meat Processing Association (BMPA).

The industry trade body was responding to the decision by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) to overhaul the system by which meat processors are to be billed for the full cost of mandatory inspections of their premises.

Approved by the FSA board last week, the new regime will broadly see meat processors shoulder around ₤20m (€23m) in increased charges.

The FSA said it did not think the extra costs would be passed on to consumers, and there would be no impact on food safety controls.

No increase to upper limit

However, the government agency agreed to taper the introduction of charges so that the three bands imposed on smaller throughput abattoirs from April 2012 would be progressive rather than a “step change”.​ The measure, which the FSA agreed to amend after consulting with industry players, would save £3.2 million per year for about 570 establishments, it said.

“A phase-in period softens the blow,”​ BMPA director Stephen Rossides told FoodProductionDaily.com. “The impact of full cost recovery will vary from plant to plant, but will be substantial on many operators in any event.”

He added the provisions for low-through plants would not greatly benefit BMPA members – as almost all would be above the maximum 5,000 livestock units processed. The association’s main concern was that the upper limit was not increased further “to avoid distorting competition amongst plants”, ​said Rossides.

The BMPA expressed concerns the new charging regime would see smaller and, particularly medium sized plants hardest hit. Farmers could also be hit if the increased costs were passed back up the supply chain.

“Of itself, full cost recovery will not ‘destroy’ the industry,”​ said Rossides. “But it adds cost and reduces competitiveness in a difficult trading environment for meat processors.”

Narrow consultation

The wider concern was that the FSA had “consulted very narrowly on full cost recovery of charges”​. The industry was eager for a wider discussion about the efficiency, methods and cost of the existing inspection procedures, he added.

“We want to see the wider application of ‘earned recognition’ that will reduce the regulatory burden on highly compliant plants operators,”​ said Rossides, as he urged the FSA to address the issues.

Agency board member Tim Bennett accepted last week that the FSA had failed to produce evidence to convince meat processors that its inspection system was efficient.

“We are a monopoly supplier so we need to prove that we are better than the rest of the industry,”​ he said.

But FSA chair FSA Chair Jeff Rooker said: “It is not the role of the FSA, as the food safety regulator, to subsidise the meat industry for the cost of delivering official controls.”

He added it had listened to concerns about the impact of the new measures on smaller producers.

Related topics Processing & Packaging

Related news

Follow us

Products

View more

Webinars