As abattoir operators face up to the future of full cost recovery of meat inspection charges, and take whatever commercial decisions necessary to accommodate these massive cost hikes, one question looms large.
What happens when the money runs out? Trying to survive in a false economic world that the FSA has thrust upon industry will lead to an inevitable conclusion. Collapse. Similarities with the investment bankers and the Alice in Wonderland they lived are eerie.
What the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has done does not stand up to logic, reasoning or scientific fact; simply a modern day Government agency acting with naked self interest that uses daily law enforcement to procure tax revenue. I can’t think of any other working industry in the same boat. Also, years of ratcheting up legal powers seems to have made this agency untouchable. Even being found guilty of abusing the legal process in a recent Magistrates Court hearing hasn’t blunted FSA progress; you won’t find details of this particular court case in the FSA quarterly magazine, “Tec Files”, that’s for sure!
But what the British public needs to realise is where Government policy is taking us. Retailer strength and a lame-duck fresh meat industry will ensure that farmers will have to stump up the money for these FSA charge increases.
This can only lead to a further decline in livestock production that has already been happening for some years now. Costs and thus much higher fresh meat prices at consumer level will turn what were once staple dietary supplies into luxury items. Less and less households will buy meat. British meat will gradually disappear from supermarket shelves. Is it in the national interest to adopt such a strategy that will leave our island at the mercy of foreign supplies? Actual fresh meat shortages in the future are now more probable than possible.
The road map of British abattoirs is set to change dramatically. Which will survive? The big plants? The smaller ones? Who is best placed to deal with shrinking supplies? Can retail butchers do enough business to cope with a reduced market? Can big abattoirs get enough margin knowing that supermarkets will sell them down the river on price, although exports offer an alternative?
This is my last blog on this subject. Quite simply, there is nothing else that I can contribute. I do believe, though, that theses crazy, monopoly-money charges with all their falsehoods, and the sheer weight of bureaucratic demands foisted upon farmers and abattoir operators, will lead to some kind of collapse in fresh meat production that will result in shortages. Then, and only then, will economic reality force these legions of officials who have filled and continue to fill their boots living off productive backs from whence they came.
What collateral damage they leave behind, and who survives, remains to be seen.
Toby Baker
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Friday, 5 August 2011
Six years after the E.coli 0157 outbreak in South Wales, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) have finally found the time to produce its response for retail butchery workers to the outbreak, this in the form of a DVD that can be viewed online or by ordering a copy from the FSA.
The DVD is called “E.coli 0157 – A butchers guide to staying safe” apparently focuses on three key areas:
(1) The threat that E.coli 0157 poses to businesses and their customers
(2) The importance of separation in controlling cross contamination
(3) The role of documented food safety management procedures in ensuring food safety and the ease with which they may be embedded into everyday working practices.
Six years? To produce such patronising drivel as this? Notwithstanding this teaching of grandmother how to suck eggs approach on telling butchers on how to run their businesses, I find it staggering that THE ONE really important bit of information /advice that should be passed through the food chain right up the final consumer is missing; i.e., ensure that food is cooked thoroughly, and is kept separate from fresh meat after it is cooked. This procedure kills all bugs that can cause, on extremely rare occasions, food poisoning.
Point one is your typical health scare card that to a bureaucrat justifies it being said, thus their need to be in place to say it. The simple truth of adequate cooking will suffice. A simple statement but an inescapable one. What useful guidance can a butcher give to a customer other than to frighten them to death if they should regale this FSA trash to them?
Point two is sensible enough, but why it should take six years to publicise this case of the bleedin’ obvious, I don’t know.
Point three. Documented management procedures have to be done because they are a legal requirement and indeed, this tick-box mentality might be beneficial to some butchers. The weakness, however, with this statement is that it implies that it ensures food safety. No mountain of paperwork is going to provide the guarantees that a customer requires. The use of the buzzwords “minimising the risks” to justify such procedures are totally meaningless. Time for honesty; your premises can sparkle with cleanliness, you can win a star in every hygiene box, you may win every award going for your product, you may even have the royal seal above your shop. None of these will guarantee any fresh meat product is free from pathogenic bugs that might lead to food poisoning; that guarantee can only come with adequate cooking – end of story.
One, of course, needs to actually see the DVD before making up one’s mind, but history forces me to make a fairly easy prediction:
Local Authorities, under pressure from the FSA, will now up the ante in their dealings with retail butchers, and start flourishing these DVD’s about, with doomsday faces of predictability of food poisoning epidemics should non-compliance occur.
And they’ll get away with it too. Instead of requesting a logical and realistic approach to enforcement from officialdom, my experiences of retail butchers is that their institutionalised fear of officials is worse even than those in the abattoir sector! Often I will get a phone call from a retail customer who might say, with audible fear in his voice – “don’t do your usual delivery , I’ve got a health visit today”, or, “I want to cut down my order so that I haven’t got too much about, I’ve got a local authority visit today.
And, of course, the most common – “ I don’t want to upset officials, they will come down hard on me if I do.”
One reaps what one sows.
I just do not understand this approach. Why not simply say it as it is after acquainting yourself with the facts, and present your business to an enforcement officer, warts and all. You don’t have to be rude, after all, they have a job to do. Equally, you shouldn’t have to grovel either.
A strategy of compliance with, and enforcement of, the law should be the one thing, and one thing only, that should occupy the time and effort of everybody concernedy, no matter which side of the law one might sit.
As the FSA turn their attention onto the retail sector, have the nerve to keep it that straightforward.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
The DVD is called “E.coli 0157 – A butchers guide to staying safe” apparently focuses on three key areas:
(1) The threat that E.coli 0157 poses to businesses and their customers
(2) The importance of separation in controlling cross contamination
(3) The role of documented food safety management procedures in ensuring food safety and the ease with which they may be embedded into everyday working practices.
Six years? To produce such patronising drivel as this? Notwithstanding this teaching of grandmother how to suck eggs approach on telling butchers on how to run their businesses, I find it staggering that THE ONE really important bit of information /advice that should be passed through the food chain right up the final consumer is missing; i.e., ensure that food is cooked thoroughly, and is kept separate from fresh meat after it is cooked. This procedure kills all bugs that can cause, on extremely rare occasions, food poisoning.
Point one is your typical health scare card that to a bureaucrat justifies it being said, thus their need to be in place to say it. The simple truth of adequate cooking will suffice. A simple statement but an inescapable one. What useful guidance can a butcher give to a customer other than to frighten them to death if they should regale this FSA trash to them?
Point two is sensible enough, but why it should take six years to publicise this case of the bleedin’ obvious, I don’t know.
Point three. Documented management procedures have to be done because they are a legal requirement and indeed, this tick-box mentality might be beneficial to some butchers. The weakness, however, with this statement is that it implies that it ensures food safety. No mountain of paperwork is going to provide the guarantees that a customer requires. The use of the buzzwords “minimising the risks” to justify such procedures are totally meaningless. Time for honesty; your premises can sparkle with cleanliness, you can win a star in every hygiene box, you may win every award going for your product, you may even have the royal seal above your shop. None of these will guarantee any fresh meat product is free from pathogenic bugs that might lead to food poisoning; that guarantee can only come with adequate cooking – end of story.
One, of course, needs to actually see the DVD before making up one’s mind, but history forces me to make a fairly easy prediction:
Local Authorities, under pressure from the FSA, will now up the ante in their dealings with retail butchers, and start flourishing these DVD’s about, with doomsday faces of predictability of food poisoning epidemics should non-compliance occur.
And they’ll get away with it too. Instead of requesting a logical and realistic approach to enforcement from officialdom, my experiences of retail butchers is that their institutionalised fear of officials is worse even than those in the abattoir sector! Often I will get a phone call from a retail customer who might say, with audible fear in his voice – “don’t do your usual delivery , I’ve got a health visit today”, or, “I want to cut down my order so that I haven’t got too much about, I’ve got a local authority visit today.
And, of course, the most common – “ I don’t want to upset officials, they will come down hard on me if I do.”
One reaps what one sows.
I just do not understand this approach. Why not simply say it as it is after acquainting yourself with the facts, and present your business to an enforcement officer, warts and all. You don’t have to be rude, after all, they have a job to do. Equally, you shouldn’t have to grovel either.
A strategy of compliance with, and enforcement of, the law should be the one thing, and one thing only, that should occupy the time and effort of everybody concernedy, no matter which side of the law one might sit.
As the FSA turn their attention onto the retail sector, have the nerve to keep it that straightforward.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Glancing at a recent newsletter from the Association of Meat Suppliers (AIMS) made for interesting reading. Surprise, surprise, the Macdonald Task Force on better regulation, on which leading trade figures have pinned so much hope, has been summarily dismissed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) Board.
Apparently, at a briefing the Board was given prior to a stakeholder meeting, FSA Chief Executive Tim Smith commenced by saying the industry is not ready to be trusted and the public health risks were too great.
I deduced very early in his tenure at the FSA that, in technical and scientific terms , Mr Smith hasn’t a clue what he is talking about. If, after all these years of endless papers, investigations and findings from so many eminent contributees, people such as Don Bennett, Patrick Wall, Peter Hewson and others, hasn’t sunk in; and if the knowledge of what the production of fresh meat in abattoirs actually involves in public health terms has not filtered through to the people we rely on to make sound judgements, then there is really no hope for many big abattoirs, and virtually none at all for the small to medium sector.
For Mr Smith not to be ridiculed and hauled over the coals for such a crass statement shows an unfortunate but significant lack of knowledge by those people who sit on the FSA Board.
Trade leaders huff and puff, but that’s about all.
Ministers might have some say in the matter, but so far FSA have been every bit as disdainful towards Government Ministers as they have the industry. Still, with a bloke like Jeff Rooker at the helm and the bolshy manner in which he conducts himself, no one should really be surprised.
Trust, and those other buzz-words, “consistently competent”, should be removed forthwith from any discussion with the authorities. Abattoir operators have to fulfill legal obligations, not satisfy some trumped-up ideology or judgement from an overactive careerist bureaucrat. AND THAT IS ALL. Years of reticence and generations of fear of authority has brought about an institutionalised mentality of capitulation in the trade. The FSA and its predecessors have brought the abattoir industry to its knees, and I do not believe that to be an overstatement.
Everybody knows that this issue is all about the money and the huge sums involved. That’s why seasoned hardliners such as Jeff Rooker and Tim Smith, tough as teak characters who probably don’t give a damn about what they know or don’t know about the subject, have been brought in to carry the FSA flag. Their bunker mentality must surely be confronted with an assault of a different kind from industry, of which plenty of suggestions have been put forward by this writer over many years.
If we don’t, they will win.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker.
Apparently, at a briefing the Board was given prior to a stakeholder meeting, FSA Chief Executive Tim Smith commenced by saying the industry is not ready to be trusted and the public health risks were too great.
I deduced very early in his tenure at the FSA that, in technical and scientific terms , Mr Smith hasn’t a clue what he is talking about. If, after all these years of endless papers, investigations and findings from so many eminent contributees, people such as Don Bennett, Patrick Wall, Peter Hewson and others, hasn’t sunk in; and if the knowledge of what the production of fresh meat in abattoirs actually involves in public health terms has not filtered through to the people we rely on to make sound judgements, then there is really no hope for many big abattoirs, and virtually none at all for the small to medium sector.
For Mr Smith not to be ridiculed and hauled over the coals for such a crass statement shows an unfortunate but significant lack of knowledge by those people who sit on the FSA Board.
Trade leaders huff and puff, but that’s about all.
Ministers might have some say in the matter, but so far FSA have been every bit as disdainful towards Government Ministers as they have the industry. Still, with a bloke like Jeff Rooker at the helm and the bolshy manner in which he conducts himself, no one should really be surprised.
Trust, and those other buzz-words, “consistently competent”, should be removed forthwith from any discussion with the authorities. Abattoir operators have to fulfill legal obligations, not satisfy some trumped-up ideology or judgement from an overactive careerist bureaucrat. AND THAT IS ALL. Years of reticence and generations of fear of authority has brought about an institutionalised mentality of capitulation in the trade. The FSA and its predecessors have brought the abattoir industry to its knees, and I do not believe that to be an overstatement.
Everybody knows that this issue is all about the money and the huge sums involved. That’s why seasoned hardliners such as Jeff Rooker and Tim Smith, tough as teak characters who probably don’t give a damn about what they know or don’t know about the subject, have been brought in to carry the FSA flag. Their bunker mentality must surely be confronted with an assault of a different kind from industry, of which plenty of suggestions have been put forward by this writer over many years.
If we don’t, they will win.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
.In our previous blog, we stated that, in view of the importance of the issue (abattoir approval/FSA “Tec Files”/Dennis Cryer), the next blog would be devoted entirely on this subject. As it ties in with other important contemporary issues, it is featured instead under “Review of Establishment Approval” in Viewpoint 54 on our web-site www.toby baker.com.
The Macdonald Task Force recommendations on meat inspection charges, on which blog gave an opinion, 27 May 2011, seems to becoming a central point of debate as the rumpus of full cost recovery and the rapidly declining relationship with the Food Standards Agency (FSA),gathers momentum.
Things kicked off with a letter in The Times. Eight signatories, including Country Land & Business Association, NFU, Campaign to Protect Rural England, National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, Woman’s Institute, Rare Breeds Survival Trust, Soil Association and The National Trust certainly reflected the growing and widespread concern of FSA conduct and its quest for full cost recovery (FCR). An eloquent missive puts the future damage to the countryside in realistic perspective, but one line says it all. “Charging the full cost of inspections should be revisited once they are risk-based and affordable. They are neither and would lead to the closure of large and small abattoirs.”
Yup, that’s it in a nutshell, and I firmly believe that closures are not just an inevitable consequence, they are actually part of Government planning, a few monster meat plants would be so much easier for them to oversee, you see.
Macdonald’s Report recommended that private control bodies, accredited by the FSA, should provide meat inspection services. Inevitably, FSA aren’t having any of that, the threat to their newly acquired fiefdom would be huge.
Also inevitably, as revealed in last week’s Meat Trades Journal (MTJ), “anger” to the FSA response has ensued. Trade spokesmen Stephen Rossides (BMPA) and Norman Bagley (AIMS), made sound comments in reply, and no doubt they will have FSA officials shivering in their shoes at what ever forum, meeting or get together that the FSA dreams up as an outcome to this “anger”.
MTJ Editor Ed Beddington, with noble aplomb and in the interests of impartiality, obviously more in hope than expectation, states in his column that “considering the fact that this issue (FCR) was already covered off back in the mists of time by the Tierney Report, I wonder how many more reports it’s going to take before the FSA finally begins to consider that its diametric opposition to something industry is crying out for makes no sense..............”. Don’t hold your breath, Ed!!
In a letter in the same issue, former top FSA vet Peter Hewson not only promotes the case for the Macdonald findings, he exposes his old bosses and their tactics for what they are. He said “ the FSA’s arguments (about outsourced meat inspection services) do not stand up to scrutiny, and I hope the FSA board will not allow another opportunity to pass that would benefit both the industry and consumer.......” Note “and consumer”, and his revealing letter goes on to explain how this might be the case. For an eminent but cagey old fox like Peter Hewson, this letter actually wipes the floor with the FSA, and, I believe, adds considerable ammunition to our cause if we know how to use it.
But this, in truth, is where we’re at. This Government agency (FSA) is NEVER going to listen to any letter, report, argued reason, fact, lobbying or any expertise that may threaten their bureaucratic existence. They believe themselves to be untouchable as representatives of the interests of the people, and are scornful of any criticism from, it seems, whatever quarter.
Some uncomfortable decisions are going to have to be made to knock the arrogant FSA off its perch and we are rapidly approaching the ultimate “us or them” situation in this tortuous debate. The “wearing-down” of industry has nearly reached its logical conclusion, and that “twitching of bottoms” moment for abattoir operators is almost with us. Do we confront, with whatever tactics we decide to use, or do we simply roll over and capitulate?”
The buck, whether we like it or not, stops with us.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
The Macdonald Task Force recommendations on meat inspection charges, on which blog gave an opinion, 27 May 2011, seems to becoming a central point of debate as the rumpus of full cost recovery and the rapidly declining relationship with the Food Standards Agency (FSA),gathers momentum.
Things kicked off with a letter in The Times. Eight signatories, including Country Land & Business Association, NFU, Campaign to Protect Rural England, National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, Woman’s Institute, Rare Breeds Survival Trust, Soil Association and The National Trust certainly reflected the growing and widespread concern of FSA conduct and its quest for full cost recovery (FCR). An eloquent missive puts the future damage to the countryside in realistic perspective, but one line says it all. “Charging the full cost of inspections should be revisited once they are risk-based and affordable. They are neither and would lead to the closure of large and small abattoirs.”
Yup, that’s it in a nutshell, and I firmly believe that closures are not just an inevitable consequence, they are actually part of Government planning, a few monster meat plants would be so much easier for them to oversee, you see.
Macdonald’s Report recommended that private control bodies, accredited by the FSA, should provide meat inspection services. Inevitably, FSA aren’t having any of that, the threat to their newly acquired fiefdom would be huge.
Also inevitably, as revealed in last week’s Meat Trades Journal (MTJ), “anger” to the FSA response has ensued. Trade spokesmen Stephen Rossides (BMPA) and Norman Bagley (AIMS), made sound comments in reply, and no doubt they will have FSA officials shivering in their shoes at what ever forum, meeting or get together that the FSA dreams up as an outcome to this “anger”.
MTJ Editor Ed Beddington, with noble aplomb and in the interests of impartiality, obviously more in hope than expectation, states in his column that “considering the fact that this issue (FCR) was already covered off back in the mists of time by the Tierney Report, I wonder how many more reports it’s going to take before the FSA finally begins to consider that its diametric opposition to something industry is crying out for makes no sense..............”. Don’t hold your breath, Ed!!
In a letter in the same issue, former top FSA vet Peter Hewson not only promotes the case for the Macdonald findings, he exposes his old bosses and their tactics for what they are. He said “ the FSA’s arguments (about outsourced meat inspection services) do not stand up to scrutiny, and I hope the FSA board will not allow another opportunity to pass that would benefit both the industry and consumer.......” Note “and consumer”, and his revealing letter goes on to explain how this might be the case. For an eminent but cagey old fox like Peter Hewson, this letter actually wipes the floor with the FSA, and, I believe, adds considerable ammunition to our cause if we know how to use it.
But this, in truth, is where we’re at. This Government agency (FSA) is NEVER going to listen to any letter, report, argued reason, fact, lobbying or any expertise that may threaten their bureaucratic existence. They believe themselves to be untouchable as representatives of the interests of the people, and are scornful of any criticism from, it seems, whatever quarter.
Some uncomfortable decisions are going to have to be made to knock the arrogant FSA off its perch and we are rapidly approaching the ultimate “us or them” situation in this tortuous debate. The “wearing-down” of industry has nearly reached its logical conclusion, and that “twitching of bottoms” moment for abattoir operators is almost with us. Do we confront, with whatever tactics we decide to use, or do we simply roll over and capitulate?”
The buck, whether we like it or not, stops with us.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
.In our previous blog, we stated that, in view of the importance of the issue (abattoir approval/FSA “Tec Files”/Dennis Cryer), the next blog would be devoted entirely on this subject. As it ties in with other important contemporary issues, it is featured instead under “Review of Establishment Approval” in Viewpoint 54 on our web-site www.toby baker.com.
The Macdonald Task Force recommendations on meat inspection charges, on which blog gave an opinion, 27 May 2011, seems to becoming a central point of debate as the rumpus of full cost recovery and the rapidly declining relationship with the Food Standards Agency (FSA),gathers momentum.
Things kicked off with a letter in The Times. Eight signatories, including Country Land & Business Association, NFU, Campaign to Protect Rural England, National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, Woman’s Institute, Rare Breeds Survival Trust, Soil Association and The National Trust certainly reflected the growing and widespread concern of FSA conduct and its quest for full cost recovery (FCR). An eloquent missive puts the future damage to the countryside in realistic perspective, but one line says it all. “Charging the full cost of inspections should be revisited once they are risk-based and affordable. They are neither and would lead to the closure of large and small abattoirs.”
Yup, that’s it in a nutshell, and I firmly believe that closures are not just an inevitable consequence, they are actually part of Government planning, a few monster meat plants would be so much easier for them to oversee, you see.
Macdonald’s Report recommended that private control bodies, accredited by the FSA, should provide meat inspection services. Inevitably, FSA aren’t having any of that, the threat to their newly acquired fiefdom would be huge.
Also inevitably, as revealed in last week’s Meat Trades Journal (MTJ), “anger” to the FSA response has ensued. Trade spokesmen Stephen Rossides (BMPA) and Norman Bagley (AIMS), made sound comments in reply, and no doubt they will have FSA officials shivering in their shoes at what ever forum, meeting or get together that the FSA dreams up as an outcome to this “anger”.
MTJ Editor Ed Beddington, with noble aplomb and in the interests of impartiality, obviously more in hope than expectation, states in his column that “considering the fact that this issue (FCR) was already covered off back in the mists of time by the Tierney Report, I wonder how many more reports it’s going to take before the FSA finally begins to consider that its diametric opposition to something industry is crying out for makes no sense..............”. Don’t hold your breath, Ed!!
In a letter in the same issue, former top FSA vet Peter Hewson not only promotes the case for the Macdonald findings, he exposes his old bosses and their tactics for what they are. He said “ the FSA’s arguments (about outsourced meat inspection services) do not stand up to scrutiny, and I hope the FSA board will not allow another opportunity to pass that would benefit both the industry and consumer.......” Note “and consumer”, and his revealing letter goes on to explain how this might be the case. For an eminent but cagey old fox like Peter Hewson, this letter actually wipes the floor with the FSA, and, I believe, adds considerable ammunition to our cause if we know how to use it.
But this, in truth, is where we’re at. This Government agency (FSA) is NEVER going to listen to any letter, report, argued reason, fact, lobbying or any expertise that may threaten their bureaucratic existence. They believe themselves to be untouchable as representatives of the interests of the people, and are scornful of any criticism from, it seems, whatever quarter.
Some uncomfortable decisions are going to have to be made to knock the arrogant FSA off its perch and we are rapidly approaching the ultimate “us or them” situation in this tortuous debate. The “wearing-down” of industry has nearly reached its logical conclusion, and that “twitching of bottoms” moment for abattoir operators is almost with us. Do we confront, with whatever tactics we decide to use, or do we simply roll over and capitulate?”
The buck, whether we like it or not, stops with us.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
The Macdonald Task Force recommendations on meat inspection charges, on which blog gave an opinion, 27 May 2011, seems to becoming a central point of debate as the rumpus of full cost recovery and the rapidly declining relationship with the Food Standards Agency (FSA),gathers momentum.
Things kicked off with a letter in The Times. Eight signatories, including Country Land & Business Association, NFU, Campaign to Protect Rural England, National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, Woman’s Institute, Rare Breeds Survival Trust, Soil Association and The National Trust certainly reflected the growing and widespread concern of FSA conduct and its quest for full cost recovery (FCR). An eloquent missive puts the future damage to the countryside in realistic perspective, but one line says it all. “Charging the full cost of inspections should be revisited once they are risk-based and affordable. They are neither and would lead to the closure of large and small abattoirs.”
Yup, that’s it in a nutshell, and I firmly believe that closures are not just an inevitable consequence, they are actually part of Government planning, a few monster meat plants would be so much easier for them to oversee, you see.
Macdonald’s Report recommended that private control bodies, accredited by the FSA, should provide meat inspection services. Inevitably, FSA aren’t having any of that, the threat to their newly acquired fiefdom would be huge.
Also inevitably, as revealed in last week’s Meat Trades Journal (MTJ), “anger” to the FSA response has ensued. Trade spokesmen Stephen Rossides (BMPA) and Norman Bagley (AIMS), made sound comments in reply, and no doubt they will have FSA officials shivering in their shoes at what ever forum, meeting or get together that the FSA dreams up as an outcome to this “anger”.
MTJ Editor Ed Beddington, with noble aplomb and in the interests of impartiality, obviously more in hope than expectation, states in his column that “considering the fact that this issue (FCR) was already covered off back in the mists of time by the Tierney Report, I wonder how many more reports it’s going to take before the FSA finally begins to consider that its diametric opposition to something industry is crying out for makes no sense..............”. Don’t hold your breath, Ed!!
In a letter in the same issue, former top FSA vet Peter Hewson not only promotes the case for the Macdonald findings, he exposes his old bosses and their tactics for what they are. He said “ the FSA’s arguments (about outsourced meat inspection services) do not stand up to scrutiny, and I hope the FSA board will not allow another opportunity to pass that would benefit both the industry and consumer.......” Note “and consumer”, and his revealing letter goes on to explain how this might be the case. For an eminent but cagey old fox like Peter Hewson, this letter actually wipes the floor with the FSA, and, I believe, adds considerable ammunition to our cause if we know how to use it.
But this, in truth, is where we’re at. This Government agency (FSA) is NEVER going to listen to any letter, report, argued reason, fact, lobbying or any expertise that may threaten their bureaucratic existence. They believe themselves to be untouchable as representatives of the interests of the people, and are scornful of any criticism from, it seems, whatever quarter.
Some uncomfortable decisions are going to have to be made to knock the arrogant FSA off its perch and we are rapidly approaching the ultimate “us or them” situation in this tortuous debate. The “wearing-down” of industry has nearly reached its logical conclusion, and that “twitching of bottoms” moment for abattoir operators is almost with us. Do we confront, with whatever tactics we decide to use, or do we simply roll over and capitulate?”
The buck, whether we like it or not, stops with us.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
Friday, 24 June 2011
With full cost recovery neatly tucked under their belt, it certainly hasn’t taken the Food Standards Agency (FSA) long to find something new to amuse themselves with.
Apparently their latest wheeze is something called the “ FSA Operational Assurance Team.” The whaaat I hear you mutter? Yes, unbelievably, not content with vets, lead vets, auditing vets, meat inspectors, senior meat inspectors, meat technicians (who have I forgotten?!), along comes yet another unstatutory group of jobsworth people to take a “snapshot of performance” as they call it with visits “unannounced to both operators and the OV and his team.”
I’ve never been afraid of unannounced visits at any time; indeed, have championed their cause. But in addition to the rest of a veritable army of inspectors? Mindnumbing really, just the sort of game that bureaucrats with nothing better to do play. Guess the abattoir sector will put up with it, though, they have everything else.
Yes, they’ll co-operate, and what will they get for that co-operation? The same, absolutely nothing. After all that has happened over the years and the contemptible way the trade has been ritually sidelined by officialdom, it does beg an obvious question. Where is sound progress ever going to come from for the slaughtering industry? In the twenty years or so that I have been campaigning for logical and workable ways forward, one point has remained constant throughout – things simply keep just getting worse!
And that, I’m afraid, is the way it will stay unless the trade and its spokespeople have the nerve and gumption to alter the agenda on the way communications with the authorities are handled. Trotting along to this forum, or that meeting has been proved to be counterproductive; worse than that, it actually plays into the officials hands who can, and do ,claim to be “listening” to views when of course they are doing no such thing.
The Scottish wholesalers are standing up for the cause, though, and have never shirked from going public with the truth; they have put a marker down, it just needs the will to follow it.
The FSA also seems to be raising the ante on abattoir licensing. In their May issue of “Tec Files”, in what looks like a recce to raise their profile on this subject, a Dennis Cryer has devoted two whole pages of this self-congratulatory magazine in presenting where the FSA should be going in carrying out its regulatory duties.
One has become used to the sort of language these people use to intimidate and frighten and this is such a case. So inflammatory and downright inaccurate in fact that the next blog will concentrate and comment solely on this article.
Our backs are where they have always been. To the wall.
To succeed you have to try. Toby Baker.
Apparently their latest wheeze is something called the “ FSA Operational Assurance Team.” The whaaat I hear you mutter? Yes, unbelievably, not content with vets, lead vets, auditing vets, meat inspectors, senior meat inspectors, meat technicians (who have I forgotten?!), along comes yet another unstatutory group of jobsworth people to take a “snapshot of performance” as they call it with visits “unannounced to both operators and the OV and his team.”
I’ve never been afraid of unannounced visits at any time; indeed, have championed their cause. But in addition to the rest of a veritable army of inspectors? Mindnumbing really, just the sort of game that bureaucrats with nothing better to do play. Guess the abattoir sector will put up with it, though, they have everything else.
Yes, they’ll co-operate, and what will they get for that co-operation? The same, absolutely nothing. After all that has happened over the years and the contemptible way the trade has been ritually sidelined by officialdom, it does beg an obvious question. Where is sound progress ever going to come from for the slaughtering industry? In the twenty years or so that I have been campaigning for logical and workable ways forward, one point has remained constant throughout – things simply keep just getting worse!
And that, I’m afraid, is the way it will stay unless the trade and its spokespeople have the nerve and gumption to alter the agenda on the way communications with the authorities are handled. Trotting along to this forum, or that meeting has been proved to be counterproductive; worse than that, it actually plays into the officials hands who can, and do ,claim to be “listening” to views when of course they are doing no such thing.
The Scottish wholesalers are standing up for the cause, though, and have never shirked from going public with the truth; they have put a marker down, it just needs the will to follow it.
The FSA also seems to be raising the ante on abattoir licensing. In their May issue of “Tec Files”, in what looks like a recce to raise their profile on this subject, a Dennis Cryer has devoted two whole pages of this self-congratulatory magazine in presenting where the FSA should be going in carrying out its regulatory duties.
One has become used to the sort of language these people use to intimidate and frighten and this is such a case. So inflammatory and downright inaccurate in fact that the next blog will concentrate and comment solely on this article.
Our backs are where they have always been. To the wall.
To succeed you have to try. Toby Baker.
Friday, 27 May 2011
The Macdonald Task Force has apparently been well received by leading trade figures, no doubt to a general sigh of relief for another New Dawn. Only in the meat trade could history repeat itself and so often.
Does nobody remember the Pooley Report? Or those by Maclean or Tierney? All well-meaning and producing some good ideas, but all failing to identify the fatal flaws in UK enforcement of meat hygiene legislation. The fact that regulations are disproportionate and not risk-based should be the starting point for any review and yet it remains a rather vague concept casually mentioned in passing, if at all. This state of affairs is without serious challenge and aggravated by the over-interpretation (gold plating) of the law by official inspectors. The result of neglecting the basic fault lines in the system over the years has been a steady increase in the number of personnel, unnecessary administration activity, a tarnished image for the industry, and of course increased costs.
All of which gives a free run to departmental and professional interests in producing smokescreens to hoodwink the government and the public. I looked forward to the Macdonald findings in the hope of retiring from the role of party pooper and generally negative commentator on meat industry affairs. How satisfying it would be to co-operate amicably with sensible improvements. And how did I come to even dream that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) are any different from their predecessors!
A brief impression of the Task Force Report is discouraging to say the least. Of course all the platitudes are there: “co-operation”, “risk-based controls” etc. etc. But no realistic time table for the changes that matter. These are amendment of archaic EU law, an accurate understanding and interpretation of current regulations, drastic reduction of professional resources wasted on abattoir controls and so on. And plenty of similar waffle with most of the relevant points of interest consigned to the medium or long term – which over the past twenty years has been “at least ten years away”.
Fortunately Mr Macdonald briefly dropped his guard and gave us an easy chance to see how things really work. How about this; (the recommendation is)
“That consistently competent meat processors should be able to source meat inspection systems from accredited private sector providers within a system managed by the competent authority”.
Are we supposed to be so pleased about private sector involvement (which is a red herring in this context) that we don’t pay attention to the proviso: “a system managed by the competent authority”? Well you don’t say! Managed by the competent authority eh? Does this not leave the door wide open for still more officials, still more interference for an extra body to “manage”? An open opportunity to decide whether operators are consistently competent. Just think of the festival of paperwork, more inspections. A nightmare.
More importantly a direct challenge to the spirit of the law, which gives total responsibility to the operator for producing safe meat – which brings us back to the urgent need for root and branch change. The sort of change we are told is about ten years away.
Also the small matter of full cost inspection charges. The recent FSA Board meeting in Belfast rubber-stamped full cost recovery for the Agency, albeit with a few minor concessions on timing, pensions and low throughput categories. The important concept of full cost recovery is the Agency’s holy grail however, and subject to Ministers approval, which is our last chance saloon, that’s what they’ve got. We can but hope.
Some interesting comments ensued. The NFU kept their finger on the pulse – “It makes no sense for the FSA Board to progress down this route of full cost recovery without firstly giving due consideration..............to put in place a cost effective and efficient inspection regime”, said spokesman Alistair Mackintosh.
Trade spokesmen Norman Bagley and Stephen Rossides saw things different and reactions were positively upbeat that the FSA had actually been brought to heel in their ambitions.
Struggle to see it myself, and not for the first time, it was Scottish trade representative, Ian Anderson, who seemed to hit the nail on the head. “The FSA continues to ride roughshod over those who oppose them. They have ignored the welter of opposition and failed to address the fundamental points made during the consultation. The only worthwhile concession they have made is to remove the pension liability contribution from the equation. Who knows whether they would have volunteered this had SAMW not exposed the FSA pensions scandal in February. The FSA continues to tinker around the edges of the meat inspection/charges issue rather than the measures for radical reform............”
Right on the money, Mr Anderson. From an industry perspective, it’s a pity you appear to be on your own.
Toby Baker
Does nobody remember the Pooley Report? Or those by Maclean or Tierney? All well-meaning and producing some good ideas, but all failing to identify the fatal flaws in UK enforcement of meat hygiene legislation. The fact that regulations are disproportionate and not risk-based should be the starting point for any review and yet it remains a rather vague concept casually mentioned in passing, if at all. This state of affairs is without serious challenge and aggravated by the over-interpretation (gold plating) of the law by official inspectors. The result of neglecting the basic fault lines in the system over the years has been a steady increase in the number of personnel, unnecessary administration activity, a tarnished image for the industry, and of course increased costs.
All of which gives a free run to departmental and professional interests in producing smokescreens to hoodwink the government and the public. I looked forward to the Macdonald findings in the hope of retiring from the role of party pooper and generally negative commentator on meat industry affairs. How satisfying it would be to co-operate amicably with sensible improvements. And how did I come to even dream that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) are any different from their predecessors!
A brief impression of the Task Force Report is discouraging to say the least. Of course all the platitudes are there: “co-operation”, “risk-based controls” etc. etc. But no realistic time table for the changes that matter. These are amendment of archaic EU law, an accurate understanding and interpretation of current regulations, drastic reduction of professional resources wasted on abattoir controls and so on. And plenty of similar waffle with most of the relevant points of interest consigned to the medium or long term – which over the past twenty years has been “at least ten years away”.
Fortunately Mr Macdonald briefly dropped his guard and gave us an easy chance to see how things really work. How about this; (the recommendation is)
“That consistently competent meat processors should be able to source meat inspection systems from accredited private sector providers within a system managed by the competent authority”.
Are we supposed to be so pleased about private sector involvement (which is a red herring in this context) that we don’t pay attention to the proviso: “a system managed by the competent authority”? Well you don’t say! Managed by the competent authority eh? Does this not leave the door wide open for still more officials, still more interference for an extra body to “manage”? An open opportunity to decide whether operators are consistently competent. Just think of the festival of paperwork, more inspections. A nightmare.
More importantly a direct challenge to the spirit of the law, which gives total responsibility to the operator for producing safe meat – which brings us back to the urgent need for root and branch change. The sort of change we are told is about ten years away.
Also the small matter of full cost inspection charges. The recent FSA Board meeting in Belfast rubber-stamped full cost recovery for the Agency, albeit with a few minor concessions on timing, pensions and low throughput categories. The important concept of full cost recovery is the Agency’s holy grail however, and subject to Ministers approval, which is our last chance saloon, that’s what they’ve got. We can but hope.
Some interesting comments ensued. The NFU kept their finger on the pulse – “It makes no sense for the FSA Board to progress down this route of full cost recovery without firstly giving due consideration..............to put in place a cost effective and efficient inspection regime”, said spokesman Alistair Mackintosh.
Trade spokesmen Norman Bagley and Stephen Rossides saw things different and reactions were positively upbeat that the FSA had actually been brought to heel in their ambitions.
Struggle to see it myself, and not for the first time, it was Scottish trade representative, Ian Anderson, who seemed to hit the nail on the head. “The FSA continues to ride roughshod over those who oppose them. They have ignored the welter of opposition and failed to address the fundamental points made during the consultation. The only worthwhile concession they have made is to remove the pension liability contribution from the equation. Who knows whether they would have volunteered this had SAMW not exposed the FSA pensions scandal in February. The FSA continues to tinker around the edges of the meat inspection/charges issue rather than the measures for radical reform............”
Right on the money, Mr Anderson. From an industry perspective, it’s a pity you appear to be on your own.
Toby Baker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)