It could be said that in the big debate on full cost recovery, we are fast approaching the point at where the wholesale meat industry sinks or swims – whether or not to confront the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on the lines suggested in previous blogs, i.e. the technical issues prior to the financial ones.
It’s worth remembering what we’re up against. The bullying tactics of Messrs Rooker, Smith and Rhodes have been well documented, and indeed, for public officials to behave in the manner that these gentlemen have thus far is unworthy of their office, to put it no less politely than that.
If you were trying to do business with a company who treated you like the FSA does, you probably walk away, don’t you?
We have ruthless adversaries, their track record spreads back over many years, so we know the type of people we’re up against. So have we got the nerve to reset agendas and lead the debate for a change? Negotiate the real issues instead of being told what is going to happen under the disguise of consultation. Have we got the nerve to pull out of all discussions unless this format is agreed to? We’ve got so much in our favour, it surely time to show what we’re capable of achieving. After all, basic defects in current abattoir health regulations have been acknowledged by the FSA, so isn’t about time that they were drawn out into the open on this vital subject? This is fundamental to future success for us. It’s time to raise our standard to the top of the mast.
This is surely the way forward for industry strategy as there are other typical issues to be addressed that could so easily bring about an inspection model on a realistic budget:
(1) To treat post mortem inspection procedures as a separate responsibility, carried out by suitably qualified officials: employed if necessary by independent contractors, as is the case with OV’s.
(2) Hygiene supervision to follow more closely the existing statutory requirements. An operator is responsible for complying with the law and must have in place a HACCP system to verify this. Vets are responsible for hygiene supervision and will carry this out through HACCP audit procedures. The meaning of the word “supervision” must be re-visited: legitimate definitions could be more flexible even within EU law. For example one interpretation of the law could be the absurd presence of sufficient vets to oversee every department at all times. Of course that would be silly, but so may any law, if not enforced with common sense.
(3) At present the question of correct HACCP is confused to the point of chaos. Although the regulations are quite clear about the meaning of a HACCP plan, at present the FSA operate a control system that is neither logical nor effective. In all abattoirs there is veterinary and meat inspector presence at all times. The law specifically verifies that if all regulations are complied with, a health mark is attached. Which means that a HACCP system is unnecessary in legal or risk terms.
(4) At the same time the operator is supposed to take responsibility and implement a proper HACCP plan. In practice this is difficult, if not impossible when micro managed by officials, which results in duplication of duties and confusion. Furthermore it is not possible for reason of costs for a company to staff and operate a practical and useful HACCP system as required by law. For one thing official inspection charges soak up whatever funds are available in this field.
(5) At present there is no leeway on veterinary ante mortem inspection. But still some flexibility is necessary. A large plant may well merit a vet permanently on lairage duties. Medium/small outfits should be able to arrange set ante-mortem inspection times for appropriate veterinary attendance. The overall point is that current ante-mortem arrangements are not justified in public health terms.
(6) A great impediment to sensible compliance with the law is “gold plating” on the part of FSA officials. For example, the decree that an operator must earn the privilege of complying with the law without veterinary presence: this seems to be outside the law. The intention of the law (at least as enforced in all food premises except abattoirs) is that a local authority health inspector pays occasional visits to verify conformance through audit of the company HACCP. The FSA have always cast doubt on the ability and trustworthiness of abattoir operators to produce safe meat when actually the evidence points to the need for FSA procedures to be scrutinised.
(7) Another unjustified handicap placed on operators is the unique power of officials to stop production in abattoirs. This enforcement tool (Remedial Action Notice) does not directly remove the right of appeal but in reality renders it ineffective by not requiring the notice to be on hold pending the appeal. This means that a notice to stop work immediately, without proof of risk to health or court decision, is in fact arbitrary closure at the whim of an inspector, which of course puts the business in peril without any reference to the courts. The situation is made worse if FSA officials ignore perfectly reasonable Hygiene Improvement notices that require a notice to be on hold prior to the court hearing. It should be pointed out that no reference to Remedial Action Notices is made in the relevant EU Directives and Regulations.
The FSA has a clearly stated and determined official decision to recover full inspection costs. It is abundantly clear that their departmental agendas play a bigger part in their decision making than UK national interests. There has been no real debate, consultation or discussion. Just smokescreens to hide the truth that it would be quite possible to design an inspection model on a realistic budget that takes account of current law, with the acknowledgement of those regulations that require obvious change in genuine co-operation with Brussels.
Over the last couple of months or so, this blog has tried to cover every facet of the whole debate, and hopefully we haven’t missed any obvious and relevant points of discussion. The FSA are due to release details of the “consultation” very soon, but we know what’s coming. The moment of truth will have finally arrived. There will be nowhere to hide.
The will and backbone of our industry is about to face its biggest ever test. Has it got the stomach for a scrap?
We shall see. To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker.