Three short- working weeks, holidays, royal weddings, etc, have kept blog quiet for a time, and the warm sunny days certainly boosted business for butchers during that period, spending more hours doing what we should be doing, i.e., selling meat!
Meanwhile the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers (SAMW) have been on the move; they have always seemed more “up for it” than their southern counterparts when challenging the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Speaking at their annual conference, SAMW president Alan Craig outlined how his organisation was backing moves for a devolved Scottish system to replace discredited FSA enforcement procedures. He said; “We need the right structures, the right systems and the right people working for us and with us. Not against us.” This approach, he added, would be “ a solution which could include practical input from industry in meat inspection, rather than exclude those who actually depend on product safety and purity for their livelihood.”
Well said, Mr Craig; it is essential that more stress is put on statute law which makes clear that product safety is the responsibility of the abattoir; not the ever-present FSA vets and inspectors who patrol slaughterhouses to check that certain regulations have been complied with. Most of these have very little to do with public health and indeed the FSA themselves admit that abattoir regulations are neither risk-based nor proportionate. And furthermore no other sector of the food industry is saddled with the full-time presence of enforcement officers.
On the subject of full cost recovery, the FSA is due to discuss its future charging policy at the next FSA Board meeting on the 25th May. Presumably, this will be the occasion to announce future charges to be ratified by Ministers. There will also be four regional public meetings to “provide attendees with an opportunity to hear more about the proposals and share their views.” Oh dear me! Save your petrol money. Because let nobody be under any illusion about the outcome of such days out.
Years of careful (and devious)l planning, behind effective smokescreens, have been spent with the aim of securing full cost recovery. The FSA is not about to change course now during a few last minute public meetings. To think otherwise would show a deep misunderstanding about how Government agencies work.
The inevitable outcome of crippling full cost recovery was foreseeable but this is now water under the bridge. Taking a cue from Alan Craig, perhaps a new approach is worth considering. I have long been of the opinion that simply arguing about the money does not help in discussions with the FSA, and in fact can be counterproductive. There are many weaknesses in current enforcement policies that do not receive public debate: often because of fear when discussing hygiene matters in public. But now that it is perfectly clear that by tacitly accepting official claims about health risks; by failing to press for an enquiry as to why meat plants are considered the most hazardous premises in the whole of the food industry; by putting up with blatant gold plating of already excessive regulations; by failing to contest the FSA’s misunderstanding of the principles of HACCP; all these things and more besides must be dealt with by the industry.
In other words not enough time and effort go into exposing the many official weaknesses. You can’t work with these people, so don’t waste time and money trying, until we can set the agenda.
Toby Baker