A four-page debate on full cost recovery in last weeks MTJ (21 JAN 2011) made for some interesting reading, although it seemed strange that of the seven participants, which included Mr Tim Smith, Chief Executive of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), only one fresh red meat organisation was represented, William Lloyd Williams for the small abattoirs association.
Probably just as well for Mr Smith, because I can think of one or two trade spokespeople who might have given him a slightly tougher time!
Mr Smith certainly seemed to be running the show as he trotted out the well-rehearsed party line, with no taxing questions to deal with as far as I could see. It came over, perhaps unfairly, that whatever Mr Smith said, it was blindly accepted. He certainly has a knack of getting away with it does Mr Smith. As with his various faux pas on the recent Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”, Mr Smith gets away scot –free after shooting himself in the foot as he plays for time.
“It’s not a service (you’d want to) start off with,” he said. “The problem we’ve all got is that none of us in this room today think that what happens in meat inspection is risk-based and proportionate.....” he added. Truth at last, and no real progress can be made until we actually get to the bottom of what this statement means. Mr Smith tried to extricate himself from this unprepared show of honesty by adding; ”If we do not need to do all the things we all agree are wasting time and energy, we can do other things with some of the costs.”
An amazing comment, although he tries to justify it by saying that “we’ll report this month on 40 plants that are cause for concern and none of us can do anything about that......”What do you mean. Mr Smith, “cause for concern”? Are there some abattoir operators doing something illegal? Are they operating some kind of a racket? Are they sending out meat that hasn’t been inspected? Are they sending out meat that hasn’t been stamped? Are they breaking welfare rules? Or is this just another facile attempt to confuse people outside the industry of some petty misdemeanour? Mr Smith, what are you saying here, because this statement of accusation is a very, very important one in the context of this whole debate. It is vital that this question is answered.
However Mr Smith may spin it, these are the facts. The abattoir sector, scientifically proven and agreed by all, is over-regulated. This has lead to an over-manning situation, therefore money that not need be spent goes direct from the Treasury to the FSA, which is necessary to pay officials to do work that is not needed, again as agreed by all. Sound risk analyses confirms that the FSA is spending money it needn’t, therefore why ask industry for more?
It’s true. More money is coming out of the tax system than should be. Whichever way you look at the process of consultation and solution, the real problem lies with the FSA, and Mr Smith has confirmed this beyond any reasonable doubt. By hook or by crook, the FSA is going to carry on with its strategy of obscuring issues, raising smokescreens (e.g. “cause for concern), blaming industry at every opportunity, and generally withholding details of their costings with the clear objective of charging industry for their excessive claims.
So let’s clarify the facts. The regulations are way over the top and shouldn’t be costing these monies, thus words like “sponsoring” and “subsidising” shouldn’t even be in the debate. The FSA should be working to a budget that provides a meat inspection system that suits the needs of industry, not the career aspirations and bloated pension schemes of a typical modern-day bureaucracy.
These people are fighting for their jobs, as we all are, so make no mistake, things are going to get nasty, and negotiations will be extremely tough.
Question. Have we got the guts to face a propaganda onslaught, being demeaned by officialdom, to cope with this and then have the nerve to take the fight to our opponents?
I believe we have to. To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
Friday, 28 January 2011
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
THE FOLLOWING BLOG SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT ON THE 14TH JANUARY, BUT DIDN'T DUE TO USUAL TECHNICAL HITCHES! MY APOLOGIES. MY NORMAL FRIDAY BLOG FOR 21ST JANUARY WAS MISSING DUE TO HOLIDAY. THANK YOU, TOBY BAKER
The full cost recovery debate is certainly starting to pick up a head of steam. The leader in the MTJ (7 JAN 2011) featuring an open letter signed by 13 industry organisations in protest at Food Standard Agency(FSA) proposals provides a landmark in unity across the farming and processing sectors.
But how is it best to galvanise these meat industry leaders into a unit that will be able to punch its weight when opposing such a powerful Government body?
At this stage, a unity which is in its early stages has been brought about due to disastrous financial implications thanks to the FSA which is now cocooning itself into a fantasy world of make believe over this issue. Although money is, of course, the ultimate deciding factor on whether a business survives or not, I firmly believe that this is NOT the area where our initial efforts should come from. There is an issue of facts, truth, science and technology to put before the public before we start arguing about the money. Expose the rituals and myths of veterinary and meat inspection in the production of fresh meat from abattoirs. That’s where the debate should begin; to just bleat on about the money would play into FSA hands by turning public support against us.
Still, my opinion is just one of many. I applaud the open letter, but how to take unity forward? Meetings of trade leaders, without an official in sight , to produce a battle plan for the stormy days that lie ahead might be a good start.
So lets cut to the chase. The FSA, particularly through Chief Executive Tim Smith have openly declared war on the industry, contemptuous in his denigration and demonising of the trade.
What possible future is there in trying to go through the consultation process with such people? None whatsoever, it is a pointless exercise.
We might say this to officials:
(1) That we see, and will treat them, as adversaries.
(2) Will acknowledge publically that you can’t negotiate with someone who is trying to bury you.
(3) That industry will set the agenda for meetings.
(4) That Tim Smith be sacked for his shameful comments on the Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”.
(5) That FSA lies will be exposed and that they will be faced with the facts.
Radical stuff, I know, but the mood has to change for positive results, in my view.If there is to be honest consultation, let that be done with the British people and the law, not some bureaucratic sham of a “consultation” with the FSA bully-boys, a farcical scenario that we’ve let happen for donkeys years over so many issues.
But overriding all that has been stated above, we are left with the fundamental question that stands out – Where do we go from here?
The last chance saloon looms. To succeed you have to try. TOBY BAKER.
The full cost recovery debate is certainly starting to pick up a head of steam. The leader in the MTJ (7 JAN 2011) featuring an open letter signed by 13 industry organisations in protest at Food Standard Agency(FSA) proposals provides a landmark in unity across the farming and processing sectors.
But how is it best to galvanise these meat industry leaders into a unit that will be able to punch its weight when opposing such a powerful Government body?
At this stage, a unity which is in its early stages has been brought about due to disastrous financial implications thanks to the FSA which is now cocooning itself into a fantasy world of make believe over this issue. Although money is, of course, the ultimate deciding factor on whether a business survives or not, I firmly believe that this is NOT the area where our initial efforts should come from. There is an issue of facts, truth, science and technology to put before the public before we start arguing about the money. Expose the rituals and myths of veterinary and meat inspection in the production of fresh meat from abattoirs. That’s where the debate should begin; to just bleat on about the money would play into FSA hands by turning public support against us.
Still, my opinion is just one of many. I applaud the open letter, but how to take unity forward? Meetings of trade leaders, without an official in sight , to produce a battle plan for the stormy days that lie ahead might be a good start.
So lets cut to the chase. The FSA, particularly through Chief Executive Tim Smith have openly declared war on the industry, contemptuous in his denigration and demonising of the trade.
What possible future is there in trying to go through the consultation process with such people? None whatsoever, it is a pointless exercise.
We might say this to officials:
(1) That we see, and will treat them, as adversaries.
(2) Will acknowledge publically that you can’t negotiate with someone who is trying to bury you.
(3) That industry will set the agenda for meetings.
(4) That Tim Smith be sacked for his shameful comments on the Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”.
(5) That FSA lies will be exposed and that they will be faced with the facts.
Radical stuff, I know, but the mood has to change for positive results, in my view.If there is to be honest consultation, let that be done with the British people and the law, not some bureaucratic sham of a “consultation” with the FSA bully-boys, a farcical scenario that we’ve let happen for donkeys years over so many issues.
But overriding all that has been stated above, we are left with the fundamental question that stands out – Where do we go from here?
The last chance saloon looms. To succeed you have to try. TOBY BAKER.
Friday, 7 January 2011
As stated in previous blogs signs of a genuine unity across industry to deal with the full cost recovery issue have emerged, so hopefully a progressive campaign along these lines can continue to grow.
To succeed, unity is of the upmost importance, but it has been an Achilles heel within the fresh meat industry for as long as I have been in the trade. What would be good to see is a specially-formed small group of experts, adequately funded, to get together overnight if necessary, to back up the meat trade with scientific, technical, legal and media expertise. Our own SAS if you like, flak jackets and all ,to get stuck into any government agency, or whoever, who dares to do what has so often happened in the past, i.e. to use our industry as a convenient political punchbag for sectoral gain and convenience. Enemies of the industry are out there in various different forms. Historically we just lie down and take it; in an ever changing technological world we have surely to learn to move with the times and respond accordingly.
For example, a government agency such as the Food Standards Agency (FSA) would certainly think twice.
Modern day bureaucracies such as the FSA seem to have limitless amounts of money to produce self-justifying magazines (BITE is the name of one). Obviously timed to coincide with the Government’s push for full cost recovery, its autumn issue asks the question – “How safe is our meat? Bite provides the inside story”. A host of FSA commentators with fancy sounding titles then proceed to write pieces that yes, make them and their roles sound important but no, in the realities of the fresh meat industry provide exactly the opposite to what the eminent BBC correspondent and FSA Board member M/s Margaret Gilmore has said.......”Our (the FSA).......aim is to see that food regulations are effective, risk-based and proportionate”. What a joke.
Another regular issue that arrives in the post that provides regular dustbin practice after forcing myself to read it is”The Tec Files”, another self –rewarding offering from the FSA. This (as does a feature in Bite) introduces a Mr Andrew Rhodes, the latest Director of Technical Operations, a man who appears as an example of the ultimate bureaucrat who believes he has the right to lecture industry spokesmen who criticize officialdom, but who then proceeds to produce the most mind –numbing bilge I have ever read! People like Mr Rhodes should be brought to task immediately, and this is what a specially formed industry group would do through the media. Play ‘em at their own game!
Also, a typical example of time-wasting and resource- abusing arrived for abattoir operators just before Christmas from Mr Geoff Ogle FSA Head of Operational Delivery (who DOES think these names up)?! It was a circular letter on an improved system for recording visual contamination. Despite this document making no reference to the relevant statute law on the subject of visible contamination, another weight of unnecessary (and costly) paper work is due to be foisted upon us. They should be taken on with all guns blazing. TOBY BAKER.
To succeed, unity is of the upmost importance, but it has been an Achilles heel within the fresh meat industry for as long as I have been in the trade. What would be good to see is a specially-formed small group of experts, adequately funded, to get together overnight if necessary, to back up the meat trade with scientific, technical, legal and media expertise. Our own SAS if you like, flak jackets and all ,to get stuck into any government agency, or whoever, who dares to do what has so often happened in the past, i.e. to use our industry as a convenient political punchbag for sectoral gain and convenience. Enemies of the industry are out there in various different forms. Historically we just lie down and take it; in an ever changing technological world we have surely to learn to move with the times and respond accordingly.
For example, a government agency such as the Food Standards Agency (FSA) would certainly think twice.
Modern day bureaucracies such as the FSA seem to have limitless amounts of money to produce self-justifying magazines (BITE is the name of one). Obviously timed to coincide with the Government’s push for full cost recovery, its autumn issue asks the question – “How safe is our meat? Bite provides the inside story”. A host of FSA commentators with fancy sounding titles then proceed to write pieces that yes, make them and their roles sound important but no, in the realities of the fresh meat industry provide exactly the opposite to what the eminent BBC correspondent and FSA Board member M/s Margaret Gilmore has said.......”Our (the FSA).......aim is to see that food regulations are effective, risk-based and proportionate”. What a joke.
Another regular issue that arrives in the post that provides regular dustbin practice after forcing myself to read it is”The Tec Files”, another self –rewarding offering from the FSA. This (as does a feature in Bite) introduces a Mr Andrew Rhodes, the latest Director of Technical Operations, a man who appears as an example of the ultimate bureaucrat who believes he has the right to lecture industry spokesmen who criticize officialdom, but who then proceeds to produce the most mind –numbing bilge I have ever read! People like Mr Rhodes should be brought to task immediately, and this is what a specially formed industry group would do through the media. Play ‘em at their own game!
Also, a typical example of time-wasting and resource- abusing arrived for abattoir operators just before Christmas from Mr Geoff Ogle FSA Head of Operational Delivery (who DOES think these names up)?! It was a circular letter on an improved system for recording visual contamination. Despite this document making no reference to the relevant statute law on the subject of visible contamination, another weight of unnecessary (and costly) paper work is due to be foisted upon us. They should be taken on with all guns blazing. TOBY BAKER.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)