It’s good to see that Norman Bagley, policy director of the Association of Meat Suppliers (AIMS), is getting plenty of support from his members in backing his stance against the Food Standards Agency (FSA) over its publishing of a “cause for concern” list of abattoirs; this being done despite the FSA Agency being overruled by the FSA Board itself! This is pretty humiliating for the FSA Board, and it does raise the question; why bother with such meetings when the FSA executive totally ignore FSA Board rulings? How demeaning it is for those Board Members, but one shouldn’t be too surprised by the dismissive tactics of FSA Executive leader Lord Rooker and his cronies, even if it is his own side he’s undermining. He strikes me as the type of man who wouldn’t give a fig anyway.
So good luck to Norman, but reading the article in the Meat Trades Journal (MTJ) that featured this topic also highlighted a major stumbling block to trade unity.
And this relates to the comments of Stephen Rossides, director with the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA). He said: “It’s not completely clear what a “cause for concern” is for. If a food business operator (FBO) is not producing safe food, then it should be shut down. If it producing meat that is health marked, what does being on a public “cause for concern” list communicate, and to whom?”
Notwithstanding the fact that no FBO can guarantee “safe” food because that is not possible, this is a bit of a wishy washy statement from Mr Rossides, although the reference to the health mark is important; once the health mark is applied, it’s job done. So a “cause for concern” or any other fatuous exercise that officialdom can dream up is a complete waste of time,and a prime example of a Government department stepping outside its legal remit.
But it’s a typical glass half full comment from the BMPA, who are obviously concerned about the impact of full cost recovery on their members who in the main run the larger plants, but who actually would not shed a tear if a swathe of small to abattoirs were removed from competition.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical. The BMPA, are always anxious, it would appear, not to be too critical of Government; after all, they welcomed, pushed for and lauded the birth of the wretched Meat Hygiene Service, predecessor to the FSA, and it certainly does not want to be confrontational.
They have always run with the hare and hunted with the hounds, or so it would seem, as illustrated by Mr Rossides’ following on statement: “The FSA needs to find better ways to reward high or improving standards and penalise poor standards. The present inflexible meat inspection system just doesn’t do this.””. This is a statement that is dangerous to the meat trade because it is wrong. Standards, however they may be classified, having nothing to do whatsoever with the regulators. There is, in fact, only one standard that counts, and that is the law. FBO’s have to comply with the law, the regulators have to enforce it. End of story. Raising this or improving that are not legal requirements. By sucking up to officialdom in this way, Mr Rossides comes over pretty much as a bureaucrat himself. It certainly seems like he wants a foot in both camps; not a strategy to promote unity, I would suggest.
In fact the Scottish wholesalers are already pushing for a devolved meat inspection to come under the auspice of FSA Scotland, to break away from the FSA: and who can blame them? They have been vociferous in their condemnation of the way FSA has gone about the issue of full cost recovery, are probably more outspoken than any other trade association, and obviously feel that this is the right time to branch out.
But we must keep our minds clear. What is important is that “cause for concern” doesn’t become a red herring which distracts and uses up resources for the much more important conflict abattoir operators face over full cost recovery of meat inspection charges.
When I think about “cause for concern,” my response is boo/hiss. When my thoughts turn to full cost recovery, I wonder if I am going to have a business left at the end of it.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker

Missed last week due to a week’s holiday in Tuscany, a lovely part of the world; it’s always nice to get away from it all from time to time, but there’s nothing quite like that feeling of going home, is there?
So watching the almost biblical catastrophe unfold in Japan while watching BBC World News, and of course how modern communications can bring up-to-the-minute pictures and information right into your living room, was shocking yet compulsive, frightening yet revealing.
Our hearts and best wishes go out to the Japanese people, but they are a stoic nation, and will recover. They always do.
The ugly side of dictatorship is also prominent on the world scene at the moment. The Middle East crisis which at the moment revolves around Colonel Gaddafi and Libya and the jackboot tactics and response used serves to remind us how these types of people react when seriously challenged. All dictators act in this way when threatened. Ring fence the opposition and crush seems to be the tactic, dissenting views are not an option.
I’m sure Norman Bagley, policy director of the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS) will be feeling that way inclined with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) at the moment.
Not forgetting how this Government Agency continually trumpets “transparency”, “openness”, “working together”, “stakeholders”, etc., all cosy and friendly stuff, it actually only applies as long as you don’t criticise them!!
In a circular to members, Norman reveals how relationships with the FSA are breaking down. Not on his part, but entirely from the side of the FSA. As we know, Norman is not frightened to get stuck in on behalf of his members with robust and hard-hitting comment when necessary; he rattles cages and wears his heart on his sleeve, and I’m sure he won’t mind me saying that “political” and “correctness” are two words that probably don’t appeal to him too much!
The FSA “ has instructed its staff not to speak to anyone representing AIMS for a period of time during which they have asked us to only communicate with the Agency through the Director of Operations”, the circular read. This followed criticism of the FSA by AIMS in the Meat Trades Journal (MTJ) apparently because of so-called offensive statements made to its staff. They would call it offensive, Norman would call it the truth.
And that’s why I liken the FSA to a kind of dictatorship, who regulate our industry with totally unjustified interpretations of the law, publically demean our industry if it should suit their purpose, and who are intending to tax abattoir operators to such an extent that even the Sheriff of Nottingham would squirm!
But put the boot on the other foot, give them some of their own medicine, and their true jackboot traits are revealed. But who do they think they are? Who are they to deem themselves to be above criticism? What makes them so special?
Communication and negotiation should be a two-way conversation but that is still miles off the political landscape. The Big Society will hopefully bring about a change of emphasis, but I doubt it. Meanwhile, Big Brother remains firmly in control.
The FSA are trying to isolate Norman Bagley, but they have picked the wrong man to bully. Just imagine though if, say, another three or four prominent trade representatives (and that is all it would take) got together with Norman and thrashed out a battle plan to confront and take on the FSA, and have the backing to do so. Suddenly there would be some hope, I’m sure, for those of us who are abattoir operators and who at the moment see only the bleakest of futures. It is going to take something on these lines to bring these bureaucratic bullies to heel.
History shows that the day of reckoning for a dictator arrives eventually, but it is the damage they cause in the meantime. We in the abattoir sector are rapidly heading to be part of FSA damage, so something must be done.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker

As the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has recently released its official justification of inspection charges called “Cost Data for Great Britain”, it is perhaps a good time to make an assessment of the current situation.
This document is long and complex. It will be pored over, no doubt, but all it does is to instruct industry in outlining FSA reasons and timetable for recovery of full inspection costs.
Leaving aside confusion and lack of detailed information, there is the equally important point that is not dealt with at all, i.e., the fact that the regulations themselves are faulty: even the FSA has conceded they are neither risk-based nor proportionate.
Fundamental to any real progress, the trade has somehow to stand firm and get this message across; it is surely, both in law and justice, essential to address the problem of faulty regulation before pursuing any discussion on finance .The FSA can’t be reminded often enough of what the real issues are.
Full cost recovery has been the one and only serious agenda of this ignorant agency for years; they seem to have a mindset of never mind the law, we’re after recovering full costs, no matter what the law says. They will say or do anything just to trouser the money.
FSA targets may well suit some sectors of the industry, but I don’t see how, even the very big operators. For those of us who run small and medium sized enterprises, our whole future is at stake.
Common sense versus modern bureaucracy is no contest, especially when having to deal with the likes of the FSA whose revenue is directly proportionate to the amount of regulation it imposes. Or in other words, start with the result you want, and then work backwards (e.g. bogus consultations) to justify actions. Yes, exactly the opposite to what happens in the real commercial world where conclusion usually follows consultation and negotiation, not the other way round.
Blog has been relentless in trying to highlight this important point, and predicts that any industry responsive strategy is unquestionably doomed to failure unless this issue is tackled, once and for all.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker