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

As the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has finally announced, after some almost pathetic last-minute tinkering, that full cost recovery will go ahead virtually as planned, the meat industry, as it is, now finds itself in a blind alley with nowhere to go.
The FSA has been true to form. Despite the charades of “consultation”, “stakeholder meetings”, “working together with industry”, the reality is that they have never had any intention of participating in any such party games, and indeed, as time as gone on, their contempt for trade spokesmen and food business operators, etc, has been, even in these elitest bureaucratic times , and I choose this word very carefully, frightening.
Although I have always been, and remain, suspicious of the long-term plans of the British Meat Processors (BMPA), the likes of their spokesman, Mr Stephen Rossides, plus willing characters who I have much more affinity to, people such as Norman Bagley and William Lloyd Williams, must now surely realise what cannon fodder they have been all these years; all the willing time given and long days spent trying to rationalise with officials with jobs to protect – surely the penny has dropped by now, hasn’t it?!
War has been declared, and the “Chamberlain “ moment has come and gone. Big question is, are there the Generals out there to take us into battle, and perhaps even bigger question, have they got the armoury and the backing to do so, even if they wanted to? To bring about such a strategy, there would have to be first and foremost an almost seismic change of attitude right across the abattoir industry; a willingness to go into conflict mode unprecedented in this industry.
If such a scenario should emerge, what might be the way forward? First, remove all communication with the enemy (the FSA). Stop the fruitless meetings, forums, etc, that soak up so much precious time and money. Then, put together a cabinet to plot tactics for the war to follow, and from the outset, begin the building of a war chest, paid for by those of us with everything to gain and not much to lose. All this to be backed up with a media campaign in which to state and lobby our case, to show the British public what we stand for and what we’re up against. To be painstaking and persevering, relentless even. To reveal what the FSA fears most – the truth.
Once the battle plan has been established, add to this a strategy of taking the FSA to court as necessary and to back our legal system to give us a much more fair interpretation of the law, which is ridden roughshod over.
The FSA will be backing the reasoning that the industry has not the will, the courage, the expertise, the knowledge or the nerve to follow such a path?
Well, have we?
To succeed you have to try
Toby Baker

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