Toby Baker

2011-09-17T08:38:00.000-07:00

As abattoir operators face up to the future of full cost recovery of meat inspection charges, and take whatever commercial decisions necessary to accommodate these massive cost hikes, one question looms large.
What happens when the money runs out? Trying to survive in a false economic world that the FSA has thrust upon industry will lead to an inevitable conclusion. Collapse. Similarities with the investment bankers and the Alice in Wonderland they lived are eerie.
What the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has done does not stand up to logic, reasoning or scientific fact; simply a modern day Government agency acting with naked self interest that uses daily law enforcement to procure tax revenue. I can’t think of any other working industry in the same boat. Also, years of ratcheting up legal powers seems to have made this agency untouchable. Even being found guilty of abusing the legal process in a recent Magistrates Court hearing hasn’t blunted FSA progress; you won’t find details of this particular court case in the FSA quarterly magazine, “Tec Files”, that’s for sure!
But what the British public needs to realise is where Government policy is taking us. Retailer strength and a lame-duck fresh meat industry will ensure that farmers will have to stump up the money for these FSA charge increases.
This can only lead to a further decline in livestock production that has already been happening for some years now. Costs and thus much higher fresh meat prices at consumer level will turn what were once staple dietary supplies into luxury items. Less and less households will buy meat. British meat will gradually disappear from supermarket shelves. Is it in the national interest to adopt such a strategy that will leave our island at the mercy of foreign supplies? Actual fresh meat shortages in the future are now more probable than possible.
The road map of British abattoirs is set to change dramatically. Which will survive? The big plants? The smaller ones? Who is best placed to deal with shrinking supplies? Can retail butchers do enough business to cope with a reduced market? Can big abattoirs get enough margin knowing that supermarkets will sell them down the river on price, although exports offer an alternative?
This is my last blog on this subject. Quite simply, there is nothing else that I can contribute. I do believe, though, that theses crazy, monopoly-money charges with all their falsehoods, and the sheer weight of bureaucratic demands foisted upon farmers and abattoir operators, will lead to some kind of collapse in fresh meat production that will result in shortages. Then, and only then, will economic reality force these legions of officials who have filled and continue to fill their boots living off productive backs from whence they came.
What collateral damage they leave behind, and who survives, remains to be seen.
Toby Baker

2011-08-05T05:37:00.000-07:00

Six years after the E.coli 0157 outbreak in South Wales, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) have finally found the time to produce its response for retail butchery workers to the outbreak, this in the form of a DVD that can be viewed online or by ordering a copy from the FSA.
The DVD is called “E.coli 0157 – A butchers guide to staying safe” apparently focuses on three key areas:
(1) The threat that E.coli 0157 poses to businesses and their customers
(2) The importance of separation in controlling cross contamination
(3) The role of documented food safety management procedures in ensuring food safety and the ease with which they may be embedded into everyday working practices.
Six years? To produce such patronising drivel as this? Notwithstanding this teaching of grandmother how to suck eggs approach on telling butchers on how to run their businesses, I find it staggering that THE ONE really important bit of information /advice that should be passed through the food chain right up the final consumer is missing; i.e., ensure that food is cooked thoroughly, and is kept separate from fresh meat after it is cooked. This procedure kills all bugs that can cause, on extremely rare occasions, food poisoning.
Point one is your typical health scare card that to a bureaucrat justifies it being said, thus their need to be in place to say it. The simple truth of adequate cooking will suffice. A simple statement but an inescapable one. What useful guidance can a butcher give to a customer other than to frighten them to death if they should regale this FSA trash to them?
Point two is sensible enough, but why it should take six years to publicise this case of the bleedin’ obvious, I don’t know.
Point three. Documented management procedures have to be done because they are a legal requirement and indeed, this tick-box mentality might be beneficial to some butchers. The weakness, however, with this statement is that it implies that it ensures food safety. No mountain of paperwork is going to provide the guarantees that a customer requires. The use of the buzzwords “minimising the risks” to justify such procedures are totally meaningless. Time for honesty; your premises can sparkle with cleanliness, you can win a star in every hygiene box, you may win every award going for your product, you may even have the royal seal above your shop. None of these will guarantee any fresh meat product is free from pathogenic bugs that might lead to food poisoning; that guarantee can only come with adequate cooking – end of story.
One, of course, needs to actually see the DVD before making up one’s mind, but history forces me to make a fairly easy prediction:
Local Authorities, under pressure from the FSA, will now up the ante in their dealings with retail butchers, and start flourishing these DVD’s about, with doomsday faces of predictability of food poisoning epidemics should non-compliance occur.
And they’ll get away with it too. Instead of requesting a logical and realistic approach to enforcement from officialdom, my experiences of retail butchers is that their institutionalised fear of officials is worse even than those in the abattoir sector! Often I will get a phone call from a retail customer who might say, with audible fear in his voice – “don’t do your usual delivery , I’ve got a health visit today”, or, “I want to cut down my order so that I haven’t got too much about, I’ve got a local authority visit today.
And, of course, the most common – “ I don’t want to upset officials, they will come down hard on me if I do.”
One reaps what one sows.
I just do not understand this approach. Why not simply say it as it is after acquainting yourself with the facts, and present your business to an enforcement officer, warts and all. You don’t have to be rude, after all, they have a job to do. Equally, you shouldn’t have to grovel either.
A strategy of compliance with, and enforcement of, the law should be the one thing, and one thing only, that should occupy the time and effort of everybody concernedy, no matter which side of the law one might sit.
As the FSA turn their attention onto the retail sector, have the nerve to keep it that straightforward.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker

2011-07-24T23:02:00.000-07:00

Glancing at a recent newsletter from the Association of Meat Suppliers (AIMS) made for interesting reading. Surprise, surprise, the Macdonald Task Force on better regulation, on which leading trade figures have pinned so much hope, has been summarily dismissed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) Board.
Apparently, at a briefing the Board was given prior to a stakeholder meeting, FSA Chief Executive Tim Smith commenced by saying the industry is not ready to be trusted and the public health risks were too great.
I deduced very early in his tenure at the FSA that, in technical and scientific terms , Mr Smith hasn’t a clue what he is talking about. If, after all these years of endless papers, investigations and findings from so many eminent contributees, people such as Don Bennett, Patrick Wall, Peter Hewson and others, hasn’t sunk in; and if the knowledge of what the production of fresh meat in abattoirs actually involves in public health terms has not filtered through to the people we rely on to make sound judgements, then there is really no hope for many big abattoirs, and virtually none at all for the small to medium sector.
For Mr Smith not to be ridiculed and hauled over the coals for such a crass statement shows an unfortunate but significant lack of knowledge by those people who sit on the FSA Board.
Trade leaders huff and puff, but that’s about all.
Ministers might have some say in the matter, but so far FSA have been every bit as disdainful towards Government Ministers as they have the industry. Still, with a bloke like Jeff Rooker at the helm and the bolshy manner in which he conducts himself, no one should really be surprised.
Trust, and those other buzz-words, “consistently competent”, should be removed forthwith from any discussion with the authorities. Abattoir operators have to fulfill legal obligations, not satisfy some trumped-up ideology or judgement from an overactive careerist bureaucrat. AND THAT IS ALL. Years of reticence and generations of fear of authority has brought about an institutionalised mentality of capitulation in the trade. The FSA and its predecessors have brought the abattoir industry to its knees, and I do not believe that to be an overstatement.
Everybody knows that this issue is all about the money and the huge sums involved. That’s why seasoned hardliners such as Jeff Rooker and Tim Smith, tough as teak characters who probably don’t give a damn about what they know or don’t know about the subject, have been brought in to carry the FSA flag. Their bunker mentality must surely be confronted with an assault of a different kind from industry, of which plenty of suggestions have been put forward by this writer over many years.
If we don’t, they will win.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker.

2011-07-14T10:20:00.002-07:00

.In our previous blog, we stated that, in view of the importance of the issue (abattoir approval/FSA “Tec Files”/Dennis Cryer), the next blog would be devoted entirely on this subject. As it ties in with other important contemporary issues, it is featured instead under “Review of Establishment Approval” in Viewpoint 54 on our web-site www.toby baker.com.
The Macdonald Task Force recommendations on meat inspection charges, on which blog gave an opinion, 27 May 2011, seems to becoming a central point of debate as the rumpus of full cost recovery and the rapidly declining relationship with the Food Standards Agency (FSA),gathers momentum.
Things kicked off with a letter in The Times. Eight signatories, including Country Land & Business Association, NFU, Campaign to Protect Rural England, National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, Woman’s Institute, Rare Breeds Survival Trust, Soil Association and The National Trust certainly reflected the growing and widespread concern of FSA conduct and its quest for full cost recovery (FCR). An eloquent missive puts the future damage to the countryside in realistic perspective, but one line says it all. “Charging the full cost of inspections should be revisited once they are risk-based and affordable. They are neither and would lead to the closure of large and small abattoirs.”
Yup, that’s it in a nutshell, and I firmly believe that closures are not just an inevitable consequence, they are actually part of Government planning, a few monster meat plants would be so much easier for them to oversee, you see.
Macdonald’s Report recommended that private control bodies, accredited by the FSA, should provide meat inspection services. Inevitably, FSA aren’t having any of that, the threat to their newly acquired fiefdom would be huge.
Also inevitably, as revealed in last week’s Meat Trades Journal (MTJ), “anger” to the FSA response has ensued. Trade spokesmen Stephen Rossides (BMPA) and Norman Bagley (AIMS), made sound comments in reply, and no doubt they will have FSA officials shivering in their shoes at what ever forum, meeting or get together that the FSA dreams up as an outcome to this “anger”.
MTJ Editor Ed Beddington, with noble aplomb and in the interests of impartiality, obviously more in hope than expectation, states in his column that “considering the fact that this issue (FCR) was already covered off back in the mists of time by the Tierney Report, I wonder how many more reports it’s going to take before the FSA finally begins to consider that its diametric opposition to something industry is crying out for makes no sense..............”. Don’t hold your breath, Ed!!
In a letter in the same issue, former top FSA vet Peter Hewson not only promotes the case for the Macdonald findings, he exposes his old bosses and their tactics for what they are. He said “ the FSA’s arguments (about outsourced meat inspection services) do not stand up to scrutiny, and I hope the FSA board will not allow another opportunity to pass that would benefit both the industry and consumer.......” Note “and consumer”, and his revealing letter goes on to explain how this might be the case. For an eminent but cagey old fox like Peter Hewson, this letter actually wipes the floor with the FSA, and, I believe, adds considerable ammunition to our cause if we know how to use it.
But this, in truth, is where we’re at. This Government agency (FSA) is NEVER going to listen to any letter, report, argued reason, fact, lobbying or any expertise that may threaten their bureaucratic existence. They believe themselves to be untouchable as representatives of the interests of the people, and are scornful of any criticism from, it seems, whatever quarter.
Some uncomfortable decisions are going to have to be made to knock the arrogant FSA off its perch and we are rapidly approaching the ultimate “us or them” situation in this tortuous debate. The “wearing-down” of industry has nearly reached its logical conclusion, and that “twitching of bottoms” moment for abattoir operators is almost with us. Do we confront, with whatever tactics we decide to use, or do we simply roll over and capitulate?”
The buck, whether we like it or not, stops with us.

To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker

2011-07-14T10:20:00.001-07:00

2011-06-24T02:19:00.000-07:00

With full cost recovery neatly tucked under their belt, it certainly hasn’t taken the Food Standards Agency (FSA) long to find something new to amuse themselves with.
Apparently their latest wheeze is something called the “ FSA Operational Assurance Team.” The whaaat I hear you mutter? Yes, unbelievably, not content with vets, lead vets, auditing vets, meat inspectors, senior meat inspectors, meat technicians (who have I forgotten?!), along comes yet another unstatutory group of jobsworth people to take a “snapshot of performance” as they call it with visits “unannounced to both operators and the OV and his team.”
I’ve never been afraid of unannounced visits at any time; indeed, have championed their cause. But in addition to the rest of a veritable army of inspectors? Mindnumbing really, just the sort of game that bureaucrats with nothing better to do play. Guess the abattoir sector will put up with it, though, they have everything else.
Yes, they’ll co-operate, and what will they get for that co-operation? The same, absolutely nothing. After all that has happened over the years and the contemptible way the trade has been ritually sidelined by officialdom, it does beg an obvious question. Where is sound progress ever going to come from for the slaughtering industry? In the twenty years or so that I have been campaigning for logical and workable ways forward, one point has remained constant throughout – things simply keep just getting worse!
And that, I’m afraid, is the way it will stay unless the trade and its spokespeople have the nerve and gumption to alter the agenda on the way communications with the authorities are handled. Trotting along to this forum, or that meeting has been proved to be counterproductive; worse than that, it actually plays into the officials hands who can, and do ,claim to be “listening” to views when of course they are doing no such thing.
The Scottish wholesalers are standing up for the cause, though, and have never shirked from going public with the truth; they have put a marker down, it just needs the will to follow it.
The FSA also seems to be raising the ante on abattoir licensing. In their May issue of “Tec Files”, in what looks like a recce to raise their profile on this subject, a Dennis Cryer has devoted two whole pages of this self-congratulatory magazine in presenting where the FSA should be going in carrying out its regulatory duties.
One has become used to the sort of language these people use to intimidate and frighten and this is such a case. So inflammatory and downright inaccurate in fact that the next blog will concentrate and comment solely on this article.
Our backs are where they have always been. To the wall.
To succeed you have to try. Toby Baker.

2011-05-27T00:16:00.001-07:00

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

2011-05-19T11:46:00.001-07:00

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

2011-05-09T01:18:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-15T05:32:00.000-07:00

If ever one wanted a striking example of modern bureaucracy and the claptrap that goes with it, they ought to see a copy of a letter sent out to abattoir Food Business Operators (FBO’s) on the 07-04-11 by Mr Andrew Rhodes, the UK Operations Director of the Food Standards Agency (FSA).
Weighing up his announcement about changes to FSA field management structure, it is difficult to know where to start. Notwithstanding the straightforward quality control job of a meat inspector (MI) and perfunctory veterinary supervision of livestock welfare in the last hours of life, the management speak used by Mr Rhodes is an insult to the intelligence.
For example; “employed FSA field staff will be managed by employed FSA managers, ensuring accountability and responsibility for leadership remains within the FSA. This change relieves the (poor old) Official Veterinarian (OV) role of team leadership responsibilities allowing OV’s to focus more on technical leadership, compliance and animal welfare.”Also, “the Lead Veterinarian (LV) role will be developed to focus on technical support and veterinary leadership within field management.......”Plus, “the Senior Meat Hygiene Inspector (SMHI) role will be consolidated to enhance front-line management. The role will continue to focus on resourcing, but will be broadened to include line management of staff, financial responsibility and stakeholder engagement.”
No surprise, either, that never mind about cutting red tape, the FSA is going to create a new role of Supervisory MHI who will “be introduced to support management within large teams and or in plants with a poor compliance history.......” Again no surprise, “there are no planned changes to MHI’s numbers.....”
You bet there aren’t! Government departments expand by nature, that is their creed. The inevitable “project team has been established”, and as an FBO, to be informed of progress, I will have to speak to my FSA business manager. Lucky me.
This gobbledegook is impossible to parody, and reminds me of the TV series “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” of yesteryear; John Cleese and the Ministry of Silly Walks springs to mind.
If only it was that funny. We’ve got the here and now of a government agency whose contempt for the abattoir sector of the food chain is total. There even used to be something called consultation, but that look’s like a thing of the past now it seems. Mr Rhodes expounds in his letter that his review will reduce operational delivery costs by £5.5 million by 2015. Sounds good, but what Mr Rhodes forgets to mention is that by 2015, as an outcome of the proposed full cost recovery programme, it will be much more than £5.5 million saved as swathes of abattoirs are doomed to closure well before that date.
Since the Coalition Government was formed, much was made, particularly by Prime Minister David Cameron, that senior Government Ministers would closely review the negative impact of red tape on businesses, and that some serious cutting of bureaucracy to remove the ever-increasing stranglehold of officialdom from companies would ensue. I contend that the activities of the FSA should be somewhere near the top of the Government’s list for scrutiny in this respect.
If this ever came to pass, Mr Rhodes would be given a chance to justify his activities if he can satisfactorily answer the following questions;
• Has the FSA ever done a genuine risk assessment in relation to the production of fresh meat in an abattoir?
• If so, who actually carried such a risk assessment?
• He claims “success achieved......to ensure safe food for the public.” Can he produce statistics to quantify this “success”, and by what criteria these statistics are measured?
• As an employee of a Government enforcement agency, under what and whose remit is he acting in pursuing activities that seem totally at variance with the law?
• With full time daily inspections of abattoirs by vets and meat inspectors, what is auditing for?
People like Mr Rhodes just carry on regardless without the slightest worry of the damage inflicted. There is no such thing as dialogue with such individuals; when are people going to finally get that fact on board?
What kind of abattoir industry will be left after the next 5/10 years? Will there be one at all? What kind of industry does the Government envisage in years hence?
Anybody got some answers?
Toby Baker

2011-04-07T07:58:00.000-07:00

The move by the Scottish meat industry to create a separate, and cheaper, meat inspection featured prominently in last week’s MTJ (1 April) . The Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers (SAMW) has developed an alternative system in a report sent to the four main political parties in Scotland.
As usual, they are ahead of the game, and it will be interesting to see what progress they can make. Once again, good luck to them.
MTJ Editor Mr Ed Bedington makes reference to this subject in his comment column. He makes a telling analysis in my view; “all the noise over the side issues must not drown out the fact that the system ( of meat inspection) the industry is saddled with is out of date, inappropriate and needs to be kicked into touch. The industry needs to work with the FSA, and vice versa, otherwise this will never be achieved.”
The Editor makes a key point in talking about an out of date system, etc, and therein lies the crux of the entire future of the slaughtering industry; his statement is clear and a welcome one from an independent perspective.
Where it falls down is when he argues for the FSA and industry to work together to bring about change. If only it was that simple, Mr Bedington, two sides sitting around a table and thrashing the arguments around until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.
It’s about understanding the mentality of the civil servants’ mind. They don’t negotiate, they don’t discuss, they don’t compromise. It is ingrained into the psyche of these people that they are above criticism and when necessary, are above the law.
A stark example of this is illustrated in the article alongside the Editor’s column. It featured Food Standards Agency (FSA) Chief Executive Mr Tim Smith and his ongoing justification of the FSA’s controversial publishing of a “cause for concern” list of abattoirs.
It is really quite scary, and perhaps indicative of the world we live in, when a Government official, without fear and with complete contempt for the people he is referring to, can get up and say the following, as he did to the FSA Board recently; “We have challenged the notion....... that central government can only change people’s behaviour through rules and regulations. We were taking a different view when we were thinking of establishing cause for concern..........”
Mr Smith seems to forget that IT IS rules and regulations that are the standard to work to, not some dogma dreamed up by a busybody bureaucrat with too much time on his/her hands and with nothing better to do. His contempt for the slaughtering industry is well documented, but now he is moving into new territory which could and should be exploited. He is now stepping outside his statutory remit with these comments, and he certainly seems brazen enough to feel untouchable.
But is he? I would suggest that under civil law, Mr Smith’s comments are actionable. If all those people on Mr Smith’s “cause for concern” list got together to start up a class action, this would send a signal to the FSA that the meat industry is no longer prepared to just lie down and be walked over. Because that’s where we are now, that’s for sure.
I’ve been at the sharp end of dealings with officialdom for something like twenty years now, first with the old Ministry of Fisheries and Food (MAFF), and more recently the MHS and FSA. I’m more convinced than ever that the only realistic counter to Tim Smith and his ilk are the Courts. That will take money, of course, to employ experts, to fight cases, to lobby the media, etc. To achieve any positive results, and however unpalatable, I remain convinced this is the only way forward.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker

2011-03-25T12:01:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-18T01:52:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-04T00:22:00.000-08:00

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

2011-02-25T00:06:00.000-08:00

For some reason, fresh meat attracts health scare stories that can dominate newspaper storylines like no other. Cigarettes, salt, sugar, alcohol, drugs, etc., yes, get passing comments now and again, but mention fresh meat and hey presto – headline news!
A re-cycled item about links with red meat and bowel cancer was raised this week, this time by a Government sponsored review, and featured in the Sunday Telegraph. I guess it’s a sign of the times to see such a newspaper indulge in tabloid type journalism.
Consumers aren’t overawed anymore, though, and the average person in the street, although not dismissive, is not taken in by the hype, and seems much more relaxed in making up his or her own mind when these stories emerge. Having said that, one can understand why confusion can set in. On the same day, the British Nutrition Foundation issued a statement saying that moderate amounts of red meat offer positive contributions to a person’s diet!
So who do you listen to? Whichever way you look at it, the costs to British Agriculture with such regular negative press probably runs into £millions.
Not so long ago, our friends at the Food Standards Agency (FSA) would have got into the act by saying how the roles of vets and meat inspectors in abattoirs “protects public health”, although they have gone pretty quiet on that subject recently, as they certainly should.
The FSA now concedes that hygiene regulations in abattoirs are not “cost based and proportionate”. This phrase is bandied about as though it is a minor technical offence of no importance. Think about it. Uniquely severe hygiene rules requiring full time attendance of official vets and meat inspectors, at ruinous cost, are not based on analysis of the public health risk, thus excessive for the risk involved, i.e. disproportionate. Put more bluntly, health controls imposed and regulated by our competent authority called the FSA aren’t actually health controls at all!
Instead of searching questions being asked about this state of affairs, on ploughs this discredited agency in pursuing a policy of full cost recovery from the abattoir sector that runs into bankingesque proportions. Or so it seems to me as an abattoir operator.
I run a small family business and here’s the perspective. My company employs five slaughtermen and two butchers as part of its staff. They are top quality professionals who turn approximately six hundred animals per week from livestock into fresh meat ready to sell onto retail butchers or return to private customers.
It’s extremely hard for me to reconcile that when full cost recovery finally arrives, as it stands three FSA officials, i.e., two meat inspectors and a vet, will cost more per hour than those seven tradesmen combined. Imagine how I feel? Imagine how they feel!? Lunatics and asylum springs to mind.
Yet any time now the FSA will be announcing details of full cost inspection charges. And no doubt the industry’s hard work in the “consultation” process will as usual prove to have been a complete waste of time. It will be a sad day for the industry (and farmers and retailers) as another tranche of abattoir businesses face inevitable bankruptcy.
Apparently, proportionality is a key doctrine in EU law. Not so for the bureaucratic ambitions of the FSA. Do they mention it in despatches? Yes. Do they have the slightest intention of making it happen? No. Why oh why has this scandal not been dug into? Why has the FSA and its political bosses not been put under pressure to explain this situation? All they do is to ignore the facts and simply claim that their vets and inspectors “are there to protect public health”. They say this as they continue to put departmental targets above national interests.
We must front up. We have only ourselves to blame. We’re running around seeking support from the farmers and suchlike and indeed, we are going to need all the help we can get. But it shouldn’t have come to this. What’s to be done? Scientific and technical ignorance has been the fresh meat industry’s biggest handicap in failing to expose the glaring inadequacies of the inappropriately named “competent” authority (FSA). Get the right group of people together, and pay them accordingly. Every technical claim and comment should be scrutinised with professional analyses and response. Every time. Develop our own propaganda machine even.
It’s never too late. Let’s start by turning all previous errors on their head and reveal some home truths.
When full cost recovery finally arrives, what will industry do? How will it react? History is in the making for the wrong decisions should they be made.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker.

2011-02-18T00:36:00.000-08:00

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.

2011-02-11T00:21:00.000-08:00

As the great debate on full cost recovery rumbles on, phrases that have now become well and truly established by all commentators, on whichever side of the fence they sit, are that fresh meat regulations are disproportionate to the risk to public health, and that legal requirements should be amended to reflect actual risk.
Over the last twenty years or so, I’ve lost track of how many times this has been stated on this web-site, been quoted in our official responses to Government, featured in numerous consultations, and played the dominant part in REVIEW OF INSPECTION SERVICES, a pamphlet my company commissioned during the time of the Tierney review, and which was circulated widely within industry ( I can send anyone a copy if they contact me on e-mail; viewpoint@tobybaker.com.)
As stated several times on blog, it is the ultimate cost of running a business that decides viability, i.e. whether to carry on or not, but the nitty-gritty of the argument, and potential future success, lies in really getting to grips, and where necessary, going public, with the realities of meat inspection of fresh meat. Paying lip-service to this topic, which too many prominent spokesmen in the trade have done hitherto, is no longer satisfactory.
A comprehensive review of the enforcement roles of meat inspectors and veterinary surgeons was featured, in January 2009, under the technical section of our web-site, www.tobybaker.com. The article highlighted what meat inspectors and vets actually do, or to be more pertinent, what they don’t or can’t do. One conclusion drawn was that, despite all the fictional claims of importance expounded by their unions, meat inspectors do have a quality control part to play in post-mortem meat inspection, but that “it is quite clear that the role of vets in abattoirs must be investigated.”
So what is the nitty-gritty? What does disproportionate mean in this context? Quite simply, the analysis of health risks in slaughtering operations is incorrect, thus unnecessarily severe regulations (i.e. disproportionate) have resulted. This means in turn that excessive enforcement costs will be inevitable. And so here we are.
The current important debate about excessive costs will never be resolved until the apparent consensus on the “risk based and proportionate” question is brought to the forefront: because at present it is merely a misunderstood slogan that is not investigated and acted upon.
(1) Disease statistics and epidemiology must be considered when assessing risk. Compared with major health risks in the population fresh meat hazards must be considered as low risk. The animal herd carries a small, random but unknown incidence of pathogenic organisms. Abattoir processes cannot eliminate these invisible bacteria and therefore it is not possible to identify a critical control point. This means that raw fresh meat despatched from an abattoir carries the same level of pathogens as that of the livestock that entered in the first place.

(2) Fresh meat is a raw material, and further along the meat distribution chain there are processes that carry a greater risk to public health, e.g. restaurants or wholesale sandwich factories. All food businesses are responsible for supplying safe food, and enforcement of hygiene laws takes the form of periodic visits by local authority health officials. Abattoirs alone suffer the full time presence of veterinarians and meat inspectors, enforcing separate hygiene regulations which are more extensive and onerous than any other sector of the industry.
This enforcement model cannot be proportionate to the risks by any criterion.
FSA have been allowed to simply brush these vitally important points aside, and so far, it has been remiss of industry’s leading players to have virtually ignored these obvious facts.
That said, this Government Agency seems to be rattled by recent events, hence outbursts from two very senior officials. In what looks like a tactical move to incite and inflame, FSA Chairman, Lord Rooker, makes it clear that FSA has no intention of relenting saying “we don’t need the money but it is an issue of principle here.” Such a derogatory comment from such a man is really no surprise, but you do wonder – does he really know what’s going on?
Director of Operations at FSA, a Mr Andrew Rhodes, is equally as dismissive - “It is worth remembering that we talking about £30 million of additional charges in comparison with a meat industry with an annual turnover of £6billion.” £30 million. Oh, is that all, Mr Rhodes? With an industry on course for virtual decimation as things stand, such a flippant remark tells you something of the man and the ivory tower world he and his ilk live in. Vacuous statements such as these certainly tell a story.
And hapless FSA chief Executive, Mr Tim Smith just can’t stop putting his foot in it either. His “cause for concern “ crusade has suddenly moved onto introducing health and safety standards in plants as a reason for wanting to publish his “cause for concern “list. Mr Smith should know that health and safety requirements are the responsibility of abattoir owners and management who, in turn, are responsible, by law, to the Health and Safety Executive, i.e., nothing to do with Mr Smith. If any of his staff who work in a British abattoir are not satisfied with H and S standards, and feel that plant management is not responding adequately, then by all means contact H and S Executive, and let them deal with the problem.
Is this man fit for purpose? How can he possibly use a H and S argument to say that this would impinge on any discussion with Europe over health issues relating to meat inspection and any future review of the regulations, which he has suggested recently?
No, let them do the blustering, we need to stick to the facts and the real issues, as addressed above, because it is so important to remind ourselves that that is the last place they want this battle to be fought. It is surely time to press our adversaries hard for some clear answers. (More details on our next blog).
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker

2011-02-04T01:19:00.000-08:00

The full cost recovery debate is certainly occupying a good deal of copy space again in the trade media, this time in the bi-monthly magazine Meat Management (January/February 2011). A six-page spread featuring one Food Standards Agency (FSA) spokesmen, the NFU, and four representatives from the main red and white meat trades all have their say. Covering much ground that this blog has frequently highlighted, it was all good and relevant stuff, prompting the Editor, Mr Graham Yandell, to state that in 29 years of publishing, he had never known such unity within the industry.
Blog has been encouraged by this apparent unity for many weeks and has stated thus.
But is it really true? The recent Big Debate in the Meat Trades Journal(MTJ), which we referred to last week, highlighted once again a curse to genuine unity that has always been there; that is the undertone that the English big red meat boys are, for sectoral advantage, quietly siding with the FSA, to bring about the removal of competitors within industry. Perhaps I have read this wrong, but in the Big Debate, Mr Stuart Roberts, agriculture strategy director at ABP, and a former spokesman for the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA), lets an inevitable mask slip. Despite making some useful and challenging comments towards the FSA, he reverts to type. He said: “The issue isn’t big versus small, its professional versus unprofessional. And there are, I’m sure, some unprofessional businesses in the meat sector, Tim (FSA Chief Executive Mr Tim Smith) highlighted it on Radio 4 relatively recently – there is no place for those businesses in our industry...............”
It is not for Messrs Roberts, Smith or anyone else to comment on any company’s professionalism or suitability to trade. That is down to the licensing authority on whether a company merits a license or not, and for the relevant enforcement authority to decide on whether a company is complying with its legal requirements or not. Its nobodyelse’s business. If Mr X wants to gold-plate his business for whatever commercial reason , but Mr Y doesn’t, those separate decisions are the fundamental right of both parties. It obscures the real issue, much to the delight of the FSA, and certainly puts a wedge into the lauded recent “unity.” What with Tim Smith’s “cause for concern”(see last week’s blog) and Mr Roberts’ above comments, an anti-trade alliance seems to be emerging.
But ABP pays Mr Roberts wages, not Toby Baker, so I fully respect that his stance, he hopes, will bring about an outcome that will suit his employers. No problem with that, because ultimately, we’re all in that particular boat. It is just that it is surely right to acknowledge that there is a divide, recognise it , and proceed accordingly.
It looks something like this could emerge; auctioneers, farmers, small to medium abattoirs, fresh meat wholesalers, butchers shops, livestock procurement agencies and perhaps the Scottish Meat Wholesalers could band together to form one unit, and for the English big red meat boys to fight their own corner? I’m certainly not suggesting this would be a backward step; on the contrary, by being honest in recognising where everybody stands in this debate, it could actually be progressive by bringing clarity in our confrontation with the FSA.
And we can certainly learn much from the FSA, which has strategic objectives that are perfectly clear, and which any major blue-chip company would be proud of. In a perverse sort of way, you have to admire our adversaries, and let’s not forget that is what they are. As over the years regulations have got worse, and are confirmed as being massively disproportionate, the FSA always evades any detailed discussion of what this actually means in practice. Typical quangoism (is there such a word?) from a public sector body that reckons it shouldn’t have to knuckle down like everybodyelse – naked job protectionism, pure and simple.
Mr Roberts is quite right to point out that industry has not got a clear strategy, unlike our opponents, and that is perhaps our biggest challenge. There is so much to piece together to co-ordinate and unify a concerted attack on the FSA. It will be tough. To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker.

2011-01-28T00:45:00.001-08:00

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

2011-01-26T01:52:00.000-08:00

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.

2011-01-07T01:13:00.000-08:00

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.

2010-12-30T23:06:00.000-08:00

Out with the old and in with the new. As we approach the end of the year, wouldn't it be great to click our fingers, say hey presto, and bring aboout a desired change. In this case, that would be a full review of the regulatory process of meat inspection in abattoirs, and for risk-assessment and proportionate law enforcement to finally take its place in the governing of our industry.

Our aim in the new year must be to turn this dream into reality. As the full-cost recovery of charges issue moves into 2011, there is no reason why this should not be the case.The law clearly shows that an abattoir operator(FBO)should be given responsibility for compliance with regulations, so lets keep banging that message home. Lets also keep reminding the outside world where the public health importance of veterinary and meat inspection of fresh meat (which of course is what abattoirs produce) really lies in our everyday lives, i.e. very,very low down.

And topically, to progress the new ground that thankfully seems to be emerging since the debate started, the growing unity of major farming groups and meat processors to confront the Food Standards Agency(FSA) and its totally bureaucratic and self-rewarding intentions.

Our main task must be to galvanise and combine these standard-bearers of industry into a tight and effective umbrella group to tackle the FSA head on. Yes, head on.

The stakes could not be higher.

Toby Baker

2010-12-23T05:53:00.000-08:00

Things are certainly warming up in the full cost recovery debate after Food Standards Agency (FSA) Chief Executive Tim Smith’s interview on Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”.
The Meat Trades Journal (17 December) was full of it. “FSA boss invites industry ire” was the leader title. British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) director Stephen Rossides said “I am surprised and very disappointed that Tim Smith chose to resort to scaremongering by deploying “the meat industry cannot be trusted card”. This is......... deeply insulting to the great majority of businesses that operate.........””.Positively vitriolic stuff from a trade group that likes to think it has a good working relationship with the FSA. This is a major reality check for the BMPA who have always seen themselves as THE people of the meat trade, but who are probably just starting to realise that nobody and nothing is going to derail agency ambitions. Indeed, I have felt for some time that Mr Smith was brought into this role as Chief Executive simply to oversee the move to full cost recovery. My guess is that when and if this target has been met, within a few months he will be gone.
Norman Bagley, policy director at the Association of Meat Suppliers (AIMS) is never shy of letting off steam. He said “............Whatever happened to food business operators being responsible for food safety and competent authorities (the FSA) being responsible for auditing operators controls? Demonising the industry and scaremongering consumers – is that the new role of the Chief Executive of the FSA?"

Strong words, and it will be interesting to see what action backs up the rhetoric of these industry leaders in the new year, because make no mistake, Mr Smith has unequivocally declared war on the abattoir sector of the meat trade. Lets not kid ourselves that his actions are anything less than that.

What really caught my eye and made me sit up was an open letter to the FSA from Peter Hewson , the former head of veterinary operations at the FSA. Yes, The top man. I have had my share of run-ins with Mr Hewson over the years, but have always found him fair minded but, more importantly, extremely knowledgeable about the realities of meat hygiene in abattoirs. He reached the number one position of veterinary meat hygiene because of that knowledge.
He stated that “during my eight years there (at the FSA) ( I tried) to get outdated and ineffective meat hygiene controls that did not address current safety problems replaced by measures that would be more effective and affordable....” Music to my years, heresy to former agency colleagues who now have to face and hear an eminent previous civil servant speaking the truth!
The biggy for me, though was this. Mr Hewson said “.......giving food business operators (FBO’s) full responsibility for production....was not to be self-regulation as operators controls would be subject to robust audit by the competent authority. It would, however, allow quality control, which is really what meat inspection is.......”
This public utterance from such an important figure as Peter Hewson is absolute dynamite. No bogus claims about protecting public health, no claims of magical powers to make meat safe by meat inspectors and vets, or whatever. Quality control in meat inspection means removal of physical abnormalities, and that the carcases are clean. Yes, it is that simple and straightforward.

Could this be an opportunity for the meat trade. The farmers have been outspokenly against full cost recovery, important trade figures such as Paul Cheale has shown the potential disaster awaiting his business, BMPA and AIMS have woken up to reality, the Scottish wholesalers (SAMW) have been upfront with their anger for months. Unity could at last prevail as increasingly we are starting to do what the FSA fears most – to sing from the same hymn sheet.

I can , at last, see a task force emerging. You could not have a better technical advocate in such a group as Peter Hewson, to deal with crunch questions about meat hygiene while others concentrate on the business aspects. A funded group to get right to the core – media coverage, television and radio interviews, the lot. Perhaps even a publicist. Max Clifford? Why not?

Even after his banana skins from the Radio 4 interview, Mr Smith and his agency colleagues will be expecting things to die down in 2011. It is up to all of us to make sure that this is just the beginning.
A very merry Christmas and happy new year.

Toby Baker

2010-12-17T05:17:00.000-08:00

The interview on Radio 4’s “You and Yours” programme with Tim Smith (Chief Executive Food Standards Agency – FSA) certainly brought the contentious issue of meat inspection charges and who should pay for them into the public domain.
Mr Smith stepped on a few banana skins when questioned by presenter M/S Winifred Robinson. During his explanation about what happens in these inspections and who pays for them, he stepped right on one when he said “....the FSA is there to protect consumers from risks that might arise during the production of meat.....” It doesn’t, of course, but it’s the same old peg that this agency hangs its hat on - our job now, surely is to let the likes of M/S Robinson know the real facts.
M/S Robinson was not frightened to ask pertinent questions. When Mr Smith revealed that roughly half of the full bill was being paid by the taxpayer, M/S Robinson asked “why then should the meat industry start paying for the whole lot now, because lots and lots of inspection regimes are funded by the taxpayer, aren’t they?”
Banana skin no. 2. “Well, no, not really. I think you’ll find...”M/S Robinson interrupted “Well, a lot of food hygiene is; it’s funded through local authorities, isn’t it?” Mr Smith had to admit this was the case. Ouch!
The discussion moved to costs, bureaucracy, etc, but banana skin no. 3 for Mr Smith came in his reply to the comment about how the meat trade...”if they’re going to meet the full bill they’d like to choose who does it and put the whole thing out to tender.” Now mention the word “consumer” and you can feel the puffing out of agency chests. “Well ,would consumers ....would your listeners want third parties to be doing something as important as this? .......what regulators do is protect consumers (the ultimate banana skin).....and if I’m thinking about my family when I’m eating out......(I’d like to) think it (meat inspection) was(done by) somebody who was being paid for..... to do the job and regulated properly by a Government body....”
Judged in risk assessment terms, Mr Smith would be better advised that when he is out eating his steak in a nice restaurant , he should be much more concerned that the chef knows his or her job in making sure that the food item is cooked adequately enough to kill any nasty little bugs that might give him food poisoning. Because for sure there is no way that any meat inspection regime of the fresh product can ever do that. No, Mr Smith, regulators DO NOT protect consumers with the reality being, in pure health terms relating to fresh meat, inspection IS NOT that important.
And we in the trade have got to have the courage to say so.
Apparently Mr Smith refused to be involved in a debate on air with industry.
I wonder why? Toby Baker.

Toby Baker

2010-12-17T01:19:00.001-08:00

2010-12-10T00:24:00.000-08:00

Interesting to read this week an article in the Farmers Guardian. Paul Cheale, a director of Cheale Meats, the country's largest cull sow slaughterer outlines that full cost recovery will cost his company an estimated £700K per year, but robustly argues the case for self-regulation that, if enacted, could bring this cost down to somewhere in the region of £200K, stating "there is no reason why inspection should not be on a risk-based system." Good, sound stuff, and indeed, this ought to be industry's logical goal. (It should be remembered that the 2006 EU regulations were intended to update the law through risk assessment and streamlined enforcement. This has not happened because of the unwillingness of entrenched enforcement bodies to give up established powers. In practice the regulations are even more of a burden).

Mr Cheale adds " Nothing enrages the slaughtering industry more than being told to pass costs onto the customer............................and any increase in costs is ultimately born by the producer." I can see where Mr Cheale is coming from, but if I was farmer reading this article, I would also be "enraged" if told that the any cost-increasing buck stops with me.

Mr Cheale added that "it was imperative the farming industry put its full weight behind averting a disaster in waiting." I totally concur, but to bring about a concerted response to the imminent crisis, with hopefully farmers and meat men speaking as one, any solid foundations for such a group will crumble if the debate revolves around the money.

Mr Cheale touched on risk assessment and I believe it is absolutely essential that any group, task force, or whatever, needs to put some meat -on-the-bones relating to this topic. We need to set out our stall to show that a scientific risk assessment of the full meat production and distribution chain shows that abattoirs are not all that important in terms of preventing food poisoning. There is a low risk of pathogenic bacteria in the animal herd and these can neither be identified nor eliminated during abattoir processes.

We need to win the scientific and technical battle. We have to have the nerve to dispute health regulations for what they are, and to go out to the British public and expose the waste and hypocrisy behind the current set up, to remove our tarnished health reputation.

Win this arguement, and there should be no reason why financial implications for all concerned shouldn't fall into place, but we would have to be prepared for a battle royal from powerful officials with arbitrary powers and secure careers, acting as self-righteous defenders of public health.

To win, we have to set out the battle grounds.

To succeed you have to try.

Toby Baker

2010-12-02T23:47:00.000-08:00

Another week into the full cost recovery debate and a glance on-line to the Meat Trades Journal (MTJ) reveals a united front in opposition to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) proposals. "The British Meat Processors(BMPA), the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS), the National Farmers Union(NFU), NFU Scotland and the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers(SAMW) have all spoken out against the plans.........".

Very encouraging and an absolute must if the FSA is to be brought to heel. Very many futures rest on the outcome of these proposals, so lets hope a British bulldog, backs-to-the -wall spirit can emerge and indeed grow from our perilous position.

The question now, is, how to turn this unity into something more tangible, more organised, more coherent? The FSA has a policy of "divide and rule", one that has served it and its predecessors exceedly well over the years. This would be new ground for us to cover, no time for egos (that includes ALL of us), just a joined-up effort to get the job done. I hope that the above-mentioned organisations can bring this about, meet, and get a visible and united task force up and running. I offer my help as an individual, but what is more important is that all the aforementioned associations work as one team and not in isolation.

Toby Baker

2010-11-25T23:30:00.000-08:00

Early responses to impending full-cost recovery have been predictable and salient. The farming press have been quick to respond, and recognize the potential impact of a total removal from the agricultural map of small /medium abattoirs , and how it is going to affect their sector. Norman Bagley, policy director of AIMS (Association of Meat Suppliers) puts it succiently. "If it gets its way the Food Standards Agency (FSA) will deprive the consumers it is supposed to put first of the opportunity to buy locally sourced meat - the only outlets will be supermarkets supplying a bulk standard product that has either been imported or produced by a few foreign- owned meat conglomerates."

This is not an overstatement and will lead to much comment and column inches in the months to come. The FSA propoganda machine will be ready and primed to deal with any adverse reports that will be inevitably forthcoming, and any support our industry receives should be welcomed and gratefully received.

Those of us who run abattoirs, the people who receive the bills and who actually sign the cheques so to speak, should carefully reflect on how to respond to the FSA's proposals and perhaps to ask ourselves some searching questions based on previous experience.

(1) "Consultations" introduced by a government department are anything but. More like a fait-accompli. When "options" are presented in a consultation, rest assured the option favoured by Government WILL be put into place. Quite frankly, they are a waste of time. Is it not time for industry to give our trade representatives the backing for a new starting place with consultations? To give financial and moral backing to bring about a scenario where we, the levy-payers, actually set the agendas for meetings and consultations? Should we not seek to radically change our relationships with officials, or carry on in the toothless way that we are?A big question that we all need to be honest about. Have we got the nerve and desire? Its fundemental to any progress in my view.

(2) Remind ourselves not to play into FSA hands about payment, to just moan about the charges. To do that, we will be seen to be putting a price on public health, and would lose the backing of the masses. WE all know that our industry could carry out and perform our statutory duties without any financial help, whether to us directly or to the FSA, but we have to prove that to the general public over a period of time.
At this time we need some answers to some pertinent questions from the FSA before going any further forward. What risk asessments have actually been carried out in relation to products produced in an abattoir? Will they enter into a debate on the science that underpins official interpretations of UK abattoir regulations? Can we see full records of the discussions on the subject in Brussels? (we must not be frightened to insist on freedom of information laws here, if necessary.)

Early days, but we have to realize there's a war on, and we have to be ready with the ammo, because for sure the FSA will.

Toby Baker

2010-11-18T22:30:00.000-08:00

Not surprisingly, with the announcement last week from the Food Standards Agency(FSA) that full cost recovery of meat inspection charges will definitely go ahead, the proverbial has really hit the fan.
Trade associations representing farmers and meat traders have reacted with understandable anger and hostility, so already, there is a degree of unity emerging, albeit that that unity is about all of us just "getting it off our chest." No telephone calls, no planned meetings, no ideas on a co-ordinated response........... Not yet.
In the short term, the FSA will be expecting howls of protests, indignation, threats, what have you. Just another day at the office as far as they are concerned, and they will fully expect, in the New Year, for all the fuss to die down and for things to get back to normal. Government agencies are used to rough rides, so it is up to all of us affected by these proposals to do our bit. But the FSA will be prepared, so look out soon for their propoganda machine to go into overdrive. A food scare is a nailed-on certainty sometime during the run-up, plus claims about protecting public health are sure to be raised.
And that is where I intend to concentrate my initial efforts. To remind the outside world of the realities of what vets and meat inspectors actually do in an abattoir to protect public health, and the sham of present health controls. To show, and to engage with, the outside world and to explain the truth of what is actually happening in our industry. The groundwork has been laid by Viewpoint over many years.
This is not a personal witchhunt, just a desire to lay bare the facts for scrutiny and sound judgement, to challenge inquisitive minds and to promote debate between opinion-formers. This issue is pivotal to real progress, not withstanding other important matters.
I also intend to make contact with commentators and trade representatives to hopefully help bring about a co-ordinated and structured response, the last thing that the FSAwill want to see.
To succeed you have to try.

Toby Baker

2010-11-11T23:15:00.000-08:00

The day of reckoning for the abattoir industry has finally arrived, i.e., with the Food Standards Agency(FSA) finally announcing the world's worst kept secret. That over the next 12 months or so, the Agency will be implementing its programme for full cost recovery of the costs of meat hygiene controls in abattoirs. As things stand, this will be the death knell of virtually every small to medium slaughterhouse in the country. Full stop.

Despite the fact that some trade spokesmen have been in denial, stating that full cost recovery was never going to happen, this was always going to be the outcome, and has been stated thus on numerous occasions.

Its going to be a long hard slog to try and survive because, of course, that is, and must be, our natural instinct. Putting aside for a moment the massive cost increases proposed by the FSA, my initial thoughts to the 60 page plus consultation(yes 60!) strike out in a different way.

I've never met Mr Tim Smith (FSA Chief Executive), But his covering letter with the consultation just about sums up the arrogance and disdain with which he and hitherto, his officials, treat us in the meat trade.

For example, with brain-washing monotony, he refers to the FSA myth that the shortfall between the cost of official controls and the income from charges is, in effect, a subsidy to industry. Shout it from the rooftops! This subsidy, as Mr Smith calls it, is in fact a payment from the taxpayer to maintain a typically bloated and inefficient government body, in this case, the meat inspection body, which,IN THEIR OWN WORDS, operates an outdated system based on 19th century principles. The truth is, there should be no arguement. There is no need for any kind of subsidy,to either to the FSA or the meat trade. Modernise and take abattoir controls into mainstream food law is the ultimate answer, but this would mean a big time streamlining of the FSA. This would mean some job sacrifices, so it ain't gonna happen, is it?

To put it mildly, Mr Smith makes some galling comments. To refer the FSA's decision as one of principle is inflammatory and designed to encourage hostile comment that might suggest a lack of control. Sticking to the facts is key in my view, and I would agree with Mr Smith when he infers that in the current climate the Government's objective is to reduce the deficit. He makes pious references to "delivering efficiency"........"We have already made substantial progress in recent years in reducing the costs of our operations...............!?" A few jobsworth may have been recycled somewhere perhaps, but go out and ask abattoir operators for their comments on this "substantial progress" and I would wager replies would be short, dismissive, to the point, and in most cases, unrepeatable.

In a condescending tone, Mr Smith says "Businesses can reduce their bills by making their own operations more efficient....." I'll just pass this message onto my slaughtering staff who have to work on a daily basis, under pressure not only me as their employer, but a veritable nest of innspectors who scrutinise their every move as if their the devil incarnate. They are treated are treated as rubbing-rags, the men WHO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK!

So thats a few initial thoughts off my chest. But in reality, nothing changes. Trade association lobbying and comment just nibbles at the edges. The buck stops with those of us WHO ACTUALLY RUN ABATTOIRS, WHO RUN THE BUSINESSES. Somehow, a unity of message and action has to be brought about to tackle the FSA head on. It would be a shame that, after our experiences of nearly 20 years or so and our incredibly difficult times with first the Meat Hygiene Service, and now , the FSA, that we can't formulate a coherent policy to rescue our great industry from the brink.

Toby Baker

2010-10-14T04:26:00.000-07:00

On the day that the coalition government has announced details of the "cull of the quangoes" and the resulting loss of thousands of meaningless jobs, as I write this I am at the same time wondering this - How in the hell did the Food Standards Agency get away scot free?!

Yes, for sure I've got a vested interest in making such a statement, but it comes after decades of controversial disputes with the aforementioned agency and its predecessors.

Ever since the Food Standards Agency (FSA), and before it, the Meat Hygiene Service(MHS), came into being in the early 1990's, a virtual crusade of debilitation, defamation and destablisation against abattoir owners such as myself has ensued with unprecedented ferocity.

Why?

Simple, really. Money.

As an example of a "Next-Step Agency" designed to save tax -payers money, and which dates back to Maggie Thatcher's time, the MHS was set up to deal with inspection requirments in the abattoir sector, and in doing so replaced a role carried out hitherto by local authorities. It can be argued that this was welcomed by many abattoir operators at the time as a way of removing apparent charging anomalies between different LA's. In truth, a prospective MHS was welcomed by big industry operators as a way of removing a swathe of small to medium operators because of cost, and so a great divide between large and small slaughterhouses was born, which unfortunately exists to this day.

Divide and rule. Bureaucrats could have designed this old saying, and the MHS and FSA have perpetuated this state of affairs with ruthless determination. And indeed, it is because of their success in this field that the fresh meat industry now finds itself in such a desperate situation as the unsustainable climate of full cost recovery comes ever nearer.

It is quite clear to me that those of us who actually run abattoirs, i.e. the trade, though, must take full responsibility for the status quo. We haved repeatedly allowed ourselves to be bullied by trade unions and bureaucrats as people unfit to run our own industry and who cannot be trusted. This is irksome enough, but the biggest mistake we've made is to not confront bogus health claims made by vested official interests; a big yellow streak running down industry's spine has repeatedly allowed health officials to claim that that what they do in their abattoir inspections actually "protects public health". Over 50 viewpoints over many years on my website explain why this is not the case so, but again, we ,the trade, have not had the insight, or nerve, or belief, to confront the perpetrators and stand our ground on an issue that,left unchallenged, will bring us down. You reap what you sow.

Toby Baker

2010-04-13T21:50:00.000-07:00

Latest wheeze from our friends at the MHS. Oops, sorry, of course, not the MHS anymore is it? I mean its replacement, the FSA Operations Group. Same people, different title, typical bureaucracy, same outcome. FSA are boasting about a £2 million saving. Well done them, but, needless to say, it does not make a scrap of difference to charges on the shop floor. Still heading in the direction of £4k per week, a partly subsidised fee that Government pays back to the FSA to keep its bloated workforce in place.

Oh yes, the latest wheeze from FSAOG. I've recently received a letter from yet another Business Manager to inform me of yet another bright idea. Verification of post mortem inspection!!! Three full time inspectors are obviously not enough to deal with the incredibly complex, bug ridden, life threatening role of a meat inspector inspecting fresh meat and offals in an abattoir!!!..........Comments on this farce remain unprintable. (Great word for a penpusher, don't you think?-verification).

This latest offering brought home to me a sad thought on where I, as an abattoir operator actually stand nowadays. All my thoughts have to focus on planning on how my business can survive the the FSAOP, its charging regime and whatever gimmick they dream up in the future. With two keen sons in the business, future investment in slaughterhouse plant, modernisation, environmental improvements,etc, should surely be high on my agenda. Unfortunately, that's the last thing on my mind at the moment. I'm having to introduce a 4-day week for my slaughtering staff and generally rationalize costs to survive.

To survive the global financial crisis? To survive a downturn in meat consumption? To survive competition out there in the real world? Its none of these things. Its facing upto the gradual introduction of full cost recovery of a morally and scientifically bankrupt government-led meat inspection system. Simples.

As it stands, there is no real future.

Toby Baker (Don Quixote)

2010-03-19T01:36:00.000-07:00

Just waded through 17(yes, I kid you not, 17) pages of the latest MHS audit for my abattoir. And we're a small place! Bureaucratic job justification at its best, that's for sure, one of a long list of MHS/FSA people who have spent time at Bakers abattoir during the last six months or so.

The list. Here we go! Official veterinarian; Lead veterinarian; MHS Business Director; MHS Business Manager; Senior Veterinarian to check on junior veterinarian; MHS auditor; meat inspector; senior meat inspector;audit appeals veterinarian; Regional meat hygiene advisor.
Add to that list additional correspondees; Chief Executive(MHS); audit administrator; veterinary manager; finance charges manager; information governance and risk manager (again, I kid you not); finance executive. And these are the ones I can remember!

Plus, an example of a latest MHS shenanigan. As Food Business Operator(FBO), it is my legal duty to check that cattle passports,ear tags match up with the animals that arrive. This involves a physical check before slaughter. As it stands, after slaughter, one of the two full-time meat inspectors re-checks the ear tags with the kill numbers and writes this information on a sheet of paper.

SO far, so good. From April 5th, however, this is going to change. The FBO will now have to do the post slaughter checks as well with the MHS doing a 1o% of turnover spot check each day.
OK, nothing wrong with that. But guess what! If the MHS find any mistakes, they MAY(with MHS read will), charge extra! This with a meat inspector stood right there watching procedures, and who is part of a full-time inspection team that costs between you as a taxpayer and me as FBO a figure rapidly approaching £4000 a week anyway!!! Yes, a week! You couldn't make it up, could you.

Not a good day. Welcome to Browns Britain.

Toby Baker

2009-09-23T09:20:00.000-07:00

The MHS have issued details on the changeover in charging as we prepare to move, as I see it subject to agreement, from unit cost charge to an hourly rate. One doesn't need to be a genius to see how this will pan out over the coming months. Although the MHS through their Business Managers are trying to persuade the likes of myself as a Food Business Operator (FBO) that hours are negotiable, human nature being what it is, the MHS will will gradually ratchet up the hours. Wouldn't you?

As it stands, the MHS have deployed at my relatively small plant three full-time officials, one vet and two meat inspectors. The fact that this is a scandelous waste of resources can be discussed at length another time. To be fair, the MHS have told me that this manning situation can be reviewed, the potential downside here being that I fear I will be forced into signing a Business Agreement to bring that into effect.

So, plenty to discuss. But let's assume that manning will stay as it is. Notwithstanding the fact that the vet nowadays does no physical work at all, and that the meat inspectors, through no fault of their own, are not allowed to trim ,wash or do anything other than inspect, the cost of placing these three officials at my abattoir costs between you as the tax payer and me as the FBO nearly FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS PER WEEK.!!

Meat inspectors have the training and indeed do a competent quality -control job in the production of fresh meat destined for our butchers shops, supermarkets, etc. The simple fact is despite the nature of the workings of an abattoir, the production of fresh meat heading down the food chain line is one of very low risk, in public health terms, to the consumer, and one day, that very important truth must come into the debate on the future of meat inspection in this country.

Meanwhile, are their any taxpayers out their who want to question these massive costs to him or her? You're making the biggest contribution by far. Give me as FBO the opportunity and I will prove that with one well trained technical employee, Ican run my business well and satisfy all legal requirements.

2009-09-05T01:21:00.000-07:00

The meat trade is never out of the news for long, or so it seems. The pressure group Animal Aid have been in the media spotlight this week, showing pictures, filmed undercover, of three abattoirs, two of which were shown to be, in some cases, not stunning animals properly and not carrying out their duties to the letter of the law. Filming took place ,apparently, over a six-month period, being condensed down into a 10-minute video.
Any abattoir operation, particularly stunning and bleeding of aninals, is an easy target for a pressure group. By its very nature, its an unsightly job not for the faint-hearted, but its a job that someone has to do. Although one should be very careful about commenting on an edited video designed only to show one side of things, some of the scenes portrayed certainly seemed to show a lack of professionalism, and that fact cannot be ignored.
Such an incident as this highlights the no-win situation an abattoir operator finds him or herself in. The law states that the Food Business Operator (FBO) is responsible for any requirement as stated in the law, a point that the Meat Hygiene Service(MHS) have been very quick to make (n0 surprise there.) Fair enough, but the first question every slaughterhouse manager is going to ask is this - What's the vet on site for?! With vets on site for the entire time, they can have no excuse for any animal welfare issue. Again, where were they in a moment of need?

What this episode has cleary shown is that the status quo does not work. It is too easy to pass the buck, to blame someone else. What is the way forward? Perhaps ironically, Animal Aid might well have a workable answer on this issue with the idea that CCTV's should be installed at stunning points that can obviously be monitored. Lots of questions to be dealt with ,of course, but it seems a progressive way forward. Such a thing would be part of a companys own management system, thus the onus would be on the FBO. This could work, but not while the vets are hanging around all day consuming vital financial resources. As long as this continues and the boundaries are blurred, things will not improve.

2009-08-04T08:23:00.000-07:00

Well, what do you know! There's me whingeing about not having a letter printed, and hey presto, there it is. Better late than never, I suppose, but waiting six weeks does take the edge off, don't you think?

More pressing matters. I've just received a second visit from the FSA in respect of re-approval of the abattoir. Why re-approval is needed I'm not too sure! Still, rather a lot of things to brush up on, mainly small items, some structural, but progress is good, and hopefully this matter will resolve itself soon.

What did strike me about the FSA officer dealing with this issue that here was a person who could solve a huge problem that is bedevilling this industry, i.e. the MHS. Bearing in mind that these officers have much previous experience in abattoir operations, have a thorough knowledge of the law, i.e. know the job, and taking into account that the MHS have overblown and overstated their status (watchout for the next viewpoint coming soon - " the MHS - a dangerous dog now becoming a monster"), why can't this FSA officer take over the role of auditing, say once, perhaps twice a year with licensing being done on an annual basis. MHS OVs could then concentrate on one thing and one thing only, i.e. ante mortem inspection. Hygiene to become the total responsibility of the Food Business Operator; the irony here is, of course, we're responsible by law anyway! Meat inspectors will get on with the job of post mortem inspection, and nothing else . Any record keeping legal requirements will be covered by a business's HACCP based system. Genuine risk assessment will stand like a rock if these proposals are ever scrutinised properly.

Any stuctural or premises situations that may crop up can be dealt with relatively quickly, and that by a highly qualified veterinary professional. This would help a business to keep right up to speed.

Let's also say this one more time. No other sector of the food industry is hounded on a daily basis like we are. The lowest risk to the consumer, but easily the most regulated. WHY? I've been asking this this question for 20 years , never had an answer,so I'm not holding my breath!

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

Welcome to Toby Baker's first blog!

2009-07-23T22:10:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my first blog! New territory for me so please be understanding. My intention is to give a regular feed of information, as it happens, so to speak. For abattoir operators, of course, this involves dealing every working moment (and more) with the enforcement agency that covers slaughterhouses, namely the Meat Hygiene Service(MHS).
I won't rehearse here my true feelings and thoughts about the MHS; I have been doing that for nearly 20 years through letter writing, personal websites,etc, so my views are well documented;(interestingly, a well-known meat trade magazine that always used to publish my letters, doesn't any more; that's the editors prerogative and rightly so, but you do wonder why)?

I would be keen to hear from any fellow abattoir operators for a view on what " MHS transformation" has meant to them, but the big issue for abattoir operators at the moment is the move, in September, from being charged on a unit-cost basis to an hourly charge; in other words , from a guaranteed maximum charge to a guaranteed minimum; predictions please!

My intention is to report on my dealings with the MHS on a regular basis on this blog. Yes, I'm going public, to inform the outside world what actually occurs in an establishment such as mine, and hopefully, reaction and comment will ensue.

Regards from Toby Baker, otherwise known as the Don Quixote of the meat trade!