A PROPOSAL by the Food Standards Authority (FSA) that the full costs of meat inspection charges should be picked up by the industry was roundly condemned yesterday.
Within hours of the papers for next week's meeting of the FSA suggesting such a move being made public, both NFU Scotland and the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers (SAMW) hit back by saying that the current regime was too onerous and that it w
ould also mean additional costs going into their section of the food chain.
Currently, the total charges for meat inspection, for cattle, sheep and poultry, amounts to some £65 million annually in the UK. Of this, the industry pays about £24m with Defra and the FSA paying the rest.
The paper going to the FSA suggests that, if they withdrew from their contribution and the extra costs were passed on to the consumer, it would only amount to less than one penny for a chicken costing £4. For 500 grams of mince, it said, the estimated cost to be passed to the consumer would be less than half a penny.
The flaw in this suggestion, according to SAMW, was that they were sure the additional cash would not come from the consumer, because the major retailers would not accept any additional costs.
They and the Union both thought the cost would wing back on to the processor or the primary producer. Both bodies reckoned the full cost could add another £4 on to the cost of a single cattle carcase and 70 to 80p per sheep.
Nigel Miller, the NFU Scotland vice-president, said he was extremely disappointed with the proposals. He said the FSA should be looking at how it could reduce the financial burden rather than pass it on.
One example, he said, was that currently all lambs go through the full inspection regime but if risk-based assessments were carried out some inspections would be deemed unnecessary.
Ian Anderson, executive manager for SAMW, picked up the same point saying the FSA had admitted the service could be delivered for £20m less than is currently the case.
He also called for the whole inspection scheme to be modernised to make it more appropriate.
The FSA report also draws attention to the anomaly that it is the regulator for the industry but uses part of its funding to pay for carrying out part of the regulation.
