THE perceived threat to human health from BSE, or mad cow disease, has all but faded into the science fiction of white-coated scientists' fantasies of some sort of Armageddon. It never happened but the meat and livestock industry is still faced with the legacy of myriad controls on its activities at some considerable cost.
It is not a legacy they readily accept, particularly as the beef industry has been given a virtual clean bill of health with the acceptance that animals born less than a decade ago can be accepted into the food chain both for home consumption and for
exports, albeit with some limitations on what are referred to as specified risk materials, such as spinal chords.
At the same time, a vast army of food safety operatives has mushroomed across Europe in much the same way as health and safety and equal opportunities bodies have threatened to overtake every aspect of life as we know it.
In most cases, the big boys have learned to cope with this growth of bureaucracy and legislation, albeit by allowing the added costs to be absorbed into their overall running expenses, with either primary producers, processors or the end retail customers picking up the final bill. Supermarket profits have shown little impact.
Around the time that such bodies as the Meat Hygiene Inspection force and the Food Standards Agency came into being, small- and medium-sized abattoir operators saw the dangers of being squeezed by all the extra costs the rules and regulations were about to foist on the industry.
So they formed the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers to negotiate fair and equitable - and affordable - treatment.
The fact that they are still around six years after formation and with an increased membership, as well as the ear of the government, shows this was a wise defensive move. Now they have gone on the offensive.
This was demonstrated at its annual conference at the weekend as nominated speakers put forward alternative scenarios for the future. Not the least of these was Jason Aldiss, managing director of Eville & Jones, one of the companies which emerged as veterinary specialist supply companies for the Meat Hygiene service (MHS). He came forward with proposals for a new risk-based approach to meat inspection and verification which would reduce industry costs as the government tightened up its drive towards increased cost recovery from the industry which would be both efficient and effective.
Key to this new venture would be the introduction, from the start of 2006, of new European hygiene rules. The driver would be the fact that abattoir numbers were falling while costs of MHS inspections were rising.
Methodology had been based on a system in which success in terms of enforcement had been based on failures in the system. In other words, the business was driving inspection. It was time to reverse this with a new system based on tailored inspection charges which were more accurately customer-focused and based on science and outcomes.
This meant there was a need to create a new
cost-effec-
tive and
competent
authority to operate on a third-party
inspection
basis subject
to an independent audit. Independent delivery agents, such as the MHS, would work to the standards set down in the
EN45004/11 regulations while the inspectors would work to fixed-fee contracts.
He said this would ensure the industry was working together for a common aim at costs which would be acceptable, removing conflict throughout the chain and ensuring compliance without the need for coercion.
With the introduction of the new hygiene regulations, the time was ripe for a change. A new approach would help improve industry competitiveness through improved efficiency, reduced costs, a more tailored approach, improved lines of communication and delivery.
Although the problem is less acute in Scotland, with a better spread of larger, more integrated abattoirs, the approach did meet with the qualified approval of Alistair Donaldson, executive manager of the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers.
Changes in legislation did offer an opportunity to move the industry forward in terms of improved efficiency, he said.
"We are not looking towards creating a cheap and cheerful alternative, but at a system that delivers an effective system and better value for money.
"We are looking at a system that demands more and more cost recovery as support from government diminishes. We are looking at the next spending review which promises reductions in support and this has only one implication and that is the industry will have to carry more of the cost and if that is going be done it has got to be done on a value-for-money basis.
"With the number of abattoirs going down and the cost of meat inspection going up, we will be in danger of reaching a cross-over point which will be unsustainable and the drive must be to get a more effective and sustainable system.
"Overall, I think there is a better climate there. There is the new opportunity of the fact that over-30-month-old cattle are now eligible for the market for both the home and export markets. The export market may be growing slightly slower in Scotland because of our strong home market across Britain and limited supplies. But exports have to be built and built on a profitable basis if we are going to substitute against a home market.
"Importantly that is going to go back to the producer."
He said major strategies were being developed to improve returns. Production had to achieve profitability. The sector was moving towards this target. The aim was to see this continue.
