The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS) has strongly opposed recent comments made by Professor Susan Jebb, Chair of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), regarding the UK’s meat inspection charging system.

AIMS argues that Professor Jebb’s characterisation of the existing discount system as a “subsidy” is both misleading and harmful to the UK meat industry.

During last week’s FSA Board meeting, Professor Jebb suggested that the discount system for meat inspection charges effectively subsidises the UK meat sector. However, Dr Jason Aldiss, Head of External Affairs at AIMS, dismissed this claim, stating: “It is our view that Professor Jebb’s portrayal of the discount system as a subsidy demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the regulatory framework.”

Meat Industry Costs and Trade Barriers

Dr Aldiss explained that the current discounts are essential to offset what he described as “excessively bureaucratic and duplicative” charges that impose “exorbitant costs” on meat businesses. “The current FSA charges to the UK meat sector are among the highest in the world and, in effect, act as a state-sponsored trade barrier. This places domestic producers at a significant disadvantage in international markets,” he added.

AIMS is advocating for a switch to a headage-based charging system, which would align with global standards. Dr Aldiss believes this alternative would provide a fairer and more transparent way of calculating inspection costs, better reflecting the scale of operations and supporting competitiveness and sustainability within the UK meat industry.

Meat Inspections and Food Safety

Professor Jebb’s assertion that meat inspections are a “vital consumer protective function” has also been challenged. Dr Aldiss pointed to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which has questioned the effectiveness of traditional meat inspection methods. According to EFSA, some current practices may fail to detect modern biological hazards and could even compromise food safety. “This raises critical questions about the allocation of resources and the necessity of current inspection protocols,” said Dr Aldiss.

Economic Impact on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

AIMS also rebuffed claims that meat inspection fees constitute only a minor cost to slaughterhouses. While these charges may seem small in relation to total turnover, Dr Aldiss emphasised their significant impact on net margins, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. “The financial burden of these fees threatens the viability of numerous businesses, undermining the broader agricultural economy,” he stated.

Call for Public Funding of Meat Inspections

AIMS further argued that if meat inspections are truly essential for public health, they should be publicly funded rather than financed through charges imposed on the industry. “If meat inspections are deemed a vital consumer protection measure — a position increasingly at odds with the evidence — it stands to reason that their funding should come from public taxation. This would ensure public health objectives are achieved without compromising the economic stability of the meat sector,” Dr Aldiss concluded.

The debate over meat inspection charges highlights ongoing tensions between regulatory authorities and industry stakeholders. AIMS is calling for urgent reforms to create a fairer, more sustainable system for UK meat producers, ensuring competitiveness in global markets while maintaining food safety standards.

Scotland’s meat industry is at risk of being rendered ‘uncompetitive’ in comparison to the rest of the UK by the imposition of huge cost increases by Food Standards Scotland (FSS).

An April 1st price hike by FSS of 20% for the provision of Official Veterinarians (OVs) and a 17% rise in the cost of Meat Hygiene Inspectors (MHIs) has been described as excessive and unacceptable by the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers (SAMW).

“The Food Standards Agency (FSA) in England and Wales is, in contrast, raising its OV rate by 4% and MHI rate by 10%, leaving both charges well below the levels our members are being required to pay,” said SAMW President, Ian Bentley. “If the FSS increases are allowed to stand without any abatement, they will impact our businesses, the staff our members employ and the wider farm-based rural economy from which we draw our raw materials.”

SAMW has discussed the issue with senior staff at FSS and written to the Scottish Government Minister for Public Health, Jenni Minto, warning that the planned 20% and 17% cost increases ‘will have a detrimental effect on the industry’ to the extent of ‘jeopardising’ member businesses ‘competitiveness and sustainability’.

 

“Individual members are shocked at the level of OV and MHI increases they are now facing, especially when compared to their own efforts to keep processing plant cost rises closer to the 4% level which FSA is achieving,” said Mr Bentley.

One business owner said he would never be able to negotiate a 20% rise with his own customers and would never accept such an approach from a commercial supplier.  Another business executive commented that if FSS was his supplier in the commercial world then it wouldn’t be his supplier anymore.

“We understand the pressures under which FSS has been operating, with its need to absorb the Scottish Government’s civil service wage rise of 7% for 2023/24 and the introduction of a 35-hour-week from October this year,” said Mr Bentley. “According to FSS, this equates to a cost recovery requirement of £424,000.

 

Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers