Food Standards Agency
Wednesday 19 November 2008
Safer food better business banner
AZ-Directory
What's NewRSS
What is RSS?Thursday 15 May 2008
British Meat Processors Association Conference, London
Good afternoon and thank you very much indeed for inviting me to your conference.
I recognise that these are challenging times for the meat industry. So it’s good to have the opportunity to talk to you about the Food Standards Agency’s work and the good relationship we have with the British Meat Processors Association.
Because we have a shared vision of where we want to be.
When I started at the Agency, I promised to make changes to meat hygiene and meat controls. I remain committed to that and have given you evidence of acting on that commitment.
But we have a considerable distance to go and it’s still just as important that we get this right. For you. For the Agency. For consumers.
I want to talk first about how the Food Standards Agency delivers the most efficient service to industry - while safeguarding consumers.
Because consumer protection and operational and financial efficiency can, I believe, go hand in hand. Indeed they should.
But it is fair to acknowledge that this area is a risk to us, as well as you. So it is one that we have to get right.
Proportionate, risk-based regulation has to be the way forward as, indeed, we learned with the switch to BSE testing instead of the ban on beef from Over Thirty Months old cattle.
One of the drivers for that approach is better value for money – not just for taxpayers, consumers and ourselves, but everyone in the meat industry as well.
Our statutory duties charge us with protecting the interests of consumers – putting them first. But that is a complex concept. Food safety is a big part of putting the consumer first. But so are quality, choice and price. And these all rely on there being a thriving, competitive and profitable industry.
Although we talk about treating meat like any other food, I do think there are real differences to the rest of the food chain. There is a difference between livestock that’s reared for slaughter and crops grown for harvest.
Put another way, I think the beef animal makes more of a commitment to my Sunday roast dinner than the carrots or the cabbage or the Yorkshire pudding.
But that doesn’t mean that the approach we have to dealing with meat safety risks should be so different to the way we deal with safety risks in other areas of the food chain.
Or from the regulation of other areas of the economy for that matter, like in the nuclear power industry.
Let me make a comparison. Most people think that the risks from nuclear power stations are enormous. But we don’t have several government inspectors on duty in every nuclear power station every minute of every day it is operating.
That’s because the nuclear industry has internalised responsibility for safety. It looks at itself critically and deals with any problems.
Closer to home, food manufacturers internalise food safety and equally do not have external inspectors standing on the line – they do have audits, announced and unannounced, together with other inspection visits.
If we are to follow that route with meat – more proportionate hygiene controls, greater autonomy, more self-regulation, fewer, more risk-based inspections – then there is an essential quid pro quo.
Which brings me to the current challenges faced by the Meat Hygiene Service which will require co-operation between the Food Standards Agency, the Meat Hygiene Service (part of the FSA) and the Meat Industry more broadly.
There are three core issues for the meat industry regulation.
The first of these is the need to move towards a more risk and evidence based approach to the regulation of meat hygiene, as we have elsewhere in the food chain.
We learned in the switch from the Over-Thirty-Months rule to the BSE testing regime that consumers are prepared to accept a sensible degree of risk if they are given the full facts about the risks and benefits.
You are only too familiar with what happens when consumers lose confidence in food safety. One of the great benefits the Agency has brought is an increase in market stability. So no one wants to do anything to jeopardise that.
The key is to make sure that we get the same level of consumer protection more effectively and efficiently from controls that are more focused on, and more proportionate to the risks. So this area of work is about getting the maximum efficiencies under the current Official Controls regime.
The second issue is that government should not be subsidising the cost of enforcing official controls – except where there are wider issues to consider. Such as the contribution that smaller, remote slaughterhouses make to their local farming community or animal welfare.
Over time, we will be looking to the meat industry to absorb a greater part of the costs of regulation, as food business operators in other areas already do.
For our part, we have got to make sure that what we are handing over is only what is fair and reasonable for ensuring consumer protection and public confidence.
We have already outlined the principles that will underpin the new charging system. We are considering our proposals on future charging now and will be consulting on these later in the year.
I know that you will want to be engaged in discussion and we look forward to hearing your views.
The third core issue is Europe, where we need a more blue skies approach. We are obviously hamstrung to some extent in how far we can go to be more risk-based, bearing in mind that current controls are dictated mostly by the existing European regulations.
What we can do is make a concerted effort to persuade the Commission and other Member States of the benefits of more risk-based, proportionate, targeted and cost-effective controls.
Even though, being realistic about European time scales, we are talking in terms of the next 5 to 10 years.
More immediately, the Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service are doing a number of things together to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Although I acknowledge that there is more to do.
We are working to drive down our cost base from £91 million in 206/7 to £74 million in 2011/12. This is a 19% cut in costs, saving £4 million a year.
The Meat Hygiene Service has already made good progress with this, closing regional offices and developing a 'cluster' working model to improve support to business.
And we have also made Board level changes to help make the Meat Hygiene Service transformation happen.
In addition to those changes, we have established a new Advisory Body for the Delivery of Official Controls. This has influence and clout.
Naturally the British Meat Processors Association is represented on the Body. It is providing invaluable advice to me and the whole Food Standards Agency Board from the meat industry, retailers, government and consumers.
This Body will continue to have oversight of the whole programme of change, with membership from the meat industry, retailers, government and consumers as well as the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service.
The FSA Board, as you know, has decided that the optimum route forward is to invest its energy and resource in making the MHS as efficient and effective as possible. We are committed to that and will remain so in the coming years.
I was asked today, to talk about the Meat Hygiene Service which I have.
But I cannot leave you without talking about another subject dear to both our hearts. And for which praise is due - salt and salt reduction.
Because, between the British Meat Processors Association and the Food Standards Agency, we have formed a partnership which can make a real difference to the health of the meat-eating nation.
Because we know that cutting down on salt makes a real difference to health. Indeed cutting ½ gram of salt – from 9.5 to 9g a day - from people’s diet has saved 3,500 lives a year. Almost the same number that die in road crashes.
The British Meat Processors Association has worked with us for over three years through the Joint Sodium Working Party. Co-ordinating action to reduce salt levels in a wide range of meat products since 2004.
In 2006, we published voluntary salt reduction targets for 85 categories of food which are to be achieved by 2010.
The meat products covered by the targets include bacon, ham, other cured meats, burgers and sausages.
And the British Meat Processors Association, in collaboration with us put together a guidance document for small and medium sized businesses on salt reduction. This publication provides easy-to-read, accessible information and practical tips for businesses on how to reduce salt in meat products.
You are continuing to work closely with us during our review of the salt targets.
Information that you have already submitted indicates that 100% of products were below target for cooked uncured meats and canned frankfurters.
And for ham/other cured meats and burgers & grillsteaks there is 86% and 70% compliance with the FSA targets respectively.
Thank you for this partnership which I hope will continue to flourish.
In conclusion, I hope I have made the point that the Agency is committed to making meat regulation and enforcement more proportionate. More in line with the actual risks than with the old reputation.
I hope I have also made the point that the Agency is an open and listening organisation. We want to work in partnership with the meat industry.
Ultimately, what we are all looking for is a continued high level of consumer protection and confidence in meat, together with better value for money all round when it comes to producing it.
There are things we all need to work on to get to that point.
Of course there are challenges along this road for both of us, but there are also positives.
Your role is just as important as ours.
I look forward to continuing to work with you.
Find out what our other sites have to offer