Box-ticking and delays after horsemeat crisis

But that doesn’t mean it is easy, or inexpensive to achieve.

Over the last few months I’ve spoken to countless ingredients firms – several of which are not supplying meat ingredients or ingredients for meat products – and a clear consensus has emerged: the horsemeat debacle has made it far more complex and time-consuming to do business. I’ve heard how what used to be one-day inspections from customers now take two days and how what used to be two-day inspections now take the best part of a week. Furthermore, the same applies to potential customers.

So, just to get a foot in the door and be in with a shot of securing new business, ingredients firms are increasingly having to spend vast amounts of time and effort to jump through an obstacle course littered with hoops just to get onto a shortlist.

The horsemeat scandal clearly showed that, in certain sectors, inspection regimes were woefully inadequate and fraudsters were only too willing to take advantage. Clearly, those responsible need to be held to account and regimes need to be strengthened to regain consumer confidence. However, many are now starting to question whether the backlash is being suitably targeted. To some, it appears there is a now a blanket-approach of excessive inspections, paperwork and box-ticking.

It has been a common gripe for several years from ingredients firms that the process of securing new business and completing a sale is getting longer and longer. Gone are the days, say many, when a customer can have a new idea, run a trial and get it on the supermarket shelves in the space of a couple of months.

Now, many firms report it taking between and 12 and 18 months from the first point of contact to getting a contract in place. This was happening before the horsemeat scandal and the logical conclusion is that its consequences mean this timeframe will be further extended, with far-reaching consequences on innovation.