The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS) is warning that the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) current stance and the potential removal of the meat discount regime could devastate over half of the UK’s meat industry, jeopardising a vital sector of the national economy.
What are meat inspections?
In the UK official veterinarians (OVs) and meat hygiene inspectors (MHIs) carry out inspections, known as Official Controls, in some meat food businesses such as abattoirs and game handling establishments.
Meat and poultry can’t be sold unless it’s checked by an official veterinarian before processing and given a health or ID mark by a meat hygiene inspector. This is a requirement to trade with other countries too.
These inspections assess the health of the animal and make sure it is safe to eat. They also protect animal welfare to ensure animals are treated humanely.
The FSA charges businesses to conduct these inspections. A taxpayer-funded discount is applied to reduce the cost for businesses. Smaller businesses receive a higher percentage discount than larger businesses.
The FSA recovered around 70% (£39.5m) of its total charges to industry in 2023/24. The remaining 30% (£17.8m) was offset through a system of taxpayer-funded discounts on charges to industry. The total discount has been slowly decreasing year on year.
‘A profound misunderstanding’
Inspections costs are reviewed each year. While the FSA says it expects to continue an offer of a discount in 2025/26, the cost of providing the inspections is set to increase significantly in 2025/2026.
The agency says this is due to inflation, shortages of veterinary personnel and an increase to salaries for overseas workers.
In a board meeting held last week (11 December 2024), the FSA came together to discuss the charges from April 2026, calling for evidence on how discounts benefit consumers and businesses.
The board concluded that it needs to consider the principle of having a universal discount in proportion to cost of controls and whether it is delivering the desired outcomes for taxpayers or whether there are better ways to deliver these.
Following on from this meeting, AIMS has expressed its opposition to the recent statements by Professor Susan Jebb, chair of FSA, regarding the UK’s meat inspection charging regime.
“During last week’s FSA Board meeting, Professor Jebb labelled the existing discount system for meat inspection charges as a ‘subsidy’ to the meat industry, a characterisation that AIMS finds both inaccurate and detrimental,” said Dr Jason Aldiss, head of external affairs at AIMS.
“It is our view that Professor Jebb’s portrayal of the discount system as a subsidy demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the regulatory framework,” he continued.
“The current discounts are essential adjustments designed to counterbalance an excessively bureaucratic and duplicative charging regime that imposes exorbitant costs on the meat industry.
“The current FSA charges to the UK meat sector are among the highest in the world and, in effect are a state sponsored trade barrier placing domestic producers at a significant disadvantage in international markets”.
AIMS is advocating for the adoption of a headage-based charging system which it claims would align with international standards, while ensuring a fairer and more transparent method of cost assessment that reflects the scale of operations.
“The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has questioned the effectiveness of traditional meat inspection methods, suggesting that certain practices may not effectively detect modern biological hazards and could, in some cases, be detrimental to food safety. This raises critical questions about the allocation of resources and the necessity of current inspection protocols,” argued Aldiss.
“Furthermore, Professor Jebb’s claim that meat inspection charges constitute only a minor cost to slaughter plants reflects a lack of awareness of industry economics.
“While these charges may represent a small fraction of total turnover, they have a substantial impact on net margins, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. The financial burden imposed by these fees threatens the viability of numerous businesses, undermining the broader agricultural economy.
“If meat inspections are indeed deemed a vital consumer protection measure, which is contrary to the evidence, it stands to reason that their funding should be sourced from public taxation rather than imposing disproportionate costs on industry operators. This would ensure that public health objectives are met without compromising the economic stability of the meat sector.”
In response to these allegations, Dr James Cooper, deputy director of food policy at the FSA told Food Manufacture: “Our regulation of the meat sector helps keep standards high and protects consumers. These official controls are also vital to exports and provide good value for money for the taxpayer.
“We are currently working on the charges for 2025/2026 and we will be engaging with industry in the new year. We will also be looking to refresh the objectives of the discounts and what approach would be best to meet these within the current charging framework.
“The charges for next year are set to rise as a result of inflation, and the costs of recruiting and retaining vets have also increased at a time when there is a global shortage in the profession.”
