Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeFurther written evidence submitted by the British Meat Processors Association

The incidents of gross contamination of some beef products and mislabelling have undermined consumer confidence and trust in the meat industry, and have caused reputational damage to it. We take the matter most seriously. It is important to fully establish the facts as the basis for identifying effective ways to address the issues raised.

The BMPA and its members are cooperating with the FSA in carrying out tests on a wide range of products and publishing the results. We have also urged our members to be vigilant, and to review their raw material and ingredients sourcing policies in order to ensure that they meet their responsibilities to produce safe food and to describe and label their products accurately.

The FSA has quite rightly made a clear distinction between gross contamination due to negligence or fraud, and incidents where powerful DNA testing technology is able to detect low level traces of unintended material in normal manufacturing operations.

It is very important to recognise that all the evidence to date regarding the instances of gross contamination points to fraud—unlawful behaviour on a serious scale, but in a comparatively small number of product lines and supply chains. We look to police authorities to find and prosecute the perpetrators. There is not a systemic breakdown of the meat supply chain; it would be misleading and would not serve the best interests of consumers or the food industry to suggest this in any way.

Some have suggested that modern food supply chains are too dependent on trust. To a considerable extent, the system must rely on a high element of trust, and the assumption that operators adhere to the relevant legislation. It would be unworkable to found a modern livestock and meat production system on the basis that everyone is or may be a crook. The great, great majority of food businesses have very high technical and ethical standards. They meet their responsibilities 365 days, year in, year out. They should not be tarred with the brush of crooked operators.

These incidents will no doubt lead to wider use of testing, and calls for more regulation. On testing, it is important to ensure that the thresholds of properly validated DNA testing are consistent with good hygiene and manufacturing practices. We must also recognise that at low threshold levels, the tests are not completely reliable. The tests are also costly.

Any further measures—whether required by regulators or initiated by industry—must be relevant, workable, risk-based, proportionate and affordable. We will achieve little if we knee-jerk respond to recent events and simply add further cost into the supply chain, and so exacerbate the very problems that some point to as part of the explanation for the current incidents.

There will also be calls for blanket country-of-origin labelling, not only of fresh meat, but also of processed products using meat as an ingredient. However, country-of-origin labelling of processed products would be very onerous to apply. And, in any case, it would not, of itself, have detected or prevented the incidents of fraudulent contamination.

When media interest is calmer, the real issues remain, and it will be important for all parties in the food industry, together with government and regulators, to sit down to identify the sensible way forward.

February 2013