MPs to hear evidence on £200M desinewed meat ban
The committee will also consider the impact of the EC requirement that desinewed meat (DSM) from poultry and pigs should be reclassified as mechanically separated meat (MSM).
Meat processors have estimated the cost of complying with the requirements to limit the use of the low-pressure technique used to separate meat from bones at £200M.
From April 28, meat processors were no longer allowed to use the technique for ruminants. This is despite acknowledgement from the EU and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the technique does not threaten safety.
DSM from poultry and pork can continue to be produced. But from May 26 it will have to be labelled as MSM and will no longer count towards the total meat content of food products.
According to Owen Warnock, partner at law firm Eversheds, meat processors that used poultry and chicken DSM will face the biggest challenge because an MSM label is off-putting to consumers.
Biggest challenge
Dominic Watkins, senior associate at business law firm DWF, told FoodManufacture.co.uk: “Where the ban will have a real effect is at the value end of the spectrum.
“Producers of value products will consider the decision horrific, as they will not be able to call [pork and poultry DSM] meat anymore. I expect we will start to see these products disappear.”
The decision brings the UK’s definition of DSM in line with EU law, following an audit by the European Commission.
It represents an embarrassing climb-down for the FSA, which decided in 2010 that DSM was not the same as MSM, said Watkins.
The FSA’s original ruling was based on DSM using low-pressure techniques to remove meat from the bone – resulting in the meat fibre structure staying intact, he added. But the EC included it in the general definition for MSM.
However, it would be difficult for meat processors to mount a legal challenge in the European courts because the ban is considered a change in definition rather than a new regulation, said Watkins.
"It’s not a safety issue, which begs the question, what kind of issue is it? There may be some debating room,” he added.
Job losses
The British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) calculated the cost of complying with the new definition as being £200M. This included: sourcing suitable raw materials, relabelling, reformulation and potential job losses.
Stephen Rossides, BMPA director, said: “The market implications of having to bow down to the Commission are huge. We look to the UK government to continue to defend the UK’s legal interpretation and established practice. All this has happened at breakneck speed.”
The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) would like a pragmatic approach to the changes, in order to avoid disproportionate measures being taken, said Barbara Gallani, FDF director of food safety and science. The FDF does not agree with the change in definition, but will continue to work with the FSA to understand its impact, she added.
