Consultation outcome

Summary of responses (English version)

Updated 8 November 2021

Introduction

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government held a joint consultation from 12 July 2021 to 9 August 2021.

So that we could gather industries views about the proposed amendments to Regulation (EC) 543/2008, Poultrymeat (England) Regulations 2011, Poultrymeat (Wales) Regulations 2011 and Poultrymeat (Scotland) Regulations 2011.

This report is a summary of the consultation survey results and the main themes identified from written feedback.

A total of 8 consultation responses were received from individual and business across the supply chain. Across the 8 respondents, organisations in England, Scotland and Wales were represented in the responses.

The organisations that responded to this consultation were:

• National Farmers' Union (NFU) of England and Wales
• NFU Cymru
• Lakeside Food Group
• Stara Foods (UK Ltd)
• The International Meat Trade Association
• London Port Health Authority
• British Poultry Council

Consultation responses

Were you or your organisation previously aware of the marketing standards laid down in Regulation (EC) 543/20081 and enforced by Poultrymeat (England) Regulations 2011, Poultrymeat (Wales) Regulations 2011, Poultrymeat (Scotland) Regulations 2011?

All respondents answered that they were aware of the marketing standards laid down in legislation.

Would you benefit from the receipt of a compliance guide prior to the introduction of checks on poultry meat marketing standards?

All respondents answered that they would like to receive compliance guidelines prior to the introduction of marketing standard checks.

Do you foresee any immediate issues regarding the compliance of poultry meat being processed when the PMMR checks, which are not currently being carried out, are introduced at your or your members establishments or the establishments you represent?

Some respondents reported that they did not foresee any immediate issues regarding the compliance of poultry meat being processed when the full suite of PMMR checks are introduced.

A few respondents emphasised the need for clear guidance to be provided to industry and regulatory bodies ahead of the implementation of this legislation.

What, if any, are the key barriers to the introduction of these checks that we should be aware of?

Some respondents answered that they saw no barriers to the introduction of these checks. Most respondents indicated that they were supportive of the risk-based approach proposed in the consultation document.

Some respondents answered that a barrier to the introduction of these checks might be the regulatory resources available to implement PMMR changes and conduct checks in a timely fashion. Namely, staffing and delays at ports to perform the checks.

Some respondents also answered that they would like to see a system of checks that ensures fairness and consistency between regions and businesses, in addition to ensuring that legislative changes are consistent across Great Britain.

One respondent answered that: "the nature of business model for imported poultry makes it challenging (to implement these checks), a large percentage of produce arrives chilled in mixed consignment on lorries that have multiple delivery points, with multiple final customers."

Some respondents commented that they wanted to understand what the checks would entail before being able to answer this question fully.

How often do you think checks in slaughterhouses, cutting plants, retail, and warehouses should be carried out, to assess marketing standards, without causing undue burden to your business/the businesses you represent?

Most respondents thought the frequency of checks should follow a risk-based approach based on the compliance record of food businesses.

Some respondents replied that they think the checks should happen daily.

One respondent answered that there should be a maximum of one consignment checked per week (at border control posts).

Do you think the frequency of checks should be subject to change, depending on the risk of non-compliance at slaughterhouses, cutting plants, retail, and warehouses?

Most respondents answered 'yes.' Most respondents answered that they were in favour of a risk-based approach based on the compliance record of each business. One respondent added that "the legislation should allow competent authorities to carry out targeted checks when systemic issues are identified."

Some respondents also expressed that they would expect the introduction of these checks to be flexible and proportionate.

One respondent answered that a 'one size fits all' approach would not be appropriate and considerations such as business throughput should be assessed when a baseline is established.

How do you think the baseline for the frequency of checks should be established?

Some respondents answered that one-off checks should be used to establish a baseline of compliance. Then future checks should be risk assessed based on the level of compliance found during the baseline exercise.

One respondent answered that this should be done on a country-by-country basis (for imports).

For imports, what are your views on using the Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) risk approach to determine the frequency of PMMR checks?

Some respondents reflected that they viewed using the SPS risk approach to be a proportionate and pragmatic way of determining the level of (PMMR) checks. Some added that the legislation should allow for frequency to be increased appropriately if problems or non-compliance are found for imports.

Some respondents answered that checks on imports should be risk assessed at the same level as domestically produced poultry meat and be based on historical compliance.

Do you think a risk-based approach to the frequency of PMMR checks should apply to poultry meat being imported from the EU and other third countries?

All respondents answered yes.

One respondent advised that they would like to see regional inspectors sent to final destinations for checking to prevent delays at the border.

Water content checks are a requirement of the legislation. Do you have any comments or views on the implementation of these tests?

One respondent expressed concerns about the proposal to replace fixed fees for water content checks. Respondents answered that they would like further clarity on how the flexible charging clause will work.

One respondent expressed that water content checks are important for certain cuts. "IE 0207 1310 00 Chilled chicken breast or thigh boneless and also 2007 1410 00 Frozen chicken breast and thigh."

Would you be interested in attending a roundtable to further discuss the implementation of PMMR checks?

Most respondents answered yes, one said no.

Do you have any further comments on the proposed implementation of these checks?

Most respondents highlighted the need for clarity around who is going to carry out the checks and how.

Respondents remarked that the new legislative landscape is complicated for companies to navigate. Whilst industry welcomes proposals to include provisions to make the regulations clear it is imperative that there is alignment across the devolved administrations.

In relation to imports, some respondents suggested conducting checks inland at cutting plants, warehouses, or retail facilities to prevent delays at the border.

One respondent expressed concerns about third country processors flouting the law regarding water content checks and the expressed that firm and swift action should follow if non-compliance is detected.

One respondent added that further clarity is required regarding when a combination of chilling methods is used.

Multiple respondents noted the four-week consultation deadline during the holiday period made it challenging to gather sufficient evidence and feedback to fully participate in the consultation

Are there any further amendments you would like to see considered in future PMMR reviews?

Detailed responses were included that highlighted several issues that respondents would like to see considered in future reviews. These are outlined below.

Removal of reference to numbers in legislation relating to the number of chickens and stocking rates in Annex V (b) and Annex V (c) ii of Regulation (EC) 543/2008.

A review of stocking density requirements and slaughter ages that apply for different marketing terms to ensure they are more relevant to modern production systems.

In the event of a UK Government housing order because of a notifiable avian influenza outbreak, multiple respondents stated that they would like to see the wording amended to clarify that the 12-week derogation period is applied on a flock-by-flock basis. Which is consistent with the provision issues by the European Commission in 2017.

Consideration of a risk-based approach for on-farm inspections for free range producers so that these can be reduced to an annual basis where good compliance is consistently demonstrated and tied in with assurance inspections to avoid visit duplications

Terms used to describe specific proteins such as chicken, beef, lamb, pork, or a specific cut of meat like steak should be reserved listed in legislation as reserved for meat products only.

Next steps

In response to the consultation, we are now setting out the Government's next steps to make amendments to PMMR to reflect a risk-based approach. Defra, Welsh Government and Scottish Government are continuing to work closely for the alignment of proposed amendments.

This would enable the three devolved administrations to implement a consistent risk-based approach across Great Britain that is minimally burdensome. PMMR requirements in Northern Ireland will not be amended as they currently align with the EU, as required under the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Guidance regarding the implementation of PMMR will be drafted and sent out to industry ahead of the new regime of checks coming into place.