Closed 'Til Further Notice

Britain's small abattoirs are being systematically eliminated with serious consequences for small farmers.

One of the few positive consequences of the BSE crisis has been the growing awareness of just how unnaturally most food is produced. Many people would now rather buy meat directly from the person who fed and cared for the animals, than from a multiple-retailer prepared to source from anywhere on the globe, if the price is right.

This trend has helped the rapid growth of local meat marketing through farmers' markets and other direct sales. As a way forward it offers real hope to Britain's beleaguered livestock industry. It has significant benefits for the environment and animal welfare. It has also caught the imagination of the consuming public, because it allows them a very personal say in how farm animals are reared. All this, however, is threatened by the mass closure of smaller abattoirs, new restrictions on meat cutting in butchers shops and a relentless tide of new EU regulations, uniquely applied in the UK with bureaucratic sadism.

Soon after Britain joined the Common Market in 1973, British abattoirs became the focus of increased regulatory interest. While only those wishing to export meat were immediately required to upgrade to full EEC requirements, some saw the writing on the wall and closed. By 1986 numbers had fallen to 1,000.[1]

A few voices of protest were raised, but most farmers and butchers said little at the time. The loss of a few small abattoirs seemed hardly significant. They were to be found in all country towns and even many villages.

However, in July 1991, the EC Council of Ministers adopted Directive 91/497/EEC, extending single market rules to red meat traded on national markets. In 1992, all abattoirs, cutting plants and cold store operators received a stark warning from MAFF, `Premises will be prohibited from trading unless by 1 January 1993 they have been licensed by agriculture departments as complying with EC requirements.'[2]

The EU Directive imposed prohibitively expensive structural and procedural changes plus greatly increased inspection. A further 200 abattoirs closed in 1992.[3]

In total the number of licensed red meat abattoirs in Britain has fallen by more than 70 per cent, from about 1,350 in the late 1970s to 339 today. To anyone who thinks of an abattoir as a place of gruesome horrors, this might sound like good news. However it has not led to fewer animals being killed (12,473,000 livestock units in 1972, 12,693,000 in 1999[4]), it simply means they have to travel further and wait longer.

Large-scale producers predominantly supply animals to multiple-retailers. Each of these uses only a few abattoirs and, depending on the region, journeys to slaughterhouses can be protracted. Even the Soil Association found it was unable to introduce an idealistic three hours maximum journey time and now allows unlimited travel in stages of up to eight hours, in order to provide the supermarkets with organic meat.[5]

The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), now responsible to the Food Standards Agency, was set up under MAFF in 1995 and replaced the previous system of local authority meat inspection. While the concept was `sold' to the industry as a way of reducing costs, these have, in fact, increased dramatically. Typical of many, G Thompson and Son, a medium-sized abattoir in Durham has seen inspection costs rise from 44,000 [pounds sterling] in 1995 to 110,000 [pounds sterling] in 1999.[6] For smaller abattoirs the rise has been nearer 500 per cent.[7]

Food safety problems

Improved enforcement of regulations by the MHS to ensure the removal of offal possibly infected with BSE, has clearly been important. The benefits of increased inspection to reduce carcass contamination have been less obvious. The decline in Salmonella infection may have more to do changes at production level, and other types of food poisoning in the UK have continued to increase. As Professor Hugh Pennington has commented, most microbiologists see little point in post-mortem inspections.[8] Dr Richard North, a former environmental health officer, has even suggested that the increased levels of inspection are part of the problem.[9] Repeated examination of carcasses, he suggests, increases the risk of infections, such as E. coli 0157, being spread within the abattoir. It has also been argued that longer travelling times, which increase levels of bruising[10] also increase faecal contamination of live animals. This is capable of raising microbial contamination of carcasses 1,000-fold.[11] While animals with caked manure on hides are rejected prior to slaughter, those covered by watery manure, due to increased stress during transport, are not.

Longer journeys also increase costs, but for producers and dealers able to fill multi-deck lorries to capacity this is not yet prohibitive. Travelling times may not exceed those specified in welfare legislation and the industry and government believe that once loaded, the length of journey, up to these maximum limits, is not important. For those who recognise farm animals as `sentient beings' and particularly for those who have seen what has been called that `look' in an animal's eye,[12] as it views you through the side of a crammed lorry, this is hard to accept; particularly for species such as cattle and pigs which can be acutely aware of their surroundings and easily become distressed.

However, it is not now only agri-businessmen who are sending farm animals on long journeys to slaughter. Those attempting to develop or maintain local meat marketing initiatives are being forced to travel further and further a field to have their stock slaughtered.[13] Since the number of animals to be slaughtered at any time is usually small, this adds disproportionately to the costs per animal and is, in contrast, not economically sustainable.

The National Farmers Union, which has tended to side with the large abattoirs, has recently acknowledged that, `large parts of south-east England are now devoid of abattoirs.[14] There are, in fact, no full throughput abattoirs left in Berkshire or West Sussex and no abattoirs at all on the Isle of Wight. This despite the fact that approximately 3,500 beef cattle, 20,000 lambs and 4,500 pigs are reared there,[15] As a result, all animals have to be shipped off the island to slaughter. Pigs, in particular, are poor sailors. Hampshire and Surrey have just one abattoir each, both on prime development sites and there are fears that this may prove too tempting for businesses being driven to the wall by spiralling costs and excessive regulation.[16]

Even farmers close to a large abattoir are not always spared. Some abattoirs do not provide a service for local outlets because it is uneconomical to interrupt large contracts to deal with individual producers. Others are specialising and no longer kill all species. Yet more are killing Over Thirty Month Scheme cattle prior to incineration. Even the few remaining small slaughterhouses, the so-called `low throughput abattoirs', are sometimes not able to help local producers and retailers. This is because they are only permitted to kill a maximum of 20 livestock units (20 cattle, 40 pigs, 120 sheep or a combination of these) per week. Some small producers are having to book individual pigs and lambs in weeks in advance to get them killed, and longstanding clients with cattle have been told their local abattoir can no longer accommodate them,[17] even though this means most small abattoirs have only enough work to operate two or three days a week.[18]

Pigs are suffering most. Even by 1992, pigs for slaughter from the New Forest faced an 80-mile journey to Berkshire, after two local abattoirs closed.[19] Now, small-scale producers from Berkshire are trekking to Bromsgrove in the West Midlands, in a desperate attempt to find an abattoir still able and willing to kill their pigs.[20]

For the MHS this is no more than the `predicted contraction in the meat industry and the need for downsizing.'[21] It also complements what is euphemistically called `restructuring in the British livestock industry.' For those involved this is the ruthless decimation of a vital industry.

There have been many contributory factors, including the harmonisation of UK and EC meat inspection systems, the establishment of the MHS, the BSE, salmonella and E. coil food safety problems, the increasing problem of bovine tuberculosis, the declining fortunes of small farmers and the demise of the British livestock industry in the face of cheap imports.

However, despite all this it is difficult to escape the conclusion that this mass closure of abattoirs has, in fact, been engineered somewhere within the higher echelons of power in Whitehall, to fit in with a still-cherished brave new world vision, that sees all crops and livestock produced on large intensive farms, all animals slaughtered in a few super-large abattoirs and virtually all food sold through the supermarkets.

Veterinary inspection

Having full-time meat inspectors in abattoirs was a reasonable response to increased concerns about food safety and has caused few problems. The EU requirement that veterinary surgeons must also be present in abattoirs, however, has caused the single biggest problem for small and medium-sized plants in the UK. British veterinary colleges turn out only just enough vets each year to replace those retiring from animal practice and after five years at college most vets see their vocation as helping live animals, not inspecting dead ones. As a result there is a critical shortage of British vets available to enforce hygiene regulations in abattoirs.

To fill the vacuum the MHS uses agencies to recruit vets on contract. Many of these are from Spain. They are predominantly female and often in their first job. The subtleties of the English language have not made things easy. They are placed in positions of supreme authority in a traditionally male industry and are the vehicle through which complex and costly new legislation is being enforced. This has led to a great deal of stress and problems both for abattoir operators and the vets themselves.

One of the most poignant accounts comes from Michael Bramall,[22] an eighth generation butcher working for his family firm in an unbroken tradition on the rural outskirts of Sheffield. His firm was prosecuted and fined 25,000 [pounds sterling] with legal costs of nearly 16,000 [pounds sterling] after a long series of problems with their agency vet and her agency quality controller. The offences were minor: failure to expose kidneys prior to inspection, four sheep's spleens accidentally put in the wrong waste bin and carcasses allowed to touch on the line. In his detailed defence, Mr Bramall mentions how on one occasion the vet was found crying in her car. Many within the industry suspect that some vets have had unfair pressure put on them to make trouble and hasten the decline of smaller abattoirs. This vet clearly felt she had been battling unsuccessfully to raise standards. From the Bramall's point of view, however, they had done everything humanly possible to accommodate her, but found the culture and gender clash made an already difficult situation impossible.

It had taken ten years to get planning permission for an expensive new, MAFF-approved abattoir. Once it was built few problems were expected. However, the vet insisted on a new water system, costing 7,500 [pounds sterling], new lighting, a `rise and fall' working platform and an endless catalogue of minor changes. Each time she promised that cooperation would lead to an increase in the abattoir's Hygiene Assessment System (HAS) score. After each improvement, however the score was reduced and fresh demands were made. Eventually the HAS score was reduced below 65, a trigger point which led to a further layer of inspection, demands which were impossible to meet in a limited timescale and the eventual prosecution.

As a government Task Force has acknowledged, the system of charging for both vets and meat inspectors has favoured larger operators and imposed `punitive costs on small abattoirs'.[23] And, while large abattoirs are generally allocated a MHS vet, at an average charge of 29.13 [pounds sterling] per hour, most small and medium-sized abattoirs have to put up with an agency vet, where charges are established by commercial tendering. Hourly rates have averaged 40.50 [pounds sterling], but 60 [pounds sterling] is not uncommon and for a few unlucky abattoirs, rates as high as 107 [pounds sterling] have been charged. Taken with the lower number of animals killed per hour in smaller slaughterhouses, this has led to a national range of inspection charges for cattle of between 3 [pounds sterling] and 40 [pounds sterling].

From 1 April 2001, levels of veterinary inspection will rise again, from the current 50 per cent, to 100 per cent of slaughtering time. The expected doubling of charges would have put all small and most medium-sized abattoirs out of business over night. However, as a result of a long campaign spearheaded by the Soil Association and supported by the Country Landowners Association, RSPB, CPRE, National Trust and other rural organisations, British abattoirs will now be given the option of standard EU headage charges (2.76 [pounds sterling] for cattle). To make this possible 11 [pounds sterling]million will be allocated to the MHS.[24]

This, though, is 8 [pounds sterling] million short of the possible cost. Anxious not to sign a blank cheque, the Food Standards Agency has drawn up a draft statutory instrument which allows the MHS to revert to hourly charges in a large number of situations. These include significant variation in the size of animals being slaughtered and changes to agreed schedules. As such many small abattoirs could still find themselves put out of business by inspection charges.

Policy-driven bureaucracy

Closer examination suggests that British civil servants have seized on the opportunities presented by EU regulations to hasten the demise of small abattoirs. The EU directive 91/497 was interpreted in British law as the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992. While the directive imposed major changes on abattoirs throughout the community, countless minor amendments were made in the British regulation and accompanying guidance notes which, taken together, imposed tens of thousands of pounds in additional costs on smaller abattoirs.[25]

The directive requirements, for example, that `taps must not be hand operable' was translated in the regulation as `any taps shall not be operable by hand or arm' (adding 300 [pounds sterling] per unit); that `fittings shall not be made of wood' became `no wood is allowed anywhere within the slaughter hall or any workroom'; that `facilities, including suitably laid out and equipped reception and marshalling areas, for the hygienic loading and handling of meat', was expanded to `fully sealed docking bays are recommended where exposed meat is handled.'

As early as 1922, a Ministry of Health circular stated, `steps should be taken to secure the centralisation of slaughtering in as few slaughterhouses as possible.'[26] At that time there were over 13,000 slaughterhouses in the UK. The recent unfair treatment of smaller abattoirs suggests this policy has been maintained. For some years the MHS has insisted it could do nothing about this because government expected actual costs to be recovered from the industry. As the trade body, the British Meat Federation, made clear, they `were not prepared to accept large plants subsidising the smaller ones.'[27] Their members were happy with the status quo because it kept costs below their competitors and as each small abattoir closed they picked up extra trade.

However, their longstanding claim that changing the system would be unfair, has recently been turned on its head. The MHS has admitted that small abattoirs have, in fact, been subsidising the larger ones. Overtime is regularly worked by large abattoirs, but never by low-throughput ones. However rates have not included administrative and management costs. This has resulted in higher basic rates paid by all abattoirs. Under pressure the MHS has also effectively acknowledged that it has chosen to employ contract vets rather than appoint more employed vets, because it expects smaller abattoirs to close and it does not want to be stuck with them once this happens.[28] In contrast it will not use contract meat inspectors, even where this would reduce travelling costs, because it can use employed inspectors elsewhere in the food industry.

Local food

Yet another regulation about to impact on the local meat sector is a prohibition of cutting meat for wholesale in butchers' shops. Many farm shops and farmers' market meat traders, being small producers, have used local butchers to cut and prepare their meat for sale. However, in future anyone doing this must register as a `cutting plant'. This will require structural alterations and regular visits by both meat inspectors and veterinary surgeons. Such changes play into the hands of those seeking to centralise the UK food industry still further. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that most large supermarket chains have refused to support the campaign to save small abattoirs.

As further skeletons drop out of the factory farming cupboard, it seems probable Britain's livestock industry will continue to decline. Local food, and particularly local organic food, offers a real chance for survival, not just for producers, but for the countryside, the environment and rural communities. The battle over small abattoirs is therefore also a battle for the future of agriculture. Get rid of small abattoirs and consumers will have no choice but to buy all their meat in supermarkets.

However, British food producers will find it difficult to compete unsubsidised on world markets and are likely to fare poorly if supermarkets cannot clearly distinguish their produce from cheaper imports. The concept of local food therefore, offers salvation for both large and small farmers alike, against the coming ravages of global free trade. In the end maintaining a network of local abattoirs could be vital for all British farmers.

REFERENCES

[1] Meat and Livestock Commission, 1999. `The Impact of Further Changes to Meat Inspection Charges and Other Enforcement Costs'

[2] MAFF, 1992. `Red Meat -- 1992 and You'

[3] North, R., 1993. `Death by Regulation: The Butchery of the Meat Industry', London, IEA Health and Welfare Unit and The Institute of Economic Affairs

[4] Meat and Livestock Commission, 1999. `The Abattoir and Meat Processing Industry'

[5] Soil Association Standards for Organic Food and Farming 2000

[6] de Broke, Lord Willoughby et al 2000. `A Threat to the Countryside -- Misregulation of the Mmeat Industry and its Consequences', Vol.1, Report, Honest Food, London

[7] Ibid

[8] Channel 4, 30 November 1998. `Dispatches: `BSE'

[9] Ibid

[10] McNally, RW. & Warriss, P.D., 1996. `Recent bruising in cattle at abattoirs' Veterinary Record: 138 pp 126-8

[11] Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 1997. `Safer Eating -- Microbiological Food Poisoning and its Prevention'

[12] Gellatley, J., 1996. `The Silent Ark', London, Thorsons

[13] The Duchess of Devonshire, 2000. Daily Telegraph 3 June 2000

[14] White, 2000. NFU South East Region Press Release 13 September 2000

[15] Dreweatt Neate, 2000. `Abattoir Provision in the South East Region of England'

[16] Ibid

[17] Kennard, R. & Young, R., 1999. `The Threat to the Organic Meat Market from Increased Meat Inspection Charges', Bristol, Soil Association

[18] Pooley, R., et al, 1999. `Number of Low Throughput Abattoirs active through the week', Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group Report, 1: Report and Recommendations

[19] Op. cit 3

[20] Partridge, D., 2000. Personal communication.

[21] Meat Hygiene Service, 1999. `Background information for the Pooley Working Group', para. 3.51

[22] Statement of Michael Bramall in Pooley, R., et al, 1999. `Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group', 3: Written Responses Part 2

[23] MacClean, C., et al, 2000. `Meat Inpection Charges Task Force -- Report and Recommendations' MAFF

[24] Rural White Paper, 28 November 2000

[25] Op. cit. 3

[26] Ministry of Health Circular 282, cited in Op. cit. 3

[27] Pooley, R., et al, 1999. `Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group', 1: Report and Recommendations

[28] Op. cit. 15, para 3.5.1

Richard Young farms a 390-acre organic farm in Worcestershire. He is policy adviser to the Soil Association and co-ordinates their campaign against the overuse of antibiotics on farms.

COPYRIGHT 2001 MIT Press Journals
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group