Summary:More powers are needed to tackle meat crime, a trade worth £1bn a year in the UK.
In answer to this important Parliamentary Question from Charles Hendry, Miss Melanie Johnson said that the".. Food Standards Agency has, with its partners in other Government Departments and enforcement bodies, a wide-ranging action plan to tackle meat crime."(See below)
Among others sceptical of this "action-plan" is Dr Yunes Teinaz, who comments below. What is needed is a new offence. Penalties could then adequately combat a criminal activity that is worth at least £1 billion per year in the UK alone.Unlicensed slaughter and the fraudulent use of health marking can bring huge profits to criminals, a very low chance of being prosecuted and ludicrously inadequate penalties if convicted. The amount of illegal and condemned meat getting into the food chain is making the risk of catastrophe to both human and animal health far more serious than has been understood. The original source of Foot and Mouth disease last time is still unknown - but the risk of another serious animal disease via illegal meat is an ever present - and growing - threat.
New legislation is needed to cope with what has become a global problem. Urgently needed are
Neither the Products of Animal Origin Regulations nor the Food Safety Act has proved effective. Conspiracy to defraud is rarely used against meat criminals; such offences are difficult to prove and local authority prosecutors are extremely wary of using them. The Crown Prosecution Service tends to see them as only rarely applicable to food crime. Important professional and trade associations, such the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) have called for new legislation to deal with serious food crime.
- stringent financial penalties
- prohibition orders giving powers to close down businesses
directors and employees banned from further involvement in the food industry- powers to give substantial prison sentences - such as up to 10 years.
However, the Food Standards Agency has resisted, arguing that to introduce a new offence would "breach European Community law". Meanwhile, more and more condemned meat gets into even mainstream outlets.
Illegal Meat
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what punishments may be imposed upon those found guilty of selling or trading in dirty, diseased and illegal cuts of meat; what assessment he has made of the suitability of the punishments; and what further action he is taking to tackle such trade. [207478]
Miss Melanie Johnson: It is an offence to contravene Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 by placing any food on the market if it is unsafe. In the Crown court, the penalty for doing so is an unlimited fine and/or a maximum of two years' imprisonment. In the magistrates court, the corresponding penalty is a fine of up to £20,000 and/or a maximum of six months' imprisonment. It is also possible to prosecute some such activities for conspiracy to defraud under the Theft Act 1968, for which the penalty is an unlimited fine and/or a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment.
In addition, confiscation orders can be imposed where a defendant has been convicted in the Crown court, or committed there either for sentence or for the issue of a confiscation order to be considered. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 sets out the strict rules to be met on the procedure, and the requirements to be met, which vary with the circumstances.
The Food Standards Agency is assessing the suitability of the penalties, following consultation with stakeholders on the recommendations of the Waste Food Task Force.
The Food Standards Agency has, with its partners in other Government Departments and enforcement bodies, a wide-ranging action plan to tackle meat crime. This action plan includes measures that have tightened
12 Jan 2005 : Column 530W
the legislation on animal by-products, improved and provided extra resources for enforcement, and raised the profile of meat crime among sentencers
EHOs need more powers to tackle meat crime
Trade in illegal meat has been considered to be the third largest illegal trade in the UK, estimated to be worth up to £1bn a year. Meat is a dangerous product. and the ways in which the public are exposed to risk and to fraud are as diverse as criminals’ imaginations.
In reality, the smokies and Halal trades, and smuggling, are merely sub-sets of even larger scale crimes, potentially involving unlicensed slaughter and the fraudulent use of health marking.
Changes to the legal and enforcement systems are needed. Firstly, the fines and custodial sentences available under food law are insufficient to deter multi-million pound rackets. Secondly, local authorities do not have the resources or surveillance skills to undertake large cross-boundary operations. Unless they can involve the police and achieve secondments from the Food Standards Agency, food crimes will go unpunished. We have learned these lessons. Now is the time to lobby for appropriate reforms and to apply them.
Regulatory systems in the UK and in the rest of the world have proved inadequate in controlling organised food crime generally. The illegal meat trade offers opportunities to entrepreneurs, both at home and abroad, to make large amounts of money illegally, with a very low chance of being caught and prosecuted. This type of crime produces huge profits for the food criminals and poses a high risk of serious outbreaks of food poisoning and other threats to public health. Although there are extensive regulations in force, both domestic and European, offences are usually ones of strict liability and new legislation is needed to cope with what has become a global problem.
Neither the Products of Animal Origin Regulations nor the Food Safety Act has proved effective in regulating food crimes that may be described as being truly of a criminal nature. Such crimes are at present 'beyond regulation' and occur when:
1. there is deliberate flouting of the law;
2. offences are committed for financial gain, stimulated by the prospect of making huge amounts of money;
3. there is a high degree of planning and organisation;
4. little or no consideration is given to risks to public health.
The preparation for sale of bushmeat has all these characteristics, as does the trade in 'smokies' and other meat crimes, offences which involve the introduction of condemned meat into the food chain. Occasionally such offences of a truly criminal nature have been prosecuted using conspiracy and fraud charges rather than those founded on food law. Criminal charges requiring proof of intent have sometimes been preferred by prosecutors because these reflect the reality of the offence more accurately than breaches of the Food Safety Act 1990, which are generally strict liability offences. The maximum sentences available on conviction for fraud and conspiracy to defraud are considerably higher, with substantial prison sentences being likely to be handed down to convicted persons. But such offences are difficult to prove, particularly those based on conspiracy charges. Understandably, local authority prosecutors are extremely wary of using them and the Crown Prosecution Service tends to see them as only rarely applicable to food crime.
At present there is a gap in the law because existing food safety legislation does not truly engage with 'beyond regulation' offences. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on this issue in the UK. Important professional and trade associations, such the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) have called for new legislation to deal with serious food crime. However, the Food Standards Agency has resisted, arguing that to introduce a new offence would breach European Community law.
The importation, supply and preparation for sale of unfit meat need to be considered as specific and more serious offences, as does the sale itself. Stringent financial penalties, prohibition orders giving powers to close down businesses and to prevent directors and employees from further involvement in the food industry, powers to give substantial prison sentences - such as up to 10 years - are required. For these more serious offences, proof of criminal intent will be necessary to avoid the usual limitation with crimes of strict liability: those sentences will rarely impose penalties to match culpability. To leave things as they are will jeopardise public health and may cause another outbreaks similar to BSE and Foot and Mouth. Diseases.
Dr Yunes Teinaz
Chartered Environmental Heath Practitioner
Warmwell note: Dr Teinaz has, in spite of all the frustrations and dangers of his work, continued tirelessly to try to protect public health in the UK by fighting meat crime. Even when he has secured a conviction, the criminals involved have often walked away with a fine. As much as anyone in the country, Dr Teinaz knows the true extent of the dangerous activity to which the government seems content to turn a blind eye.