Proposals for reducing the administrative burden of Regulation 5 of the Meat Products (Wales) Regulations 2004 (as amended)

Please note that Annexe E is available in Word format, via the link below, and should be completed and emailed to the address above.

The Food Standards Agency is seeking views and comments on the proposal to reduce the administrative burden associated with the application of Regulation 5 of the Meat Products (Wales) Regulations 2004 (MPRs) (as amended).

Administrative Burdens Measurement Exercise
In 2005 the Agency took part in the cross-Government Administrative Burdens Measurement Exercise (ABME), which measure the administrative burden to business of complying with information obligations (i.e. form filling, record keeping, notifying activities, requesting authorisation, providing information to third parties for example labelling, etc.) required under the legislation in England. This estimated that the information obligation of Regulation 5 of the MPRs costs business in England around £11.2 million annually. Further details of costs for England and the derived costs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are provided in the draft Impact Assessment (IA) at Annexe D.

The FSA has been considering ways to reduce the administrative burden while maintaining the current level of information provided to consumers. In doing this we have had the following policy aims:

• To reduce the administration burden on businesses when applying Regulation 5 of the MPRs.
• Maintain or improve the current level of consumer information.
• Ensure clear and consistent labelling of relevant meat products to facilitate informed consumer choice.
• Enable enforcement authorities to ensure full compliance with food labelling requirements.

We are consulting on four options which are summarised below:

These options, along with a brief summary of what they achieve, are as follows:

1. Do nothing

• No legislative changes.
• No planned changes to existing guidance – on the ‘Labelling of ‘added ingredients’ in meat products covered by MPR Regulation 5’.
• No savings on administrative burdens. On-going costs for industry in Wales (comparable to England’s Admin Burden) would be £0.86m.

2. Remove all of Regulation 5 and Schedule 3

• By removing Regulation 5 and Schedule 3 there will be no specific requirements for added ingredients to be included in the name of a product, other than those set out in Regulation 8 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (as amended).
• No changes to existing guidance on the ‘Labelling of "added ingredients" in meat products covered by MPR Regulation 5’.
• This option provides the maximum savings on administrative burdens in the region of £11.2M for England. The equivalent figure for Wales (as on-going industry costs because Admin Burden figures apply to England only) equates to savings of £0.86m i.e. Option 1 industry on-going costs removed completely¹.

3. Amend current MPRs retaining the key provisions of Regulation 5

• The key provisions for added water and animal proteins in Schedule 3 are retained in Regulation 5. Schedule 3 is revoked.
• Specific thresholds for declaring added water in the name of a product are maintained.
• Declaring the ingredients of animal origin, if of different species to that in the product, will continue to be mandatory.
• No changes to guidance are planned.
• Savings on administrative burdens are expected to be in the region of £5.6M for England. The equivalent figure for Wales (as on-going industry costs because Admin Burden figures apply to England only) equates to savings of £0.43m relative to Option 1 cost of £0.86m².

4. Guidance with step by step flow diagrams (Regulation 5 unchanged)

• There will be no changes to the existing legislation. Regulation 5 and Schedule 3 will be retained.
• A set of step by step flow diagrams will be issued as additional guidance to allow easy and quick compliance.
• Thresholds for added water will be maintained. Animal ingredients of different species will be required in the name of a product.
• Savings on administrative burdens is expected to be the second highest (after option 2.) in the region of £9.7M for England. The equivalent figure for Wales (as on-going industry costs because Admin Burden figures apply to England only) equates to savings of £0.75m relative to Option 1 cost of £0.86m³.

The details of each of these options, together with the costs and benefits of each, are set out in the Impact Assessment (IA) at Annexe D.

Stakeholders are asked to provide comments regarding the impacts of all the options set out in the IA. To facilitate this, we recommend stakeholders give particular attention to the contents of Annexe E – the step by step flow diagram guidance for option 4 – Annexe F regarding the current situation and Annexe G, the proposed SI for England for option 3 (if required, separate but parallel legislation will be drafted for Wales).

The IA (Annexe D) asks a number of questions on specific issues on which stakeholders’ responses would be welcome, as well as a request for information in relation to costs and assumptions behind the calculations.

• Annexe E includes a pro-forma for stakeholder evaluation and comments on the guidance diagrams; views on which of the two sets of charts are preferred are particularly welcomed.
• Annexe F provides further explanation of labelling requirements, including Regulation 5 of the Meat Products Regulations 2003.
• Annexe G provides a draft SI for Option 3.
• There are two additional Annexes, Annex B and C which provide general information on the consultation and a list of consultees.

¹ On-going industry cost of option 1 (£0.86m) less industry on-going cost of option 2 (£0m) – see pg.33 of IA
² On-going industry cost of option 1 (£0.86m) less industry on-going cost of option 3 (£0.43m) – see pg.33 of IA
³ On-going industry cost of option 1 (£0.86m) less industry on-going cost of option 4 (£0.11m) – see pg.33 of IA

This consultation has been prepared in accordance with the HM Government Code of Practice on Consultation, which states that a consultation must follow better regulation best practice, including carrying out an Impact Assessment (Regulatory Impact Assessment in Scotland). The assessment is included in the consultation documents.

We are interested in what you thought of this consultation and would therefore welcome your general feedback on both the consultation package and overall consultation process. If you would like to assist us to improve the quality of future consultations, please feel free to share your thoughts with us by using the consultation feedback questionnaire.

Consultation feedback questionnaire (Word)

Consultation feedback questionnaire (pdf)

In accordance with the FSA principle of openness our Information Centre at Aviation House will hold a copy of the completed consultation. Responses will be open to public access upon request. The FSA will also publish a summary of responses, which may include personal data, such as your full name and contact address details. If you do not want this information to be released, please complete and return the Publication of Personal Data Form. Return of this form does not mean that we will treat your response to the consultation as confidential, just your personal data.

Data protection form (Word)

Data protection form (pdf)

Within three months of a consultation ending we aim to publish a summary of responses received and provide a link to it from this page.

If, after three months, the summary is still not showing, please contact the person who was responsible for the original consultation. Alternatively, you can contact the FSA Consultation Co-ordinator by email: consultationcoordinator@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk