4 Jun 2026
The Food Standards Agency has said it will appeal the judgement after a court ruled the calculation of its rates must be quashed.
Chris Simpson
Job Title
Image: Ralf / Adobe Stock
Meat industry groups are celebrating after winning a legal battle against the Food Standards Agency (FSA) over the cost of veterinary checks on their products.
High Court judge Mrs Justice Dias ruled the FSA has been levying its official control charges unlawfully.
Undertaken by official veterinarians (OV), FSA official controls currently cost £64 million annually.
Charges have increased this year by 24% alongside a 20.8% rise in hourly OV rates, which the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS) and British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) had argued would increase food inflation and put animal welfare at risk.
The court ruled the FSA could only charge for activities “inextricably linked” to the performance of official controls and that it had unlawfully charged for activities such as internal audits, performance management and complaints handling.
It also determined the charges unlawfully included costs of official controls carried out by novice official veterinarians, who cannot carry out the hygiene and safety checks independently.
AIMS veterinary director Peter Hewson said: “I have been telling the FSA for many years that they were charging industry unlawfully but for the past two years they have totally refused to engage saying they had to follow their board’s instruction to focus on reducing the discount.
“The judgement makes clear that the FSA Board had got it horribly wrong, FSA has been levying unlawful charges on the industry, and the discount was not a subsidy but cover for that unlawful tax.”
Jason Aldiss, executive director of AIMS, added: “The judgement must now mark the beginning of a complete reset in the relationship between the regulator and the meat industry, founded upon legality, proportionality, transparency and scientific risk-based regulation.”
BMPA chair John Powell said the findings “recognise and have exposed long-standing weaknesses in the FSA’s charging policy”, adding: “We will now work closely with the FSA to ensure a fairer and more transparent system for the delivery of official controls can be quickly implemented going forward.”
FSA chief executive Katie Pettifer said: “We are disappointed with its conclusions about how charges are calculated.
“We acted in good faith in calculating our charge rates and in presenting the information we publish about them and are seeking leave to appeal the judgement.”