opinion THE WAY FORWARD


As this edition of Feed Compounder was dispatched to the printers, it appeared that pollsters and pundits are agreed that, barring accidents or other intervening developments, Boris Johnson was set to succeed Theresa May as the new leader of the Conservatives and, thus, to become the UK’s next Prime Minister. The effect of this development is effectively to remove any


ambiguity about the UK’s future relationship with the EU. If Mr Johnson is to be believed, and can get his plan through a reluctant Houses of Parliament, then there will be Brexit – neither hard nor soft but plain and simple. If the EU does not enter meaningful discussions about Mrs May’s leave negotiations, rejected three times by the House of Commons – and the EU’s representatives have said on a number of occasions that Mrs May’s deal is not up for renegotiation – then the UK will go ahead and leave the EU without a deal. Mr Johnson has made his intentions as regards the UK’s membership quite plain; declaring Britain ready to leave, he wanted Europe to ‘look into our eyes’ and understand that his government means to take the UK out of the EU on October 31, even in the absence of a deal. Although Mr Johnson was the originator of this proposition, his opponent in the leadership election, Mr Hunt, eventually endorsed it, giving additional credence to the view that the next UK Prime Minister wants to get Brexit over the line, enacting the decision arrived at in the referendum regardless of any objective analysis of the pros and cons of leaving the EU. The delay in the deadline for the UK’s departure from the EU,


from the original schedule of 29 March to 31 October has meant that UK industry, including the animal feed sector, has been afforded the opportunity for a more rigorous examination of the effects of Brexit than might otherwise have been the case. This examination will have taken place both in the context of an agreed deal with Brussels and, it may be presumed, that of a no-deal exit. In this process, a significant contribution has been made by government agencies, for example, the Food Standards Agency. EU-wide legislation on animal feed applies to a wide range of animal feed businesses and activities. It applies from primary production to placing animal feed on the market and the feeding of food producing animals. The most comprehensive regulation, 178/2002, defines ‘food law’ as ‘including the production, processing and distribution of feed for food-producing animals’ and defines a ‘feed business’ as ‘any business carrying out any operation of production, manufacture, processing, storage, transport, or distribution of feed. This includes all producing, processing or storing of animal feed’. Other regulations deal with subjects such as laying down requirements for feed hygiene, the use of additives in animal nutrition,


PAGE 2 JULY/AUGUST 2019 FEED COMPOUNDER


the role of genetically modified food and feeds and the official controls ‘performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules’. This list is not exhaustive and, in fact, every aspect of feed manufacturing and utilisation, down to the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed is comprehensively covered by regulations. The rationale for the foregoing is that the EU has sought to create


a common framework of rules applying to the animal feed industry so that, in each member state, similar rules will apply. Ironically, these rules constitute the basis of the Single Market, the inspiration for which was contributed in large measure by Margaret Thatcher. The intent was to enable companies in each member state to compete on equal regulatory terms, with economic measures rather than regulatory infrastructure determining competitive success. It is appropriate, at this point, to stress the need to avoid a bonfire


of the regulations, so far as determining a regulatory structure for the UK post-Brexit is concerned. There are those who argue that leaving the EU affords the UK the opportunity to divest itself of layers of bureaucracy imposed by Brussels, thus enhancing the UK’s ability to compete in world markets. The livestock feed industry in the UK should resist the temptation proffered by such calls and adhere firmly to the cause of caution. Consumer confidence is a delicate flower, easily damaged. Currently, it is far from clear as to the course on which British agriculture is to set when the UK moves into its post-Brexit world. One of the most obvious factors shaping the debate will be the


identity of the next Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Until the identity of the latter becomes known, speculation about the course that post-Brexit Britain will follow lacks an essential element. However, the feed industry should forearm itself against those elements who will argue that the correct course for post-Brexit Britain to pursue is dictated purely by economics. The feed industry has, it is true, a vested interest in home-produced livestock products but it remains that the livestock which are fed by British feed manufacturers constitute a significant part of the rural economy overall. It is overly simplistic economics to argue that, when wheat grown in the UK will fetch £107 a tonne while imported wheat from North America can be had for £85, the latter should be chosen. Make no mistake, the debate over the way forward for agriculture


in the UK is of paramount importance to the UK economy in general and the livestock feed industry in particular. Much will depend on the outcome.


Comment section is sponsored by Compound Feed Engineering Ltd www.cfegroup.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76