Perhaps instead of trying to place more cost and burden onto businesses (crippling for some) for a service of questionable benefit we could maybe design a system that works for food production and food security. Enough with the ‘computer says no’ approach.

11. Delivering OCs is a monopoly where the FSA sets the cost. Industry is a captive market that is forced to pay for it. With no competition for the service there is no incentive to control costs. 12. Inflation affects everything except the discount, which is shrinking. …

…in legislation, not because it makes any contribution to food safety, and the FSA want to make that ‘service’ more expensive!!! 10. Saying the cost is tiny compared to the value (not profit!) of a whole sector is a poor argument. Let’s look whether it’s value for money.

8. A large part of OCs are not fit for purpose. For poultry we have FSA inspectors to watch birds go past looking for damage or signs of illness. A vital job for quality assurance but has no benefit to safe food. 9. So we are paying for something because it’s set…

6. The FSA is contracted by Defra to conduct animal welfare monitoring. It is not part of the charging regime under discussion here. 7. Inspections for export approval are different again and not part of Official Controls (industry is happy to pay for this service!) …

…as the full cost would be financially ruinous for small abattoirs. 5. This discount is a sliding scale (similar to progressive income tax) where larger sites receive proportionally smaller benefit…but everyone gets something so it doesn’t skew the marketplace. …

3. Official Controls (what the FSA is obliged to do by law) do not themselves ‘keep meat safe’, they check that the FBO’s controls are working. 4. The FSA can recover the full cost of their legally obligated work but for at least the last two decades it has not done so…

This is a somewhat disingenuous interpretation of the situation. 1. It is the Food Business Operator’s (FBO) responsibility to produce safe food. 2. The Competent Authority (in this case FSA) is responsible for ensuring the FBO has effective controls in place. ….

Food security starts with producers and here @britishpoultry we’re delighted that the APPG is up and running, and looking forward to it helping ensure the nation eats well.

…more difficult and precarious. ‘Heating or eating’ gets thrown around as a sound bite but for too many this is a new reality by being just on the up side of means testing. I’m not disagreeing with yesterday’s decision, but would like to see a holistic approach to welfare.

The reaction to the winter fuel allowance has highlighted the extremes - those who definitely need it and those who definitely do not. We see similar when talking about access to food, and lose sight of those close to the cliff edge whose life is about to be made a bit…

As you’re asking for my vote @DrNeilHudson do you back food security being used for dog-whistle politics at a time when the use of food banks in Epping Forest is growing? How are you going to help reduce hunger and support food producers in this area?

A welcome ambition of course. Yet across food production (UK’s largest manufacturing sector) there are many thousands of vacancies and we’ll need more over the next decade. Perhaps look to help fill those as much as creating new opportunities. #foodsecurity

Land-use and planning for food is going to be a hot topic for any new Government and we need to start an open discussion on what the future holds (and needs): https://t.co/sPO7GjMiqx via @LinkedIn

Before policy goes into a pre-election hiatus it's great to see some attention on an issue that could put tens of millions of pounds on food bills if @foodgov change the definition of wishbone meat. https://t.co/Z3iH4711BP

The question in this often toxic debate about food, sustainability, and welfare is not about direction travel. It's about speed of travel and how we don't leave anyone behind. Hopefully this report can add to an informed discussion.

From the report the ECC (v. standard production) would mean: - Production cost +37.5% per kg - Water consumption +35.4% - Feed consumption +35.5% - Greenhouse gas emissions +24.4%

It's also no good being a hero in your own backyard and then importing food produced to other standards. Exporting impact only undermines food security and business viability. So see the report as informative not confrontational, and the science catching up with the narrative.

Before I list the headlines it's important to say this welfare and sustainability debate is not an either/or, no matter how much some want a 'good guy' and a 'bad guy'. There has to be a balance that feeds people, reduces impact, and improves standards at the same time.

Our European trade association @AvecPoultry commissioned a study from @ADASGroup on the potential impact of the European Chicken Commitment. The report can be found here: