August being the silly season, how about proposing something radical? How about “Farm to Fork”? ever heard of it? You know, the thing that’s been promised a dozen times but never been delivered.

It is most interesting therefore to note the different approaches at present, to food chain oversight between Scotland and the south of the Border.

The Scottish proposal to merge the field veterinary services with meat inspection services represents a significant and forward-thinking approach to enhancing animal health, food safety, and overall efficiency in the livestock and meat production industry.

READ MORE: Norman Bagley talks all things export in this month's column

This integration brings together two critical components of veterinary medicine under the direct control of Food Standards Scotland, yielding several advantages that contribute to a more streamlined and effective system.

Such a merged approach encourages veterinarians to view the entire lifecycle of animals from a holistic perspective. This shift in mindset can lead to innovative solutions that address health challenges at every stage, from farm management practices to meat processing techniques.

The consolidation of resources and expertise from both field and meat inspection veterinary services optimises resource allocation. Shared knowledge and collaborative efforts result in better utilisation of manpower, equipment, and funding, ultimately leading to cost savings for both government agencies and the wider farming and processing industries.

The Food Standards Agency was created in 2000 to provide advice on food safety independent of Ministers following the BSE scandal.

At the same time governance of the Meat Hygiene Service was passed from MAFF to FSA.

Subsequently the MHS was merged with the FSA, which was intended to generate efficiency savings by integrating the policy and delivery functions. Unfortunately, these savings were never realised and since 2017 the FSA has relied on a single ‘delivery partner’ for veterinary services in delivering Official Controls. This has led to further inefficiencies through duplication in management overheads and ineffective use of scarce veterinary resources.

READ MORE: Bagley's beef: Norman Bagley industry expert advice

For example, an inexperienced untrained contract OV without sufficient English to become a veterinary surgeon in England and Wales is charged out at 10% more than an experienced OV employed by FSS.

FSA board members and some senior FSA officials have expressed their commitment to improving the delivery of Official Controls in England and Wales and we hope that they take the opportunity of the imminent retendering exercise to seek opportunities to better integrate the delivery of veterinary controls on farm and in the abattoir.

It can only be hoped that these commitments from the top of the FSA are not thwarted by those further down the organisation who are wedded to the status quo.

By connecting a farm to fork regulatory model as delivered in Northern Ireland and soon in Scotland we see a modern solution to an old problem – to get the most ‘bang for your buck’ you place your resource where it is most useful in terms of outcomes, and this is at farm level – happy healthy animals produce the safest food.

This integration is a proactive step towards creating a more resilient and sustainable livestock and meat production system that benefits producers, consumers, and public health alike.

All is not lost in England with DEFRA’s animal health and welfare pathway a fine example of what can be achieved by adopting a science-based approach to food safety regulation – will FSA follow their lead?

If our continental friends can reduce vet attendance in slaughterhouses based on controls at farm level, why can’t we? Farmers and processors have been subjected to expensive non-science-based controls for too long. Time for change.