On June 3, 2026, the UK High Court ruled that the UK Food Standards Agency’s (FSA’s) 2025/2026 charging rates for official controls and enforcement activities at slaughterhouses in England and Wales were calculated unlawfully.

The judgment found that FSA had included certain costs in its meat controls hourly rate and enforcement rate that were outside the scope of permissible charges under the applicable official controls legislation.

The case was brought by the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS) and the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA), with support from the UK National Farmers’ Union (NFU).

Charges Increased by 24 Percent in 2026

FSA is responsible for carrying out official food hygiene and safety controls at slaughterhouses in England and Wales. Food business operators are required to contribute toward the cost of those controls. According to AIMS and BMPA, the annual cost of the controls is approximately £64 million, and charges to industry increased by 24 percent in 2026.

AIMS Veterinary Director Peter Hewso explained, “I have been telling FSA for many years that they were charging industry unlawfully, but for the last two years they have refused to engage, saying they had to follow the Board’s instruction to focus on reducing the discount."

Ruling Defines Lawful vs. Unlawful Charges

The court found that FSA could not recover broad overhead costs merely because they related to or facilitated official controls. Instead, chargeable overheads must be incurred by an inspector in exercising official controls, or be otherwise inextricably linked to their performance.

The judgment specifically found that costs related to internal audit and quality control of inspections, performance management and governance, supervision of inspectors, Parliamentary questions, and complaints handling could not be included in the permissible charge.

The court also held that FSA was not entitled to include the costs of employing novice official veterinarians or temporarily registered novice official veterinarians in the cost base, or to charge for hours spent by them, because they did not meet the requirements to be treated as official veterinarians for the relevant controls.

On enforcement charges, the court found that FSA had unlawfully applied an undifferentiated enforcement rate covering both enforcement-related official controls and other enforcement activities. The judgment also stated that if the same indirect costs had been included in both the main rate and the enforcement rate, that approach would have been unlawful.

Next Steps

Because the court could not separate lawful from unlawful costs in FSA’s calculations, it determined that both the main rate and enforcement rate calculations must be quashed, along with the relevant cost data slides.

The court will hear further arguments on the appropriate form of order and costs.

"FSA should now work at pace to review its charging regime to reduce the pressures on abattoirs and ensure these charges are revoked to limit further pressures on abattoirs," said NFU Livestock Board Chair David Barton. “The fact that FSA struggled to explain the legal basis for its charges shows that the time is right for an independent review into the agency’s cost structures, workforce management, and use of third-party service providers, to ensure official controls are being delivered efficiently, the fees charged to abattoirs are lawful, and to reduce the overall cost burden on the red meat sector."

BMPA CEO John Powell remarked, "[BMPA] will now work closely with FSA to ensure a fairer and more transparent system for the delivery of official controls can be quickly implemented going forward."