To read this content please select one of the options below:

Costs of compliance with food regulation in the UK: the response of food and drink manufacturers

Michael Heasman (Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Food Policy, Thames Valley University, Ealing, London, UK)
Spencer Henson (Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, The University of Reading, Reading, UK)

British Food Journal

ISSN: 0007-070X

Article publication date: 1 June 1997

998

Abstract

Presents the results of a postal questionnaire to UK food and drink manufacturers on the costs of compliance with food regulation. In particular, the questionnaire focused on the usefulness of compliance cost assessments ‐ introduced by the Government in 1985 across all government departments as an analytical tool for assessing the regulatory costs to business ‐ as they relate to food businesses. Explains that the questionnaire sought to establish to what extent food companies actually costed the impact of food regulation on their business operations and explored other aspects of food regulation, such as the benefits and constraints. Reports the results which gave some unexpected insights on the costs of compliance with food regulation. For example, the majority of respondents were not aware that the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food carried out compliance cost assessments on food regulation; around two‐thirds of the sample found it “difficult” or “very difficult” to identify where compliance costs would affect their company and an even greater proportion (more than three‐quarters) said they would have problems quantifying compliance costs. Concludes that the compliance cost assessment, as a tool for helping to analyse the cost of food regulation on businesses, is an inappropriate method for the food sector and the development of new methods should be considered.

Keywords

Citation

Heasman, M. and Henson, S. (1997), "Costs of compliance with food regulation in the UK: the response of food and drink manufacturers", British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 5, pp. 181-187. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709710175105

Publisher

:

MCB UP Ltd

Copyright © 1997, MCB UP Limited

Related articles