Thread by @vivamjm

Blog by Dr North
"The FT then asserts that much of this “additional paperwork” will need physical stamp from an authorised vet. This is simply not true. The Regulation (Article 14) states that the “private attestation” has to be prepared and signed by the importing food business

to accompany the consignments of composite products exempt from inspection – as listed in the new regulation. Obviously,details of any attestation will be provided by the UK manufacturer, but legal responsibility lies with the importer. But the FT does not seem to understand this

“The new rules”, it goes on to say, “will land particularly hard on smaller companies that do not have the benefits of economies of scale & the trade in chilled products such as sandwiches & ready meals between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, according to Karin Goodburn of

the Chilled Food Association”.
This, in itself, is absurd: “chilled products such as sandwiches & ready meals” are not, by definition, shelf-stable. They've never been exempt from inspection at border control posts. Neither the new regulation, nor the one it replaces, apply here

Despite that, the Chilled Food Association is said to have estimated that these new rules will require a 36 percent increase in health certificates, most of which will fall on trade with Ireland worth about £1 billion a year.

“The question is whether all this new administrative cost can be borne, given existing profit margins. Even the ‘attestations’ are not simple, they can go on for pages and pages for every component in every food”, Goodburn adds. This is fiction....

as is the claim that attestations require veterinary signatures, even though the FT states that the regulation “will also put further pressure on the sector”, having the British Veterinary Association warn that they will need to adjust to the new rules. “We do have concerns.

We know already that there are some pinch points as vets are being diverted towards export documentation. We do recognise that there is a capacity challenge and it’s yet to be filled”, says James Russell, the president of the BVA. And so, the FT writes:

“Businesses will also be forced to adapt, according to the FDF, which said that members were raising serious concerns about the coming changes, with one large snack maker warning costs could run into millions of pounds”.“We will need a vet on site for 10 hours per day,

five days a week at a cost of £300,000 per annum. Multiply this across our sites where we export and we are looking at a potential cost running into the millions,” the snack company told the FDF”.
Indeed, that may have been the case,

but the vet fees have nothing to do with the new requirements – they stem from existing legislation & apply to non-exempt products. While the “attestation” is new, it applies only to products which are exempt from inspection at border control posts & is considerably less onerous

and vastly cheaper, than producing an EHC & the certification associated with formal inspection.
Sadly, therefore – contrary to the picture in the FT – we are to be denied the entertainment of official veterinarians lining up in border control posts to inspect boxes of Milk Tray

Thus, virtually every detail in the FT story is either wrong or confused, giving a completely misleading description of the situation on which it reports. Yet, such is the coprophagic nature of the UK press that the story – errors and all – is already being repeated in City AM.

Before we have finished, we will see many more repeats, and a new false narrative will have been born.
FULL BLOG
turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/brexit/br…

In short again it boils down to so much UK unpreparedness
(infrastructure & esp vast increase in experienced customs & regluatory staff numbers) in what was always needed for life outside the Single Market & customs union...regardless of *any* FTA.
It has mystified me for years