British biosecurity under threat: Port authority CEO raises alarm over border controls on illegal meat
Leading UK industry associations have reaffirmed the need for government action on tightening post-Brexit biosecurity on food imports after the head of the Dover Port Health Authority (DPHA), Lucy Manzano, told MPs that the effectiveness of border controls had been consistently “overstated” by the government. Manzano also warned that lax controls have left Britain vulnerable to illegal meat imports.
The government’s Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) has repeatedly said that appropriate controls are in place to protect Britain’s borders, a fact now disputed by the head of the authority responsible for overseeing imports at Dover and the Channel Tunnel.
Giving evidence to Parliament’s Environment Select Committee, Manzano told MPs that the current system to keep illegal goods out “is not working” and that the UK is not being safeguarded. F&B associations and producers have long vocalized this view since post-Brexit controls were introduced under the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM).
“Defra has continually stated that there are robust controls in place. There are not. They do not exist. It has overstated the activities of Border Force at the border to identify commercial goods. It implies that there is some form of sifting taking place at the border to identify food,” she said.
“It continues to refer to illegal checks taking place at the point of entry and only legal goods going forward to a BCP [Border Control Post], accessed without control 22 miles away and, most importantly, not replicated at any other point of entry into the UK.”
Illegal meat on high streets
Manzano stressed that change needed to happen urgently to avoid serious consequences, saying, “we have to action change. It is not acceptable to continue along the lines of simply saying, ‘We are maintaining biosecurity. There are robust systems in place.’”
Under the BTOM, checks on imports do not happen at the Dover port itself. Vehicles instead go to Sevington, a border post 22 miles away from the point of entry to Britain, Dover, which has presented challenges due to confusing routes and signage, according to industry bodies. There are also reports of vehicles not turning up for checks.
Giving evidence, Manzano painted a picture of under-resourced borders and inadequate facilities to detect and contain illegal meat. Food Ingredients First understands that government funding decisions regarding the DPHA are ongoing.
Manzano says the DPHA removed four metric tons of illegal meat in the first two days of February 2025.
“In the first two days of February, the DPHA team has already removed almost four metric tons [of illegal meat]. That is in two days. If we are not there, this stuff is going out on the shelves. This is not stuff where traditionally it would be hard to get hold of. This stuff is appearing in shops, on high streets and in markets. You may well be going out for dinner in normal-looking establishments and be consuming meat that has not been correctly processed,” she outlined, on the possibility of authority funding not being secured.
Lizzie Wilson, CEO of the National Pig Association, is part of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Certification working group, which is pushing the government to simplify post-Brexit trade restrictions between the EU and Britain. She tells Food Ingredients First that her organization will “continue to highlight our concerns that the UK remains poorly protected from biosecurity and notifiable disease threats.”
She says that the UK should be extra cautious given the prevalence of African swine fever (ASF) in parts of the EU and the risk of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), which is now active in Germany.
Wilson adds: “This [spread of diseases] is due in particular to the high volumes of illegally imported meat that continue to enter the country from ASF-infected areas like Romania.”
Not fit for purpose
She believes the BTOM is not fit for purpose in its current form, calling it “highly vulnerable” to exploitation from organized crime.
“Despite reassurance from the government that personal import checks would be introduced, there has been no apparent progress on this,” Wilson concludes.
The British Meat Processors Association agrees that criminal activity related to illicit meat imports to the UK has increased. It wants to see a ban on individual travelers bringing meat or dairy into Britain, which it says poses just as big a risk to biosecurity as illegal imports.
F&B associations are calling for a blanket ban on travelers bringing meat and other agri-products into Britain.
“A blanket ban would be much simpler to follow and would have removed the requirement for individuals to work out the complicated temporary restrictions that were put in place. Disinfectant mats should also have been placed at all ports of entry for foot passengers and vehicles,” a spokesperson tells Food Ingredients First.
The government has been working on changes to the Personal Import Allowance, which permits travelers to carry up to two kg of meat, dairy, and other food products from Europe (except Germany) into Britain. However, the timeline for the changes remains unclear.
A spokesperson for Defra tells Food Ingredients First that it will “never waver” in its efforts to support UK biosecurity and safeguard food supply, pointing out that there has never been an outbreak of ASF in the UK.
“We are unequivocal that importing illegal meat products is unacceptable — which is why suspected products are routinely checked at the border to ensure they don’t reach our shores,” they say.
