Can the QS system still be saved? This is a question you hear all over the country. It’s been for a long time already that pig keepers from everywhere in the country as well as scientists found it difficult to understand – from a technical point of view – the decisions taken by the QS shareholders at Bonn.

The basic thought upon the foundation of the QS system was to establish a basic documentation system as a quality assurance system, in order to regain the consumers’ confidence. But today, with all its criteria which in the meantime are judged higher than those of the seal itself, the QS system is farther away from this basic thought than it was ever before. Already, the consumer has long been unable to understand or comprehend this very complicated system.

It seems quite odd that the omnivorous pig is made vegetarian, due to the QS decree which makes him give up eating animal protein and bans the feeding of left-overs. The QS system gets lost in data banks and complex demands in electronic data processing. The salmonellae monitoring – which is said to be so important! – and the cost accompanying it is conceded a very high status. Doesn’t this mean to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut? The number of farms of category III is below 1 percent. There are virtually no infections registered through salmonellae by which people did get ill after having eaten pork. No-one but the pig keepers is interested in the fact that less antibiotics were used in production feed in Denmark. And that an increase of 17 percent in the use of antibiotics for medical treatment resulted from this. Sometimes prevention is better than cure. The protection of animals is sort of a knock-out criterion. Whatever that means! The criteria ... This is a never-ending story anyway!

Another significant problem of the QS system is communication. It is true the CMA (German Agricultural Marketing Board) as a shareholder has the appropriate know-how and capital (EUR 21 million alone from what the pig farmers pay as their fee to the sales fund). But there still is no committee of experts for pig keeping, where leading representatives of the industry might give their ideas. For all those involved, the immense expenditure – which arose from the deficiency of communication – and the irritation resulting from it could be avoided, if only professional discussions were held beforehand by an adequate committee. One can hardly help thinking that the QS professional advisory committee often does not seem to be sufficiently informed.

Unfortunately, the decisions of the QS shareholders are often taken according to the political proportional representation – which had been feared by so many people in the beginning – and not, as would be necessary, according to specialist judgement. Some do behave like naughty children on Boxing Day, when gifts are piling up under the Christmas tree and still are not enough. So that’s the beginning of the end of a nice night. By the way, arguing about quality is an excellent thing to do. But one thing is for certain: The fish and not the angler does have to like the bait.

The pig keeper’s readiness to take part in the QS system has given way to disappointment, despite all the enthusiasm that could be observed in the beginning.

Can the QS system still be saved?
This will only be possible if at slaughterhouses, meat processing enterprises and trade they set clear signs that they will pay for the cost arising from the QS system. There must be different prices for QS merchandise. However, in view of the very low producer prices reality looks quite different. Quality is mostly guaranteed at the expense of costs. And apart from that, the criteria do of course have to be practicable.

Do we need the QS system anyway?
With the all those food scandals presented in the media and the consumers’ confidence again being sorely tried nearly every day, the results of the all-German food monitoring made by the Bundesinstitut für gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz und Veterinärmedizin (federal institute for healthwise consumer protection and veterinary medicine) show a much more positive image of the quality of merchandise which is offered on the German market.

Is there an alternative to the QS system?
Enterprises where a quality assurance system is already installed do not need the QS system anyway. This also goes for the quality assurance groups and the producers associations. Independent marketing may – without any bother – enlist a practicable basic system for quality assurance on the basis of the documentation of procedures, if they address to the Qualitäts- und Produktionssicherung Nord-West (QPNW = north-west German quality- and production assurance)!

So, if we do recognise that individual feelings do not match reality, why then shouldn’t we use all that financial expenditure for a kind of pig keepers’ emergency fund? Such fund would be of help to pig keepers when needed, as per the instructions of an insurer.

One should better not think about what would be possible for the structuring of pig keeping in Germany, if only the financial means of the sales fund could be used.