The Bush adminisistration's budget for 2008, released this week, includes proposals to charge new user fees to the food industry, totaling an estimated $105m, according to the American Meat Institute (AMI).

If the proposals become law, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will be responsible for charging fees as well as carrying out their federal duties.

The AMI, which represents firms processing 70 per cent of US meat and poultry, said the proposals would harm the industry and consumers that already pay for food safety services through taxation.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to introduce licensing facilities based on volume. The proposal, if implemented, that would cost the industry an estimated $92m per year in fees, according to the AMI.

Another proposal is to charge plants for additional inspections and activities following instances of performance failures, such as retesting, recalls, or inspection activities linked to an outbreak. These are expected to cost processors about $4m annually, according to AMI estimates.

The proposal is the first of its kind and replaces previous failed attempts to introduce broader user fees for general inspection services.

Proposed new user fees for animal welfare activities in 2008 to be collected by APHIS will cost industry a further estimated $9m, claims the AMI.

Mark Dopp, AMI senior vice president of regulatory affairs and general counsel, said food safety taxes would impose further costs on meat and poultry processors.

"User fees for meat inspection are a really bad idea, both domestically, and for our export markets," he said. "A proposal that will force consumers to pay a food safety tax - euphemistically called a user fee in the 2008 budget proposal - will undermine the public's confidence in the government's commitment to food safety," he said.

Dopp said that inspections are a key public health and safety program required by federal law and funded through tax dollars already being collected from consumers.

"Forcing consumers to shoulder a duplicate tax to pay for federally mandated inspections is not only double dipping in consumers' pockets, but raises clear questions, domestically and abroad, about the independence of food inspections in the United States," said Dopp.

Last year government proposals to charge user fees for meat inspection in plants that operate beyond one shift were rejected by Congress.