British Meat Processors Association v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Background

1. The Appellant (“BMPA”) is a not-for-profit trade body that has represented the UK meat industry for over a century. BMPA seeks to challenge the decision of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“Defra”) made on behalf of the Respondent (“the SoS”) to reject its application to register ‘Wiltshire Cured Ham/Bacon/Gammon’ as a ‘Traditional Speciality Guaranteed’ (“TSG”). The Decision was published on 19 March 2025.

2. A TSG scheme has been established to safeguard traditional methods of production and recipes by helping producers of traditional products in marketing and communicating the value-adding attributes of their traditional recipes and products to consumers. A name that is registered as a TSG may be used by any operator marketing a product that conforms to the corresponding specification. A symbol is established in order to publicise the traditional specialities guaranteed. Where products are marketed under a TSG, that symbol must appear on the labelling in the same field of vision as the product name.

3. Once registered as a TSG, the name is protected against any misuse, imitation or evocation, or against any other practice liable to mislead the consumer.

4. The parties agree that ‘Wiltshire Cure’ originated in Wiltshire in the latter part of the 18 th Century. It is a well-established traditional English method of curing pork in live brine which has remained largely unchanged in recent decades.

5. The BMPA says that the name ‘Wiltshire Cured Ham/Bacon/Gammon’ has been traditionally used throughout the UK to identify pork which has been cured using this method. The application to register the name as a TSG was made “ to protect a process that produces a premium range of products which is as close as we can to the old traditional method of Wiltshire Cured products in modern-day manufacturing across twelve large sites in the UK which is sold through all of the major food retailers .” The opposition

6. The application was opposed by Dukeshill Ham Company Limited (“Dukeshill”) in a notice of opposition dated 22 February 2022. Dukeshill filed 2 identical reasoned statements of opposition shortly thereafter. They were treated by Defra as a single opposition. The appeal has proceeded on that basis.

7. In essence, the grounds of opposition argue that registration of the name ‘Wiltshire Cured Ham/Bacon/Gammon’ as a TSG would be incompatible with the terms of Regulation 21 of EU Regulation 1152/2012 (“the EU Regulation”), as amended and retained by The Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations (S.I. 2020/1637).

8. Dukeshill says that it was founded in 1986 with a focus on producing the highest quality British hams and pork products using traditional methods. Over many years the Dukeshill in-house team of master curers perfected the art of producing Wiltshire hams using techniques passed down through 4 generations. It has a loyal customer base of over 80,000 customers. Dukeshill primarily caters directly to households but also works with a selection of UK leading fine food retailers and hotels.

9. Whilst Dukeshill agrees with BMPA on the core processes and methodology, it considers there are a couple of stipulations in the proposed specification for the TSG that are unnecessary and quite prohibitive for artisan producers. Dukeshill believes that Wiltshire Ham is distinguished from mass produced supermarket hams by the time taken to allow the product to cure. It agrees with the requirement for a live brine to be used. Dukeshill disagrees that the brine should be comprised of 75% old brine that has been used for 2 months. It proposes a product specification with the brine containing no less than 10% live brine or use of a starter culture. In addition, Dukeshill believes that Wiltshire Ham should be prepared as a whole muscle product to achieve the defining characteristic which is the ‘mouth feel’ of the meat.

10. When agreement could not be reached between BMPA and Dukeshill on the product specification to be registered as a TSG, Defra rejected BMPA’s application because there is another traditional production method for producing ‘Wiltshire Cured Ham’.

11. The appeal is brought under Article 54a of the EU Regulation. Appellant’s case

12. The grounds of appeal are summarised as follows: 12.1 BMPA is disappointed that after 6 years trying to register ‘Wiltshire Cured Ham/Bacon/Gammon’ as a TSG, the application has been rejected. It feels that Defra founded the rejection based on oversimplifying the key controls required to make a repeatable microbiologically stable product with the continuous quality parameters associated with premium Wiltshire Cured products. 12.2 The fact that Dukeshill does not use a starter culture and instead leaves the brine in a tank at 30 degrees Celsius to encourage microbial outgrowth seems very unusual to BMPA’s members. At best, it is at risk of spoilage organisms and potential growth of pathogens without the starter culture competition or other controlling factors. The microbiological results they have provided are not the best laid out and do not say much beyond a very basic narrative. 12.3 BMPA expected Defra to ask Dukeshill for more details as there is a risk to food safety. The temperature control, starter culture, reduced reuse introduction per centage, continuous aeration and testing are all in place to protect the quality of this historical British product which is part of the BMPA TSG specification on the Defra website. BMPA wishes to protect the heritage, the product and the final consumer. 12.4 The aim is to ensure that the door is not open to versions that do not conform to the industry standard for quality, taste and safety controls associated with the BMPA methodology. The current standard, which is the UK industry standard, is found on the BMPA’s website. BMPA believes that this UK industry standard is far higher than that used by Dukeshill who produces nothing like the Wiltshire Cured products of its members. BMPA members are audited twice per year announced and unannounced against the BMPA Wiltshire Cured standards. Respondent’s case

13. The Respondent’s case is summarised as follows: 13.1 Following the Dukeshill’s opposition, Dukeshill and BMPA entered a period of discussion as required by the EU Regulation. Amongst other matters, extensive analysis of brining techniques was carried out. 13.2 BMPA maintained that its proposed specification for Wiltshire Cured was the only legitimate method for production of Wiltshire Cured products. Dukeshill asserted that it made artisan Wiltshire Cured Hams under a slightly different but very similar method which resulted in essentially the same product. 13.3 During the discussion period, Defra undertook consultation. Information was received from both parties on the size of the cured ham market, the length of time various products had been produced and other economic information. 13.4 Pursuant to the wide discretion under Article 53, the SoS found that the ground of opposition in Article 21(1)(b) had been made out. 13.5 The basis of the SoS’s rejection was that a similar foodstuff exists whose use of the name is lawful, renowned (as in, well-known in Great Britain) and economically significant (within Great Britain). 13.6 The Appellant appears to have misunderstood the reasons for the SoS’s decision by focussing on differences in the curing process, food safety and the belief that Dukeshill products are nothing like the Wiltshire Cure produced by BMPA members. 13.7 The SoS considers that Dukeshill’s processes are unlikely to be relevant to the Tribunal’s determination. In the consideration process, it was the method of production which was in issue between the parties and not the description of the end product. Even then, the disagreement was not in respect of core processes and methodology but focussed on the composition of the brine. 13.8 It is implicit that there is similarity between the ‘Wiltshire (Cured) Ham’ products. The appeal does not address the relevant legal test in Article 21(1)(b) of whether the name ‘Wiltshire Ham’ is lawful, renowned and economically significant. Whether the end product is slightly different, reached by slightly different methodology or allegedly may have food safety concerns is not the issue. 13.9 ‘Wiltshire Ham’ is a lawful name. It is renowned with Dukeshill holding a Royal Warrant to provide Wiltshire Ham to the Crown. It supplies Wiltshire Ham to well-known retailers. Wiltshire Ham is a premium product having roughly 5 to 10% of the GB market and 100% of the market for whole leg bone-in Wiltshire Ham. 13.10 The 2 hams are produced by very similar processes, and the final product is very similar. Both are pork products preserved by brining with very similar defining characteristics. Appellant’s reply

14. In reply, BMPA submits: 14.1 It rejects the SoS’s observation that the test in Article 21(1)(b) does not relate to production methods. The production method is the key part of Article 18(1) and (2). Key considerations are (i) the use of recovered live immersion brines and (ii) the use of starter cultures, which make the production method traditional 14.2 The Food Standards Agency (“FSA”) has produced “Guidance on the Revised Provisions on Nitrites/Nitrates in Meat Products” set out in The Miscellaneous Food Additives and Sweeteners in Foods (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2007 (“ 2007 Regulations ”), dated December 2008 (“ FSA Guidance ”). It provides a definition of “similar products” as follows: (a) Will closely resemble the product named (but may obviously have a different name); (b) Has been traditionally produced; (c) Has been produced using the same stages as described in the footnotes, though there may be some variation in the time and temperatures cited in the footnotes. 14.3 The footnotes within the 2007 Regulations, Schedule 1 for “Wiltshire Cure Bacen/Ham” defines the manufacturing process as: Meat products are immersed in curing solutions containing nitrites and/or nitrates, salt and other components. The meat products may undergo further treatment, e.g. smoking. Meat is injected with curing solutions followed by immersion cure for 3 to 10 days. The immersion brine solution also includes microbiological starter cultures. 14.4 The FSA details that the use of “live” immersion brines is the main distinguishing factor between Wiltshire and other cures. 14.5 The Tribunal is invited to consider the definitions of “similar” and “Wiltshire Cured” within the FSA Guidance and whether the Dukeshill product meets the criteria when they do not use starter cultures and do not recover the used brine. 14.6 The Tribunal is further invited to consider if the Dukeshill product is “lawful” and “economically significant” in Great Britain because its production method is based on a method from the Republic of Ireland that has not been used in Great Britain for over 30 years. The Tribunal is invited to clarify the traditional status of the Dukeshill production method. 14.7 BMPA queries if Dukeshill’s product is “ economically significant ” when the Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board data shows that BMPA members were responsible for 99% of the market as of August 2025. 14.8 The description of the BMPA and Dukeshill products are the same, but BMPA disputes that the production processes are similar. This is due to: (i) the lack of starter culture, and (ii) lack of the use of 100% recovered immersion brine, in the Dukeshill product. 14.9 There are several low-quality pork products on the market in Great Britain which are both preserved by brining and are pork products. This is not an appropriate reason for rejection. The hearing

15. The Tribunal received a bundle composed of 175 pages. Before the hearing, the Tribunal received a skeleton argument for the SoS.

16. At the hearing, the BMPA was represented by David Lindars, Technical Operations Director at BMPA and Garry Warhurst BSC (Hons), who has over 15 years’ experience working in the meat industry. They took it in turns to make submissions and answer the Tribunal’s questions.

17. The SoS was represented by Michael Fry, Counsel. He was accompanied by Chris Blake, the Policy Lead for geographical schemes at Defra, who handled the application. Mr Blake also answered questions arising during the proceedings.

18. The BMPA expressed some concern that they had not received the Respondent’s skeleton argument until early afternoon on Friday 6 February 2026 rather than a full 3 working days before the hearing. BMPA had still been able to prepare in readiness for the hearing. We clarified at the hearing that a response was not expected (or invited) from the BMPA. The filing of a skeleton argument was entirely optional. Mr Warhurst confirmed that the SoS’s document had been useful in their preparations.

19. As a procedural point, the Tribunal has disregarded paragraph 7 of the SoS’s skeleton argument after Mr Fry confirmed that no reliance is placed upon it. This followed Mr Warhurst alerting the Tribunal to a factual error within that paragraph. It incorrectly refers to Dukeshill having asserted that it used recovered brine (75%) and uses “a starter culture for an initial production run”.

20. As BMPA did not have legal representation, the Tribunal proactively questioned Mr Lindars and Mr Warhurst to extract the information needed to assist the Tribunal with its decision. The Tribunal also put questions to challenge Mr Fry and Mr Blake on their submissions. Both sides took the opportunity to make submissions. At BMPA’s instigation, the Respondent’s skeleton argument was used a framework for submissions. Thereafter, both parties contributed to other points during a short ‘round table’ discussion, before making closing statements. Before the hearing closed, both parties confirmed that they had made all the points they had wished. The role of the Tribunal

21. The Tribunal must consider the decision afresh. In doing so, we may take into account evidence that was not available to the Respondent (Article 54a(3)). For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal has considered all the material placed before us, including that heard at the hearing. We do not relay the technical arguments raised by BMPA on brining techniques or historical factors in any detail, it being unnecessary and impractical to do so. We have, of course, taken them into account.

22. The Tribunal must decide the relevant facts on the balance of probabilities.

23. By Article 54a(4) the Tribunal may: (a) dismiss the appeal, or (b) if it allows the appeal, exercise any power specified in the corresponding entry in the third column of the table in Part 2 of Annex 1B. The powers available to the Tribunal under Annex 1B are to: (a) quash the SoS’s decision and issue directions, or (b) remit the matter to the SoS for reconsideration and fresh decision. The Tribunal can, of course, also decide to confirm the decision.

24. As noted at the hearing, BMPA posed a series of questions for the Tribunal, but not all are pertinent to our determination. Our role is to decide the specific appeal before us by establishing the necessary facts and applying the relevant parts of the regulatory framework. We cannot extend or decision beyond that remit however helpful or informative it might be to the BMPA. Legal framework

25. All references to Articles in this section are those within the EU Regulation.

26. The scheme for TSGs was established under Article 17 with the objective of safeguarding traditional methods of production.

27. The criteria for registration are within Article 18: 1 A name shall be eligible for registration as a TSG where it describes a specific product or foodstuff that: a. results from a mode of production, processing or composition corresponding to traditional practice for that product or foodstuff; or b. is produced from raw materials or ingredients that are those traditionally used. 2 For a name to be registered as a traditional speciality guaranteed, it shall: a. have been traditionally used to refer to the specific product; b. identify the traditional character or specific character of the product. 3 … 4 A name may not be registered if it refers only to claims of a general nature used for a set of products, or to claims provided for by particular assimilated law.

28. The grounds for opposition to an application to register a TSG are within Article 21: 1 A reasoned statement of opposition as referred to in Article 51(2) shall be admissible only if it is received by the SoS before expiry of the time limit and if it: (a) gives duly substantiated reasons why the proposed registration is incompatible with the terms of this Regulation; or (b) shows that use of the name is lawful, renowned and economically significant for similar agricultural products or foodstuffs. 2 The criteria referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall be assessed in relation to the territory of Great Britain .

29. The SoS is required to establish and maintain a publicly accessible updated register of TSGs recognised under the scheme (Article 22).

30. Article 50 provides that: “ The Secretary of State shall scrutinise by appropriate means any application received pursuant to Article 49, in order to check that it is justified and that it meets the conditions of the respective scheme ….” At least each month, a list of names for which registration has been submitted must be made public in such manner as the SoS considers appropriate, along with the submission date.

31. Within 3 months from the date of publication a natural or legal person having a legitimate interest may lodge a notice of opposition with the SoS (Article 51). If followed within 2 months by an admissible reasoned statement of opposition, the Secretary of State must invite the objector (within 2 months of receipt of the reasoned statement) to engage in appropriate consultations. Those consultations must not exceed 3 months, unless the applicant requests an extension of the deadline by a maximum of 3 months (Article 51(4)).

32. By Article 52, if the SoS considers that the conditions for registration are not fulfilled, he must reject the application. If there is no notice of opposition or no admissible reasoned statement of opposition under Article 51, then the name must be registered.

33. An appeal may be made to the Tribunal under Article 54a by a person specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the table in Part 2 of Annex 1B. Where, as in this case, an application has been submitted under Article 49 to register a TSG, an appeal may be brought by: (a) the person who submitted the application; (b) a person marketing a product that is, or may be, affected by the decision not to register the TSG. In this instance (a) is met. Agreed facts

34. There is no dispute over: (i) the scope of the SoS’s exercise of his powers under the EU Regulation; (ii) the process for registering and objecting to a TSG application; or (iii) compliance with those procedural matters.

35. The SoS accepts that BMPA members are audited twice a year by the BMPA against the Wiltshire Cure standards.

36. The SoS further agrees that: (a) the name ‘Wiltshire Cured Ham’ meets the criteria in Article 18(1) and (2). (b) product specification was provided by the BMPA in accordance with Article 19. (c) the application requirements within Article 20 were complied with.

37. BMPA accepts that Dukeshill’s product is “renowned” as they hold a Royal warrant to supply ham to the Crown.

38. BMPA confirmed at the hearing that it accepts Dukeshill’s ‘Wiltshire Ham’ end product is similar to the Wiltshire Cure that BMPA seeks to register. This was with the caveat that the BMPA does not agree that the production methods are similar. Main issues

39. The main issues for the Tribunal to determine in this appeal are: • Whether the factors in Article 21(1)(b) are met. In particular: (i) is use of the “Wiltshire Ham” name by Dukeshill lawful, renowned and economically significant?; and (ii) are the two Wiltshire Hams (i.e. those produced by BMPA members and those produced by Dukeshill) “similar foodstuffs” within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b)? Analysis Our approach

40. It is undisputed that BMPA’s application is eligible for registration as a TVG. BMPA appears to suggest that its appeal must succeed upon it demonstrating fulfilment of the criteria within Article 18. That is not the correct approach. Compliance with the conditions in Article 18 is a pre-requisite to eligibility for registration of a specific product or foodstuff. Consideration does not end there where an admissible reasoned statement of opposition has been made under Article 51, as in this case. This is plain from Article 52(3) which requires the results from the consultations to be taken into account in deciding whether or not to register a name.

41. Where no agreement is reached with the opposer (i.e. Dukeshill), the SoS must “decide whether to register the name ” (Article 52(3)(b)). Upon appeal, the Tribunal’s decision is not limited to the factors in Article 18. The grounds of opposition made under Article 21 are clearly an important consideration as reflected in Article 52(3). It would make no sense for an opponent to be able to raise grounds of opposition only for them to become irrelevant and disregarded at appeal stage. We were reinforced in that view by the requirement for the Tribunal to take the decision afresh.

42. Our focus is, at it must be, on the wording of the EU Regulation. Food safety issues are an entirely separate matter that are not relevant to our consideration.

43. The crux of this case rests on the application and interpretation of Article 21(1)(b) of the EU Regulation. This requires consideration of whether the use of the ‘Wiltshire Ham’ name by Dukeshill is lawful, renowned and economically significant for similar foodstuffs. There are 4 pertinent limbs within this Article, which we address in turn. In reaching our determination, it does not matter that there is only one opposer. The issue is the merits of that opposition within the regulatory framework. Is Dukeshill’s use of the name lawful?

44. At the hearing, Mr Warhurst said that BMPA accepts that ‘Wiltshire Ham’ is a lawful name. However, BMPA considers that the Dukeshill Wiltshire Ham does not meet the legal definition within the 2007 Regulations. Whether or not that is right, it has no bearing on the lawfulness of Dukeshill’s use of the Wiltshire Ham name.

45. The 2007 Regulations are entirely separate and distinct from the EU Regulation. As the name suggests, they concern food safety and thus serve a different purpose unconnected with TSGs. The FSA Guidance, which contains reference to Wiltshire Ham, does not have the force of law for any breach of its provisions to be unlawful. It does not apply to the EU Regulation in any event.

46. BMPA’s argument that Dukeshill’s production method originated from the Republic of Ireland rather than Great Britain has no bearing on the lawfulness of the use of the Wiltshire Ham name.

47. Quite simply, there is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that the use of the ‘Wiltshire Ham’ name by Dukeshill is unlawful in any way. Is Dukeshill’s use of the name renowned?

48. BMPA accepts that the Dukeshill product is renowned given its Royal Warrant. The requirement within Article 21 is slightly different from how BMPA framed its acceptance. It is the use of the Wiltshire Ham name by Dukeshill that must be renowned in relation to the territory of Great Britain. The possible origin of the production method from outside Great Britian is irrelevant to the question of whether the name is renowned (i.e. well-known) within Great Britain.

49. In light of Dukeshill’s Royal Warrant, we are satisfied that the requirement is met. Is Dukeshill’s use of the name economically significant?

50. The term “economically significant” is not defined in the EU Regulation (or any other comparable regulations) nor is there any guidance. BMPA argues that its members held 99% of the market for Wiltshire Ham as of August 2025. The source of this statistic is the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board who responded to BMPA’s specific request for market data. We note that this data provided details for major supermarkets, discount supermarkets and other outlets such as smaller retail chains and online only retailers. It did not include figures for butchers or other users such as those in the hospitality industry.

51. At the hearing, Mr Lindars accepted that Dukeshill’s customer base of 80,000 “ is a serious amount of customers ”. However, Dukeshill has a “vast and wide product profile” causing Mr Lindars to query how much of it is Wiltshire Ham. Mr Lindars expressed shock when Mr Blake confirmed that Defra does not routinely undertake analysis of assertions made over market shares and it had not done so in this case. Mr Blake stated that Defra probes appropriately to check details are correct on both sides, but there was nothing to suggest that Dukeshill’s figures were wrong. Notwithstanding his concern at Defra’s lack of a validation process, Mr Lindars accepted that the figure of 80,000 provided by Dukeshill must be taken at face value in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

52. Plainly, had BMPA wished to take issue over Dukehill’s actual market share for Wiltshire Ham then it should have been raised much earlier so that the position could be checked and Dukeshill consulted. Even though BMPA members (spread over 12 sites or so) may be responsible for the manufacture of around 99% of the Wiltshire Ham market, that does not mean that a very small share of the market held by another single producer cannot be “economically significant”. Various factors may influence such significance, the most obvious one being the overall size of the market.

53. With 80,000 customers and a Royal Warrant, the Tribunal is satisfied that the use of the name by Dukeshill is economically significant. Are the two Wiltshire Hams “similar foodstuffs”?

54. The two main points raised by BMPA to distinguish its product from Dukeshill is that Dukeshill’s Wiltshire Ham lacks a starter culture and uses only 20% recovered immersion brine rather than 100%. The BMPA considers the percentage of live brine and use of starter culture to be critical differences. BMPA’s concern is that the Dukeshill’s product is of inferior quality to the product it wishes to register.

55. The parties agree that the end products are “ similar ”. The term “ similar products or foodstuffs ” is undefined in the EU Regulation. The SoS took the “ plain and normal definition ” of what is “ similar ”. BMPA relies instead upon the FSA Guidance which includes an interpretation of the words “ similar products ”. Mr Fry described the end products as “ almost identical ” and maintained that the method of production is therefore “ less relevant ”.

56. The objective of the scheme for TSGs is “to safeguard traditional methods of production” (Article 17). With that objective in mind, the method of production must in our view be relevant to the consideration of whether or not the foodstuffs are “ similar ” under Article 21. This was accepted by Mr Fry albeit, he maintained the same stance that the methodology has limited relevance when the outcome is similar. The Tribunal does not consider the application of the criteria within Article 21 to be so restrictive. By the same token, we do not say that the method of production is the determinative factor. It is one of a number of factors requiring consideration. For that reason, we have proceeded to consider and weigh up the significance, if any, of how the 2 production methods differ.

57. To do so, we have used the FSA Guidance as a guide. The FSA Guidance accompanies the 2007 Regulations, and not the EU Regulation. Its purpose is to provide informal, non-binding advice on the provisions within those Regulations on nitrates/nitrates in meat products. The FSA Guidance specifically states that the text should not be taken as an authoritative statement or interpretation of the law. Whilst the FSA Guidance concerns a separate regulatory framework, and is clearly not binding upon us, it is helpful as the best authority available to us on how certain terminology is intended to apply from an independent, non-ministerial department empowered to issue guidance . We also note that the 2007 Regulations include details of manufacturing processes (for food safety purposes) which, although not binding in this TSG case, are helpful in considering arguments over differences in production methods.

58. The FSA Guidance identifies 3 criteria needed of a similar product, as below. Close resemblance

59. Firstly, to be a similar product it must closely resemble the product named (but may have a different name). Mr Warhurst readily accepted that this criterion is met by the Dukeshill’s product. Traditionally produced

60. Secondly, it must have been traditionally produced. The FSA Guidance notes that the interpretation is ultimately for a Court to decide but suggests that it should be taken to be of the order of 1 generation/25 years. This would be in line with Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs as Traditional Specialities Guaranteed, that introduced a legal definition of the term” traditional”, specifically for the purpose of that Regulation. This definition requires a period of 25 years for production/recipe for a traditional food that is registered under the Scheme.

61. Given that those 2006 Regulations also concern TSGs (albeit for different named products) there are strong parallels to be drawn. With a specific definition of “ traditional ” in a comparable regulatory context, we find it appropriate to similarly apply a period of 25 years when considering if the product is traditional.

62. Dukeshill says that it has been using traditional methods for 40 years and was founded in 1986. Accordingly, the Dukeshill Wiltshire Ham has been produced over sufficient duration in time to be termed “traditionally produced.”

63. Under this criterion, Mr Warhurst raised doubt as to whether there has been a change in manufacturing process by Dukeshill since 2020. The query stemmed from there having been company changes within Dukeshill in late 2020. This was raised for the first time during the hearing. It was put to the Tribunal that a former director had been descended from the Harris family who developed curing processes in the 1800s. It was suggested that since their departure the traditional focus may have changed. This is purely speculative. Products can be “ similar ” irrespective of who might own a business. There is no evidence before us that Dukeshill’s current manufacturing processes have materially changed since its submissions in the application process.

64. As noted before, BMPA has sought to challenge Dukeshill’s product as relying upon methodology derived from the Republic of Ireland. To support its wider case, the BMPA produced a paper dated 12 December 2021 titled: “ Wiltshire Cured or Tank Cured Bacon: A Historical Review ”. At page 18 of that report, it is explained how it was the Irish who took the practical knowledge and scientific knowledge of the time and created the commercial process of tank-curing which later became known as Wiltshire Cure. This firmly suggests that the Wiltshire Cure methodology originally emanated from Ireland. Therefore, if Dukeshill is using Irish methodology that appears to be consistent with traditional production.

65. BMPA’s case partly rests upon the percentage of brine within the two respective products. In an attempt to find a compromise with BMPA, Dukeshill amended its method of manufacture and increased the use of mother brine to 20% of the cover brine. Dukeshill confirmed that it would continue to do so going forward. The conclusion reached by Dukeshill in its own “Dukeshill Brine Testing Investigation” of October 2023 was that its cover brine, with 20% of a mother brine, produces a “live & stable” brine used for the production of Wiltshire ham. In contrast, BMPA members use 100% live recovered brine (or “old brine” as described at the hearing).

66. The FSA Guidance identifies the use of ‘live’ immersion brines as the main distinguishing factor between Wiltshire and other cures. This corresponds with the BMPA’s comments that the main process difference for Wiltshire curing from other curing processes is the use of a live immersion brine which has aged and recovered. The BMPA maintains that this brine must also not be diluted with additional new fresh brine on a routine basis as this affects the flavour profile of the brine.

67. It was explained by BMPA that the resultant flavour profile is the main difference between the use of 20% and 100% recovered brine. Notably, neither the manufacturing processes identified within the 2007 Regulations, nor the FSA Guidance, identify the Wiltshire cure as featuring the use of 100% recovered immersion brine. That is the standard that BMPA wishes to protect but the question is whether it needs to be manufactured with 100% old brine in order to be traditionally produced. We are not satisfied that it does from all that we have seen and heard.

68. There may well be variances in taste due to the brine composition. That does not prevent the Dukeshill product being classified as “traditional”.

69. Under the heading ‘Wiltshire Bacon/Ham’, the FSA Guidance states (at paragraph 16): “ Whilst no definition of Wiltshire cure has been included in the legislation, the manufacturing process for Wiltshire cured ham and bacon is defined in footnote 1.1. The use of ‘live’ immersion brines is the main distinguishing factor between Wiltshire and other cures .”

70. The results of the testing of Dukeshill’s brine state (at page 128 of the bundle): “ The results of this study have clearly shown that the cover brine used by Dukeshill, with 20% of mother brine produces a “live & stable” brine used for the production of Wilshire Ham. Containing the required amount of TVCs [Total Viable Count] (great [sic] than 10 [to the power of 6]) and with a large amount of lactic acid bacteria ”. We conclude from this that Dukeshill’s product uses a live immersion brine and thus fulfils the key defining feature of traditional Wiltshire Ham. Indeed, the testing results state “ the flavour profile of Dukeshill’s Wiltshire Ham is evidence that the bacterial species present in the brine is producing a flavourful Wiltshire ham, in keeping with the traditional qualities associated with this product ”.

71. BMPA itself says that throughout the history of Wiltshire curing since the 1770s the management of live recovered brine has been the pivotal difference between this and all other curing methods. Dukeshill’s manufacturing process has the required longevity. Together, these factors suffice in our view to conclude that the Dukeshill product is traditionally produced. Same stages as described in the footnotes

72. Thirdly, a similar product will have been produced using the same stages as described in the footnotes to the 2007 Regulations. BMPA says that this criterion is not met by Dukeshill due to the absence of a starter culture in its brine, as confirmed by Dukeshill in its document titled “Dukeshill Brine Testing Investigation”.

73. The 2007 Regulations lay down procedures to achieve food safety, including for the curing of meat. Schedule 1 contains an entry for “traditional immersion cured meat products” under which “Wiltshire bacon” and “Wiltshire ham” are explicitly listed. Footnotes in the Schedule specify in detail the manufacturing method for each traditional product. Footnote 1.1 to Schedule 1 provides that: “ Meat products are immersed in curing solution followed by immersion curing for 3 to 10 days. The immersion brine solution also includes microbiological starter cultures. ” The text ends there.

74. In reference to footnote 1.1, paragraph 17 of the FSA Guidance adds: “ We do not consider it is necessary for a culture to be added prior to each immersion ; the culture may well be present, as it traditionally was, from previous use of the immersion solution. [emphasis added] The micro-organisms present perform the function of reducing added nitrate to nitrite which then goes on to become the active curing compound.”

75. Although the BMPA relies upon the FSA Guidance in other respects, its position on the need for a starter culture is contradicted by paragraph 17, which is specific to ‘Wiltshire Bacon/Ham’. In the context of the FSA’s third criterion, the FSA advises that a starter culture is not needed as it may well be present from previous use. This was put to Mr Warhurst during the hearing who said the BMPA was relying upon the footnote to Schedule 1. Of course, the footnote forms part of the 2007 Regulations and the information within it must be read in conjunction with the general description from the product type when interpreting the Regulations. The accompanying FSA Guidance clearly carries less weight than the footnote.

76. However, footnote 1.1 does not say that a starter culture must be added, merely that the immersion brine solution includes starter cultures. This is reflected in the FSA Guidance. On our reading of the footnote, as clarified by the FSA Guidance, Wiltshire cure does not need to be manufactured with the addition of a starter culture.

77. Even if it does, the fact remains that Dukeshill has stated it uses 20% recovered brine. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement. It uses live brine, which is the distinguishing feature of Wiltshire cured ham.

78. We do not consider that the absence of a starter culture materially alters the stages of production, in the context of a TSG determination, to affect the degree of similarity between the two products. Conclusion on “similar foodstuffs”

79. There are differences in processes between the two Wiltshire Hams. Nonetheless, it is important to bear in mind that the two products and their means of production do not need to be identical. They do not need to be the same. The requirement is for “similar foodstuffs”. For the reasons given, on the balance of probabilities, the Dukeshill product is a similar foodstuff to the Wiltshire cure that BMPA seeks to register as a TSG. Other matters

80. During closing statements, Mr Lindars referred to the BMPA trying to register three product groups; (i) ham (ii) bacon and (iii) gammon, and not just the one (i.e. ham). This was not the basis on which the appeal was brought and if BMPA sought to argue that the objection only concerned ham, then this plainly should have been raised earlier. Albeit raised very late in the process, the Tribunal invited the SoS to respond. Mr Blake confirmed that it was a single application and there was never any suggestion that the types of ham be separated out. Mr Fry pointed out that the SoS had not had opportunity to consider this new point and make submissions on it.

81. For completeness, the Tribunal has considered whether it could, and should, make a split decision by allowing the appeal in part. The Tribunal notes its wide powers within Annex 1B. Nevertheless, a single application for registration has been made. Even if we could, it would be unjust to attempt to separate out the three product groups at this late stage in the process when the case has not been argued in that way by either party or the opposer. We do not consider the possibility further, noting that the option remains for BMPA to make further separate applications if it so wishes.

82. The Tribunal finds no significance in a director of Dukeshill having been involved in the BMPA predecessor association. It has no bearing on the application of the requirements of the EU Regulation. Overall conclusions

83. The Tribunal concludes that the SoS was right to determine that Dukeshill’s use of the name ‘Wilshire Ham’ on its cured ham product is lawful, renowned and economically significant within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of the EU Regulation. In addition, the cured ‘Wiltshire Ham’ produced by Dukeshill is a “similar foodstuff” to the ‘Wiltshire Cure’ for which registration is sought as a TSG. That being so, the ground of opposition is made out on the factors within Article 21.

84. There is another traditional production method for Wiltshire Cured Ham that does not meet the specification that BMPA seeks to register. Registration of the ‘Wiltshire Cured Ham/Bacon/Gammon’ name as a TSG would prevent other legitimate producers from using that name. The application must be refused.

85. It follows that the appeal is dismissed. Signed: Judge Saward Date: 12 February 2026