09/07/2026
Don't be fooled by headlines like this in the Guardian.
The piece is all positive about this move but as ever when reading the news, particularly when "public good" is alluded to, you need to pay attention.
I assure you, whatever changes are coming in the pipeline, your bills are about to INCREASE, not decrease.
We all know what's going on in the pet sector.
Big corporations have aligned, from junk food to junk pharma, to gouge you, the pet owner, of your wealth and, by consequence, your pets of healthy years.
The cost of owning a pet is spiralling. The cost of treating a pet is spiralling. Drug and (often needless) diagnostic use is spiralling. Cost of pet insurance is spiralling.
The only thing not doing well is the health of our pets. Incidence of every single chronic condition you can think of (a direct result of the poor management of their health and then sickness) is on a straight trajectory upwards.
Never. Been. Sicker.
Call me cynical but business is good in Pet Land and they're not about to allow some toothless wimps in the government change anything there soon.
Here's what's going to happen:
Sneaky little caveats they have in place to ensure drug profits do not suffer aside, more regulation means higher compliance costs.
If every practice must obtain licences, undergo inspections, publish compliance reports and satisfy a new regulator, those costs have to be absorbed by someone.
Will it be the corporations that own the vet practices?
Hell no.
Will it be paid for by the government?
Of course not (and their money is yours at any rate).
It will be paid by YOU, the pet owner.
Economists often warn that price caps usually shift costs rather than eliminate them.
But they have to be seen to do SOMETHING in the face of the damning CMA report.
So what can we do that looks good to Guardian readers but is actually good for them?
Price caps on prescriptions.
Practices will / have to (corporations are legally required to...) recover lost revenue by increasing consultation fees or charges for other services.
Worse, corporate-owned UK vet practices (now 60% of the vet practices out there, up from 10% in 2013) already have compliance departments, legal teams and economies of scale.
Independent practices will be hit harder by this.
But worst of all in this are the proposals include a new "independent" regulator for veterinary businesses.
And do you know who's putting themselves forward for the role?
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Yes, in much the same way the dry pet food companies pretend AAFCO in some way regulates pet food, the RCVS, who were investigated for their role in the UK pet owner price gouging, who was silent on the corporate take over of the UK veterinary industry, who was silent when companies began recommending annual vaccines for viruses, too-often chemical flea treatment and who absolutely HATES fresh food for pets (but is OK with feedng them vegan garbage....but only one made by a candy company thus ensuring "quality"), is seeking increased powers to monitor compliance of the very sector they already pretend to regulate.
Look how hard it is to get the RCVS to response to veterinary malfeasance:
Of 648 complaints/concerns received into the RCVS in 2024, 80% didn't get passed their screening process. Of the few that did, only 8 reached a full public disciplinary hearing.
98.8% of them I guess were made up!
And with this stellar report card in hand, the RCVS is looking for MORE power.
And guess what industries the RCVS most wants to focus on?!!!
You guessed it...
https://substack.com/home/post/p-190721185
