Board meeting minutes: 13 March 2003

Sir John Krebs, Chairman
Ann Hemingway, Acting Deputy Chairman
Richard Ayre
Sati Ariyanayagam
Chrissie Dunn
Michael Gibson
Valerie Howarth
Iain MacDonald
Andrew Miller
Robert Rees
Vernon Sankey
Michael Walker
Sandra Walbran

Official Attending
Jon Bell - Acting Chief Executive
Rosemary Hignett - Head of Food Labelling and Standards Division (item 4 only)
Richard Harding - Head of Food Chain Strategy Division (item 5 only)
Tim Foster - Head of Meat Hygiene Division (item 6 only)
Mark Bush - Board Secretary
Sue Johns - Board Secretariat

1. The Chairman formally welcomed the three new members to their first open meeting.

Dr Sati Ariyanayagam was a consultant physician and a long standing member of the Consumers' Association and champion of the cause of the consumer. Dr Ariyanayagam was also a member of two of the FSA's advisory committees.

Mrs Chrissie Dunn was a founder and until 2002 managing director of Danby's Foods Limited. Mrs Dunn had a comprehensive knowledge of all stages of food production and the supply chain and her breadth of knowledge was particularly strong on matters of food safety and quality assurance.

Professor Andrew Miller, new Board member for Scotland, was a molecular biophysicist and formerly Vice Chancellor of the University of Stirling. At present he was General Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

2. The Chairman reminded Board members of their obligation to declare interests before discussion of relevant items. This applied to discussions in both the open session and the closed session (which dealt with internal management matters).

3. There were no items raised for discussion under AOB.

(Paper FSA 03/03/01)

4. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 February at the Jarvis Piccadilly Hotel, Manchester were considered. These were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting by Board members with the following amendment:

Paragraph 37 - the final sentence to read 'there was also an opportunity to enhance the coverage of the subject in the curriculum for Catering National Vocational Qualifications.'

5. In considering matters arising and the table of follow up action, Board members noted that:

The recently circulated note on BSE testing methods at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency was welcomed. Board members expressed their thanks to staff.

The note on poultry vaccination against Salmonella was in preparation and would be circulated by the end of the month.
Action: Jonathan Back (MSD)

The views of the Consumer Committee had been sought on two issues, communicating unfit/waste food issues and possible support for consumer involvement in stakeholder groups and other FSA activities. A note of their discussions was currently being prepared for circulation before the end of March.
Action: Jacqui Webster (CSCI)

An information note had been circulated outlining recent discussions with the Magistrates Association (MA). Board members welcomed the opportunity to have a briefing session later in the year from the MA and noted that a paper on the ‘fighting fund’ would be circulated by the end of the month.
Action: David Statham (EFSG)

Over Thirty Month (OTM) Review
6. At a public meeting held on the 7 March the work of the risk assessment group carried out at Imperial College had been presented by Professor Neil Ferguson, a member of the Core Stakeholder Group. Dr John Godfrey, member of the FSA's Consumer Committee and also a member of the Core Stakeholder Group had presented the emerging thinking within the Group. The meeting had been informed that the risk assessment had suggested that if past exposure to BSE were to lead to 5000 vCJD deaths (a very pessimistic assumption), a change from the OTM rule to testing could result in an additional 0.024 deaths over 60 years. There was substantial uncertainty in the model and their worst case estimate was 1 - 2 deaths. There had also been considerable discussion on the practicalities of implementing the change to testing.

7. Following the meeting on 7 March the Core Stakeholder group was preparing a report that would go out for public consultation at the end of March. Following the consultation the Board would be asked for its views at its July 2003 open meeting. These views would form the FSA's advice to the UK government.

GM Debate Correscpondence
[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared an interest as a member of the General Consumer Council (NI). Michael Walker participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

8. The Chairman invited the Acting Chief Executive to summarise the past Board discussions on GM. The Acting Chief Executive responded by informing the Board that they had first discussed GM issues in June 2000 at its open meeting in Glasgow. It had concluded that the current safety assessment procedures for GM foods were sufficiently robust and rigorous to ensure that approved GM foods were as safe as their non-GM counterparts. The Board recognised the inherent uncertainties over long term effects of consumption of any novel food, including GM.

9. GM labelling had been discussed at open Board meetings in Belfast in September 2001, Llandudno in September 2002 and again in Brussels in November 2002. The discussions had focussed on proposals for new European regulations on GM food labelling. The Board had concluded that the new proposals were not practical or enforceable and would not deliver accurate and reliable information to the consumer.

10. In July 2002 the Government had launched a GM debate. The FSA announced in July 2002 that it would make an independent contribution. In September 2002 at its open meeting in Llandudno, the FSA had announced a programme of activity particularly designed to reach young people and those in low income groups to ensure that their views were reflected in the wider debate. The FSA was carrying out these activities in line with its remit to protect consumer interests in relation to food and to demonstrate its commitment to consumer choice, openness and transparency. These activities were separate but complementary to the national debate and reflected the proper role of an independent department dealing specifically with food issues. However, strong links had been made and maintained with the Public Debate Steering Board (PDSB) which was chaired by Prof. Malcolm Grant. FSA officials had attended all meetings of the PDSB at which they were entitled to be present and had informed the members about the FSA's plans.

11. On 13 February at the open meeting in Manchester, the Chairman had given more detail of the FSA's GM debate activities which were intended to be distinctive and innovative. There were four elements:

• a citizens' jury considering the question 'Should GM food be available to buy in the UK?'
• a schools debating competition
• discussion groups of low-income consumers and young people in Scotland
• a group of school students producing a video on GM food.

The outcomes of all these elements, along with input being requested from the Agency's Consumer Committee, would be put to the Board for consideration at its open meeting in May. The Board's decision would then be sent to Ministers and to the PDSB. The Acting Chief Executive concluded by saying that the cost of the FSA's debate activities was estimated at £110,000.

12. All Board members had received a full set of the recent correspondence; the Chairman invited Board members' comments. Board members expressed their disappointment at the personal tone of some of the remarks made in the correspondence, and supported the Chairman in his efforts to ensure that the FSA played an impartial and evidence-based role within the debate. There was no gap, as had been suggested in some correspondence, between the view of the Chairman, the Board and the Executive. Board members had acknowledged from the outset that GM issues would be a big challenge, since they not only involved matters of food safety but also encompassed moral and ethical arguments. The Board had adopted the same approach to the GM debate as it did to all matters of food safety, which was to base their assessment of risk on best available science and discuss risk management issues openly with all stakeholders. Board members reasserted that the role of the FSA was not only to ensure food safety but also to protect consumer choice.

13. The recent correspondence had prompted Board members to revisit the material that the FSA had produced to support its own debate, namely the booklet and the web page. The correspondence criticised the booklet, in particular, for adopting a 'pro-GM' stance. However, Board members did not agree with that view. On reflection, Board members felt that there were areas where the content of the booklet could be strengthened (for example, in acknowledging the range of different opinions) but that ultimately the booklet had been produced to support the FSA's debate and had therefore been written so as to be readable and easily understood. In designing the FSA's website, care was taken to ensure that links were included to other sites that put forward a wide range of different views. The FSA's aim was to make a broad base of information accessible to consumers.

14. The booklet made wide reference to a number of individuals and organisations who had spoken in support of GM foods, for example the Chief Medical Officer and the Royal Society. The correspondence questioned why the British Medical Association (BMA) had not been quoted as an opponent of GM technology. However, some Board members pointed out that in a press release on 31 January 2003 the BMA had announced a review of their position, in the light of new evidence. Some Board members noted that the booklet might have benefited from a wider consultation with consumer associations before publication.

15. Board members took exception to the inference, in some of the correspondence, that it was inappropriate to seek the views of the young and those on low incomes; the argument appeared to be that they would not have a detailed understanding of the issues and should therefore not be consulted. All consumers had a right to be heard and the Board had, during previous discussions on a range of different matters, emphasised the importance of finding out the views of groups that were 'hard to reach'.

16. At its meeting in June 2000, the Board had asked for a research project to be commissioned to explore the feasibility of investigating the possible long term effects of GM products. Board members asked about progress and were informed that the work had been commissioned at Imperial College. The work had been completed and the final report was due to be published in May, with a stakeholder meeting to be held in June. Some Board members wondered whether similar studies had been carried out in the United States. It was possible that there were research projects being carried out there that might assist in identifying any health effects.

17. The Chairman summarised the discussion by noting that the Board:

• re-affirmed its support for the work that the FSA was carrying out with respect to the GM debate
• agreed to retain the current information supporting the debate and asked that the points raised on coverage in discussion be taken into account if a second print run was considered
• commended the work with children, young people and those on low incomes, and re-iterated that all consumers should have a voice
• looked forward to the discussion on the outcome of the elements of the FSA's debate in May, the final report of which would go forward to Ministers and copied to the Steering Board.

Dr Jon Bell reported on the following issues.

TSEs in other species
18. The Acting Chief Executive reminded Board members that the FSA's Review of BSE Controls (Dec 2000) had identified TSEs in deer as an issue for further investigation. A report to the Board in December 2002, had informed them that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) was considering a postal survey of deer farmers, publicity to remind them of their obligation to notify TSE diseases and a voluntary survey of fallen stock. As a result, Defra had been in contact with the British Deer Farmers Association and there had been some publicity in 'The Deer Farmer' magazine. In addition, Defra had also begun some work testing wild deer and park deer, where over 300 brain samples had been collected for TSE sampling. So far there were no positives, though the test had yet to be fully validated. It would however be some months before all the work was completed. In the meantime, at its meeting on 7 March the EU Scientific Steering Committee had looked at Chronic Wasting Disease, the North American TSE disease in deer, and was likely to call for EU-wide surveillance.

19. Some Board members asked whether the testing method was applicable to deer since it had originally been developed for testing BSE in cattle. They were informed that this was the case; however, a new test was being developed. Some Board members enquired if Defra was planning to carry out research into whether deer could get TSE type infections from eating infected feed. The Acting Chief Executive undertook to maintain contact with Defra and to keep the Board informed of further developments.

Local authority monitoring data
20. After the discussion at the open meeting in February 2003 the Board had requested FSA officials to carry out a thorough investigation of the apparent dramatic increase in the number of food premises reported. The investigation had shown that figure to be erroneous, due to an element of double-counting in the computer programme. The number of premises had actually fallen by five percent. The revised figure had been published on the website. The revised figures did not affect the decisions the Board had taken.

21. Some Board members sought assurance that data from previous years' monitoring was not similarly affected. Dr Bell informed the Board that the programme was new and therefore previous monitoring exercises were not implicated. Measures had been introduced to ensure that the same error did not occur in future annual exercises; and included the use of two independent teams to check the results. Some Board members asked whether the new procedures would increase the pressure on local authorities (LAs) to produce the data earlier. FSA officials were aware of the pressures that LAs faced, however they were working with LAs to improve the software so that data would be obtained in time and with minimal pressure.

22. Dr Bell also reassured Board members that the matter had been fully discussed with Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) and the Local Government Association (LGA).

Nitrofurans in poultry
23. Dr Bell informed the Board of recent finds of nitrofuran residues in Brazilian, Portuguese and Thai poultry. Nitrofurans were illegal veterinary medicines no longer permitted in the EU for use in food-producing animals due to public health concerns, including the possible increased risk of cancer from long term exposure to residues. In February the FSA had been informed that a consignment of Brazilian chicken imported via Belgium and Germany had tested positive for nitrofurans. Part of the consignment had, however, been released before the test results were available. Although most had been detained, a small quantity had already been consumed. Effects to health were associated with repeated exposure and the small quantity involved was therefore unlikely to give rise to health concerns as the risk to health was assessed as very small. The FSA had written to the Commission and the Belgian authorities emphasising that all consignments should be retained until the results were available.

24. At the beginning of March 2003 the FSA had been alerted to findings of nitrofuran residues in Portuguese poultry. A new test for the metabolites of nitrofurans had been used as the parent chemicals decomposed rapidly. Thirty four out of a total of thirty seven tests had been positive. Although Portuguese meat represented a very small proportion of total UK poultry imports, retailers had been informed. The Portuguese authorities were also taking action. There was a regular programme for testing UK produced poultry, but this had not detected the presence of nitrofurans. There was also provision for positive release testing at the point of import into the UK.

25. Some Board members noted that the new test for metabolites was complicated and time consuming and as a direct result also had restricted laboratory capability due to the need to develop staff expertise. It was not clear at this stage whether the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) would be following up the incident with an inspection in Portugual. The FVO were however working with the exporting third countries to develop their understanding of and ability to control the problem. At present, all Thai and Brazilian poultry imported into the EU was subject to testing at the point of entry before release for circulation within the European Union.

26. The use of nitrofurans in food-producing poultry was illegal in the EU. It was possible that other legitimate uses of nitrofurans existed, and if so this would complicate efforts to restrict the availability of these products. Dr Bell agreed to report back on any remaining legitimate uses of nitrofurans.
Action: Acting Chief Executive

(Paper FSA 03/03/02)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared an interest as a Public Analyst whose firm earned fees from the FSA's authenticity programme, disclosed in FSA annual reports in Related Party Transactions. Michael Walker participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

27. Rosemary Hignett introduced the paper, reminding Board members that the paper set out the objectives of the Agency’s authenticity research and surveillance programme and began the process of review. It also proposed that the Consumer Committee’s advice be sought in the prioritisation of potential topics. The current programme had been instrumental in developing new analytical techniques, for example a wider application of DNA testing methods in the area of food authenticity. This had been of particular benefit in the recently published survey of chicken used in the catering sector, where pork and beef protein had been found in chicken. The FSA was also looking into how it could work more closely and effectively with food law enforcement officials in LAs by developing a clearer picture of overall priorities and supporting follow up enforcement work. The FSA was also reviewing ways of feeding results through to enforcement officials, including a part-funded project to develop a UK-wide database of samples that had been tested by LAs and the FSA and how new technology could be transferred to Public Analysts and other interested parties. A review of work was due to be completed by the end of 2003.

28. Board members noted that the cost of the programme was considerable and suggested that a cost/benefit approach be included as part of the review. Board members agreed the overall importance of the programme in uncovering practices such as the mis-description of products highlighted in the recently published chicken survey. However, the FSA should investigate ways in which the cost of developing such technology could be shared, for example among other EU member states. Officials were actively pursuing potential partners to share the financial burden. The Agency was hosting a meeting of other EU Food Agencies in May and this issue would be on the agenda. Board members noted the increasing importance of the use of DNA technology and the need to disseminate it to potential users.

29. The role of establishing good working links with LAs and other government departments was highlighted. More co-ordination of available resources would be likely to bring benefits in terms of the quantity and speed at which new research could be taken forward, thus ultimately benefiting the consumer. Some Board members noted the importance of the proposed national database of test results and sought further information as to the timescale of its introduction¹. The Agency was also investigating ways of working more closely with LAs, for example in the recent chicken survey where the Agency had assisted in meeting the costs of sampling and analysis. The Agency was also looking in more general terms at ways of generating information useful to consumers.

30. Board members noted that this matter was of serious concern to the consumer, for example a recent open meeting of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee had highlighted that authenticity and mis-labelling were very real issues. There was clearly a need to gather as much information as possible about the breadth of concerns that consumers had and Board members welcomed the proposal that the Consumer Committee be actively involved in the process. There was also a need for proactive intelligence gathering; often consumers are unaware of the potential issues but those within the industry were more alert to poor practices. Officials acknowledged both these points but noted that consumer input needed to be of more general nature allowing a wider application in future.

31. Board members noted that the report suggested that where surveys publicised poor practices a repeat survey often found an improvement. This had not been the case with the surveys of water in chicken. The FSA was determined to eliminate such practices and had worked with LAs to take formal samples which could be used in prosecutions. Successful legal action would strengthen the FSA’s position in trying to eliminate bad practice. The FSA was also working closely with Dutch colleagues on improving the quality of chicken as much of the material highlighted in the survey had been imported from the Netherlands.

32. The Chairman summarised the main points raised in the discussion. The Board:

• noted the objectives and thanked FSA staff for a thorough paper and for on-going work maintaining such a large and diverse programme
• supported in particular the involvement of the Consumer Committee
• agreed the scope of the review (paragraph 17 of the paper), supported collaboration and co-ordination with other EU member states and with LAs, and pointed out the need to identify timescales within the review and include a cost/benefit analysis. The Review should also look toward the development of more accessible information for consumers and examine how the authenticity programme could feed through to food labelling regulations.

(Paper FSA 03/03/03)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Robert Rees declared an interest as a caterer and Chairman of the Hospitality Education and Tourism steering group. Michael Gibson declared an interest as a supplier to the catering industry. Robert Rees, and Michael Gibson participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

33. Richard Harding introduced the paper by reminding Board members that the paper resulted from discussion at the November 2002 open meeting. Trade Associations were the traditional route for reaching industry. This had proved to be a less effective route to the catering industry as many caterers chose not to join associations and the catering industry was particularly diverse.

34. Board members welcomed the paper and the opportunity to discuss such a crucial issue. Communicating effectively across the whole range of catering establishments, from major multi-national companies to small individual operations, was an enormous task. Board members noted that the very complexity of the industry made contact all the more difficult to achieve. However, Board members were disappointed that the paper did not propose a strategy or action plan. Instead, it reflected the size and nature of the problem but offered little detail as to how it might be addressed. The Chairman explained that an earlier draft paper had included a strategy but that he and the Acting Deputy Chairman had felt that it was necessary to define more clearly the direction the Board wished the Executive to take.

35. Board members felt that effective two-way communication with the catering industry was a high priority. The FSA had some clear messages to get across. Board members suggested that a key lay in working closely with local groups, for example food liaison groups and the new food groups sponsored by Regional Development Agencies. Some Board members indicated that there were financial resources which could be used in projects with local groups.

36. Data showed that small businesses comprised more than fifty seven percent of the total number of businesses. These businesses had several distinct characteristics which made effective communication inherently difficult, such as high staff turnover and rapid change in ownership. Work in Scotland had shown that there were a variety of other routes to reach small catering outlets, for example through local enterprise boards. It was suggested that a stakeholder meeting to inform the study proposed in paragraph 16 of the paper would be most beneficial. Board members suggested that a cost/benefit analysis be undertaken should the outcome of the stakeholder group suggest the need for a further study.

37. Board members acknowledged that previous approaches for communicating with the catering industry had been issue specific and did not necessarily read across to different issues.

38. Summarising, the Chairman noted that the prime objective was to develop a range of approaches that could be used to communicate a variety of issues. With respect to paragraph 16, it was suggested that, before proceeding with the proposed study, the Agency should:

• set up a stakeholder meeting, participants to include small/micro businesses, regional groups, religious and ethnic groups
• look at the costs and benefits of a further study
• take an integrated approach applicable to different messages
• investigate other possible sources of funding.

The Acting Chief Executive agreed to give an oral update after the stakeholder meeting had taken place.
Action: Acting Chief Executive

39. In addition, Board members noted that information included in the annexes was in some cases out of date and requested that Board papers in general be checked more closely in future.
Action: Secretariat

(Paper FSA 03/03/04)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Iain MacDonald, Valerie Howarth, Michael Gibson and Robert Rees declared an interest as Chairman and members of the Meat Hygiene Advisory Committee (MHAC). Chrissie Dunn declared an interest as a director of a meat marketing company. Michael Gibson also declared an interest as a butcher and primary producer. Iain MacDonald, Valerie Howarth, Robert Rees, Chrissie Dunn and Michael Gibson participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

40. Tim Foster introduced the paper, drawing Board members’ attention its two-fold purpose: to ask the Board to consider and approve the performance targets for the MHS for the coming financial year and to seek endorsement of a new approach to target setting for 2004/05 onwards. On the first point the proposed targets aimed to provide the MHS with a clear indication of its key priorities as determined by the Agency and focus primarily on food safety and food law enforcement. In addition, each target had been explicitly linked to one of the FSA’s Strategic Objectives. The package had been developed in close liaison with MHAC and reflected the outcome of a public consultation exercise carried out last autumn. The package rolled forward a number of targets from previous years, to provide scope for a year on year comparison, and there were a number of new targets, notably on the enforcement of animal by-products legislation.

41. The second purpose of the paper was to alert the Board to the work in progress to develop a new approach to setting high level targets for the MHS. New targets would continue to link to key FSA objectives, and would wherever possible concentrate on outcomes rather than, as currently happened, on process. In assessing MHS performance against targets the FSA sought to move away from sole reliance on the results of the FSA audit of the MHS, a simple pass/fail measurement, and take more account of MHS successes and achievements, as well as failures. It was hoped that this new approach would give a more balanced assessment of overall performance. The FSA would pursue the new approach with the help of MHAC, and the Board would be kept informed of progress.

42. The Chairman of MHAC reported that there had been extensive consultation with MHAC and that the proposed targets for 2003/04 came to the Board with that Committee’s endorsement. However, with respect to the new approach, it was clear that the process would take some time. MHAC had discussed the matter in the autumn of 2002 and again in February this year. Further discussions were also planned for June and possibly in September before the matter came back to the Board at the end of the year.

43. Some Board members noted that the targets for 2003/04 were not actually targets but objectives, so it was not possible to track performance. These views were shared by MHAC and that had prompted the search for a new approach. However, MHAC had agreed to maintain the present system for a further year to allow a proper investigation to identify a robust new method that set real targets. The complexity of the task should not be underestimated. The FSA was in discussions with executive agencies and other government departments, seeking information or experience that might assist the process.

44. Some Board members commented that the paper reported a process that was based on consultation and was therefore a sound model of good practice when looking to develop key performance indicators in other areas.

45. In summary, the Chairman noted that:

• the Board had considered and approved the targets for 2003/04
• the Board endorsed the MHAC plan to move from a process based system to an outcome based one
• a further paper would come to the Board before the work on the new target was finalised
  Action: Acting Chief Executive
• in future the MHAC Chairman would be invited to give an annual report to the Board.

Action: Chairman of MHAC

(Papers FSA 03/03/05, FSA 03/03/06 & FSA 03/03/07)

Wales
46. The Chairman of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) reported that Prof. Jim Parry, member of WFAC and expert toxicologist, had recently participated in a BBC programme on the cockle industry with Judith Hilton, Head of Microbiological Safety Division. The programme had been a useful opportunity to air issues.

Northern Ireland
47. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee informed Board members of a correction to his report: paragraph 1 should read “The members noted the proposed changes”.

48. He also suggested a meeting of all three devolved Advisory Committees to allow an opportunity for them to consider the outcome of the individual review exercises that each had undertaken. This suggestion had the support of the Chairs of the other Advisory Committees and also the Executive.
Action: Secretariat

Scotland
49. The Chairman of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) formally welcomed Prof. Andrew Miller as the new Board member for Scotland and member of SFAC and informed Board members that Prof. Miller was to accompany him on a visit to the aquaculture facilities at Stirling University the following day. The Chairman of WFAC advised the Board that there was to be a meeting on aquaculture in Wales shortly and that it would be beneficial to work closely with colleagues in Scotland in this area.

50. At a recent SFAC meeting members had expressed some concern about the possibility that the current level of service might not be maintained with the creation of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) and asked that this situation be monitored. In response the Chairman relayed the reassurance that had been given to the Agency by the new Chief Executive of the HPA, Dr Pat Troop, that the standard of service would be maintained.

51. At a recent closed meeting SFAC members had agreed two new priorities namely nutrition and the introduction of HACCP to SME’s [small and medium sized enterprises].

52. There were no information papers.

AOB
53. There were no items of Any Other Business.

Date of Next meeting
54. The next meeting would be held on 8 May 2003 in Cardiff.

Footnote
¹ A database has been set up in Scotland to record information about microbiological samples and a pilot to extend this to chemical samples will start in Scotland in April 2003. This will be further extended to pilot the arrangements in England after which further UK rollout of the system will be considered.