Board meeting minutes: 8 May 2003

Sir John Krebs, Chairman

Ann Hemingway, Acting Deputy Chairman

Richard Ayre
Sati Ariyanayagam
Chrissie Dunn
Michael Gibson
Valerie Howarth
Iain MacDonald
Andrew Miller
Vernon Sankey
Michael Walker
Sandra Walbran

Officials attending:

Jon Bell - Chief Executive
Diane Benford - Chemical Safety and Toxicology Division
(item 4 only)
Sue Hattersley - Chemical Safety and Toxicology Division
(item 5 only)
Neil Martinson - Director of Communications (item 6 only)
Clair Baynton - Acting Head of Novel Foods Division
(item 6 only)
Jacqui Webster - Corporate Secretariat, Consumers and
International Division (item 6 only)
Mark Bush - Board Secretary
Sue Johns - Board Secretariat

(Paper FSA 03/02/01)

5. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 March at the Congress Centre, London were considered. These were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting, with the following amendment:

Paragraph 12 - in the eighth line delete the word 'to';.

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

Paragraph 16 - The report on the feasibility of investigating the possible long term effects of GM products, had not yet been published. When it was available the report would be discussed at a stakeholder meeting and then a summary of the report and outcome of the meeting would be circulated to the Board. Those Board members who wished to receive a copy of the full technical report in due course were asked to inform the Secretariat.

Action: Board members

Cadbury's 'Get Active' Promotion

7. The Chairman reported that the FSA had been approached by the media for a comment on the recently launched Cadbury’s 'Get Active' scheme. The FSA's response had been that 'We were not consulted about this scheme and did not endorse it, nor did we consider it desirable in terms of diet'. The FSA was concerned that a government department had endorsed the campaign without consultation with other departments that had an interest in encouraging healthy lifestyle and diets, including the FSA and the Department of Health. The FSA, in conjunction with other departments, was pursuing better co-ordination within government on healthy diet and lifestyle initiatives.

Over Thirty Month (OTM) Rule Review Update

8. The Chairman reminded Board members that a core stakeholder group had been reviewing the OTM rule, which currently stops older cattle entering the food chain, in the light of the declining incidence of BSE and the availability of post mortem tests. Following a public meeting on 7 March at which there was extensive and useful debate about the emerging conclusions from the review, a draft report had been agreed by the stakeholder group. The draft report was out to consultation at the moment and responses were due back by 20 June. So far approximately a dozen replies had been received. The Board would discuss this issue at its July meeting

Shellfish Toxins Update

9. The Chairman reminded Board members that two years ago the UK shellfish biotoxin monitoring programme had identified atypical responses to the DSP mouse bioassay in shellfish, particularly cockles. Mice used in the test had been affected unusually quickly. A programme of investigations had been put in place to find out what had caused the atypical responses and assess any implications for public health. However, until that investigation was completed the FSA was taking precautionary action to ensure that public health remained fully protected. There were three strands to the investigation.

10. The first aimed to get a standard method of analysis adopted throughout UK laboratories. Discussions had been held and a single standard protocol, that incorporated elements of best practice, would be used from the end of May 2003.

11. The second strand was concentrating on carrying out toxicological studies to establish the implications of the findings in mice for human health. This work was being progressed as fast as possible, but the work could not commence until a Home Office licence had been obtained for animal testing. It was hoped that everything would be in place for the work to be completed by the end of September 2003.

12. The third strand involved analytical studies to address uncertainties associated with the extraction procedures involved in the test, and to identify the compounds causing the atypical responses. Although the possibility that these responses were an artefact of the test method rather than the result of a toxin could not be ruled out, the FSA had concluded that a precautionary approach to the protection of public health was appropriate until the results of toxicological tests had been obtained. The situation had been further exacerbated because there was no standard test in use across Europe, although the mouse test was deemed to be the reference standard under EU legislation.

13. The Chairman intended to write to Commissioner Byrne urging early action to agree on a chemical testing method. Though the chemical compound was not yet identified, the laboratory hoped to complete the work by the end of August 2003. The analytical strand of the investigation was important since a chemical testing method would provide the most reliable method of identifying the toxin.

14. At the FSA's request Professor Yasumoto, the world expert in this field, had been invited to the UK to examine the DSP testing procedures. At a meeting held on 2 May with representatives of the UK industry, local authorities in England and Wales, the three monitoring laboratories and FSA officials, Professor Yasumoto indicated that he considered the atypical responses were more likely to be due to a toxin than an artefact of the analytical test procedures, and expressed his support for the planned toxicological work.

15. The Chairman of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) informed Board members that all algal toxins were of interest in Scotland. The differences in testing methods across the EU was also a concern. SFAC would be considering all the on-going work in this area at its July meeting

16. The Board asked to be kept informed of developments.

Action: Judith Hilton

SRM (Specified Risk Material) Breaches in Spanish Intervention Beef

17. The Chief Executive reported that since August 2002 twenty four consignments of imported Spanish intervention beef had breached SRM controls, with more than 120 quarters affected. These had all been reported to the Spanish authorities as well as to the European Commission in Brussels. Spanish officials had visited the UK in early April and had inspected some of the SRM breaches themselves. They had accepted there was a problem they needed to address and had told UK officials of extra checks that they would be putting in place. There were some early signs of improvement but the FSA had made it clear that if the extra inspections failed to solve the problem then the FSA would formally take up the matter with the Commission, which could ultimately lead to a ban on exports from the plants involved.

Welsh Language Scheme

18. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that the FSA had officially launched its Welsh Language Scheme in October 2002. The Agency was committed to the principle that the Welsh and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality. The FSA was currently reviewing its performance against the scheme and would report to the Welsh Language Board in the summer. Much had already been achieved. For example, the FSA published bilingual advertisements for all posts at FSA Wales, informed all new employees of the requirements of the scheme and Welsh language courses were provided for those who were interested. For open Board meetings and Welsh Food Advisory Committee meetings held in Wales all relevant papers were provided in both languages, with the exception of those that were of a highly technical nature. The report to the Welsh Language Board would be copied to Board members.

Action: Barbara Richards

The Chairman welcomed David Statham, Director of Enforcement and Food Standards Group to the table for the third item of the Chief Executive’s report.

UK Controls on Imported Food
(Paper INFO 03/05/03)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Sandra Walbran declared an interest as a Local Authority Enforcement Officer. Michael Walker declared an interest as a Public Analyst who earned fees from the analysis of imported foods. Sandra Walbran and Michael Walker participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

19. The Chief Executive introduced this item, and referred Board members to the paper that had been circulated to them on 2 May. The paper outlined plans to achieve the ‘step change’ on the enforcement of import controls that the FSA had agreed to implement in the current financial year, and against which the government would monitor progress. The additional funds to carry out the work had been secured and a new division dedicated to implementing the step change had been established by identifying and moving key personnel within the FSA. Recruitment to fill the vacancies left behind would follow as soon as possible. It had not been possible to schedule this issue as a regular Board discussion item for this meeting but he wanted to give the Board an opportunity to comment on the plans.

20. Board members welcomed the report and congratulated the Executive on the speed with which the new division had been set up and had started to implement the step change plan. There was some concern about the impact that moving staff resources from within the FSA would have on other priority areas of work. In response the Chief Executive pointed out that there had always been a branch dealing with this area but that the significantly enhanced work load had led inevitably to the need to increase the number of staff working in that area. Due to the urgent need to make progress it had not been feasible to recruit directly to the new division but every effort would be made to fill the vacancies that had been created elsewhere in the Agency as quickly as possible, though it had to be recognised that there might be some unavoidable delay to other work objectives. The FSA was also actively pursuing secondments from officials currently working in Port Health Authorities. Board members noted that there were possible resource implications for current local authority audit programme but were reassured that the staff transferred to work on imports would be replaced as quickly as possible.

21. Issues relating to the import of foods into the EU through border inspection posts were raised, as were personal imports. The quality of enforcement at the entry points in other member states and the UK was subject to inspection by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). The FVO published its reports after each inspection and were not slow to criticise where justified. The UK would continue to press for the current level of inspections to be maintained. The imminent enlargement of the EU represented a significant challenge to maintaining consistent standards at all the EU’s borders.

22. Some Board members noted that the paper mentioned the additional sampling and analysis work that would be generated as a result of the plan and asked whether there was the capacity to deliver within the strict six day turn round. In reply it was explained that not all the extra sampling and analytical work would be subject to the six-day deadline as some would be part of an extra surveillance project that was being set up. The FSA was in discussions with the Association of Public Analysts, the Health Protection Agency and local authority representatives to ensure that all testing would be undertaken in the timescales envisaged.

23. It was noted that the success of the step change plan depended on good communications and co-ordination. The Board was reassured that proper project management tools were in place to monitor progress and solve problems. In addition the Chairman expected to be on the Interdepartmental Ministerial Group that was to oversee all the strands of the import controls initiative, of which the FSA work was just one, and would therefore have an opportunity to raise any concerns that the FSA had at that level.

24. In response to comments by Board members, David Statham reminded the Board that responsibility for and action on personal imports lay with Customs and Excise and Defra. This included provision of information and sniffer dogs.

25. In summary the Chairman noted that the Board:

• endorsed the work that had been done already and requested regular oral updates, supplemented with the occasional note
• noted that the need to set up the team quickly could have short term implications for other FSA work
• asked to be kept informed about what other EU member states were doing in this field.

Action: Chief Executive

(Paper FSA 03/05/02)

(Prior to the discussion of this item Vernon Sankey declared an interest as Deputy Chairman of Beltpacker plc, a company that manufactures and supplies health care products including vitamins and minerals. Vernon Sankey did not participate in the discussion and determination of this issue.)

26. Diane Benford introduced the paper by explaining that the Expert Group had reviewed over 10,000 scientific references in an open and transparent manner, in the presence of stakeholder observers. The draft report had been published in August 2002 for public consultation, and had received over one hundred responses, which the Expert Group had reconvened to consider. The final report had been published on 8 May 2003. The FSA considered that it provided a sound scientific basis to support negotiations in Europe for regulations that would protect public health but not unnecessarily restrict consumer choice.

27. She reminded Board members that current FSA advice was that the vitamins and minerals most consumers needed could be obtained from eating a balanced diet although a few particular groups such as pregnant women could benefit from supplements. The Expert Group had been asked to consider the safety of vitamins and minerals. The Group had not been asked to consider the benefits. The report took account of the highest doses available in the UK but recognised that the majority of supplements contained lower doses. The advice identified vitamins and minerals that did not cause concern and others where consumer advice should be provided to avoid possible harm. It also identified three vitamin/mineral sources (two of which were not used in the UK) that, based on current evidence, should not be used. One of these, chromium picolinate, had already been the subject of a consultation on a possible ban, the outcome of which the Board was now being invited to comment on.

28. Board members welcomed the paper and the fact that the comprehensive study had been shared with equivalent food safety bodies in other European countries. They suggested that the report should also be sent to the Food and Drugs Administration in the US. However, Board members were concerned that the report’s complexity prevented it from being accessible to ordinary members of the public. They acknowledged that the information on the website was an excellent interpretation and very ‘user-friendly’ in style but felt that there was a need to explore other ways of communicating the main issues to consumers in addition. Board members agreed that where appropriate product labelling would be an important contribution and endorsed the discussions already underway with industry.

29. Board members noted that some consumers who were taking supplements to improve their health status could also be using other sources of vitamins and minerals (such as fortified foods). Members were informed that the advice on the FSA’s website referred to the possible implications of taking supplements on top of a balanced diet. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey had shown that most people in the UK obtain enough of the essential vitamins and minerals from their diet.

30. Board members noted that the expert committee considered that the evidence on chromium picolinate pointed to a potential carcinogenicity risk although the data was not conclusive. The Chief Executive therefore proposed, and the Board agreed, that the FSA should consult the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment for their advice, prior to the Board making a decision on whether this substance should be banned or not. In the meantime consumers should be warned of a potential risk associated with consuming this substance. Board members noted that if the recommendation on chromium picolinate was taken forward then a robust method of analysis would be needed. It was also pointed out that other forms of chromium supplements were available that did not raise health concerns.

31. Some Board members noted that some of the responses to the consultation had disagreed with certain Safe Upper Levels (SUL) and Guidance Levels (GL) that the expert group had set. They were informed however, that the Expert Group had considered all the relevant additional information that had been provided by respondents. Although much of this had dealt with health benefits or other points outside the remit of the Group. The report should therefore be considered to be a robust assessment of the current situation and provided a sound scientific base for future discussions in the EU.

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

• welcomed the report and noted that it had been sent to EU member states and would also go to the USA
• commended the style and accessibility of the website advice but noted the need to make the information more widely available,
• endorsed the proposal to seek enhanced product labelling
• endorsed the proposal on vitamin A
• agreed that the COM be consulted on chromium picolinate. Until that advice was available the FSA should advise consumers on a precautionary basis to avoid chromium picolinate. Other sources of chromium were available.
• requested an oral update in six months.

Action: Chief Executive

(Paper FSA 03/05/03)

33. Sue Hattersley introduced the paper by explaining that phytoestrogens were naturally occurring in plants - soya was a particularly rich source. The final report had now been published and the working group had looked at both the possible beneficial and adverse effects of phytoestrogens. The group had considered a large number of studies. However, it had to be recognised that, not least for ethical reasons, there were relatively few human studies and there were therefore uncertainties in extrapolating the findings of the animal studies to humans. Four potentially at risk groups had been identified: infants fed soya infant formula; infants with hypothyroidism; a foetus in utero; and women with oestrogen dependent cancers.

34. Board members welcomed the paper and the thorough report that supported it. They noted in particular the issue of soya based infant formula. There were now alternatives to this based on hydrolysed cows’ milk protein. This was a viable substitute for those infants who were intolerant to traditional formulae. Board members questioned who should be the recipient of the advice given that the majority of soya based formula, eighty percent, was used on prescription. Advice should therefore be aimed at doctors as well as consumers. Advice on the use of infant formula resided with the Department of Health (DH). The Chief Executive had therefore written to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) asking the DH to consider revising it’s guidance in the light of the reports findings.

35. Board members recognised the importance of research work and the need for more information on soya and children. Any consideration of further work should, however, be made in the context of the FSA’s overall research priorities. Work being carried out elsewhere also needed to be considered. There was already a considerable amount of work being taken forward, for example a major study on primates was being carried out in Edinburgh and was nearing completion. The FSA should await the outcome of this and other on-going work both in the UK and elsewhere before considering whether it was necessary to fund further work.

36. Summarising, the Chairman noted that the Board:

• welcomed the comprehensive report
• acknowledged the need to work closely with DH to ensure that doctors and consumers receive appropriate advice on the use of soya based infant formula
• asked that any decision to fund further research should take account of other commitments and work being undertaken elsewhere.

(Paper FSA 03/05/04)

37. Neil Martinson introduced the paper by reminding Board members that they had agreed in September 2002 that the FSA should undertake a programme of activities to assess consumer views on GM food, in the wider context of the government’s public dialogue. Several pieces of work had been undertaken, including a “Citizens’ Jury” and Schools video. In addition, the Agency’s annual consumer survey of some 3000 people provided 3 years data on trends in consumer attitudes on a range of food issues, including GM foods. Such large-scale surveys were good at indicating consumer overall views on an issue but were less helpful at providing more detailed information on the underlying reasons. This was especially true on GM foods. The FSA’s programme of activities had allowed those who would otherwise not have had an opportunity to make their voices heard to contribute their opinions, such as the young and disadvantaged groups. The FSA’s Consumer Committee had also commented on the various activities and their views were presented in paper FSA 03/05/04a.

38. This work would be reported to Ministers as the Agency’s contribution to the wider public dialogue on GM foods which was being taken forward at the moment. The key issues which it was proposed should be included in the report were summarised in Annex 7 and the Board was asked for its comments on these.

39. Board members welcomed the paper and commended the opportunity for people to engage in the process who otherwise would not normally have done so. The majority of the work had reinforced the fact that people wanted more information about the issue and that the biggest challenge the government faced was to identify ways of getting this information to people who needed it. The programme of activities had given participants an opportunity to hear a balance of evidence from a wide range of contributors, both “pro and anti”, and had served not only to highlight the complexity of the issue but also to demonstrate that people were able to assimilate complex information and make decisions on that basis. It was also clear that the public saw the issue in a wider context, and did not, for example, separate environmental concerns from food safety when considering ‘GM’.

40. Board members commented that a more formal evaluation of the Citizens’ Jury, including jury members’ views before and after their decision, and an indication of the level of confidence they had felt in making that decision, would have been useful in assessing the outcome. Likewise an indication of how or whether the views of the participants in the school video and schools’ debate were influenced as a result of learning more about the subject.

41. Board members also sought clarification on the amount of emphasis that should be given to the results of the work given the sample sizes. They were informed that the sample sizes were determined using established consumer research methods, and this included the work with young people and that carried out with consumers on low incomes in Scotland that was undertaken in conjunction with the Scottish Civic Forum. A full external evaluation of the FSA’s GM dialogue activities was being underway but had not been completed. This would be circulated to the Board when finished.

42. Board members noted that paper 03/05/04a, the views of the FSA’s Consumer Committee, was critical of the way the activities had been undertaken, and the fact that it had not been consulted before the work began. The Board noted that the programme had been drawn up in order to fit in with timetable for the public dialogue activities which were originally intended to have been completed by the end of June 2003. The Board acknowledged that the Consumer Committee should have been involved at an earlier stage and requested a note on lessons learned from the experience.

43. Board members considered Annex 7 and agreed that it provided a good summary of the issues. Some Board members suggested grouping the issues under three broad headings, for example:

• Consumer choice - how useful information could be provided for consumers including via practicable and enforceable labelling.
• Education - how to establish trust and provide information so that consumers could make sound judgements. A difficult matter when there are no clear right and wrong answers.
• Safety - including current safety assessments, long term effects and environmental aspects.

44. Some Board members raised specific points relating to Annex 7:

• the language used was a little too firm in places, it was important not to present qualitative work as if it were a statistically rigorous assessment.
• first bullet point ‘Consumer choice’: the final sentence needed to be more specific on whom the word ‘necessary’ referred to.
• fifth bullet point ‘Impact on the environment and biodiversity’: needed to recognise that the FSA had an interest in the effects of environmental pollution, to the extent that these affected food.
• sixth bullet point ‘Impact on developing countries’: the FSA did have a remit in relation to food imports from third countries which could have an impact here.

45. Board members agreed that it was the FSA’s task to advise the government on food safety aspects of GM. Advice had already been given on those crops which could be grown in the UK and that further applications for approval to grow crops would be handled on a case by case basis. However, the Chairman reminded Board members that the outcome of the activities discussed in this meeting and summarised in Annex 7 would not be the FSA’s only contribution to the GM dialogue. The FSA was also providing independent advice to the science strand of the government’s dialogue. The chairs of the FSA’s Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Practices (ACNFP) and the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeds (ACAF) were both members of the group and their Committees would be reviewing the outcome of the science strand and would provide independent expert advice on behalf of the FSA.

46. In summary, the Chairman noted that Annex 7 had captured the essential aspects of the FSA’s programme of activities. However a revised version should be drawn up to address the following points made by the Board:

• emphasise the lack of information available to the public
• consider grouping under three broad headlines: consumer choice, education and safety
• clarify the last sentence of the first bullet point
• re-consider the FSA’s remit in the last two bullet points

A revised version of Annex 7 would be circulated to Board members for comment before it was sent to Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for Defra, and copied to the Public Debate Steering Group. A report arising from the full evaluation of the Agency’s activities would also be circulated.

Action: Clair Baynton

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

Wales

47. The Chairman of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) reported that FSA Wales had been asked to lead on a food and well-being strategy for Wales. The strategy had been launched in February 2003 and the first implementation seminar had been chaired by WFAC member Rob Pickard which over 60 health professionals had attended. The next event already had more than one hundred participants signed up. Work on this strategy provided a good example of how Advisory Committee and Executive could work together effectively.

Scotland

48. The Chairman of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) informed Board members that he had attended a meeting on 6 May on the OTM Rule Review organised by Quality Meat Scotland. Debby Reynolds, FSA Veterinary Director, and Prof. Neil Ferguson, a member of the core stakeholder group, had also been present.

49. Following the recent elections to the Scottish Parliament, FSA Scotland would meet with the new ministers and relevant administrations when they were announced.

Northern Ireland

50. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) reported that the most recent meeting had discussed microbiological issues, Salmonella in particular, and included reference to the recent Food Safety Promotion Board Food Hygiene advertising campaign. Benefit had accrued from briefings on human and animal disease incidence. There was also a discussion on salt in the diet.

51. The Chairman reminded members that they were welcome to take up specific points with the author(s) of information papers.

52. There were no items of Any Other Business.

53. The next meeting would be held on 12 June 2003 in Londonderry.