Board meeting minutes: 12 June 2003

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

Officials attending:
Jon Bell - Chief Executive
Tom Murray - Head of Nutrition Division (item 4 only)
Judith Hilton - Head of Microbiological Safety Division (item 5 only)
Nick Tomlinson - Acting Head of Chemical Safety & Toxicology Division (item 6 only)
Mark Bush - Board Secretary
Keith Gregory - Board Secretary Designate
Sue Johns - Board Secretariat

1. Apologies had been received from Richard Ayre.

2. The Chairman noted that this was the last meeting Mark Bush would be attending as Board Secretary. He thanked Mark for his efforts over the last three years and wished him well in his new post. He welcomed Keith Gregory, who had recently been appointed as the new Board Secretary, to the table.

3. 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).

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

(Paper FSA 03/06/01)

5. Minutes of the meeting held on 8 May at the Marriott Hotel, Cardiff were considered. These were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.

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

• the imports control action plan would be circulated after the fourth meeting of the project board on 17 June
• the FSA’s input into the science strand of the government’s GM debate was to be commended
• the final paper on the FSA’s GM activities would be circulated to Board members prior to it being submitted to the Secretary of State, the Rt. Hon. Margaret Beckett MP and copied to Professor Malcolm Grant and the Public Debate Steering Group
• a report on how ethnic leaders have communicated the BSE in sheep messages to their communities had been circulated recently
• the Chairman had written to Commissioner Byrne requesting that testing methods for shellfish toxins be put on a more robust and scientific footing as soon as possible. As yet no response had been received. The Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) informed the Board that SFAC would be discussing shellfish toxins at their meeting in July and asked for an up to date briefing to be provided. The Home Office had still not issued a licence for the laboratory to carry out animal testing; Board members urged the Executive to do everything possible to expedite the approval.

Action: Judith Hilton

GM Debate - Continuing Correspondence
7. The Chairman informed Board members of recent correspondence from a group of eight organisations on the subject of the FSA’s GM activities. In particular, the correspondence had contended that the FSA had been “highly selective in its reported findings of its Citizens’ Jury”. They had also suggested that the “FSA was clearly guilty of bias and manipulation of the facts on GM issues”. The Chairman had made clear in his response that the FSA had been wholly open about the views of the Citizens’ Jury; the event had been webcast, the supporting briefing papers had been made available, and the press release reporting the Jury’s conclusions had been prepared and agreed by them as a fair representation of their views.

8. The eight organisations had also reiterated their criticism that the FSA’s activities had taken place outside the main public debate. However, the same eight organisations had now written to Margaret Beckett MP to complain about the conduct of that public debate.

Water and Added Protein in Chicken

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared an interest as a Public Analyst whose laboratory had taken part in the survey. Michael Walker participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

9. The Chief Executive reminded Board members of the recent media coverage of this issue. The FSA had carried out a survey, published in December 2001, that had uncovered the practice of adding protein to chicken to increase water retention and a prosecution had followed as a result. A second survey had shown that the practice was still an issue; in some cases the chicken samples had contained over fifty per cent water. This further survey had been carried out in conjunction with twenty local authorities, so that samples could be used as a basis for prosecution if necessary. The FSA was taking the matter very seriously and was due to meet the twenty local authorities on 20 June to encourage and support them in pursuing appropriate formal action in the UK. However, the only option currently open was to pursue contravention of labelling regulations.

10. The FSA had worked closely with Dutch and German enforcement authorities with some success; formal action had already been taken against five Dutch companies by the relevant authorities. The FSA was pressing the European Commission for tighter controls and the Commission had announced that it intended to propose more stringent labelling regulations. These proposals would require that the levels of water and the origin of non-chicken proteins be specified prominently in the name of the food. However, the FSA considered that the Commission proposals still did not go far enough. With the Board’s agreement the FSA would push for a maximum limit of fifteen per cent to be applied to added water. This level should reduce, or even eliminate, the need to add other protein to enhance the water retention capacity of the meat. However, the FSA also proposed to seek further restriction on the types of protein permitted.

11. As the legislative process could take some time, the FSA also proposed to call a stakeholder meeting, with consumer groups, industry and enforcers, to discuss other means of restricting this practice. Finally, as the recent media coverage had potentially led to some confusion regarding the current labelling requirements, the FSA would be writing to local authorities to clarify the current regulations and encourage wider enforcement.

12. Board members were pleased that further measures to control what they considered to be an unacceptable practice, which strongly disadvantaged consumers, were being proposed. They also acknowledged that their first response to the initial survey had been one of distaste and that, in concentrating on the labelling issues, they had lost focus on the real issue. Board members agreed, in principle, that given the length of time that the practice of adding water to chicken had been going on more urgent action was now necessary.

13. Board members noted that the greatest use of this type of chicken was in the food service/catering sector and that the majority of this meat came into the UK from other EU member states. The recent Panorama programme had also claimed that techniques for disguising the source of added proteins were being developed in Germany. This emphasised the importance of the FSA working closely with colleagues in the enforcement authorities of other member states, as well as pressing the European Commission to act. It was noted that that added water was only an issue for processed chicken portions.

14. Some Board members sought clarification on the choice of fifteen percent as the proposed limit. The Chief Executive explained that fifteen per cent was considered acceptable because between two to seven per cent water was absorbed during preparation and processing (plucking, washing and cooling). Furthermore, the main purpose of adding water was to compensate for loss on cooking (which was known on average to be around fifteen per cent) as some consumers found cooked chicken too dry and had expressed a preference for a more succulent end product. The proposed limit would therefore enable succulence to be retained, whilst preventing the excessive levels of added water highlighted in the FSA’s surveys. Michael Walker confirmed that it was analytically possible to distinguish the amount of added water from that naturally present and that a limit of fifteen per cent by weight would be enforceable. The Chief Executive also reminded Board members that in practice a fifteen per cent limit would mean that industry had to work to a somewhat lower level in order to ensure compliance.

15. Board members expressed some concern about the use of any protein in chicken products other than chicken. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that the proposed limit would reduce, if not eliminate, the need to add proteins to enhance water retention. Nevertheless he understood that consumers did not object to the use of milk or vegetable proteins. The Commission’s current labelling proposals would however require the source of any such protein to be specified prominently in the name of the food.

16. Board members agreed with the proposal to call a stakeholder meeting to discuss what immediate steps could be taken to address the issue. They also recognised that whilst the proposal to press for legislation to control the practice was the best approach, that process was likely to take some time to complete. Hence working with stakeholders (consumers, industry and enforcement authorities) was of paramount importance.

17. Some Board members raised questions about the detail and applicability of the proposals and the speed at which the decision was having to be made. Whilst other Board members noted that the Board was straying into the technicalities that were for the Executive to resolve. The Chief Executive offered to circulate a note that set out the reasons why fifteen per cent was being put forward as the proposed limit. The note would also consider the comments made by Board members in relation to the type of added protein to be prohibited and would include the line that the FSA proposed to put to the Commission. Board members would be given the opportunity to comment further prior to action being taken.
Action: Chief Executive/Rosemary Hignett (FLS)

18. The Chairman summarised the discussion. The Board:

• firmly reiterated their objections to the practice of adding water and non-chicken proteins to chicken
• agreed in principle that the matter should be taken up with the European Commission, and
• would comment further on the proposals prior to the Executive taking action.

SRM in Intervention Beef from Spain
19. The Chief Executive informed Board members that in April a Spanish delegation had visited a UK cutting plant at which some Spanish beef quarters (in which SRM had been found) were being held. As a result, the Spanish authorities had undertaken to strengthen their inspection arrangements but unfortunately improvements were not coming through as fast as the FSA would like and, since the visit, a further thirteen consignments had been rejected. These consignments also included carcasses showing evidence that spinal cord material may have been removed while the carcass was frozen. The problems appeared to be linked to certain Spanish slaughterhouses. As a result the Chief Executive had written to DG Sanco to demand more effective action to prevent these continuing breaches and as part of this action for the Food and Veterinary Office to be requested to carry out an urgent mission. The FSA had also contacted the Spanish food agency to express concern.

Future Consideration of Nitrofurans Testing
20. The Chief Executive explained that a recent decision by the European Commission to harmonise reporting limits for nitrofurans had meant that the UK needed to review its current procedures. UK laboratories were in the forefront of this work and could confidently report down to levels of 0.3 parts per billion (ppb). However, few laboratories in other member states could attain that level and so the Commission decision had set an minimum reporting limit of 1 ppb. Further advice from the Commission had been sought as the FSA had been previously advised to work to a limit as low as reasonably practicable (in analytical terms). The advice received had been that working to a limit of 1ppb allowed resources to be released for other food protection work. All other member states were now working to this level even where they had the capability to detect lower amounts. This had increasingly resulted in imports into the EC of products requiring testing being diverted to non-UK ports from where they could then enter the UK without further testing.

21. Nitrofurans were genotoxic carcinogens and, prior to accepting the new limit, officials had sought the advice of the chair of the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COC). On the advice of the chair of the COC, the Executive had accepted that raising the reporting limit from 0.3 to 1 ppb would not result in a meaningful change in the risk to consumer health. The Executive was therefore proposing, with the Board’s agreement, to move immediately to a reporting limit of 1 ppb.

22. In view of the urgent nature of the decision, Board members agreed that the final decision be taken by the Chairman or Acting Deputy Chairman acting on behalf of the Board. The Chief Executive agreed to circulate the advice from the chair of the COC and provide an information paper to the Board.
Action: Nick Tomlinson (CST)

First BSE Case in Canada
23. The Chief Executive reported that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency had confirmed that an eight year old animal had tested positive for BSE. The cow had not had any symptoms but had shown up as part of routine monitoring. At present, little else was known about the background to the case. The FSA was in contact with its Canadian counterparts, who had given assurance that all necessary steps had been taken to protect public health; for example the herd had been quarantined. The UK imported Canadian beef in very small amounts and this all needed to comply with current domestic BSE regulations.

(Paper FSA 03/06/02)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Robert Rees declared an interest as a caterer and General Governor of the British Nutrition Foundation. Robert Rees participated in the discussion and determination of this issue.]

24. Tom Murray introduced the paper by emphasising the importance of salt to health. Two years ago it had been decided to re-visit the advice of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) on salt in the diet issued in 1994 to Health Departments. The report from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) had been published on 15 May 2003. Salt in the diet was not just an issue for the UK but also for other European countries and the United States. The paper also covered the stakeholder meeting, chaired by the Chairman, that had been held following the publication of the report.

25. There were no simple solutions to the challenges that the report presented. However, the paper proposed challenging targets that would deliver a real reduction in salt levels in the diet within five years. Consumers needed to be informed about the dangers of consuming too much salt and that involved raising the public profile of salt as a health issue. It was essential to get industry involved, as consumers had no direct way to control levels of salt used in processed foods. The paper noted action already taken by some food industry sectors. Discussions with various sectors of industry were continuing. Action plans that would help to deliver significant salt reductions were being drawn up.

26. Board members welcomed the paper and endorsed the proposals, whilst recognising the significant challenge that achieving them presented. Some Board members noted that, though the COMA advice had been equally challenging, the reductions in the levels of salt had not materialised. The FSA’s approach of working with industry to promote best practice and achieve a real reduction was commended. The Chairman informed Board members of a series of discussions that he had been involved in with a range of industry stakeholders. In particular, J Sainsbury plc were talking to the FSA about a programme of salt reduction in a range of products. Board members also recognised the importance of the catering sector and commended the FSA’s plans to work closely with the British Hospitality Association to produce information sheets and run workshops.

27. Board members noted that the information currently provided on labels was often confusing, for example, with the amount of salt present frequently being expressed by weight only. A clear indication of the contribution that a product made towards the total recommended daily allowance, for all age groups, would allow consumers to make informed choices. This was already incorporated in the action plan on food labelling.

28. Board members noted that the report put considerable emphasis on the importance of getting the message across to children and suggested that efforts should be made to reach schools. It was important not only to educate children about the need to control the amount of salt that they consumed, but also to encourage those responsible for school catering to reduce the levels of salt in the food they prepared. Board members supported the proposal in the paper that local authorities should be encouraged to consider the latter when negotiating new contracts with their suppliers.

29. Some Board members noted that the SACN report set out specific research recommendations that were not included in the paper. The FSA needed to work closely with the Department of Health to continue to strengthen the evidence base. Officials confirmed that the FSA’s quarterly Research Requirements Document would shortly invite bids for a programme of research work.

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

• supported the programme of work, the manner in which it was being developed and agreed the targets set,
• emphasised the importance of labelling, in particular the need for clarity with regard to the contribution to daily intake,
• noted the research programme that had been put in place to develop the evidence base,
• noted the importance of working with industry and with education authorities,
• noted the importance of working with other European members states and internationally; and
• requested regular oral updates and a written report in twelve months.

(Paper FSA 03/06/03)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Robert Rees declared an interest as a caterer. Robert Rees participated in the discussion and determination of this issue.]

31. Judith Hilton introduced the paper by explaining that it reviewed the first two years of work to reduce the incidence of foodborne disease in the UK by twenty per cent over five years. In particular, the paper highlighted the main activities that had taken place, which included the promotion of HACCP to the food industry, especially SMEs. A project management board regularly monitored progress and supervised the programme of work; a consumer consultative group met every six months.

32. There had been encouraging progress towards the target during the last two years, the total reduction observed so far had been thirteen per cent, though this should be treated with caution as the incidence could rise as quickly as it had fallen. However, of particular note was the real reduction in the incidence of Campylobacter.

33. Board members welcomed the paper and the reduction of incidence observed over the last two years but noted that it was too early to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the various programmes of activities being employed. Some Board members also noted that the second half of any target was frequently more difficult to attain. Some Board members questioned the connection between the total number of cases reported in 2000 and the FSA’s baseline figure. In response it was explained that the Health Protection Agency (HPA) figure for overall levels of illness was based on the same laboratory reports used to provide the FSA's baseline figure but data from the Infectious Intestinal Disease Study was then used to provide an estimate for the total number of cases. Officials also confirmed that the work of the former Public Health Laboratory Service was being monitored carefully following its transfer into the HPA, though an undertaking had been secured to ensure that the level of service remained constant.

34. Board members welcomed the progress made with the implementation of HACCP schemes in the manufacturing industry but noted that it needed to be rolled out across the whole food industry. However, they acknowledged that the implementation of HACCP across the catering sector was being handled separately.

35. Some Board members asked whether the incidence of Listeria cases should be given a higher profile due to the number of reported deaths and previous work that had highlighted pregnant women and the elderly as vulnerable groups. It was pointed out however that though Listeria was a serious problem there were actually more recorded deaths due to Salmonella. There was also evidence to show that since the publicity to raise awareness of pregnant to the risk posed, the problem had diminished.

36. Some Board members made mention of the reference to manure guidelines in page 53 of Annex 1. Officials explained that the guidance was for farmers and growers as there was a risk that manure might contain pathogens that could potentially contaminate fresh produce.

37. Summarising, the Chairman noted that the Board:

• was cautiously optimistic about the progress made so far towards the target; and
• requested regular oral updates and a written report in twelve months.

(Paper FSA 03/06/04)

38. Nick Tomlinson introduced the paper by reminding Board members that they had previously recognised that whilst levels of pesticide residues typically found in food were not a food safety concern consumer preference was for food that did not contain residues. The paper outlined the action plan, a full version of which would come back to the Board in December 2003.

39. Board members welcomed the paper and noted that, at present, there was little information by which the consumer could identify foods produced in ways that were likely to minimise pesticide residues. The Pesticides Safety Directorate’s (PSD) website was very informative but not necessarily easily accessible to all. It would be beneficial if the FSA website were to be linked to the PSD one or information put on the FSA site. Board members noted that pesticides were an area of cross-department responsibility; PSD took the lead but both the FSA and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had an active interest.

40. Board members noted the need to identify a baseline against which meaningful targets could be set and progress measured. The FSA was putting pressure on the Pesticides Residues Committee (PCR) to establish a baseline and was working with statisticians to see whether old data, including that provided by industry, could be used. Some Board members sought clarification on the relationship between maximum residue levels (MRL) and safety limits. The acceptable daily intake (ADI) of a pesticide was based on toxicological data. The MRLs were based on residue levels typically found in crops when the pesticide in question was applied in accordance with good agricultural practice. The MRLs were not thenselves safety limits, although a check was made to ensure that proposed MRLs did not lead to the ADI being exceeded. FSA policy was to minimise residue levels in foods.

41. Board members noted that the paper reported approaches adopted by individual retailers and asked whether this could be translated to retailers more generally. The process was still in its infancy and it was too early to tell whether approaches adopted by individual retailers could be made more generic. There was also evidence to suggest that other retailers were working in this area and were exerting pressure on the producers to reduce levels. Currently consumers had a choice between organically produced foods and those produced using conventional methods. The approaches being proposed would bridge the gap and enable consumers to identify produce grown by farmers who had taken steps to minimise pesticide residues.

42. In summary, the Chairman noted that the Board:

• supported the outline action plan; and
• agreed to consider the full action plan in December 2003.

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

Northern Ireland
43. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) highlighted the recent launch of the ‘Eat Safe’ award scheme and thanked colleagues in COMS Division for their advice.

44. He reported that NIAC planned to meet with the Advisory Committee of the Food Safety Promotion Board (FSPB) in Armagh in September. This followed on from a most constructive meeting between FSPB, Food Safety Authority Ireland (FSAI) and FSA Northern Ireland.

Wales
45. The Chairman of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) reported that the Agrifood partnership in Wales had commissioned a survey of food businesses that had produced some useful information on HACCP across all sectors.

Scotland
46. The Chairman of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) informed Board members that he would be attending the Royal Highland Show the following week. FSA Scotland’s activities would include a stall featuring aspects of hygiene in the home and the popular ‘Recipe for Success’ event.

AOB

47. There were no items of Any Other Business.

Date of Next meeting

48. The next meeting would be held on 10 July 2003 in London.