Board meeting minutes: 10 July 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

Officials attending:

Jon Bell, Chief Executive
Debby Reynolds, Veterinary Director (item 4 only)
Ann Goodwin, Head of Local Authority Enforcement Division (item 5 only)
Tim Foster, Head of Meat Hygiene Division (item 6 only)
Keith Gregory, Board Secretary
Sue Johns, Board Secretariat

1. Apologies had been received from Sandra Walbran.

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 03/07/01)

4. Minutes of the meeting held on 12 June at the Everglades Hotel, Londonderry were considered. These were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to the following amendments:

• Paragraph 23 – in the final sentence delete the words ‘did not’
• Paragraph 27 – in the first sentence delete the words 'and meaningless, with' and replace with ', for example'
• Paragraph 33 – finish the second sentence at ‘attain’
• Paragraph 44 – in the first sentence delete the word ‘Protection’ and replace with 'Promotion'.

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

• The information note on the harmonisation of reporting limits for nitrofurans had been circulated to the Board on 9 July
• The final draft of the submission due to be sent to Defra Ministers, copied to Professor Malcolm Grant, on the FSA's GM activities would be circulated to the Board shortly for comment

Action: Secretariat

Paragraph 12 of the minutes referred to the practice of adding water and protein to chicken as “unacceptable” and requested that a list of other practices that might invoke a similar response be drawn up
Action: David Hart

The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee asked whether there had been any progress in setting a date for all the devolved Advisory Committees to meet.
Action: Secretariat

Atypical Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) in Shellfish
6. The Chairman informed Board members of recent developments. FSA officials had met with Home Office (HO) inspectors on 24 June to discuss the process of securing a HO licence for the laboratory conducting the toxicology study. A mechanism for securing the licence had been identified and was actively being followed up. The FSA had prepared a decision table outlining a systematic approach which involved a series of experiments intended to answer specific questions that would help with risk assessment and decision making. Provided the licence was issued promptly, the results of the toxicological studies would be complete by the end of September.

7. The Chairman also informed Board members that he had written to Commissioner David Byrne on 9 May to press for urgent action at EU level to help resolve matters relating to DSP testing methods. In his response, Mr Byrne had said that the mouse test remained the best test for identifying toxins because it covered the entire range of known toxins. He also accepted that a move towards analytical methods, for example liquid chromatography – mass spectrometry (LC-MS), or in vitro methods, would be preferable in the long term.

8. Following Professor Yasumoto’s visit to the UK to observe the DSP testing procedures giving rise to the atypical responses, the FSA had agreed to arrange for bulk samples of cockles giving atypical responses to be sent to Japan for testing. The Shellfish Association of Great Britain and its members had been informed that officials had written to Professor Yasumoto to clarify arrangements for delivery of bulk samples for analysis, and that a response was awaited to help answer some practical questions about the arrangements. A response had been received recently and a meeting was to be held with all parties to agree the details.

9. Finally, the Chairman reported that on 22 and 29 June the Sunday Telegraph had carried articles on the monitoring programmes for biotoxins and shellfish hygiene. Both contained a number of factual inaccuracies. Dr Andrew Wadge, Acting Director of Food Safety Policy, had written a letter correcting the inaccuracies; this had been published on 6 July. Dr David Lees at the Centre for the Environment, Fisheries and Aquatic Science (CEFAS), the laboratory undertaking much of the work, had also written in response.

Chief Medical Officer’s (CMO) Annual Report
10. The Chairman informed Board members of the recently published CMO’s annual report. A key area of relevance to the FSA was obesity. Whilst Health Departments had lead responsibility in this area, the FSA had lead responsibility for advice on diet. The report had included a specific reference to the role of the FSA, namely that it '…should examine options for reducing overweight and obesity through action to improve transparency in food labelling, improved consumer information on issues such as portion size and snacks, and alert consumers to the risks of regular consumption of foods high in calories, fat and sugars'.

Harmonisation of Reporting Limits for Nitrofurans
11. The Chairman reminded Board members that, at the previous meeting, they had delegated responsibility to him and the Acting Deputy Chairman for deciding whether it was appropriate to raise the reporting limits for nitrofurans. The Chairman of the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COC) had been asked to advise whether raising the limit from 0.3 to 1ppb would adversely affect public health. His judgement had been that changing the UK reporting level from 0.3ppb to 1ppb for nitrofurans would not result in a meaningful change in risk to consumers.

12. The opinion had taken into account that only about 0.5 percent of the chicken samples analysed following import from outside the EU now contained nitrofurans at concentrations between 0.3 to 1.0ppb and it was, therefore, highly unlikely that consumers would regularly eat chicken contaminated at this level. In addition, of the five hundred consignments analysed since March, none had exceeded 0.3ppb. In response to enquiries from some Board members, the Chairman noted that, with the exception of testing of chicken imported from Thailand (the testing rates for which would shortly be reduced from one hundred percent to twenty percent), testing rates would remain the same.

Update on Salt in the Diet
13. The Board had considered the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) report on Salt and Health on 12 June. During the discussion, FSA officials had reported that discussions with industry to encourage reduction in salt levels in processed foods were on-going. The Chairman briefly summarised and gave some examples of progress in discussions with:

• J Sainsbury plc, which was aiming to firm up a strategy by the end of July
• Asda, which had already implemented a range of 'benchmarks' for salt levels in a limited selection of processed foods within its healthy eating range
• British Retail Consortium (BRC), which had requested that the FSA set 'benchmarks' for a range of processed food
• British Hospitality Association (BHA), which was aiming to increase awareness in the catering sector.

14. The FSA would also publish the results of a survey of salt content in a range of foods, including sausages, pizzas and burgers.

Technetium-99 in Farmed Salmon
15. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that in February 2003 Greenpeace had published the results of a small survey of farmed salmon. This had shown that all the samples taken had contained low levels of this man-made isotope, although they acknowledged that the levels found were not a threat to public health. Technetium-99 did not occur naturally, but was discharged by Sellafield into the Irish Sea as a by-product of Magnox fuel reprocessing. The FSA had been aware that the isotope had been found in lobsters caught in the Irish Sea.

16. The FSA and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) had subsequently carried out their own survey of salmon obtained from fourteen farms in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland. The sampling sites varied in distance from Sellafield. Seventeen samples had been analysed, all of which had contained extremely low levels of technetium-99 and which therefore gave no cause for concern with respect to public health. Defra Ministers had recently written to British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) at Sellafield asking them to consider a moratorium on the release of technetium-99. The Board supported this action. The Chief Executive would circulate a note in response to a question from one Board member on what work had been done to establish whether wild salmon had been similarly affected by the spread of technetium-99 from Sellafield.
Action: Richard Burt

SRM in Intervention Beef from Spain
17. The Chief Executive informed Board members that, despite the visit in April of a Spanish delegation, SRM was still being found in Spanish intervention beef. As a result, he had written to Robert Coleman, Director-General DG SANCO at the European Commission, on 9 June. He had reminded the Director-General of the background, expressed great concern at the continuing breaches and requested that the Commission services take effective action to investigate the continuing problem, including sending a Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) mission to Spain. Since that date, there had been a further eight breaches.

18. Robert Coleman had since replied and had agreed that the issue of SRM in Spanish intervention beef would be taken into account in the next FVO mission to Spain. His letter also indicated that the Commission had written to all Member States’ Chief Veterinary Officers and that the matter would be discussed at the next Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, on 15/16 July. He requested that the UK provide all the information it held on this matter to that meeting. He also urged the Chief Executive to write again, should the problem persist.

Added Water in Chicken
19. The Chief Executive reminded Board members of the information paper that had been circulated. The paper had been published on the FSA website. In the light of Board members’ comments, the Acting Deputy Chair had agreed, on behalf of the Board, that the FSA should press at EU level for restrictions on the use of non-poultry proteins in poultry products and for a maximum limit of fifteen percent to be set for the total amount of water that may be added to such products.

20. On 30 June, FSA officials had met with the local authorities that were considering taking legal action and had offered support. A letter had been sent to the German authorities who were investigating the company highlighted in the Panorama programme as developing techniques for disguising the source of added proteins. The FSA would be informed of the outcome of the investigation.

21. FSA officials had met with the British Poultry Council (BPC) on 3 July to discuss the proposals that were to be put to the Commission. They had been supportive of the FSA's stance on proteins from an animal source but had requested that milk and soya proteins should be allowed. They had also requested that the proposed limit for added water be twenty percent. The FSA had noted their comments.

22. The Consumer Committee had discussed food authenticity at its open meeting in June and had asked whether the FSA intended to push for changes in legislation on water added to chicken. Members had felt strongly that a fifteen percent limit for added water was too high. Some felt that there should be a complete ban and were not convinced by the argument that the proposal maintained consumer choice in terms of succulence. Committee members had not at that stage seen the information note that had been circulated to the Board, although that note had subsequently been made available. The FSA had noted the Committee’s comments.

23. The Chief Executive had written to Robert Coleman (DG SANCO, European Commission) on 8 July asking for additional controls to be considered on these lines. The Commission had pressed for an early letter from the FSA as they were in the process of reviewing the current labelling regulations.

(Paper FSA 03/07/02)

24. The Chairman informed Board members that, as he had chaired the Core Stakeholder Group (CSG), he would hand over the chair for this item to the Acting Deputy Chairman, allowing him to participate in the discussion as Chairman of the CSG.

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Gibson declared a material interest as a butcher and primary producer. The Acting Deputy Chairman considered that Michael Gibson should not participate in the discussion and determination of this issue. Chrissie Dunn declared an interest as a director of a meat marketing company. The Acting Deputy Chairman considered that Chrissie Dunn should be permitted to participate in the discussion and determination of the issue.]

25. The Acting Deputy Chairman welcomed Dr Debby Reynolds to the table and congratulated her and other officials involved in the production of an excellent and thorough paper. She then reminded Board members of the background to this issue. The need to review the over thirty months (OTM) rule had been with the FSA since its inception. A review in December 2000 had recommended leaving the controls in place until cases of BSE had declined further, when a full review should be conducted. The Board had been advised that sufficient data would be available by May 2002 to conduct this full review. The Board had been updated on the review’s progress in November 2002 and again in March and May 2003. The primary role of the Board at this meeting was to take note of the CSG’s findings and to consider, bearing in mind the remit to protect public health, whether the recommendation to replace the OTM rule by testing was now justified.

26. Debby Reynolds introduced the paper by reminding Board members of the core functions of the FSA in this discussion to consider food safety and the risk to public health associated with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). The FSA was also required to take into account the proportionality of any controls imposed in the management of those risks. Paragraph 22 of the paper concerned the Board’s advice to Ministers on whether to make a change to the OTM rule. Paragraphs 42 and 43 of the paper were key, as they reflected the concerns of many of the consultation respondents about the practicality of moving away from the OTM rule to testing. The preferred option was set out in paragraph 39 of the paper; to replace the OTM rule by BSE testing in a way that was based on appropriate risk assessment and that was both practical and proportionate.

27. The Acting Deputy Chairman invited Professor Andrew Miller to summarise the discussion of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC). Prof. Miller reported that SFAC had agreed that the rule should be changed and testing introduced, provided that the new testing regime was sufficiently robust to cope with the volume of work. SFAC had also suggested that the testing regime should be subject to a full pilot scheme.

28. SFAC had noted that the modelling that had been used had only taken account of one type of vCJD and that there might be other strains that might affect other genotypes. SFAC had accepted that there was no evidence of other variants, but considered there was a need for careful monitoring to be in place.

29. SFAC had also considered the issue of birth date and had preferred October 1998, when in their view the traceability system had been strengthened. SFAC had considered that an increased degree of certainty about the origin of any individual animal would give rise to a greater degree of consumer confidence. However, they had acknowledged that the actual additional risk, as predicted by the modelling, was not significant. On a related matter of consumer confidence, SFAC had also expressed concern about the issue of casualty cattle. In their view, there was a need to establish where and how such cattle had died before they were allowed to enter the food chain.

30. The Acting Deputy Chairman invited Michael Walker to summarise the discussion of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC). NIAC had considered the issue at its open meeting on 2 July. There had been broad agreement to the proposals. NIAC members had thought the key questions for most consumers would be what extra risk would be incurred by changing the rule, and why change that rule if it had been shown to work. If these concerns were to be dispelled, messages had to be communicated carefully, and some concern had been expressed that the current timescale for making these changes did not appear to allow sufficient time for this.

31. During the discussion, NIAC members had also raised a range of other issues. They had felt that the amount of consideration given to financial costs had appeared unseemly, although the issue of proportionality had been recognised and accepted. The technical issue of stunning and the dispersal of brain emboli had been raised, and members had asked to be assured that work in this area was being undertaken. (The Veterinary Director confirmed that research was being undertaken in this area.) The use of food labelling to provide consumers with information about the age of the beef animal had also been raised and attracted a variety of views. Finally, members had noted that Northern Ireland had adopted a cattle tracking system in 1988, now EU approved. The system ensured cohort cattle could be traced quickly, hence moving to a situation with no date restrictions could be more easily implemented than for GB.

32. The Acting Deputy Chairman invited Board members to make general comments on the paper. Board members commended the paper and the process that had led to the present discussion, in particular the stakeholder meetings that had started, and then had helped to inform, the process. Board members were content with the basic principle of moving to testing. However, they raised concerns about the proposal to allow casualty cattle into the food chain, not least because the CSG had recommended that OTM casualties be excluded. If casualty cattle were to be included, Board members sought further clarification on what exactly was acceptable. For example, were those cattle thought to be suffering from neurological symptoms to be allowed into the food chain? Like SFAC members, there was concern about consumer confidence if this were to be taken forward. In addition, some Board members expressed further concern that beef from casualty cattle might enter the food chain illegally.

33. The Veterinary Director explained that casualty cattle were those that were slaughtered on farm following an accident, those that arrived at the slaughterhouse injured, or were found to have certain abnormalities on ante-mortem inspection. In these circumstances the beef would not be allowed into the food chain until it had been cleared by testing, the same as for healthy cattle. She assured Board members that fallen stock, as opposed to casualty animals, would continue to be excluded from the food chain. Likewise, those suspected of suffering from neurological symptoms would be treated as 'BSE-suspect' and would not be allowed into the food chain.

34. The Chairman reminded Board members that the CSG had carried out a thorough review and that, whilst there was always more that could be done, the CSG had been satisfied that the recommendations put forward did not significantly increase the risk to public health. The consultation process had raised the issue of the practicality of excluding OTM casualty cattle. It had been right to address this in the recommendations, not least to avoid the increased incentive to circumvent any controls, with the possibility this might lead to unfit - and untested - meat entering illegal trade, with public health implications.

35. The CSG had been advised by the Risk Assessment Group (RAG), chaired by Peter Smith, Chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). There had been considerable uncertainty about the likely total numbers of vCJD deaths in the epidemic. However, because the numbers suffering from vCJD were much smaller than had originally been estimated, the RAG now considered five thousand to be a pessimistic estimate. Two of the respondents to the consultation had alluded to the modelling, suggesting the estimate might be too conservative and questioning how, if there were to be a second wave of disease (a second ‘genotype’), the modelling would apply. It was acknowledged that forty percent of the UK population belonged to the first wave genotype. The Chairman commented that the logical assumption was that the first wave would involve the most susceptible, hence any subsequent waves would be expected to involve smaller numbers of people. As further assurance of the validity of the modelling work, the Chairman reminded Board members that it had now been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

36. Paragraphs 23 and 26 of the paper dealt with the proposed cut off birth date for the reintroduction of OTM cattle into the food chain. The CSG had concluded that two options for replacing the OTM rule should be considered, one of which was allowing animals born after August 1996 into the food chain. Some consultation respondents (like SFAC members) had suggested an alternative date of October 1998. Some Board members enquired whether there was a significant advantage to be gained in moving to the later date. The Chairman noted that the CSG had considered this point at length. The main argument which had been put forward for moving to an October 1998 date was that traceability measures were increased at that time. The CSG had therefore spent a session hearing evidence from, and interrogating, the Head of the British Cattle Movement Service about their passport system. He explained that although the overall accuracy had improved between August 1996 and October 1998, that improvement had not amounted to a step change. Most of the errors in recording the birth date were in the order of a day or two. However, it was important to remember that the CSG had concluded that, on public health grounds, there was no need for any birth cut off date. Dentition checks would provide an additional check to ensure all OTM cattle were properly identified and thus tested for BSE.

37. Some Board members enquired whether the laboratory testing facilities were capable of being expanded quickly enough to respond to the demand and asked whether a pilot scheme would be carried out. They also questioned whether the test was itself robust and accurate enough and if there was anything that could be learnt from other EU Member States that already employed a testing regime. Officials from the UK had already carried out a series of visit to other EU Member States. The EU had already approved five rapid tests for use and across the whole of Europe nine million tests had been carried out last year. The information gleaned from that data not only gave confidence in the robustness of the test itself but also allowed lessons on implementation to be drawn. From these visits, and the experience of other Member States operating a testing regime, it was clear that instructions for testing in the UK would have to be tight and prescriptive, particularly in the initial stages. The scheme would be thoroughly monitored; an independent review commissioned by the FSA would provide monthly updates and a final, more comprehensive report would be made after six months.

38. Paragraph 51 of the paper referred to the impact on public expenditure costs. Some Board members enquired whether there would be sufficient funds available to ensure that the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was able to carry out their new duties. The FSA Chief Executive had written to the Permanent Secretary of Defra about the need for extra resources, who had agreed in principle that the extra resources could come from the savings that Defra would make.

39. The father of a young man who was dying of vCJD had contacted the FSA. He had mentioned research currently underway on a possible new test for cattle that involved the vagus nerve and had asked if the FSA was aware of this work. The Veterinary Director agreed to come back to the Board with further information on this research.

Action: Debby Reynolds

40. The Acting Deputy Chairman summarised the main points raised in the discussion and the Board’s conclusions. Because of the need for effective implementation of the proposed changes, the FSA would advise Ministers not to make any changes to the OTM rule until they were satisfied that the necessary preparations had been made by the relevant Government departments, industry and other agencies throughout the UK. The Board:

• noted the core stakeholder group report and the responses to the consultation (paragraphs 19 to 21 of the paper and Annexes 2 and 4);
• requested reports back on testing results and any implications for the review (see paragraph 14 of the paper);
• agreed that a move to replacing the OTM rule by testing would now be justified (paragraph 22 of the paper);
• agreed that there would be no significant advantage in adopting a birth-date later than August 1996 in terms of enhanced consumer safety, and significant disadvantages in terms of proportionality (paragraph 26 of the paper);
• accepted that the option of replacing the OTM rule completely by testing at the earliest from January 2004, although acceptable in terms of risk and proportionality, would not be feasible because of the cohort cull requirement (paragraph 30 of the paper);
• agreed that OTM casualty cattle be allowed into the food supply subject to BSE testing (paragraph 36 of the paper), but noted that there was a need to proceed with caution and carry out further work to clarify the definition of “casualty cattle”;
• agreed that, on grounds of proportionality and practicality, a 2-stage approach (an August 1996 rule from January 2004 at the earliest moving to complete replacement from no earlier than July 2005) was the preferred option for replacing the OTM rule with BSE testing (paragraph 39 of the paper);
• noted that the Board would be kept informed of progress in implementing arrangements for testing, vertebral column removal and improving the reliability of the cattle tracing system (see paragraph 41 of the paper);
• agreed that the 6-months post-implementation audit be put to open competition and the draft terms of reference for this work (see paragraph 42 of, and Annex 5 to, the paper); and
• agreed that the application of the OTM rule to imports should be discontinued (paragraph 50 of the paper).

(Paper FSA 03/07/03)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared a material interest as a Public Analyst who earns fees from the analysis of Local Authority samples. The Chairman considered that Michael Walker should not participate in the discussion and determination of this issue.]

41. Ann Goodwin introduced the paper by reminding Board members of the value of food sampling; not only did it play an important role in the protection of public health, but it also provided confidence to consumers on the accuracy of food labelling. There was, however, a variation in the levels of food sampling across LAs that had been highlighted in data monitoring collection and the FSA auditing of LAs. This study had been commissioned to find out the reasons for this variation and looked at fifteen LAs, three Public Analysts and one Health Protection Agency (HPA) laboratory. The study had uncovered a range of issues; there were variations in levels of sampling at businesses; LAs would like guidance on sampling rates; there was no national co-ordinated sampling activity and there was inconsistent up-take of microbiological analysis at the HPA laboratory. In addition, the study had found that lack of staff, and the low penalties imposed by some courts, were discouraging some LAs from taking formal action.

42. In response to the findings, the FSA was already working on a range of initiatives. For example, the FSA and Local Authorities’ Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) had established a joint working group to look at certain priority sampling issues, that included producing guidance for LAs on the approach to sampling of high risk food businesses and developing co-ordinated sampling programmes. Other initiatives included sharing good practice, benchmarking food sampling levels by LA type, producing a UK-wide sampling database and working alongside the Magistrates Association to improve information about penalties.

43. Board members welcomed the paper and commended the draft report. They noted that, as a result of staff shortages, more informal samples were being taken. They also noted the problem of low penalties and enquired whether, in conjunction with the lack of formal samples, this might lead to a decrease in the number of prosecutions being taken. Informal samples were useful in gathering information and were used to direct where formal samples should be taken. The FSA had been working closely with the Magistrates Association (MA) to identify ways to inform its members.

44. Some Board members enquired whether the profile of food sampling within local government needed to be raised and asked what was being done to address the variation in competency between LAs that had been evident in the report. The paper reflected the joint concerns of the FSA and LACORS; part of which was an awareness of the need to raise the profile of food sampling. A training video was currently being prepared taking into account advice received from HPA and public analysts, one benefit of which would be the development of a national standard.

45. The national database, which was currently being piloted, had been developed from one already in use in Scotland and at present only included microbiological samples. It was intended that this would be expanded to include food samples for chemical analysis in due course and would be rolled out across the country. The roll out would include Border Inspection Posts so that data on imports from third countries would also be collated.

46. Summarising, the Chairman noted that the Board:

• had agreed that the planned FSA action be taken forward; and
• requested regular updates on progress.

(Paper FSA 03/07/04)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Iain MacDonald, Valerie Howarth, Michael Gibson and Robert Rees declared an interest as, respectively, 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. The Chairman considered these were not material interests and that Iain MacDonald, Valerie Howarth, Robert Rees, Chrissie Dunn and Michael Gibson should be permitted to participate in discussion and determination of this issue.]

47. Tim Foster introduced the paper by reminding Board members that the MHS performed a key public service. Of the thirteen targets that had been set for the MHS last year, eleven had been met and the MHS was to be congratulated on this. The MHS had not met its target on enforcing the hygiene requirements or the target of operating within its delegated budget. The Director of Enforcement and Food Standards had had to authorise an overspend of £2 million (not £25 million as referred to in line 5 of paragraph 10 of the paper).

48. The Chairman noted that the Meat Hygiene Advisory Committee (MHAC) had considered the report thoroughly at its meeting in June. He invited the Chairman of MHAC to comment. MHAC had welcomed the fact that eleven targets had been met and had also welcomed the remedial action that had been taken in relation to the hygiene target. MHAC had expressed some concern that the finance target had been missed, but had been reassured by the steps taken by the FSA Executive and MHS to address this. Paragraph 15 of the paper set out the timetable for the new outcome based targets to be set for the MHS for 2004/05; a paper from MHAC detailing those issues would come to the Board in due course.

49. The Chairman of the FSA Audit Committee informed Board members that, in the context of the accounts, the Audit Committee had been keeping this matter under review. There remained concern that the charging regime meant that the MHS was unable to recover all its costs and so the issue would not necessarily go away. The FSA Chief Executive acknowledged that the MHS had been under pressure, due to the regime in which it had to operate. However there was still an obligation on it to control its costs.

50. Board members welcomed the paper. Some Board members noted that there was some ambiguity over the role of MHAC and responsibilities it shared with the Board. There was a need to clarify the roles before this issue returned next year. The Chief Executive informed Board members that, following discussion with the Chairman, the Deputy Chair and the Chairman of MHAC, he had agreed to put in place a review of the roles and relationships between the MHS, MHAC and the FSA. This would mesh in with two other reviews that he had already set in train: a critical look at the functions of the MHS, and a look at the scope for improving MHS efficiency in carrying out its responsibilities and functions. He had asked the Chief Executive of the MHS to take responsibility for the latter. The reviews had been triggered by concerns that the shortfall would otherwise increase; they would provide the Board with information on which to judge where the FSA budget would go. One Board member drew attention to the fact that the Maclean scheme, that dealt with the inspection of small slaughterhouses, was costly and could be viewed as an industry support function, which was not a core FSA function.

51. One Board member was concerned that the MHS had already been subject to extensive review and that the current proposals would cover the same ground. The Chief Executive stressed that it was not the intention to duplicate work already done: the reviews would, where relevant, draw on and add to previous reviews in this area.

52. Some Board members suggested that future targets be prioritised; in particular those that should not be missed should be more clearly identified. The Chief Executive welcomed the suggestion.

53. The Chairman summarised the discussion and the Board:

• noted the steps being taken to try to avoid similar targets being missed in 2003/04, and the need to look at all other options if those steps failed;
• noted that the MHS had succeeded in meeting its other high level targets for 2002/03;
• noted that performance against targets would be published on the FSA website, and in the MHS Annual Report and Accounts for 2002/03 which would be laid before Parliament;
• noted it would have the opportunity to consider a planned change to outcome-based targets for 2004/05 and beyond at its meeting in December; and
• welcomed the reviews initiated by the Chief Executive.

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

Wales
54. The Chairman of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) referred to the information paper on the Welsh Language Scheme. The paper demonstrated that the FSA had made a good start, but that there was still much to do. There was a requirement to make an annual report, which would ensure that it stayed on the Board's agenda. FSA officials needed to be mindful of the scheme in carrying out their day to day working and preparing papers.

Scotland
55. The Chairman of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) informed Board members that he had attended the Royal Highland Show and that FSA Scotland activities had been very successful, including the trialling of a new CD.

56. He also reported that by the end of July each member of SFAC would have spent a day with an Environmental Health officer.

Northern Ireland
57. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) reported that arrangements to establish a concordat and service level agreement between FSA (NI) and Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Veterinary Service (DARD VS) continued. In the interim:

• In Northern Ireland, DARD VS carried out a supervisory and enforcement role in licensed fresh meat premises on behalf of FSA(NI), but he noted that the structure of the industry differed in NI.
• The performance targets for DARD VS had mirrored MHS performance targets for the past three years, and they were currently under review but continued to reflect MHS targets in Great Britain.
• DARD VS would be audited by FSA(NI) to determine if DARD VS operations, practices and activities complied with the requirements.
• This approach was key to achieving the highest possible standards for the protection of public health.
• NIAC, after discussion, were satisfied with the targets and the nature and extent of FSA monitoring and audit of DARD VS.

58. There were no items of Any Other Business.

Date of Next meeting

59. The next meeting would be held on 11 September 2003.