Board meeting minutes: 13 November 2003

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

Officials attending: Jon Bell –Chief Executive
Bill Knock – Acting Head of Chemical Contaminants and Animal Feed Division (item 4 only)
Richard Burt – Head of Radiological Protection and Research Management Division (item 5 only)
Tim Foster – Head of Meat Hygiene Division (item 6 only)
Keith Gregory – Board Secretary
Sue Johns – Board Secretariat

Also attending: Professor Michael Lean – Chair of the FSA Advisory Committee on Research (item 5 only)

1. Apologies had been received from Robert Rees.

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 was one item raised for discussion under AOB:

• the BSE and Sheep information paper. (Michael Gibson)

(Paper FSA 03/11/01)

4. Minutes of the meeting held on 11 September at the Congress Centre, London were considered. These were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to the following amendment:

• paragraph 43 – in line twelve delete the words 'hygiene outbreak' and replace with 'safety incident'.

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

• noted that the information paper on consumers’ preference for chicken with some added water had been circulated recently. One Board member was surprised by its brevity and questioned whether that had been the sum total of the evidence available to the FSA. He was informed that it was, but that it was for the industry to make the case for allowing added water on grounds of consumer preference. The Chief Executive agreed to go back to the industry to try to obtain further evidence.
  Action: Rosemary Hignett
• noted that the Chief Executive would update Board members on chromium picolinate in his oral report.
• questioned the assertion that it was not possible to break down the data on food samples taken by local authorities into chemical and microbiological analyses. The Chief Executive agreed to re-visit the issue (see paragraph 60).

Promotion of Foods to Children

6. The Chairman informed Board members that, in September, the FSA had published an independent comprehensive review of the evidence about the effects of food promotions on children’s food-related behaviour. The review had been carried out by Professor Gerard Hastings (University of Strathclyde) and had been peer reviewed by five external experts before publication. The review concluded that advertising does influence children. At the same time, industry had also published another report by Doctor Brian Young (University of Exeter) who had concluded that the influence was negligible. As a result, the FSA had held a seminar, chaired by Professor Nick Mackintosh, FRS, (University of Cambridge) and attended by eminent international experts, at which Professor Hastings and Doctor Young were questioned about their work. The purpose of the seminar had been to consider the differences between the findings of the two reviews. The meeting had supported the conclusions reached by the Hastings review. This outcome gave added weight to the Hastings review, as it had now essentially been peer reviewed twice.

7. The FSA was now encouraging wider debate, having published a paper on 9 November that set out a range of possible options. The list was not comprehensive but had been intended to be a starting point for discussion, and there had already been considerable media interest. The Executive would bring a discussion paper to the Board in February or March next year that would set out the options and stakeholder responses.
Action: Rosemary Hignett

8. Board members noted the importance of the report, and the wider debate, and requested that the views of parenting groups should be sought. A Board member enquired whether an assessment of the impact of restrictions on advertising had been undertaken in other countries. The Chairman informed Board members that in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Sweden, where restrictions had been introduced, it was difficult to obtain information about their impact. Comparing the impact of different approaches was difficult; for example, a ban on television advertising in one country might be undermined if children there had access to television advertising from other countries not subject to a similar ban. This was apparently the case in Sweden. The Chief Executive added that, whilst other EU members states were interested in the FSA’s review, there were no plans to bring forward EU legislation. Whilst this was essentially an issue of subsidiarity, it could be a topic for discussion at the next meeting of the European food agencies.

Sustainable Development

9. The Chairman informed Board members that the FSA had hosted a meeting for a range of stakeholders, including relevant NGOs, the Local Government Association and the National Consumer Council, in October to consider the issue of sustainability. This had been a starting point for the FSA in exploring sustainable development in the context of its responsibilities. The meeting had identified a number of themes for the FSA to consider, including:

• how far choice should be regulated (for example only taking fish from sustainable stocks);
• sustainability issues connected with production (which were inextricably linked with the third theme); and
• implications of affordability.

10. The Chairman reminded Board members that there were no simple answers to this issue but that it was important that the process of developing an appropriate policy should begin. He informed them that a paper was being prepared and would come to the Board for discussion in due course.

11. Board members noted the work that had been started and encouraged the Executive to learn from the experience of others. The Chairman of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee noted that the Government of Wales Act required a sustainability policy and that there might be information available to share.

Salt in the Diet

12. The Chairman updated Board members on the work being taken forward jointly with the Department of Health (DH). Earlier in the summer the FSA had hosted a meeting with DH and stakeholders to consider the recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) report ‘Salt and Health’. On 10 November DH had held a second meeting which the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Sir Liam Donaldson, had chaired. Melanie Johnson MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health (PS/PH), and the Chairman had spoken at this. The meeting had been well attended. PS/PH had taken a strong line; the industry was not doing enough in response to the SACN recommendations and she asked for salt reduction plans from them by the end of February. She had gone on to warn that a failure to bring forward reduction plans might result in regulation to require high salt-containing foods to be identified as such on the label. She had, however, been challenged by Sustain as to whether this threat was deliverable, given that labelling legislation was an EU matter.

13. The Chairman had adopted a different approach; he had spoken about the work that the FSA had been doing in conjunction with industry. The Food and Drink Federation were taking forward an initiative called ‘Project Neptune’. This project aimed to reduce the levels of salt in branded soups and sauces by ten per cent a year over three years staring in 2003. In addition, J Sainsburys plc had recently announced a package of measures, welcomed by the FSA, that would reduce the levels of salt in a targeted range of commonly consumed products over the next three years. The Chairman informed Board members that, following the meeting, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and the British Hospitality Association were planning on working together to draw up a joint initiative.

14. The FSA had also been working on a ‘salt model’, the purpose of which was to stimulate further discussion. This was a tool that enabled the FSA and others to look at the impact of different approaches to salt reduction, thereby exploring the kinds of change in salt content that would be needed to reduce the average adult consumption from 9 gram per day to the recommended 6 gram.

15. Board members welcomed the action that the FSA and others were taking and noted the strong Ministerial support.

Atypical Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) in Shellfish

16. The Chief Executive reported that significant progress had been made on this issue since the last open Board meeting. The report of the independent audit carried out by Professor Hugh Makin had been published on 2 October. This had identified some inconsistencies in the analytical procedures employed in the three laboratories, although these were not thought to be critical to the atypical findings. The FSA had called a meeting of the laboratories concerned at which recommendations in the report had been discussed. All three had agreed to introduce a single standard operating procedure as soon as possible, based on the method used at the laboratory in Northern Ireland, which Professor Makin had found to be the most robust. This would be fully active from 16 November.

17. Progress had also been made in respect of the toxicological studies that the FSA had commissioned. The Home Office had recently issued an animal licence to allow this work to begin. Results were expected in late January 2004.

18. The Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC) had completed its initial analysis of the atypical and normal extracts. They had identified a range of chemical differences between the two samples and further work would now be undertaken to establish a correlation between one or more of these and the atypical response. A final report of this initial work was expected by the end of November 2003, which would include recommendations for further work.

19. FSA officials had been in discussion with counterparts in Brussels to press for the introduction of a standard chemical test for all existing toxins as an alternative to the current mouse test. As a result, a further discussion meeting for EU reference laboratories was planned for late November 2003. The Chief Executive acknowledged, however, that there would be a continuing need for a bioassay to be part of the testing regime so that future atypical responses might be identified at the earliest opportunity.

20. The Chief Executive was aware of the disruption that the checks for toxins had caused to the fishing industry. Nevertheless, through the use of zoning, fishing in most areas had been possible for the majority of last year. Figures had shown that industry had taken ninety per cent of quotas over the last two seasons and was on target to take, or even exceed, a similar quota this year.

21. The Chairman reminded Board members that the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) had set up a working group under the chairmanship of Andrew Miller. The group would meet for the first time the following week to agree its remit and terms of reference.

Chromium Picolinate

22. The Chief Executive informed Board members that, following the Board’s discussion on 8 May 2003, the Committee on the Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COM) had considered whether chromium picolinate should be considered to be genotoxic. This had been informed by the evidence considered by the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM), supplemented by additional evidence presented by US industry. The COM had, however, been unable to come to a conclusion as the tests had been carried out on specially prepared chromium picolinate, rather than the substance as retailed. The COM had recommended that the work be repeated with commercial grade chromium picolinate and this had been reported to the manufacturers. Until those data were available, the FSA continued to advise consumers to take a precautionary approach by using another form of chromium supplement.

Difficult to Open Packaging

23. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that, following a question from a member of the audience at the September meeting, he had undertaken to come back with advice on this issue. Responsibility for this area in central Government rested with two other Government departments: the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which had responsibility for the safety of chemicals in bottles, and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which had responsibility for general product safety. The issue revolved around the need to strike a balance between the provision of tamper-evident packaging and the ability of consumers to access the food inside such packaging.

24. The FSA had been informed that, where individuals had difficulty in accessing food inside such packaging, a range of commercial aids was available. For those with an infirmity or disability, similar aids were available through local authorities and/or voluntary organisations.

25. Board members welcomed the report but noted that there were frequently contradictory regulations in this area. They also noted that food packaging was an issue which the FSA needed to keep an eye on as, for example, some modern food packaging was impossible to seal effectively again once open. Some consumers may not realise this could have implications for the safe storage of the food it contained.

(Paper FSA 03/11/02)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared an interest as a partner in a firm that has the potential materially to benefit from enhanced enforcement activity in relation to Animal Feed analysis. Michael Walker considered that, in this case, his declared interest was sufficient to warrant his exclusion from participating in the discussion of this issue and he did not participate. Michael Gibson declared an interest as a primary producer and retailer. The Chairman considered that, as Michael Gibson’s interest was not material, he should be permitted to participate in the discussion of the issue.]

26. Bill Knock introduced the paper by reminding Board members that they had last considered this issue two years ago when the paper then before them had prioritised and listed potential and actual risks to the food chain via animal feeds. Annex 2 to the present paper listed the action that had been taken as a result. The areas of responsibility for the FSA had been set out in Annex 1. Board members would note that the list included pet foods and horse feeds as they were inextricably linked with other feeds through legislation for which the FSA had responsibility. In 2001, reference had been made not only to the number and significance of assurance schemes and industry arrangements, but also to the need to police compliance. Feed law enforcement was currently being reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF), which was due to report by the end of 2004. This review would take into account the report of the recent Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) mission.

27. The paper was primarily concerned with the ACAF Review of On-Farm Feeding Practices, published in September 2003. Its recommendations had strongly urged farmers to identify and address hazards on their farms. A guide had been produced that covered the key stages from purchase, through storage and mixing, to feeding the animals. ACAF had acknowledged that operating full HACCP procedures on farms would not always be practicable and that steps taken should be proportionate to the scale and type of operation, including whether feed was sold on to other farmers. The ACAF approach, and the associated guidance, was an important precursor to the forthcoming EC controls on feed hygiene.

28. Board members welcomed the report and congratulated officials on the clarity of the paper. The Chairman noted that animal feeds had the potential to be the cause of considerable risk to the consumer; BSE was an obvious example and more recently the Belgian dioxin incident showed how animal feed issues could impact directly on public health. Officials acknowledged that animal feeds had the potential to give rise to a number of risks. Incidents frequently arose as a result of cheap raw materials, sometimes even when those materials were a by-product of a food production process. This meant that it was difficult to quantify the risks but the UK, along with other EU member states, recognised the need to take precautionary action.

29. Several Board members expressed concern about the effectiveness of enforcement. The paper indicated that there were a number of different bodies involved. Whilst any overlaps between them were wasteful and undesirable, gaps had the potential for being more serious. The Chief Executive assured Board members, however, that the FSA saw streamlining the current situation as a priority. It was paramount that enforcement was efficient and effective.

30. One Board member questioned why the farming community should be exempt from HACCP implementation in relation to animal feeds. Many farmers were capable of, and were already embracing, HACCP principles in other areas of their work. ACAF had concluded that full HACCP procedures were not appropriate, but that guidance based on current industry codes of practice, supplemented by HACCP principles, would be the best way forward. Linked to this point was the inference in the introduction that the scale of a farming operation was somehow connected to how the procedures were to be measured and implemented. Board members were reassured that, irrespective of the size of an enterprise, all would have to identify possible risks and act upon them.

31. Board members recognised that successful application of the new guidance relied heavily on effective communication of the message to farmers and asked how the FSA intended to ensure that happened. Bill Knock responded that FSA officials were shortly to meet representatives from farming unions to discuss the best way in which the information and, more importantly, the recommendations could be communicated. He noted the suggestion to use popular media programmes, for example Farming Today and The Archers.

32. Some Board members noted that there was little reference made to how progress against the recommendations would be monitored. In response, Bill Knock referred Board members to the Annexes where more information about the specific details, including the level of skill and knowledge required by individuals, had been provided.

33. One Board member noted that Annex 1 made reference to the FSA’s research and surveillance programme and asked for details of the surveillance work that was undertaken. In response, he was informed that the FSA carried out a number of surveillance projects, most of which underpinned on-going and/or future negotiations in Brussels. Recently the FSA had provided funding for local authorities to carry out the collection and analysis of animal feed samples. Around four thousand samples had been analysed, many of them for several analytes. In all, a total of around twenty-five thousand analytical determinations had been made.

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

• noted the need for consistency of behaviour across all farms,
• requested that progress against the recommendations be monitored,
• noted the complex situation with respect to enforcement; and
• acknowledged the importance of communicating the message to farmers and getting them to act on the advice.

(Paper FSA 03/11/03)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared an interest as a Public Analyst whose firm earns occasional fees from FSA sponsored survey work. The Chairman considered that Michael Walker's interest was not sufficient to exclude him from participating in the discussion of this particular issue, but agreed that it would not be appropriate for him to comment on issues relating to survey work. Sati Ariyanayagam declared an interest as a former member of the Advisory Committee on Research. The Chairman considered that, as Sati Ariyanayagam's interest was not material, he should be permitted to participate in the discussion of the issue.]

35. The Chairman welcomed Dr Richard Burt and Professor Michael Lean to the table. Richard Burt introduced the paper, informing Board members that the FSA spent between twenty five and thirty million pounds a year on research, surveys and other scientific activities. This work provided the evidence that underpinned the FSA's policies and advice and brought a range of other benefits. It was therefore important to ensure that the Agency was getting value for money. The Board had earlier agreed a flexible approach allowing the FSA to direct its resources in the best way to support its policy objectives. The Board was asked to re-affirm that decision.

36. The Arbuthnott report, A Review of the Food Standards Agency's Research Portfolio and Research Management Systems, had made thirty four recommendations, some of which had been implemented, others of which were being implemented whilst a few were still to be addressed. The Board was asked to note the progress made. Collaboration with other funders was important for two reasons. The FSA needed to work with others on cross-cutting issues such as quality assurance on research and developing UK policy on EU arrangements for supporting research. The FSA also needed to influence the research programmes of others so that they might contribute to the science needed to underpin FSA policies in areas such as nutrition and microbiological safety. The Board was asked to agree the actions being taken to improve collaboration. Finally the Board was asked to note the contributions made by the Advisory Committee on Research (ACR). In its short existence it had already contributed much and Dr Burt paid tribute to the chairmanship of Professor Lean.

37. The Chairman invited Professor Lean to address the Board. The ACR had met four times and had also held two open research review meetings. It had been set up to oversee the FSA's research strategy as a result of one of the recommendations of the Arbuthnott review. The ACR was working well together on the core issues. He particularly wished to express his thanks for the Secretariat support he and the ACR had received from FSA officials. As Board members had already heard, the Arbuthnott report contained thirty four recommendations, twenty-three of which had been completed and others of which were still ongoing with the expectation that work on the Arbuthnott recommendations would be complete early in 2004.

38. There were four key areas where the ACR was active. The first of these was the reviewing of research strategy. This included issues of programme management and prioritising research within the strategy. The ACR was currently exploring ways to develop a tool to help to determine value for money, which would link well with the ‘mapping exercise’ for project management.

39. The second area was procurement and commissioning, within which the ACR had considered three strands. The Arbuthnott review had suggested supporting centres of excellence. However, the ACR felt that it was more appropriate for most of the Agency’s needs to ensure support for the infrastructure that delivers the work in the special fields that the FSA needed. The ACR had also addressed the issues around quality assurance schemes and felt that there were differing requirements for analytical and applied research as compared to surveillance projects. The final strand of this work was to establish a post graduate scholarship programme, and Professor Lean was pleased to report that this was progressing well, with the first scholarships to be advertised in November 2003. The key novel feature would be the opportunity for students to explore links between science and policy needs.

40. The two final areas where the ACR was working were in peer review and horizon scanning. In the former, they were considering alternatives to complement the normal process of peer review by publication in scientific journals. This was needed to ensure scientific rigour in FSA research publications, for work which needs to be published more rapidly than scientific journals could offer, or when the work was important for policy or for public information but was not a priority topic for scientific journals. Horizon scanning had different connotations for different scientific advisory committees. It might be advantageous to have a new procurement process in place to allow emerging issues to be researched rapidly without impeding existing programmes.

41. The Chairman thanked Professor Lean for his work with the ACR and noted that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) were now establishing a similar committee. Board members welcomed the paper and congratulated the ACR on the progress to date. They noted the substantial size of the annual expenditure and sought reassurance that every effort would be made by the FSA to ensure that projects would be managed in an effective and efficient way. On the establishment of the FSA it had been decided that policy divisions be given responsibility for commissioning appropriate work. Links to the ACR and other divisions were through the Research Co-ordination Unit; this helped ensure that duplication of effort was avoided and value for money maximised. One Board member highlighted the increasing importance of successful bids for European Commission Framework 6, and subsequently Framework 7, funding in light of current inter-government discussions.

42. Board members noted the importance of establishing good collaborative working partnerships with other research funding organisations. Richard Burt reported that the FSA had just reached an agreement with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). This was welcomed by Board members.

43. Some Board members noted that a robust prioritisation scheme was crucial and that it was a matter of urgency to set one up. The ACR acknowledged the importance of this. The prioritisation exercise had been delayed until officials with the necessary social science skills to take the work forward had been recruited.

44. Some Board members commented that the budget covered research and surveillance work and noted that surveillance work also included monitoring work, for example shellfish toxins, that was frequently costly. Richard Burt drew a distinction between surveillance and monitoring exercises. Surveillance was often a form of research. Monitoring was typically in response to a statutory requirement, for example radiological monitoring, where the industry bore the cost of the analysis.

45. Board members noted that any proposal to make significant changes in the budget should be put to the Board.

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

• confirmed that the budget should be managed on the same basis as other budgets in the FSA and that any significant alterations should be referred to the Board,
• welcomed the increased collaboration, especially the recent agreement with the BBSRC; and
• congratulated Professor Lean, members of the ACR and the secretariat on their work and looked forward to the early completion of the prioritisation scheme.

(Paper FSA 03/11/04)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Iain MacDonald declared an interest as chairman of the Meat Hygiene Advisory Committee (MHAC). Valerie Howarth and Michael Gibson declared an interest as members of MHAC. Chrissie Dunn declared an interest as a non-Executive director of a meat-producing company. The Chairman considered that Iain MacDonald, Valerie Howarth, Michael Gibson and Chrissie Dunn should be permitted to participate in the discussion of the issue.]

47. Tim Foster introduced the paper by reminding Board members that it fulfilled their request to be kept informed of progress in the development of new, outcome-based, high-level performance targets for the MHS. The process had begun over a year ago and had been a joint effort between FSA and MHS officials. The process had also benefitted from the advice and input of MHAC. The proposed new approach involved fewer targets than had previously been the case, but each target now had a specific intended outcome and sought to deliver continual performance improvement by the MHS.

48. The new approach built on the existing set of targets for the MHS. The most significant change had been in relation to MHS enforcement where it was proposed to replace the current seven individual enforcement targets with just one new wide-ranging target. The new target would employ a wide range of performance indicators that covered the full spectrum of MHS enforcement activity. Therefore, instead of relying solely on the results of the FSA’s audit of MHS operations, giving a simple pass or fail against each narrow target, the performance indicators would enable a fully rounded assessment to be made of MHS activity throughout the year. Board members comments were now sought and would be considered alongside the results of the public consultation, prior to the final proposals coming to the Board in March 2004.

49. Board members welcomed the paper and commended the great improvement in the approach to setting targets. Board members expressed some concern that if the first year was to be used as a baseline, there might be a temptation to make that a ‘slack’ year. This was noted, although there would still be an ability to measure against the previous targets as there would be an element of ‘roll forward’. Board members sought, and were given, reassurance that the transition from the old to the new monitoring process would be seamless and that every effort would be made to ensure that no information would be lost.

50. One Board member noted that there had previously been an issue with the accuracy of financial forecasting and suggested that there should be a more robust approach to risk in this area.

51. One Board member enquired about the level of involvement in the process by officials at the MHS and was informed that the whole MHS management team had been consulted about the new approach.

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

• noted the progress made;
• thanked MHAC for their work;
• noted that the first ‘baseline’ year should maintain current standards as a minimum;
• noted the need for further ‘drilling down’ into critical risk areas;
• noted the need for a robust approach to critical areas of risk; and
• expressed the need for all MHS staff to engage with the new approach.

(Papers FSA 03/11/06, FSA 03/11/07 and FSA 03/11/08)

Wales

53. The Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) noted that the Committee had been encouraged by the interest that had already been shown in their annual stakeholder meeting, due to take place the following week. The meeting would consist of a panel that reported on progress, followed by a Q&A session. The Chairman suggested that the experiences of all the annual stakeholder meetings of the devolved administrations, and also headquarters, should be shared.

54. One Board member noted the work on obesity reported in paragraph 2.1 and suggested that officials ensure that all the FSA’s work that had been carried out was drawn together.

Northern Ireland

55. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) reported that NIAC had held a review meeting in September. They had looked at the effectiveness of the committee in contributing to the aims of, and advising, the FSA, the mechanisms for transmitting that advice, the format of NIAC meetings, succession planning for the handover of the chairmanship, their work programme and co-ordination with Scotland and Wales. One of the main points that had arisen had been the importance of dealing with topics that had a regional dimension.

Scotland

56. The Chairman of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) had nothing of substance to add to the written paper.

Information Papers – BSE and Sheep
(Paper Note 03/11/01)

[Michael Gibson declared an interest as a primary producer and retailer. The Chairman considered that Michael Gibson should be permitted to participate in the discussion of the issue.]

57. The Chairman briefly introduced the paper by reminding Board members of the anomalous results found in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) survey. The paper referred to the meeting of an ad hoc group of international experts, which had concluded that the reasons for the anomalous results were unclear and had suggested further work that should be done. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had also considered the findings and had been unable to come to any firm conclusions. The Chief Executive added that the recommendations of the ad hoc group were being taken forward but would inevitably take some time. He also reported on the talks he had had with his counterpart in AFFSA, the French Food Safety Agency. The equivalent French programme had revealed similar anomalies.

58. Board members congratulated the authors on an excellent paper and in particular they commended the clear manner in which complex information had been conveyed in a way that was accessible to the lay person. They expressed some concern about the rate of progress of the National Scrapie Plan (NSP) but acknowledged that Defra had the lead. The Chief Executive informed Board members that the FSA had been working with Defra to establish a timetable for the full implementation of the NSP. He expected the timetable to be published early next year. He also pointed out that the European Commission had now taken up this issue across all member states and that it was likely that the Defra timetable would be overtaken.

59. The Chairman noted that paragraph 18 indicated that, as time went by, the number of negative tests increased, thereby reducing the overall risk.

AOB

Local Authority Sampling

60. The Chief Executive referred to the action arising from the previous meeting requesting a breakdown in the data on food sampling (see paragraph 5). He explained that there had been some confusion about the intention of the original question. He was now able to report that, for the year 2001, the number of analyses carried out had been 182,518; the number of samples taken had been 165,224. Further details would be made available.

Date of Next meeting

61. The next meeting would be held on 11 December 2003 in London.