Board meeting minutes: 11 December 2003

Friday 13 February 2004

Congress Centre, 28 Great Russell Street, London, WC1B 3LS

Open session, 09:30 – 12:35

Present:
Sir John Krebs, Chairman
Julia Unwin, Deputy Chair
Sati Ariyanayagam
Chrissie Dunn
Michael Gibson
Ann Hemingway
Valerie Howarth
Iain MacDonald
Andrew Miller
Robert Rees
Michael Walker
Sandra Walbran

Officials attending:
Jon Bell –Chief Executive
Tom Murray – Head of Nutrition Division (items 4 & 5 only)
Richard Burt – Head of Radiological Protection and Research Management Division (item 6 only)
David Statham – Director of Enforcement and Food Standards (Paper INFO 03/12/02 only)
Keith Gregory – Board Secretary
Sue Johns – Board Secretariat

Chairman’s Introduction

1. Apologies had been received from Vernon Sankey and Richard Ayre.

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.

Item 1 Minutes of Meeting on 13 November
(Paper FSA 03/12/01)

4. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 November at the Holiday Inn Hotel, Newcastle were considered. These were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to the following:

• paragraph 33 – the figure of twenty five thousand animal feed samples being checked .
  Action: Bill Knock

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

• noted that the discussion paper on the progress of the nutrition action plan would include reference to how all the strands of work on nutrition throughout the UK were pulled together.
• noted that an information paper updating Board members on the progress of the step change action plan on import controls had been included in the papers for today's meeting. The Chairman informed Board members that he intended to allow a brief discussion on that paper and would invite David Statham to join the table to answer any questions.
• noted that an information note on ways of providing the consumer with the percentage contribution that processed foods made towards the daily target for salt intake would be circulated by the end of the month.
• noted that papers for the two completed actions had not yet been circulated due to unforeseen circumstances. The papers would be circulated by the end of the month and would be made available on the website as usual.
  Action: Secretariat
• paragraph 43 - noted the lack of progress in the area of recruiting staff with the necessary social science skills. The Chief Executive informed Board members that every effort was being made to recruit new staff in this area but, if necessary, the Executive would investigate out-sourcing the work.

Item 2 Chairman’s Report

Promotion of Foods to Children

6. The Chairman reminded Board members that, in September, the FSA had published a comprehensive independent 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). At the same time, industry had also published another report, by Dr Brian Young (University of Exeter) which had concluded that the influence of such activity was negligible. As a result the FSA had held a seminar, chaired by Professor Nick Mackintosh (University of Cambridge) and attended by eminent international experts. The FSA had now published a note of this seminar, which had supported the conclusions reached in the Hastings review.

7. The FSA had also held a stakeholder meeting on 4 December to discuss the policy options paper that it had published in early November. The meeting had been well attended with approximately 80 participants from consumer groups, representatives of children’s interests, public health NGOs, enforcement authorities, the food industry and advertisers. The meeting had agreed that there was a clear need to improve children’s diets and that action was needed on a number of fronts, including food promotions. There had been general agreement that a package of measures was needed that included the reduction of fat, sugar and salt in foods aimed at children. A note of the meeting would be published shortly.

8. The Chairman informed Board members that there had also been extensive media coverage of this issue and that, in addition to the discussion being led from the centre, the Advisory Committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were each taking forward various initiatives. He also informed Board members that the FSA would be holding a public meeting on 27 January 2004.

9. In recent weeks, government Ministers had also made reference to this issue: Tessa Jowell MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, had issued a statement of concern about obesity linked to the promotion of foods to children, as had Charles Clarke MP, Secretary of State for Education. The Prime Minister had also made reference to the issue in his “Big Conversation” initiative.

Meeting of the members of the Advisory Committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

10. The Chairman informed Board members that members of the three devolved Advisory Committees had met in London on the 25/26 November. The meeting had been very productive. He highlighted some of the recommendations, which included:

• the Committees' request to comment on issues at an early stage, thereby being more effective in advising the Board
• the need for them to consider more effective ways of engaging with stakeholders in their regions
• a mechanism for feeding back information from Committee interaction with stakeholders.

11. The Chairman invited the Chairmen of all three Committees to comment. All agreed that the meeting had been well received by their members. The Chairmen had been encouraged by the willingness of the members to think imaginatively and innovatively. They had noted the need for more effective co-ordination of their work.

Item 3 Chief Executive’s Report

FSA Cooking Bus

12. The Chief Executive reported that the FSA Cooking Bus had been officially launched on 21 November by Melanie Johnson, Minister for Public Health, and Julia Unwin, FSA Deputy Chair, at Southfield School in the Minister’s constituency. The launch had been extremely successful. The Minister had spent an hour on board the bus with the Deputy Chair, Ross Burden (celebrity chef from Ready, Steady, Cook), Anita Cormack (Focus on Food Director) and children from the school. There had also been a media launch at Smithfield market in London on 3 December at which the Chairman had been present.

13. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that the Cooking Bus was a pantechnicon that opened out to provide a fully equipped state-of-the-art kitchen for sixteen students. The bus had been developed in partnership with the RSA Focus on Food Campaign. It was staffed by two experienced teachers and a driver trained by Focus on Food. It would tour the country bringing food workshops to schools, train teachers in food education and would particularly focus on visiting socially deprived areas of the country.

During school holidays the Bus would embark on a special programme of visits to community centres, youth clubs and play schemes. Over the next three years the Bus would provide improved food education to over eighteen thousand pupils and two thousand four hundred teachers.

Eat Safe Award

14. The Chief Executive informed Board members that twenty restaurants had been presented with the Eat Safe Award on 28 November in Belfast. He had attended. FSA Northern Ireland had set up the scheme in consultation with district councils and caterers. In order to receive the award, restaurants had to achieve the standard required by current legislation. In addition, they had to have a fully documented HACCP system and all staff had to be fully trained in HACCP principles. FSA Wales was operating a similar scheme and the FSA was now looking closely at both schemes to see if something similar might be rolled out across the whole of the UK.

15. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) also commended the scheme and congratulated the staff at FSA Northern Ireland, particularly Morris McAllister and Trevor Williamson, for their efforts. The scheme relied heavily on enforcement officials. Local Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) were rigorous in their assessments of catering outlets and were responsible for nominating establishments for the award. He informed Board members that local businesses were enthusiastic about attaining the standard required for nomination. He emphasised that the scheme was driven by the businesses themselves and that there were no “failures” as such, since the trigger for recognition was a continually high standard of food hygiene.

16. Board members noted that similar systems were also in operation on a local level in parts of England, but encouraged the FSA to carry out a full evaluation of the schemes operating in Northern Ireland and Wales at the earliest opportunity so that a UK-wide scheme could be rolled out as soon as possible. The Chief Executive assured Board members that the schemes were being continually monitored and that it was intended to carry out a full evaluation, probably after a year of their operation. He also assured Board members that any UK scheme would look to work co-operatively with existing schemes.

Item 4 Review of the Agency’s Dietary Surveys Programme
(Paper FSA 03/12/02)

17. Tom Murray introduced the paper by reminding Board members that, in December 2001, they had agreed the Nutrition Action Plan. One of its key components was that the FSA would develop a strong evidence base. The Dietary Surveys Programme was vital to developing this evidence base and had been inherited when the FSA was established. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) was a major exercise but it had become increasingly clear to the FSA and the four health departments in the UK that there were concerns about its flexibility, its timeliness and its cost effectiveness. As a result, the FSA had commissioned a review; this had been a “bottom up” exercise involving a wide range of stakeholders.

18. The review had concluded that, although there were many other dietary surveys being carried out, none was a viable alternative to the NDNS. It further concluded that many of the concerns with the current NDNS could be addressed if the NDNS were to become a rolling programme. The paper asked the Board to agree to this move, subject to the findings of a feasibility study that would report back within six months and include details of the resource implications for such a change. The current NDNS was jointly funded by the FSA and DH. DH had been involved in the review and would continue to take part in the feasibility study.

19. Board members welcomed the paper and broadly agreed with the principle of moving towards a rolling programme. They questioned whether the new survey would allow full statistical analysis and whether seven hundred participants per annum would provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that demographic variability, such as ethnicity, could be included. They also emphasised the need for the rolling programme to be fit for purpose in terms of ability to supply data. For example, a considerable amount of work had been done to promote fruit and vegetables in schools; the rolling programme needed to be able to identify if there had been a change in behaviour as a result of this work. In response Tom Murray agreed that the feasibility study would report on these two issues.

He pointed out that FSA statisticians were consulted regularly in relation to interpretation of the current NDNS data. In addition, the proposals for the rolling programme was that the critical mass, of two thousand, should be attained as quickly as possible. In addition, the rolling programme was sufficiently flexible to allow extra projects to be carried out to expand the demographic elements of the database.

20. Some Board members noted the poor, and falling, response rates in the current survey. They noted the need to identify new and novel ways of improving that response rate and were encouraged to learn that the FSA had been talking with other groups to understand better how they tackled the problem. Both the NDNS and the Low Income Diet and Nutrition Study included children in their scope and had investigated the use of information technology to prompt a higher response rate. The use of supermarket loyalty cards as an option for gathering more data had been considered. However, whilst these cards could generate information about consumer purchasing patterns, they were not able to give detailed individual dietary or nutritional intake figures.

21. Board members noted the need to ensure that there was continuity between the existing survey and the proposed rolling programme. The methodology for gathering data had to be compatible. Tom Murray agreed that continuity was vital and would be safeguarded. However, the methodology was constantly being evaluated and refined to make it more effective.

22. Board members noted the comprehensive nature of the data that the NDNS had produced and the international recognition that it enjoyed. The high quality and standard of the data meant that there was an opportunity for income generation. Board members noted that the FSA had often derived great benefit from allowing academic researchers free access to the data. However, there might be some justification for charging a realistic fee for commercial enterprises to have access to such information. Linked to the comprehensive nature of the data, some Board members noted that other countries concentrated on obtaining less information from more people. Tom Murray explained that there was a trade off involved. The NDNS had one hundred and fifteen food groups on which it collected data from a much smaller population. The NDNS delivered much more than information on the diet. It also underpinned much of the food safety work that the FSA undertook: for example, intake calculations for chemical contaminants. This issue would also be considered as part of the feasibility study.

23. Board members noted the high cost of the survey: £5 million spread over the five years duration. They acknowledged the possibility of income generation but also encouraged the Executive to pursue collaborative projects with other major national diet survey work. They also noted the work being done on an international level, for example by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other European member states. The Executive had been in discussion with other potential funders, particularly during the review, and would continue to develop and maintain links.

24. One Board member noted the importance of expanding the current geographical remit of the NDNS to include Northern Ireland in the rolling programme. In addition, the FSA should look for opportunities to work alongside the Food Safety Promotion Board (FSPB).

25. The Chairman summarised the main points raised in the discussion. The Board had agreed in principle to the rolling programme, subject to the outcome of the feasibility study, which should include consideration of the following points:

• sample size, the trade off between the number of food groups and the number of respondents;
• issues surrounding the transition from the existing survey to the rolling programme, particularly continuity;
• the international dimension, including FSPB, European Food Safety Authority and WHO;
• look at ways of collaborating with other government departments and research funders
• understand the issue of responsiveness to particular needs
• the opportunity to explore innovative ways of recruiting people to participate in the surveys and getting more effective data.

Item 5 Nutrition Action Plan: Progress Report
(Paper FSA 03/12/03)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Robert Rees declared an interest as a General Governor of the British Nutrition Foundation and an active member of many ‘food in schools’ projects. The Chairman considered that Robert Rees should be permitted to participate in the discussion and determination of the issue.]

26. Tom Murray introduced the paper by reminding Board members that, in March 2001, the Board had agreed a Nutrition Strategy Framework and, as a result of that, in December 2001 the Nutrition Action Plan (NAP) had also been agreed. The NAP identified four areas to be addressed:

• developing an evidence base
• informing the public
• looking at barriers to change
• monitoring and evaluating FSA work.

The Executive had used these four areas and established links with external stakeholders to develop the NAP. This present report highlighted key areas where work was at a critical stage. It also flagged up two areas where the FSA had been particularly active; salt reduction in processed foods and the promotion of foods to children.

27. Board members welcomed the paper and noted its timeliness in relation to the current Strategic Review. They suggested that the Strategic Review provided an opportunity for the NAP to be refined and for key elements to become the focus of a higher level of activity, whilst others that had achieved their target, or which were no longer appropriate, could be closed down. They questioned how a successful initiative would be identified. One Board member noted that, with more than forty separate initiatives, it was difficult for local organisations to take a steer from the FSA on key priorities. The Chief Executive noted that when the FSA had been established it had been important for it to become engaged in a wide range of activities. However, he agreed that the time was now right for the FSA's priorities in this area to be reviewed.

28. Some Board members noted that joint work with Department of Health (DH) was vital and asked for more information on the various high level activities that were being undertaken. The FSA and DH had joint Secretariat duties for the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, the salt initiative was a joint project and the FSA and DH co-funded the NDNS. In addition, the FSA and DH had worked closely together on the cross Government Food and Health Action Plan (FHAP). Tom Murray was a member of the FHAP Steering group.

29. Board members acknowledged the complexity of the range of work being undertaken and suggested that the FSA would benefit from carrying out a “mapping exercise” to identify the detail of the initiatives and the contributors across the whole of the UK. The Board was informed of a similar exercise that had been carried out by FSA Scotland that had revealed a considerable amount of work of which the FSA had previously been unaware. Having carried out work to identify local initiatives when the FSA was established, the Chief Executive felt it was timely to repeat the exercise in a more systematic way.
Action: Jon Bell

30. One Board member noted the importance of being involved at an early stage in the school environment. Tom Murray informed Board members that the FSA was a major contributor and to work on food in schools. The FSA was currently gathering information on the influences that affected children’s food choices, including the influence of the school meals’ environment. The FSA was also closely involved with Department for Skills and Education and others in establishing the core competencies of food skills for school children.

31. Board members asked about the balance of spend outlined in paragraph 19 of the paper. There was concern that securing the evidence base accounted for more than eighty per cent of the total divisional expenditure. The Chief Executive explained that the figures did not tell the whole story. As the evidence base grew, the FSA intended to invest more resources on outcome focused activities. However, as individual projects came up for renewal their worth would be carefully evaluated.

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

• requested greater clarity on what success would look like and greater focus on a smaller range of high level initiatives,
• suggested that the balance of spend be re-visited; and
• asked for more clarity regarding partnerships that the FSA had established.

Item 6 Food Standards Agency Policy on Radiological Protection of Foods
(Paper FSA 03/12/04)

33. Richard Burt introduced the paper by informing Board members that the paper described the work on radiological protection undertaken by the FSA. It provided details of the three interdependent areas of work that covered assessments, monitoring and emergency response. The FSA’s strategy had been to identify and protect the “critical group” of consumers who might potentially receive the highest dose of radioactivity and that, by protecting this group, all other consumers would be protected. This approach was the most effective use of resources while achieving consumer protection.

34. The FSA assessed the possible dose to the critical group from discharges from nuclear sites as part of the licensing arrangements of the Environmental Agency. Food was likely to be the main route of exposure for consumers. The monitoring programme concentrated on sampling around nuclear sites; the results were published annually in the Radioactivity in Food and the Environment (RIFE) report. The FSA took part in regular exercises with local emergency services, local authorities and other regulators to simulate response to a major nuclear incident. The FSA’s participation ensured that other participants were made aware of food safety issues. The FSA recovered most of the costs of the assessment and monitoring work from the nuclear industry.

35. Board members welcomed the paper and questioned the appropriateness of the concept of the critical group approach. The Chief Executive explained that the critical group concept was essentially a “worst case scenario”. It assumed that people close to a nuclear site ate locally produced food, such as fish caught locally or vegetables grown using local seaweed as a fertiliser. If that group of people did not exceed the safety levels, then neither would the wider population. This approach was useful in placing in context the results of surveys conducted by others, such as Greenpeace, where it could be demonstrated that the levels found did not exceed those experienced by the critical group. Following this explanation the Board accepted that the critical group approach was appropriate.

36. One Board member enquired about the monitoring carried out by local authorities. Richard Burt confirmed that some local authorities did limited monitoring work. However, the FSA presented the results of its monitoring work to a wide range of LAs when these had been published.

37. One Board member asked whether there was still an issue with fallout from Chernobyl. He was informed that this was included in the figure quoted for fallout (0.2%) in Appendix 1 to the paper and that there were still some farms in the Lake District that had sheep movement restrictions on them.

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

• noted the work and accepted the strategic need for it; and
• accepted the use of the critical group concept.

Item 7 Reports from Chairs of Advisory Committees
(Papers FSA 03/12/05, FSA 03/12/06 & FSA 03/12/07)

Northern Ireland

39. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) reported that it had considered the Promotion of Foods to Children in a closed meeting. A minute had been prepared and would be fed into the debate, but the main points raised were that care was required when considering regulation and that parental influence was important. Nevertheless, the majority of NIAC members had taken the view that regulation was important and that there should be an enhanced requirement on bodies such as the Advertising Standards Authority to look at additional criteria, such as the harm that might be done.

Scotland

40. The Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) noted that its provisional agenda had been a little premature and that the discussion on the Over Thirty Month Rule Review had been postponed until Health Ministers had made their decision.

41. The Chair of SFAC also reported that the Scottish Diet and Nutrition Forum, under the chairmanship of Dr Marnie Sommerville, was re-evaluating the Scottish Healthy Eating Action Plan.

42. He announced two stakeholder meetings that would be held in the spring on the topic of HACCP. He reported that the Shellfish Working Group had agreed its terms of reference and would be meeting the following week and that a Wild Game Working Group that would be looking at the implications of the hygiene legislation.

43. He invited Andrew Miller to report on a recent stakeholder meeting on the FSA’s Strategic Review, chaired by the Director, FSA Scotland. The meeting had been informed about the current plan and some of the early proposals for the new plan. A wide range of stakeholders had been invited, including industry, consumer groups and enforcers. However, those present were mostly from the industry. The meeting had concluded that food safety should remain the priority for the FSA, but that education was crucial. It had also agreed that the FSA needed to be ready to deal with incidents but that any action should be proportionate.

Wales

44. The Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) reported that a stakeholder meeting had concluded that the FSA should be developing clear advice on diet and nutrition for primary school children.

45. She also reported on the Welsh Food Hygiene Award scheme “Award for Food Action Locally” (AFAL – the Welsh word for apple). The scheme had been launched at the WFAC open meeting at the end of November. The award would recognise individual or team contributions to local nutrition initiatives. It had been well received and encouraged people to learn from one another.

46. Finally, the three Advisory Committees had agreed a standard format for their written reports to the Board. A paper would be circulated to Board members for final approval.
Action: Secretariat

Information Papers – UK Controls on Imported Food
(NOTE 03/12/02)

[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 imported food 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. The Chairman noted that the Board was not being asked to take a view on this paper, but accepted Michael Walker’s withdrawal from the discussion.]

47. The Chairman welcomed David Statham to the table and invited him to introduce the paper. The paper was one of a series of regular updates that reported the progress that had been made with the ‘step change’ action plan. David Statham also informed Board members that the Chairman would attend a ministerial panel in January.

48. Some Board members recalled that the FSA had taken on responsibility for this work and asked whether there were sufficient funds to deliver the step change that had been requested. Funds had been made available for the first year only, but the FSA was currently in negotiations to secure funds for the next two years. Board members could be assured that the FSA would take a firm position to secure the necessary funds. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs held the funding but the FSA was not the only department bidding for that money: Customs and Excise also had responsibility for part of the work and had sought to secure funds.

49. Board members noted that much of the progress had been in establishing systems; there were few obvious outputs. Were these systems designed to make the work more effective? The initial outcome would inevitably be a rise in the number detections of illegal imports.

50. The FSA had to report progress to the Cabinet Office by April 2004. Board members asked to see a copy of the draft report before it went to Ministers.
Action: David Statham

AOB

51. There were no items of any other business.

52. The next open meeting would be held on 12 February 2004 in Birmingham.