Board meeting minutes - Dec 2002

Sir John Krebs, Chairman
Suzi Leather, Deputy Chair
Richard Ayre
Karol Bailey
Michael Gibson
Ann Hemingway
Jeya Henry
Valerie Howarth
Iain MacDonald
Vernon Sankey
Michael Walker
Sandra Walbran

Apologies were received from Robert Rees.

Officials attending:
Geoffrey Podger - Chief Executive
Tom Murray - Head of Nutrition Division (item 4 only)
Rosemary Hignett - Head of Labelling, Food Standards & Labelling Division (item 5 only)
David Statham - Director of Enforcement & Food Standards Group (item 6 only)
Judith Hilton - Head of Microbiology & Foodborne Diseases Unit (item 8 only)
Mark Bush - Board Secretary
Sue Johns - Board Secretariat

1. The Chairman noted that this was the last open Board meeting that Geoffrey Podger would attend as Chief Executive before taking up his new post as Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Chairman thanked Mr Podger for all his efforts since the Agency had been established, and also for the work that he had put in prior to that, when he led the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group.

2. The Chairman also noted that this was the last Board meeting that the Deputy Chair, Suzi Leather, would be attending following her recently announced resignation to concentrate solely on her role as Chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The Chairman thanked Ms Leather for the inspirational manner in which she had carried out her duties as Deputy Chair.
Her championship of consumer rights and her commitment to the core values of the Agency had been valued and admired by many.

3. On behalf of the Board, the Chairman wished Ms Leather and Mr Podger every success in their new posts.

4. The Chairman informed Board members that in the interim Jon Bell would be Acting Chief Executive and Ann Hemingway Acting Deputy Chair.

5. 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).

6. One item was raised for discussion under AOB:

• Information note on the progress of research at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency on the development of diagnostic tests for TSE prions. (Richard Ayre)

(Paper FSA 02/12/01)

7. Minutes of the meeting held on 14 November at the Management Centre Europe, Brussels were considered. These were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to the following amendment:

• paragraph 10 - second line: add the prefix 'bio' so that it should now read 'the bioavailability of nutrients'.
• paragraph 10 - sixth line: delete 'In addition, nutritional experts suggested' and replace with 'The view was expressed'.
• paragraph 17 - fifth line: delete 'if more was' and replace with 'what more might be'.

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

• It was requested that the recent information note circulated to the Board on the Organics Workshop should be published on the Agency's website. Action: Secretariat
• The note of FSA strategy for engaging with the catering sector due to be circulated in December would be delayed, and would come forward in the new year as a substantive paper for discussion.
• As yet there had been no feedback from Magistrates Clerks Association regarding the provision of training material. Board members would be informed of developments.
• The results of enquiries about approaches to HACCP adopted in other Member States would be incorporated into the paper due to come to the Board for discussion at the February meeting. Action: Richard Harding (FCS)

GM Vote at EU Agriculture and Environment Councils
9. The Chairman reported that following agreement at November's Agriculture Council on the GM food and feed proposal, agreement on the Traceability and Labelling proposal had been reached at Environment Council on 9 December. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, representing the UK, had voted against both proposals following Agency advice that neither was practical or enforceable. It was likely that the proposals would receive their second reading in the European Parliament within 3-4 months with new legislation taking effect towards the end of 2003.

BSE in Sheep
10. The Chairman had undertaken to keep the Board informed of the latest developments concerning the possibility of BSE in sheep. As members would recall the Agency had written to the Commission in June 2002 to advise it of the Board's view that sheep intestine be added to the list of specified risk materials (SRM) as a precautionary measure. The EU Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) had considered this in September 2002 and concluded for the present against classifying sheep intestine as SRM as there was no evidence of BSE in sheep. The SSC had, however, acknowledged that estimates of potential infectivity in natural sausage casings made from sheep intestine after processing did vary significantly. The Commission had hosted a useful meeting mid November to try to resolve the differences between the estimates of the effects of processing on removing potential infectivity. At the meeting the views of the FSA, a delegation from France (which included the French food standards agency, AFSSA) and the sausage casings industry had all been discussed. The Commission was now considering whether further precautionary measures should be taken, and had noted that it was not necessarily bound by SSC opinions. In the meantime the Commission had agreed that further work to try to resolve the effects of different types of processing was necessary, but a time scale for its completion had not yet been identified.

TSEs in Other Species
11. The FSA's Review of BSE controls published in December 2000 had drawn attention to the occurrence of a TSE known as Chronic Wasting Disease in certain species of deer in North America. The Review had noted however that very little work had been done on TSEs in deer in continental Europe or the UK and had recommended that further work should be carried out. The Agency was currently leading discussions with Defra on how best to take this work forward. It was recognised that there was currently no robust analytical method available and that this would have to be developed prior to any work on animals being undertaken.

Correspondence with Mr Michael Meacher on Organics
12. As a result of recent media articles which had published extracts from correspondence between the Chairman and Michael Meacher MP, Board members would wish to know the context and the content of the Chairman's letter. The letter was in response to Mr Meacher's request to the Chairman that the Agency should issue a positive statement on organic food. The Chairman's response had reiterated that on the basis of the currently available information the Agency's assessment was that organic food was not significantly different in terms of food safety or nutrition from food produced conventionally. Nonetheless, the letter had acknowledged the contribution organic schemes made to the range of choice available to consumers. The letter had declined to accept the invitation to make a positive statement, emphasising the paramount importance of the Agency's independence from industry interests.

Chlorpropham Residues in Potatoes
13. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that this item had arisen under AOB at the previous meeting. Surveys had shown that the acute reference dose for chlorpropham could be substantially exceeded by toddlers. Although adverse effects would be unlikely due to in-built safety margins, the FSA considered this situation unacceptable. The Chairman had raised the matter with Defra Ministers, who had taken a helpful interest and had asked for a formal note of the Agency's concerns so that they could be taken forward.

Specified Risk Material (SRM) in Beef
[Michael Gibson declared an interest as a meat producer and trader. Michael Gibson participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

14. The Chief Executive informed the Board that since the Board had last met there had been further cases where SRM (spinal cord) had been found in imported intervention beef. These included imports from Spain. Previous cases had been from Germany and France. Further imports from the Republic of Ireland, not from intervention, had been found with vertebral columns attached. The Meat Hygiene Service maintained its good record in detecting SRM and protecting public health, but the situation still gave cause for concern. The FSA had taken up the problem in intervention beef with the European Commission, which responded positively, and it was discussed in the EU Beef Management Committee in October. The Commission forcefully reminded Member States of their responsibility to ensure that beef released from intervention stocks did not carry any spinal cord, and this was confirmed in a Commission Decision on 25 October. The Chief Executive would continue to report such cases to the Board.

15. Board members were aware of public concern at the continued level of incidence and noted that recent cases had involved boxed beef, not carcase meat, where SRM was perceived to be more difficult to detect and asked if there was scope to prevent imports other than carcase meat. These cases had been found at licensed premises such as cold stores, but there was little information about the final destination of meat. It would not be possible to generalise about the destination of meat from intervention, and it should not be assumed it all went to the cheaper end of the market. Board members noted the continued incidence of cases, and requested a summary of cases to date. Although press releases about individual cases were published, which included a brief summary of earlier finds, a consolidated summary of all SRM breaches in imports and action taken could be a useful tool in raising awareness and bringing about change. Action: Tim Foster (Meat Hygiene Division)

Smoke Flavourings
16. The Chief Executive reported that the Commission proposed to establish a positive list of permitted smoke flavourings that could be used in foods. Whilst the FSA supported the proposal in principle, the issue had caused a problem because of the legal base that the Commission had chosen. The Commission were seeking to use Article 95 of the EC Treaty, which allowed harmonisation measures to be adopted by qualified majority voting, rather than under Article 308 which required unanimity. The UK government's position was that a centralised EC authorisation regime could not properly be adopted under harmonisation powers. The UK's objection to the current proposal was based on this wider legal point rather than the specific food related issues.

Salmonella in Eggs - Hospital Outbreak
17. The Chief Executive informed the Board of action that had been taken following the recent reported outbreak of Salmonella in a hospital. The matter had been raised at his regular monthly meeting with Department of Health (DH) colleagues, and as a result a further meeting with DH and Public Health Laboratory Services has been arranged.

(Paper FSA 02/12/02)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Vernon Sankey declared an interest as Deputy Chair of a company that produces food supplements. Jeya Henry declared an interest as a nutritional researcher. Vernon Sankey and Jeya Henry participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

18. The Chief Executive introduced the paper by reminding the Board that they had discussed and agreed the Action Plan in December 2001 and that this paper was an update of progress after one year. The FSA was a major contributor to work in this area and was engaged in a variety of projects both as sole player as well as in partnership with others, for example the 'Food Vision' initiative in conjunction with local authorities. The development of a 'Healthy Eating Action Plan' where DH was taking the lead, included issues that were within the Agency's remit, but also included wider lifestyle choices that fell primarily to others. The FSA would take part in this work, involving other groups as necessary. The paper set out the current programme of Agency work within the context of the Action Plan and, in addition, highlighted options for the future.

19. Board members commented on the diffusion of responsibility across government departments. In order to improve the nutritional health of the nation it was necessary to identify and set specific targets across government, though it was recognised that it was not easy to translate ideas into practical and achievable programmes with measurable outcomes. The Board commended the work being taken forward in the devolved countries and accepted that England had yet to develop a coherent strategy, although the 'Healthy Eating Action Plan' had the potential to address that issue.

20. Board members agreed that a national strategy was required, of which the FSA strategy would be an integral part. The discussion demonstrated that there were issues about the content and the coherence of the strategy that had been agreed by the Board in 2001. Some Board members suggested that a review highlighting current gaps in the evidence base, the sustainability of the FSA strategy and ways in which good practice can be 'show-cased' would be beneficial. If such a review were to be carried out it would be important to make sure that it produced a coherent overall strategy and did not simply add piecemeal to existing work.

21. Some Board members questioned the relevance of particular research projects in the nutrition portfolio to the objectives in the strategy. Officials replied that the portfolio was currently being reviewed to ensure alignment with objectives. Nevertheless existing projects would provide relevant nutritional advice.

22. Some Board members noted that the paper made little reference to issues concerning young people or the elderly. On the specific concerns of communicating with young people, the FSA had sought the views of experts but had received conflicting advice on the effectiveness of methods for doing so. Work was in hand with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) to develop work that would help to ensure that children leave school with a sound knowledge of nutrition. It should however be recognised that the Agency had responsibility for developing general nutritional advice for the population as a whole, but DH had responsibility for specific population groups.

23. Board members noted the conclusions of the recent Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) report on salt and wondered when other dietary constituents, sugar and fat in particular, would be similarly addressed. Whilst both sugar and fat were recognised as significant contributors to nutrition related public health issues, salt was being taken forward as definitive advice was now available.

24. Some Board members felt that the paper's presentation style, in particular its length and complexity, gave rise to a sense that the strategy was at best a 'mosaic'. Board members nevertheless acknowledged that this field of work required a spread of activities. The Board was reminded that the paper reported on the progress of the Nutrition Strategy and the Action Plan previously discussed and agreed by the Board. Board members were supportive of and congratulated the staff for their efforts and the large amount of work that had been commissioned to meet the demands of the Action Plan. However, it was agreed that alternative ways for reporting progress against major plans and strategies should be investigated. Action: Secretariat

25. In drawing the discussion to a close the Chairman congratulated staff involved, but noted that the paper did not draw out the many ways in which the Agency was making an improvement to public health through the nutrition action plan. He highlighted the following four areas:

• paragraph 19 of the paper, the recent SACN report on salt, was a major new development of great importance. Collaborative work to reduce levels of salt in processed foods was being taken forward with industry
• paragraph 18 of the paper highlighted the Local Government Authority and FSA joint 'Food Vision', this was a major step forward as it was an initiative to co-ordinate work at a local level
• paragraph 18 of the paper also mentioned on-going work with DfES to promote good nutritional advice to children
• paragraph 10 of the paper drew attention to the review of dietary surveys and other work inherited from DH/MAFF.

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

• noted the current position, especially the need for on-going monitoring and reporting
• agreed that specific targets were necessary
• supported the work done with industry on salt in the diet, and acknowledged that other elements of the diet would be addressed in the future
• noted the progress made with the Action Plan and commended staff on implementation
• requested that alternative ways of reporting future progress be developed.

(Paper FSA 02/12/03)

[Michael Gibson declared an interest as a member of an assurance scheme, Quality Meat Scotland, a meat producer and trader. Karol Bailey declared an interest as a member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, farmer and producer. Michael Gibson and Karol Bailey participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

27. The Chief Executive introduced the paper by informing Board members that whilst the use of assurance schemes was becoming increasingly prevalent it was apparent that consumers were confused as to their meaning. Due to the diversity of schemes it was necessary to find imaginative ways to deliver that information. Similarly, in order to make the schemes more accessible there was a need to widen the involvement of consumers in the operation of the various schemes. Every scheme, even the most basic, potentially offered some consumer benefit since it involved a degree of independent audit. It was stressed that assurance schemes were not a substitute for appropriate legislation on food safety or for effective enforcement but rather that they were complementary.

28. The Chairman invited the Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) to report on SFAC's discussions of assurance schemes. SFAC noted that as far as Scottish schemes were concerned the review had concentrated on red meat, though there were schemes for other foods, for example salmon, that would have been equally pertinent to consider. Assurance schemes worked alongside the EU 'Protected Geographical Indication' (PGI) scheme, which protects food names such as 'Scotch beef'. It was important that the term 'Scottish' should be applied only to products that had been reared, grown or produced in Scotland. The issue of fraudulent substitution was also important and assurance schemes should include effective enforcement within the scheme. The Advisory Committee would not support any proposal for the FSA to endorse specific assurance schemes.

29. The Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) had also discussed assurance schemes and their conclusions had mirrored those of SFAC. NIAC had particularly supported the proposal in paragraph 15 of the paper to provide advice and subsequently carry out a survey to check the effectiveness of that advice.

30. Board members agreed that whilst the consultant's report did not cover every scheme it did cover a sufficient range to allow meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Some Board members commented that arrangements for governance of Assured Food Standards schemes would benefit from equal representation of all stakeholder groups. Others questioned what the implications of the proposed governance arrangements were for the Agency, particularly whether there were extra funding and responsibility issues. The FSA should stand apart from individual schemes and Board members agreed that it was not for the FSA to run or fund assurance schemes. Sponsorship of this type was more properly for the agriculture departments to consider, although EU rules on state aids would need to be taken into account.

31. Board members also suggested that the impact of assurance schemes on the price of food be monitored. Consumers should not be required to pay more for schemes that offered no more than the minimum legal requirements. Similarly, assurance schemes should not restrict consumer choice by monopolising production.

32. Board members were concerned that schemes might be open to abuse, for example, by mislabelling or inappropriate use of a logo to gain commercial advantage or as an advertising tool. It was pointed out that misrepresentation of products, such as fraudulent labelling, would be subject to Local Authority enforcement. The consumer had to be able to obtain reliable and easy to understand advice about all assurance schemes. Suggestions that a list of schemes and what they purported to offer be put on the Agency's website was considered unwise as it might be seen by some as an endorsement of the schemes. However, it was agreed to consider the potential to provide links from the Agency's website to assurance scheme websites, thus allowing the consumer easy access to further information. Action: Rosemary Hignett (FLS) / Neil Martinson (COMS)

33. Some Board members raised the issue of imported foods and whether the criteria that applied to UK produced foods were applicable. European Standard EN45011 which had a wide application to foods produced in the EU, was relevant here.

34. Board members questioned the time scale for implementation of the new governance arrangements for the Assured Food Standards scheme (currently 3 years), and also the enforcement mechanism. There was general agreement that a shorter timetable would be desirable. Issues of enforcement rightly lay with local authorities. There was an issue as to whether there was currently sufficiently enforcement resource to police assurance schemes adequately.

35. Summarising, the Chairman noted that the Board:

• commended the paper and extended their thanks to staff involved
• supported the proposal to develop FSA advice for schemes, and to survey the effectiveness of this advice. This survey should, if possible, include impact of schemes on price
• noted that enforcement activity should apply equally to imports and domestic production.

(Paper FSA 02/12/04)

[Michael Gibson declared an interest as a meat producer and trader. Michael Walker declared an interest in his role as Public Analyst. Michael Gibson and Michael Walker participated in discussion and determination of this issue.]

36. The Chief Executive introduced the paper, reminding the Board of the 10 Point Action Plan that had been agreed in October 2001. The situation was changing rapidly as the result of the Cabinet Office study on the Organisation of Import Controls. In particular, paragraph 9 of the paper set out the likely implications of direct interest to the Agency. Responsibility for policing personal imports was to come under the control of Customs and Excise. Whilst this was an area of media concern the vast majority of imported material came through bulk trade. The inspection and monitoring of bulk imports was currently the responsibility of the Port Health Authorities, who co-operated closely with local authorities. The Cabinet Office study had suggested that a single agency to oversee all aspects of the management of legal trade could be useful. This proposal would be looked at again in a year in the light of changes in the effectiveness of enforcement.

37. The Board recognised the differing effectiveness of controls at Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) across the EU. It was clear from the published Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) mission reports that there were significant differences between enforcement practices throughout EU Member States. Once inside the EU produce could circulate freely between Member States. Board members wondered whether EU enlargement would have a further detrimental effect as the standard of border controls in new Member States might be lower, offering an easier route of entry for illegal products.

38. The importance of the role of the FVO was emphasised. It was clear that FVO missions, especially inspections of official points of entry into the EU, often exposed poor practice. Some Board members suggested that a more proactive approach to the FVO would be a positive step. For example, the Agency might wish to indicate areas of concern that it had regarding imported foods. Similarly, FVO reports recommended actions for the party inspected to carry out, and these would require careful study.

39. Board members noted that the proposals set out in the Cabinet Office study would have significant resource implications. This would affect the whole of the UK. Officials were fully aware of this and various options with their related costs were being prepared and would be discussed with the other departments affected early in the new year.

40. Some Board members also raised the issue of charging for the analysis of imported foods. Currently the local authority in which the point of entry fell bore the burden for the analysis of foods entering the UK. The suggestion was made that importers should bear the cost of analysis as this would not only be more equitable in terms of demands on local authorities but would possibly also lead to a greater willingness to undertake testing. Whilst this was a sound proposal
there was presently little backing for such a charge in other Member States, and importers would be free to move to other ports with less onerous regimes.

41. Board members drew attention to the lack of information regarding the personal importation of foods given to people travelling to the UK. This was primarily the responsibility of Defra, where Ministers were well aware of the risks from personal imports. There was a perception that in many cases the foods involved had a significant cultural link. More should be done to ensure that those consuming such foods were fully aware of the potential risks. Some local authorities had already done work in this area, but had found great resistance to the idea that personal imports were illegal, or represented a danger.

42. Board members asked for an update on action point 3 (covered on page 9, in Annex 1) on a database linking port health and local authorities. The Board was informed that a recent meeting had agreed proposals that would see such a database established within the next twelve months. The database would link port health and local authorities, and ultimately include the Agency's own extensive food surveys.

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

• welcomed the paper and thanked the Imported Food Unit for their efforts
• noted the action in hand
• recognised that the Agency could only take on further responsibilities to the extent that further resources were available
• noted the importance of the EU dimension to effective controls.

(Papers FSA 02/12/05, FSA 02/12/06 & FSA 02/12/07)

Scotland
44. The Chairman of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee highlighted the Food Hygiene Campaign that FSA Scotland was preparing for Christmas and also the very successful 'Recipe for Success' meeting at which positive feedback had been obtained.

Wales
45. The Chair of the Advisory Committee for Wales reported an additional item. FSA Wales had recently agreed with the National Assembly that there would be a strengthening of the labelling of raw milk on a voluntary basis. Should this prove to be ineffective then a legislative requirement would be pursued.

Northern Ireland
46. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee reported that a six-month work plan was currently being developed and that it would be circulated to other Advisory Committees on completion.

47. The Chairman advised members of a correction to the report: In paragraph 17 'comply with' should be deleted and replaced with 'participate in'.

48. Some Board members drew attention to the recent work on Vitamin D referred to in the report. It was suggested that available information should be passed on to Nutrition Division at Aviation House.

49. The Chairman reminded members that they were welcome to take up specific points with the author(s) of information papers. Board members had requested time to discuss one of the information papers, NOTE 02/12/02 Progress on Atypical Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning Test Results from Cockles.

50. Board members welcomed the paper and the opportunity to discuss progress. Some Board members expressed the opinion that there remained a doubt as to whether the stance that had been adopted was too precautionary or not precautionary enough. Evidence had shown that on one hand the toxin was lethal in mice, whilst on the other it was known that it deteriorated rapidly. The paper was unclear on whether the toxin was mouse specific or also affected humans. There was currently no evidence to support the hypothesis that the toxin was mouse specific, however the Agency was in the process of commissioning further toxicological studies in an attempt to address these issues. It had not been possible at this stage to link it to human health. Until further work resolved these points an approach appropriate and proportionate to the risk had been taken in order to protect public health.

51. Board members asked for a flowchart of the procedures that had been followed through the analytical laboratories, and the auditing processes that had been put in place to monitor the work. A chart had been prepared and would be circulated to the Board. All Agency projects had an established and thorough audit routine that involved in-built checks and regular meetings between officials and contractors. Action: Judith Hilton (MSD)

52. Board members asked whether there were links established with other government departments, for example the Environment Agency, to investigate whether there was a link to other contaminants, for example pesticide residues. Similarly was there any indication of processing or manufacturing solutions to the problem? Regarding possible links to other toxins, work carried out on the isolates had shown no recognisable group. Whilst there may be processing and manufacturing solutions that would reduce the risk to the consumer this was not ideal as it served merely to mask the problem rather than solve it.

53. In summary, the Chairman noted that the Board agreed that in the light of the uncertainties the Agency had taken an appropriate precautionary approach.

AOB

Development of Diagnostic Tests for TSE Prions

54. The Board had recently been provided with an information paper on the progress of research at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) on the Development of Diagnostic Tests for TSE Prions. Board members had found that the content was too technical for the lay person to understand. A request for a more easily accessible note was made and, in addition, for both the original information note and the further explanatory note to be placed on the Agency's website. In response, the Chief Executive informed Board members that a further, simpler, explanatory note had already been commissioned and when complete it would be circulated to the Board. Arrangements would also be made for both notes to be placed on the Agency's website.

55. The Chairman reminded Board members that VLA was only one among a number of groups carrying out work on diagnostic tests. For example, Prof. Stanley Prusiner had recently met the Chairman and had discussed progress that had been made on work, by his research team in the USA, on the development of a novel and sensitive diagnostic test for BSE in cattle which was currently being evaluated by the EU.

Date of Next meeting
56. The next meeting would be held on 13 February 2003 in Manchester.