Board meeting minutes: 12 February 2004

Monday 15 March 2004

International Conference Centre, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1

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

Officials attending:
Jon Bell –Chief Executive
Ann Goodwin – Head of Local Authority and Enforcement Division (item 4 only)
Barbara Richards – Head of Corporate Secretariat, Consumers and International Division (item 5 only)
Pat Stewart – Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Corporate Resources and Strategy (item 6 only)
Jonathan Back – Head of Labelling Policy, Claims and Advertising Branch (item 7 only)
Keith Gregory – Board Secretary

Chairman's Introduction

1. Apologies had been received from Michael Gibson.

2. The Chairman reminded Board members of their obligation to declare interests before discussion of relevant items.

3. The Chairman reminded Board members that this was the last open meeting that Robert Rees would be attending as a Board member. On behalf of the Board, he thanked Robert for the enormous contribution that he had made to the work of the FSA in the four years he had been a Board member. In particular he highlighted the work Robert had done in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills, the Local Government Association (LGA) and Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS). He also paid tribute to the work that Robert had done in taking forward FSA initiatives with the food catering industry.

4. The Chairman informed Board members that Michael Walker’s second term of office as a Board member had been due to come to an end in early 2005. However, for personal reasons, he would be standing down at the end of June this year.

5. The process to replace both Robert and Michael was in hand. The search for a successor to Robert Rees was more advanced; a short list of candidates had been drawn up and interviews would be taking place soon.

6. There was one item raised for discussion under AOB:

 water added to chicken products (Vernon Sankey)

Item 1 Minutes of Meeting on 11 December
(Paper FSA 04/02/01)

7. Minutes of the meeting held on 11 December at the Congress Centre, London were considered. These were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.

8. In considering matters arising and the table of follow up action the following issues were raised:

 paragraph 12 – the visit by some Board members to the Food Bus at a local school the previous day had been an opportunity to see the Bus in action. Board members had found the Food Bus “impressive” and expressed their thanks to the school for their warm welcome. Some Board members requested regular feedback on the project. They hoped maximum use would be made of the Food Bus to ensure that the FSA got the best value from its investment.
Action: James Brandon

 paragraph 18 – following the Department of Health’s (DH) announcement of their intention to consult in advance of the white paper on diet and health issues, one Board member asked whether there had been any further progress in the FSA’s discussions with DH about the future funding for the National Diet and Nutrition Survey. The Chief Executive reported that these discussions were continuing and he would inform Board members of future developments.

 paragraph 29 – reassurance had been sought that the UK mapping exercise to identify nutrition initiatives would be taken forward as an action. The Chief Executive confirmed that it would.
Action: Tom Murray

 paragraph 46 – one Board member enquired when the paper on the format of written reports to the Board from the devolved Advisory Committees would be circulated and was assured that it would be circulated shortly.
Action: Secretariat

9. Board members had no further comments but noted that the informal discussions over dinner the previous evening had covered a wide range of issues and requested that a note of those issues be circulated.

Item 2 Chairman's Report

Promotion of Foods to Children

10. The Chairman informed Board members that since they had last met the FSA had held a public debate at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London. The evening had been chaired by the broadcaster Jeremy Vine and the panel had included a range of experts. In addition to himself and the Deputy Chair, Board members Richard Ayre, Sati Ariyanayagam and Chrissie Dunn had also been present. There had been a large stakeholder attendance and the meeting had also been broadcast on a digital television channel.

11. The issue had also been discussed by the Advisory Committees in Wales and Northern Ireland and, on 26 February, an open debate was to be held in Edinburgh. The Chairman informed Board members that focus group research with low income parents and teenagers would be completed in mid February. All this activity, and the views of the Consumer Committee and stakeholders, would be brought together in a paper to be discussed by the Board in March.

12. The Chairman informed Board members that the critique by Professor Stanley Paliwoda, Birmingham University, commissioned by the food industry of the review carried out by Professor Gerard Hastings had been referred for comment to the academic panel, chaired by Professor Nick Mackintosh, that had previously considered the Hastings and Young reviews.

13. The Chairman informed Board members that Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, had commissioned a review of the broadcast codes of practice in relation to childhood obesity by the independent regulator Ofcom. The FSA had discussed this review with Stephen Carter, Chief Executive of Ofcom and agreed to keep in touch as the reviews developed.

Salt Update

14. The Chairman reminded Board members that the FSA had for some time been discussing the reduction of levels of salt in processed foods with industry. He was pleased to inform them that the Food and Drink Federation had recently reported that one of the industry schemes ‘Project Neptune’, aimed at reducing levels of salt in soups and sauces, had met its ten per cent reduction target for 2003. A further reduction of ten per cent was expected this year.

15. The Chairman also noted that, following action to reduce salt levels in bread three years ago, the Bakers’ Federation would shortly be announcing a new initiative to reduce the levels further. This was an important development as bread was a significant contributor to the daily salt intake. He noted that these initiatives, in conjunction with others by industry, would be important contributors to the overall aim of reducing the average adult daily intake to 6 grams.

Food Vision Launch
[Prior to the discussion of this item Robert Rees declared an interest as an active member of many local food initiatives. The Chairman considered that Robert Rees should be permitted to participate in the discussion of the issue.]

16. The Chairman reminded Board members that the FSA, LACORS and the LGA shared the aim of improving community health and well being by addressing nutrition and health inequalities at a local level. On 29 January 2004 he and the Deputy Chair had joined Councillor Ann Stribley (LGA) and Derek Allen (Chief Executive of LACORS) at the Brunswick Healthy Living Centre, Leamington Spa to launch a new website. The website provided detailed case studies, practical advice, tools and guidance (based on best practice) to help Local Authorities (LAs).

17. One Board member had already visited the new website and commended it as a focus for best practice; she had, however, noted that the FSA contribution had not reflected the full range of work that the FSA was doing. The Chairman noted that the website was intended to be a living entity that would grow and be refined as fresh information became available. In addition a full review of the website would be carried out after a year.

18. Another Board member expressed some concern that this had been the first time they had been made aware of the website and suggested that its existence needed to be better communicated to those working on food issues. The Chairman confirmed the web address as: www.foodvision.gov.uk.

TSE in Sheep

19. The Chairman reminded Board members that, in September 2003, he had reported that the Veterinary Laboratories Agency had found some anomalous test results in sheep. The rapid test had been positive but the staining of brain tissue had been inconclusive and experts were not yet able to decide what these results meant. Recently the French food authority, AFSSA, had reported similar anomalous results on their website. There had been thirty eight cases in total of which three were from the genotype that had been thought to be resistant to TSEs. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had considered these results and concluded that they did not undermine the sheep breeding programme and that there were no safety implications.

20. One Board member noted that, as a percentage, three out of a total of thirty eight was significant and asked what further work was being carried out. The Chairman reported that further tests using mice were in progress, though these would take some time to complete. He also reminded them that it was still not clear whether the anomalous results were due to a different form of scrapie or a flaw in the test. The test had been developed for use on cattle not sheep.

21. Some Board members wondered whether other European member states had similar results that might add further to the body of knowledge on this issue. The Chief Executive informed Board members that it was as a direct result of the Commission having required surveillance work in this area that these anomalous results were now beginning to be reported and others may therefore be found as the work progressed.

22. One Board member commented that there was a monthly publication by the Consumers’ Association that summarised information on BSE and other TSEs and suggested that Board members might find it a useful source of information. Board members were asked to contact the Secretariat if they wished to receive copies of this publication.
Action: Board members

Foodborne Disease Target

23. The Chairman referred Board members to the information paper Foodborne Disease Strategy – Progress update (NOTE 04/02/02). The provisional UK data on foodborne disease trends for 2003 showed that the incidence of foodborne disease had decreased by just over twenty per cent compared with the FSA’s published baseline figure for 2000. He reminded Board members that, at its inception, the FSA had set a target to reduce the level of foodborne disease by twenty per cent in five years. These provisional data therefore suggested that the target had been reached two years ahead of schedule. He noted that this had been achieved with the help of the food industry and pressure from other stakeholders working in conjunction with the FSA. He congratulated Judith Hilton (Head of the FSA’s Microbiological Safety Division) and her team on this excellent news.

24. Some Board members noted that these data were for clinically confirmed pathogen identification only and questioned whether the data might be unreliable as not all cases of food poisoning were reported to a doctor (for a variety of reasons) and hence not all would be tested. The Chief Executive informed Board members that, as various checks were built into the system, bearing in mind their provisional nature these data were considered to represent a real reduction.

Item 3 Chief Executive’s Report

Re-appointment of the Chairman

25. The Chief Executive informed Board members that he was pleased to announce that the UK Health Ministers had re-appointed the Chairman for another four year term of office. Board members joined him in congratulating the Chairman on his re-appointment.

Avian Flu

26. The Chief Executive reported that the FSA had kept in touch with the Health Protection Agency since the beginning of this incident. The FSA considered that the outbreak of avian flu did not pose a food safety risk for UK consumers. There had been no reports of people who had handled chicken meat anywhere in the world (as opposed to live chickens) contracting the infection, and although the virus could survive in frozen poultry, the risk of this occurring was considered very low. On 23 January the European Commission had banned the import of fresh poultry meat from Thailand slaughtered after 1 January. That ban had been extended, both in terms of the range of products and country of origin, on the 29 January. Meat from poultry slaughtered before 1 January was still able to enter the country, when accompanied by a health certificate that confirmed the slaughter date. It was considered to be very unlikely that any poultry slaughtered after 1 January had entered into the EU before the ban had been imposed as imports come by sea and this takes about a month.

27. In a statement issued on 24 January, the World Health Organisation (WHO) had confirmed that there was no epidemiological information to suggest that avian flu could be transmitted to humans through contaminated food. Current evidence supported the conclusion that avian flu was passed on only by contact with live poultry (or person to person spread). WHO had also concluded, on the basis of available data, that processed poultry products, including frozen products, did not pose a risk to public health.

GM Tomato Seeds

28. The Chief Executive informed Board members that some GM tomato seeds had inadvertently been imported into the UK. At the end of December 2003 the University of California had issued a statement regarding the accidental contamination of GM tomato seeds in non-GM stock. The genetic modification had been the same as that in the tomatoes used to make GM tomato paste which was sold in the UK during 1995–6. The seeds had been sent by the University, in small batches of twenty five, to a number of organisations for research purposes. Only one organisation in the UK had received these seeds: the Eden Project.

29. The Government’s GM Inspectorate had contacted the Eden Project to determine how the seeds had been used. The Eden Project had co-operated fully in the investigation. There was a possibility that one person working at the Eden Project may have consumed some fruit from plants grown from the seed and that seeds survive the human digestive tract. Prior to being used on horticultural land, all sewage sludge had to be heat-treated. Effective measures had been taken to ensure that the seeds did not spread further.

30. Board members commented that the thorough investigation and successful outcome was reassuring, agreed that the Eden Project had been an entirely innocent party in this incident and accepted that it had not posed a food safety risk.

Item 4 Quality of Data Submitted by Local Authorities on Food Law Enforcement Activity in the UK
(Paper FSA 04/02/02)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Sandra Walbran declared an interest as a local authority enforcement officer. Michael Walker declared an interest as a Public Analyst that carried out work for local authorities. The Chairman decided that Sandra Walbran should make a contribution at the beginning of the item and then withdraw from the discussion and determination of the issue. The Chairman noted Michael Walker’s declaration but agreed that he could take part in the discussion and determination of the issue.]

31. Ann Goodwin introduced the paper by reminding Board members that the FSA compiled an annual report on local authority (LA) food law enforcement activity from data submitted by LAs. At its meeting in September 2003 the Board had agreed that information on individual LAs should be assessed and presented in a different way. In undertaking this work, officials had come to the conclusion that the data submitted for 2002/03 could not be considered reliable. As a result, the paper before the Board focussed on the problems uncovered and how the FSA could work with LAs to improve the situation. The paper also set out a proposed action plan.

32. The Chairman invited Sandra Walbran to make her contribution. She voiced her concern about the issues raised in the paper and raised three points that the FSA needed to address following on from officials’ conclusions that the data was unreliable.

• What was the significance of the findings for the consumer? Should the consumer be more worried about the safety of food delivered in their locality, and should the unreliability of these data be a trigger for a lack of confidence in LAs by consumers? On reflection she thought not, as the monitoring programme was just one aspect of how LAs performance was measured; focussed audits were an alternative that generated more reliable information. The FSA should therefore ensure that audit information was widely available to the consumer.
• What was the significance for the FSA? She reminded Board members that these were the returns for 2002 and that, on its establishment, the FSA had altered the way in which the information had to be submitted. This in turn had meant that LAs had to invest in new hardware and software and had also needed to train staff to complete the data and submit it properly. Was the FSA expecting too much after only two years?
• What was the significance of the data at a European level? If FSA officials now felt that the UK data were unreliable, what checks and balances were in place in other member states to ensure that the data they submitted was robust? In addition, if the FSA was to fail to submit data for 2002 would a penalty be incurred?

33. In response Ann Goodwin accepted that it was only the second year that the FSA had been collecting data in that way and that FSA officials were fully aware of the problems that many LAs had been having with IT issues. The FSA had been working with LAs and others to get a consistent software package developed with some success. This was not therefore thought to be the main reason for the discrepancies discovered in the 2002/03 data. She went on to remind Board members that the main use of the data was to inform the FSA’s decisions on which LAs should be audited. She informed Board members that the UK did not see any output from the data that it submitted to the European Commission, neither did it see data from other member states. She did not anticipate a penalty for not submitting the data for 2002. The Chief Executive assured Board members that the FSA would be discussing the UK’s position with the Commission.

34. Board members welcomed the paper’s open acknowledgement of local authorities’ failure to submit reliable data. Some Board members queried whether the FSA might have contributed to the problem by failing to spot it at an earlier stage. In response, Board members were advised that all LAs had been invited to confirm their data and most had done so or had submitted corrections. FSA officials had then written to inform those LAs that were falling in the bottom ten per cent. In reply, several LAs had then revised the data that had originally been submitted even where this had been confirmed earlier. In some cases the alterations were sufficiently large to take the LAs concerned from the bottom to the top ten per cent. One Board member wondered whether the data from 2000 and 2001 were also unreliable and asked whether they should be withdrawn. The Chief Executive felt that there would be little to be gained in withdrawing the data now.

35. Some Board members believed that the failure might lay in capturing the information. The issues of inadequate resources and trained staff had been raised previously, as had the problems that LAs were experiencing with IT equipment. Some Board members also noted that, whilst it should be straightforward to compare quantitative indicators between LAs, for indicators of a more qualitative nature it was more difficult to ensure consistency.

36. Some Board members were of the opinion that the data should be published with an explanatory note. However, other Board members noted that the FSA was an evidence based organisation and that it would be inconsistent to publish data in which it had no confidence. They also noted that the FSA had worked hard to establish a degree of trust among consumers and that it was important that trust should not be lost or damaged by publishing data which was known to be potentially misleading.

37. Board members agreed the proposed action plan. They did however feel that the date for reporting back to the Board (Autumn 2004) was not soon enough and the Chief Executive agreed to give oral updates as the work progressed.
Action: David Statham/Ann Goodwin

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

• noted the problems over the reliability, accuracy and timeliness of the data;
• recognised the seriousness of the situation;
• noted that the FSA was intent on remedying the situation as soon as possible;
• supported the action plan set out in paragraph 19;
• expressed a diversity of views on whether the data for 2002/03 should be published, but the majority view was that it should not;
• noted that the FSA should analyse and publish information from audits so that consumers might judge the level of protection provided; and
• requested frequent oral updates as the work progressed.

Item 5 Board Meetings – Options for the Future
(Paper FSA 04/02/03)

39. Barbara Richards introduced the paper by informing Board members that it brought together work that the Executive had been doing over the last few months to assess how the Board might best handle its future business. The views of stakeholders had been sought in the process. Richard Ayre had hosted a meeting in April 2003 to which a range of regular attendees at open Board meetings had been invited. In addition, the proposals in the paper had been discussed with representatives from the organisations listed in footnote 8. In all the discussions it had been stressed that the FSA had no intention of retreating from its policy of openness and the way that the Board took food policy decisions in public.

All those consulted had supported the proposals in the paper, provided that the longer periods between open meetings did not lead to any food policy decisions being taken in closed meetings. To insure against this, contingency plans had been drawn up to enable urgent open meetings to be held and webcast, either in London or, if necessary, in other parts of the UK when the Board was already there for another event.

40. There were two points of detail that needed to be addressed. In paragraphs 2 and 18 reference was made to “policy discussions”; this should have been to “policy decisions”. In Annex 3, the current plan had been to hold an event in June in Belfast and an open meeting in December in London. However, it was now proposed to hold the event in June in London or the south-east and the open meeting in December in Belfast. The Board’s comments on paragraphs 8 – 16 and Annex 3 were invited. If the Board agreed to the proposals a review of the effectiveness of the new pattern of meetings was planned after a year.

41. Board members welcomed the paper and noted that it set out a clear programme for taking forward the way that the Board engaged with stakeholders. Some Board members acknowledged that the demand on the Executive would be altered and queried whether the changes would actually be resource neutral. The pressure of organising the current round of meetings was well understood; however, the demands of setting up visits and stakeholder events, whilst ensuring that appropriate briefing was provided and a suitable record kept, might have a considerable impact on the Board Secretariat.

42. Some Board members were of the opinion that a formal policy meeting should continue to be held annually in each of the devolved countries and acknowledged the rationale for those meetings to take place in major cities. One Board member questioned the assertion, in paragraph 17, that stakeholder attendance at open meetings outside major cities was sometimes low and asked the Executive to provide data on numbers attending, excluding FSA officials.
Action: Secretariat

43. Board members supported the proposal to hold an Annual Review Meeting, although they were undecided about whether it should always take place in London. They also questioned their role at such an event as set out in Annex 1 of the paper and asked whether there could be greater Board member participation.

44. Some Board members noted that there were already opportunities for them to engage with stakeholders outside the confines of a formal policy meeting. The chance to visit food initiatives and/or speak at events had always been part of their role. Others noted however that, at present, formal arrangements were not in place to capture the value of those activities. It was agreed that members participating in such activities should be asked to provide feedback.
Action: Board members/Secretariat

45. One Board member noted that stakeholders might have (unfounded) concerns about Board briefings. There was a need to reassure the public that food policy decisions were not made at Board briefings and that this could be aided by the presence of an external stakeholder at all Board briefings. In response Barbara Richards reminded Board members that, for the vast majority of Board briefings, external stakeholders were present and that recently the Board had agreed to publish details of the briefings they received and the names of the organisations invited to participate.

46. Some Board members expressed reservations about the proposed changes to the meeting cycle; one suggested that there should be a minimum of seven formal policy meetings a year and only two ‘other’ events. However, they noted that it would be wrong to hold a formal meeting if there were no policy decisions to be taken. The Board’s primary role was to agree the policies of the FSA and to ensure its corporate governance. However, the proposed schedule of meetings for 2004/06 had some gaps of three months between formal policy meetings. It was acknowledged that during such times Board members delegated their decision making responsibilities to the Chairman and Deputy Chair, but some felt that with the new strategic plan to be launched in autumn 2004 there might be a greater need for the Board to monitor progress against new targets.

47. Some Board members noted that the previous discussion, on monitoring LAs, had covered an “old” policy area but that the paper had provoked lengthy consideration and debate as it had highlighted a serious problem. They noted the provision that the Executive had made for additional policy meetings, but felt that the circumstances under which these would be called was not as clear as it needed to be.

48. Responding to these concerns, one Board member noted that in the proposed new cycle of meetings, as set out in Annex 3, it had not been made clear that each provided Board members with an opportunity to meet in closed session. The Chief Executive agreed that the cycle of meetings set out in Annex 3 should be revised, taking into account the points raised, and that there would be a formal policy meeting every other month.

49. One Board member suggested that it would be useful to investigate the possibility of holding some low-key open meetings at Aviation House, like those that the FSA's scientific advisory committees held. A small number of stakeholders would be invited to attend and the meeting would be webcast.

50. The Deputy Chair suggested that the primary test for any new meetings schedule should be the extent to which it would allow the Board to be able to carry out the effective corporate governance of the FSA including holding the Executive to account. Members agreed that it was right to engage with stakeholders as often as possible but if this was likely to be at the cost of their core functions then the cycle of meetings should return to its previous format. Some Board members suggested that the planned review of the new arrangements should begin before twelve months had elapsed.

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

• accepted the proposals, with reservations from some Board members;
• emphasised that the new style events were still open meetings;
• agreed that the new cycle should be reviewed, within one year; and
• requested that Annex 3 of the paper be revised and circulated to Board members for comment.

Action: Secretariat

52. One Board member requested that if the Board failed to reach agreement in correspondence over a revised cycle of meetings there should be a further opportunity to discuss it at an open meeting. The Chairman agreed to this request.

Item 6 Public Accounts Committee Report – Protecting Public Health and Consumer Interests in Relation to Food
(Paper FSA 04/02/04)

53. The Deputy Chief Executive introduced the paper by reminding Board members of the background to this report. The Chief Executive, as the Accounting Officer, was accountable to Parliament and the devolved administrations for the proper expenditure of public money by the FSA. The National Audit Office (NAO) supported the PAC by conducting investigations in addition to its regular annual audit of the accounts. Its findings were reported to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) who examined the results on behalf of the Westminster Parliament. In 2002 the NAO had carried out a wide-ranging review of the FSA’s activities and its report had been published in March 2003. This report had made some helpful but challenging recommendations on how the FSA might improve. Good progress had been made towards implementing the report’s recommendations, though there was more to be done on some of them.

54. The NAO report had been used as the basis for an examination of how the FSA conducted its business at a PAC hearing in May 2003 and the PAC had published its report in November 2003. The Government’s response to that report had in turn been published on 22 January 2004. This recorded some positive developments since the PAC hearing, some of which had already been touched on that morning: for example the work the FSA had been doing with the promotion of food to children, the reduction of salt in processed foods; and the reduced incidence of foodborne disease. The latest consumer attitudes survey had also noted that more people were turning to the FSA for information on food safety and standards. However, the PAC report had challenged the FSA’s performance on several fronts, for example about:

• public visibility;
• clarity of its role;
• raising standards of food safety management, especially in catering establishments; and
• feedback to stakeholders on how decisions were made.

The paper therefore asked the Board to consider the points raised in the PAC’s report, and the Government’s response, in the context of their current review of the FSA’s strategic plan.

55. One Board member noted that, in comparison with PAC reports he had seen on other organisations, the criticisms in the report on the FSA were relatively mild. Nevertheless the suggestions that the FSA should exploit its independence and position to be more effective as a champion of the consumer could prove very helpful. The FSA should therefore consider citing the PAC report when taking forward action on matters of particular public interest, such as nutrition and obesity.

56. Other Board members agreed and noted that PAC conclusion (ii) highlighted the problems that had been discussed earlier in the meeting about enforcement of standards by LAs and the FSA’s role in that process. Board members also noted that some of the PAC recommendations had resource implications that might require the Board to make difficult choices on future priorities.

57. The Chairman summarised the discussion by stating that the Board had noted the report and the Government’s response.

Item 7 Food Labelling Action Plan
(Paper FSA 04/02/05)
[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared an interest as a partner in a firm that had taken part in the survey that had been published that day. The firm had not received any fee for the work. The Chairman agreed that Michael Walker could participate in the discussion and determination of the issue.]

58. Jonathan Back introduced the paper by informing Board members that it provided a fourth update on the eighteen-point action plan agreed by the Board in September 2000. The paper reviewed progress since November 2002 and set out detailed plans for future work. He drew Board members’ attention to the survey on the use of terms such as fresh, natural, pure and home-made that had been published earlier that day and which assessed the impact of guidance published by the FSA in 2002. Of the two hundred and twenty samples taken, sixty per cent had met the guidance. The main concerns had been with the use of the terms ‘farmhouse’ and ‘traditional’. He informed Board members that future planned surveys to monitor other guidance included clarity of labelling and country of origin labelling.

59. With respect to new legislation proposed or agreed in Brussels, he informed Board members of improvements in legislation on the labelling of allergenic ingredients. In September 2003 approval had been given for the inclusion in ingredients listings of twelve specific allergens and their derivatives. The twenty five per cent rule (whereby, for example, the ingredients such as the pepperoni on the top of a pizza, which made up less than twenty five per cent of the product, would not have to be listed) had also been removed. A proposal on pre-approval of health claims and a list of approved nutritional claims was under discussion and had the support of the UK Government. Similarly the FSA had been keen to support the use of ‘sign-posting’ for nutrient content information (high/medium/low).

60. Board members welcomed the paper and congratulated the labelling team on the progress that had been made. In particular, one Board member commended the annual food labelling forum as a model of best practice for interaction with, and listening to, a wide range of stakeholders. Board members acknowledged that it was difficult to be prescriptive with labelling advice but because the FSA consulted so widely prior to issuing guidance that increased its chance of being acted upon. They also recognised that the progress made could not have been achieved without the co-operation of industry. Jonathan Back informed Board members that, of the forty per cent who had not followed the guidance on fresh, natural, pure etc, some had indicated that they were now following it or had plans in place to do so. The guidance was currently under review to ascertain whether it could be improved or better promulgated.

61. Some Board members noted the increasing importance of allergen labelling, welcomed the new legislation and asked what progress had been made to improve information provision in catering outlets. They were informed that the FSA’s Chemical Safety and Toxicology Division had been taking this work forward. In particular draft guidelines that would enable caterers to do this had been drawn up.

62. One Board member expressed slight concern that the survey on ‘country of origin’ labelling was not due to be undertaken until March 2005, given that many consumers regarded this as a priority. In response, Jonathan Back explained that there were resource implications, but that if the survey could be undertaken sooner it would be.

63. Board members welcomed the proposals on health claims and the use of 'sign-posting' levels. They were informed that appropriate controls on health claims, including “nutrition profiling” for foods wanting to use such claims, was currently under discussion in Brussels.

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

• noted the outcome of the survey on the use of terms such as fresh, pure and natural in food labelling;
• noted progress, particularly on allergen labelling, nutrition and health claims, and encouragement of good labelling practice; and
• agreed the focus of future plans on improving nutrition labelling and further encouraging uptake of the FSA's best practice advice.

Item 8 Reports from Chairs of Advisory Committees
(Papers FSA 04/02/06, FSA 04/02/07 and FSA 04/02/08)

Wales

65. The Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee had nothing to add to her report.

Northern Ireland

66. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) welcomed the routine sharing of minutes between the three devolved Advisory Committees and thanked FSA headquarters staff for recent briefings on pesticides issues and the use of information technology. The latter had raised the question of accessibility of IT support for NIAC, and other devolved Advisory Committee members.

67. He informed Board members that a joint meeting had been arranged for early June 2004 between NIAC and the Food Consumers Affairs Group of the General Consumer Council.

Scotland

68. The Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee was not present.

AOB

Water added to chicken products

69. Some Board members expressed concern about the brevity of the information note on added water in chicken that had been circulated on 6 February. The original action had been that consumer preference data should be requested from industry to support the proposal to set a maximum limit of fifteen per cent by weight added water. The note merely set out sales data from two companies that appeared to be contradictory. The lack of response from industry either suggested that the data did not exist or that it had been withheld. The Chief Executive agreed to go back to industry once again to ask what information they had to support their argument that consumers prefer chicken products with added water.
Action: Rosemary Hignett

Date of Next meeting

70. The next open meeting would be held on 11 March 2004 in London.