Board meeting minutes: 13 May 2004

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

Officials attending:
Jon Bell – Chief Executive
Corinne Vaughan – Head of Branch 3, Chemical Safety and Toxicology Division (item 4 only)
Alison Spalding – Head of Branch A, Food Chain Strategy Division (item 5 only)
Bill Knock – Head of Chemical Contaminants and Animal Feed Division (item 6 only)
David Statham – Director Enforcement and Food Standards (item 8 only)
Keith Gregory – Board Secretary
Sue Johns – Board Secretariat

1. The Chairman welcomed Nelisha Wickremasinghe to her first open Board meeting.

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

3. There was one item raised for discussion under Any Other Business:
The tabled Information Paper (PAPER NOTE 04/05/01) on 'UK Controls on Imported Food' to be taken as a short discussion item.

4. The minutes of the meeting held on 11 March at Kensington Town Hall, London were considered and confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting subject to the following changes:

• Paragraph 6, first bullet point: in the sentence beginning 'That modest effect', insert ‘in addition to an effect at brand level’, after ‘category level,’;
• Paragraph 9: in the sentence beginning ‘However, one Board member’, delete ‘he had been told' and replace with ‘data assembled by the Scottish Executive reported’;
• Paragraph 9: in the final sentence, delete all the words after 'direct advertising';
• Paragraph 10: at the end of the first sentence, add ‘and recognised the importance of providing consistent messages to the public’;
• Paragraph 10: at the end of the final sentence, add, ‘including physical activity’.

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

• The Chairman informed Board members of an error in the actions arising table, where the paragraph numbers in the 'Action' column for items 213, 214 and 216 should have been given as 39, 39 and 51 respectively;
• Index 211: An information note on the analysis and publication of data from LA audits was currently being prepared for circulation to the Board;
• Index 166: This action had been overtaken by events. The Board had discussed a paper on Food Safety Management based on HACCP principles at its meeting in March. A paper on prior approval and licensing was scheduled to come to the Board meeting in September;
• Index 203: The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to update Board members on the progress that had been made in undertaking a mapping exercise to identify nutrition initiatives. The Chief Executive reported that work had been progressing on three fronts: existing databases were being examined; stakeholders were being consulted (especially consumer and non-Governmental organisations); and consideration was being given to commissioning a feasibility study to look at the costs and benefits. He commented that there were a number of options open to the FSA and that the size of the task should not be underestimated. He would report back to the Board on this on a regular basis.

Action: Tom Murray

Over Thirty Month (OTM) Rule Review Update
6. The Chairman reminded Board members that, at the March meeting, he had reported that the Risk Assessment Group (RAG) had been asked to consider some new evidence, including information referred by the Secretary of State for Health last autumn concerning the possible human to human transmission of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) through blood transfusions, and the first case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the USA.

RAG had met at the beginning of April and had referred the matter to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). SEAC's final report was now awaited and, once received, an opportunity would be provided for the Board to discuss it at an open meeting. Meanwhile the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had published the previous day two opinions on the evaluation of BSE risk in the UK.

The first stated that the UK should move to a 'moderate' risk status by the end of December 2004 at the latest, which would put the UK in the same category as a number of other European countries and would provide the basis for lifting the export restrictions that currently applied to the UK.

The second concluded that, taking account of the work done by RAG last year, and the opinion of the EFSA Biohazards panel, the UK could move from the OTM rule to the same risk management regime of BSE testing that applied in other European member states.

7. One Board member asked whether all the new evidence that RAG and SEAC had been considering would be in the public domain when the Board came to discuss it. The Chairman agreed that, in order to facilitate full and open discussion, it would be important to ensure this was the case.

Another Board member asked what the impact of the EFSA opinions would have on UK trade. The Chief Executive emphasised that the whole process would be necessarily lengthy as the European Commission had first to make a proposal which a majority of member states would then need to agree.

Promotion of foods to children – update
8. The Chairman informed Board members that, following discussion at the March open meeting of the FSA's Action Plan on Food Promotion and Children's Diets, the Action Plan had been revised and issued for public consultation with a deadline for responses of 22 June.

Following a lengthy discussion by Board members at the last meeting on the distinction between 'healthy' and ‘less healthy' options it had been decided to refer to these in the consultation document as ‘foods high in fat, salt or sugar’ and 'healthier options'.

The FSA was funding a short project to look at options for defining these terms. A team of consultants had been commissioned to undertake the work, which would be overseen by an ad hoc project management group comprising independent nutritionists and dieticians (including nominees from industry and consumer groups) in addition to FSA and Department of Health officials. A report of the project was expected in August.

9. During discussions at the March open meeting, Board Members had requested that the consultation process take account of the views of children and young people. The FSA planned to arrange discussions involving schoolchildren of various ages. The Chairman reported that the FSA was also continuing to meet regularly with Ofcom to maintain the constructive relationship that had been developed. He had met with Ofcom's Chief Executive, Stephen Carter, in April and regular meetings at official level were continuing to take place. Ofcom planned to issue a consultation document on its regulatory review of broadcast advertising in June.

10. Finally, the Chairman informed Board members that a parallel strand of work was being undertaken at European level. Proposals for controls on the use of health claims on foods would consider requiring nutrient profiling for those foods for which 'healthy' claims were to be made.

Freshness of chicken in supermarkets
11. The Chief Executive informed Board members of the principal actions that the FSA had taken since allegations of illegal repackaging, re-labelling and the extension of use by dates on fresh chicken had been raised in an article published by Which? Magazine. The FSA had asked the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) to investigate these claims. The MHS had concluded that:

• there was no evidence that fresh chicken had been supplied to supermarkets up to 20 days after slaughter
• there had been evidence of repackaging, re-labelling and changing of use-by dates on fresh chicken, but this had all been carried out safely and lawfully and had not extended the use-by dates beyond the 9 – 11 days from slaughter required by the majority of customers
• MHS staff had not been made aware of any complaints from retailers or others about inappropriate labelling

12. In addition, the FSA had contacted both the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) and the Trading Standards Institute (TSI). Both had reported that they had not received any evidence to suggest unlawful activity, nor were they aware of any complaints or enquiries having been received by local authorities about this issue. Furthermore, the FSA understood that the quotes that had appeared in the media purporting to be from the TSI, which had suggested that the problem was widespread and that amendments to the law were required, were not in fact supported by the TSI.

13. The Director of Enforcement and Food Standards had written to the chief executives of the main supermarkets on 19 April asking for their observations on these allegations. His letter had also asked whether the supermarkets’ customer complaints data had indicated any consumer concern over poor keeping quality of chicken.

Other than holding replies, the FSA had received only one substantive reply so far. That had been from Waitrose, which had confirmed that it had procedures in place to prevent the practices described in the article in Which? Magazine. The enquiries were continuing.

The Chief Executive confirmed that, if there was any evidence supporting these allegations, the FSA would want to see it. The MHS had reminded all its employees of the need to report any suspicions without delay using the established whistle blowing arrangements if necessary.

14. Some Board members expressed concern that such allegations could cause unnecessary alarm among consumers and suggested that Which? should be asked to retract them, if the enquiries being made proved them to be unfounded. Other Board members disagreed and suggested instead that Which? might be encouraged to work more closely with the FSA in future where allegations of this type were being made. Finally, the Chief Executive informed Board members that a full report would be circulated when the present enquiries had been completed.
Action: David Statham

Contamination of eggs with antibiotics
15. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that the Soil Association, which promotes organic food production, had published a report in mid-April claiming that eggs (and chicken livers) were contaminated with a range of antibiotics, in particular lasalocid, known as coccidiostats.

These substances were used to treat chickens for internal parasites and, if used correctly, should not leave residues. It was believed that where they did occur this was as a result of cross contamination of medicated feed with others, either at the feed mill or on farm. The FSA did not consider that an immediate health risk to consumers was posed by the levels of residues reported and its advice about eating eggs therefore remained unchanged.

16. The FSA had for some time been urging industry to take steps to improve the way that these substances are used, so the latest results had been disappointing. The FSA was currently exploring a range of measures with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, including a brand naming survey, to encourage industry to tackle the issue more vigorously. Industry sources believed that the introduction of a new granular form of lasalocid would significantly help to reduce residues over the coming year by enabling hoppers and storage bins to be cleaned out more easily.

Recent Breaches of BSE Testing Requirements
17. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that Community legislation required certain categories of cattle to be tested for BSE before they were released into the food chain. These included all ‘casualty’ cattle aged over 24 months. Since 2002, some 2,793 casualty cattle sourced at abattoirs aged 24 – 30 months had been tested for BSE. None had tested positive.

Responsibility for ensuring that the BSE testing requirements in Great Britain were met lay with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), working under a service level agreement with Defra, was responsible for enforcing the requirements in abattoirs. However there were recent reports of five animals that had not been tested before being released into the food chain. As a result, the MHS had taken a number of actions including:

• sending two letters to all contractors employing OVSs reminding them of the testing requirements;
• contacting all OVS contractors by telephone to remind them of the need to ensure that the Operations Manual was up to date;
• contacting all senior meat hygiene inspectors in cattle processing slaughterhouses to remind them of their responsibilities;
• arranging for all full and low throughput red meat slaughterhouses to be visited;
• sending a letter to all plant operators in red meat slaughterhouses; and
• placing reminders in the MHS internal newsletter, which reached all operational staff.

The Chief Executive assured Board members that the risks to the public from this oversight were extremely small, that disciplinary action would be considered if such failures occurred in the future.

18. In response to questions from some Board members the Chief Executive explained that the failures had occurred at four separate plants and that the animals had ranged in age from just over 24 months to just under 30 months. The failures had come to light as a result of a number of actions, including auditing of existing records. One Board member noted that, when the requirement for full testing was introduced, such oversights would be less likely to occur. Another Board member noted that five cases out of a total of nearly 2,800 suggested that this should be kept in perspective.

Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) Mission in January 2004
19. The Chief Executive informed Board members that the FSA had recently seen a draft report of the mission to investigate the application of European law on food hygiene that had taken place in January. The report commended the high standards to which the UK operated and especially recognised the role and input of local authorities (LAs).

In particular, the report had highlighted the continual development of environmental health officers and commended the FSA’s support of that work. The FVO inspectors had also highlighted the FSA’s action plan to improve the quality of data submitted by LAs. The report would be published on the FVO’s website when it was finalised and Board members were invited to request a copy through the Secretariat.
Action: Board members/Secretariat

20. One Board member asked how that news would be cascaded to LAs. The Chief Executive agreed that the FSA would write to them and compliment them on their achievements once the final report had been published.
Action: David Statham

Investors in People (IiP) accreditation
21. The Chief Executive was pleased to report that the FSA had now received formal notice that it had achieved full IiP status. The Chairman, on behalf of Board members, congratulated the project team led by David Statham, which had been responsible for taking this work forward so successfully. He undertook to write to offer the Board’s formal congratulations.
Action: Secretariat

22. Corinne Vaughan introduced this item by reminding Board members that they had last discussed this issue in June 2003, when they had endorsed an outline action plan in support of the agreed minimisation policy. The present paper set out the progress that had been made since those discussions.

An extensive programme of consultation had been undertaken involving a wide range of stakeholders representing retailers, growers, producers and processors, other Government departments, Non-Governmental Organisations and consumers. This had shown that there was a considerable amount of work already underway in this area. As a result of this consultation, a more detailed action plan had been developed. This was set out in paragraph 22 of, and Annex 4 to, the present paper, which Board members were invited to consider and agree.

The overall conclusion that had been reached was that the FSA should assume a facilitating role by drawing together examples of best practice to form useful guidance, and then assessing how this guidance might contribute to existing pesticide minimisation initiatives, via assurance schemes.

Adoption of this guidance by assurance schemes was considered as the most effective way to deliver residue minimisation for consumers, since all major retailers sourced their produce from assurance scheme members (Assured Produce). Officials would explore with stakeholders how uptake of assurance schemes might be measured through an independent audit process.

23. The annexes to the paper contained considerable detail to support this new approach and the core activities that would form the basis of the action plan would be:

• working closely with stakeholders to identify measures that can be taken to address consumers' information needs about regulatory controls and bodies that currently exist to protect consumer safety
• drawing together, and disseminating to retailers and assurance schemes, documentation that provides useful examples of best practice
• continuing to collaborate with the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) and with other non government organisations to promote measures that will minimise residues and meet consumers’ preferences
• exploring options for reducing residues in imported produce (options to take forward this work on imported foods had been highlighted in paragraphs 18 – 21 of the paper)

24. Board members congratulated the authors on an excellent paper. The Chairs of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) and the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) both reported that their committees had had an opportunity to consider the issue of pesticide minimisation recently. Their views on a range of issues were reported.

25. Some Board members considered that one of the key areas that the FSA needed to address was how information was communicated to the ordinary consumer. They noted that the evidence in Annex 3 had suggested that there was a misconception among some consumers who wanted perfect looking fruit and vegetables but did not want chemicals to be used on their food.

The Deputy Chair noted that Annex 3 also illustrated how volatile opinions could be. She asked what was being done not only to ensure that consumers were well informed about the issue but also to make sure that the FSA was alert to current consumer concerns. Some Board members emphasised that the ‘avoiders’ group identified in Annex 3 were an important group and should not be overlooked. In response, Corinne Vaughan agreed that clear communication was vital. She noted the fact that both the FSA website page on pesticides and the PSD website had recently been updated, though she acknowledged that more could be done to provide good links to assurance scheme sites.

The Chief Executive added that other ways of providing information to consumers (eg through the use of logos) were being pursued and that the FSA intended to monitor consumer views regularly.

26. Some Board members noted that the action plan was rather qualitative: there were not many deadlines by which objectives should be met. However, they acknowledged that, as a result of the FSA choosing to act as a facilitator and to promote best practice through adherence to assurance schemes, the ability of the FSA to set target dates was restricted. Other Board members noted that there were areas in the action plan that needed to be cross referenced.

27. Some Board members emphasised the need for quality analytical data, and that there was a need to generate comprehensive and robust baseline data. One Board member suggested that the FSA should investigate the potential use of novel analytical techniques that would allow cheap and reliable screening for pesticides residues at maximum residue levels (MRLs). He felt however that it was unnecessary to look for residues below the MRL. In response, Corinne Vaughan assured Board members that current requirements laid down by the European Commission ensured that the analytical data were robust and reliable. She informed Board members that the FSA would explore available alternative approaches.

28. Board members noted the specific reference to imported foods and the various options being proposed. One Board member also noted that this was potentially a particular issue for minority ethnic groups. In response, Corinne Vaughan informed Board members that it was necessary to tackle the issue from a variety of different angles. She also reassured them that the numbers of exceedances of MRLs, whilst greater than those grown domestically, were still small. She agreed to ask the Pesticide Residues Committee to consider the particular matter of communicating pesticide issues to ethnic groups.

29. The Chair of WFAC noted that, in a previous discussion, WFAC members had been concerned that, in the drive to harmonise pesticide residue levels across Europe, the MRLs might have to be increased to ensure that all member states could enforce them equally. In particular, she asked what was being done with reference to the accession states to ensure that they were able to operate to the same standard.

The Chief Executive informed Board members that PSD took the lead on such matters but the FSA worked closely with PSD’s experts. With regard to the ability of accession states, the FVO had been carrying out a programme of inspections in the run-up to them becoming full members.

30. In response to comments made by some Board members about the ‘cocktail effect’ of pesticide residues, Corinne Vaughan confirmed that a new research programme had been set up to carry forward recommendations made by the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. The action plan to deliver the Working Group on the Risk Assessment of Mixtures of Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine (WiGRAMP) recommendations was close to being finalised and would be brought to the Board.

31. The Chairman thanked Corinne Vaughan for her help and summarised the main points raised in the discussion. The Board had:

• noted the progress that had been made
• agreed the proposals set out in paragraph 22 and annex 4.

The Board had also asked the Executive to:

• ensure that it continued to develop understanding of consumer interests and how the FSA might effectively communicate complex information to consumers;
• remain alert to the needs and views of consumers, especially the ‘avoiders’ in whose opinion pesticide residues were of negligible concern;
• develop a more detailed action plan; and
• seek novel ways of measuring pesticide residues.

Action: Corinne Vaughan

32. Alison Spalding introduced this item by pointing out that it was the first time that the Board had considered a paper on sustainable development. Currently, the FSA was inviting views on the approach that it should take on this subject in its draft Strategic Plan. Whilst that consultation was under way, Board members were being provided with an opportunity to have a preliminary discussion of the issue in the context of the FSA's responsibilities.

Paragraphs 1-11 of the paper set out what sustainable development was. The key point to note was the importance being placed on sustainable development by the UK Government and the devolved administrations.

Paragraphs 12-21 focused on considerations relating to sustainable development in the context of the FSA itself. A number of issues for discussion were raised and these were summarised in paragraph 21.

Paragraphs 22-23 suggested that the Board should return to this matter once the outcome of the consultation on the strategic plan had been completed.

33. The paper did not look at individual policies. Instead, it focused on some fundamental challenges that faced any organisation which was considering embedding sustainable development into its work. Although it would be tempting to focus on the more straightforward operational issues, such as estates management, arguably the most important – and most challenging – issue was how to embed sustainable development into policy development and decision making.

To be sustainable, operational activities and policies needed to promote positive benefits in four key areas (or at least ensure that policies promoting benefits in one area did not result in unacceptably detrimental effects in others):

• environmental protection
• social progress
• prudent use of natural resources
• economic growth and employment

34. Finally, the Board was not being asked to agree a proposed action plan at this stage. A further paper would be taken in the autumn.

35. Board members congratulated the Executive on the paper. They recognised that the issue was a challenging one. The FSA had a remit to protect the consumer; this did not just apply to the consumer of today but also the consumer of tomorrow. One Board member noted the views of the Consumer Committee (set out in Annex C to the paper) and its opinion that sustainability should not come at a price premium to the consumer. This indicated that more work needed to be done to encourage better understanding of the issue. The need to balance access to, the cost of, and the choice of, food would be very important.

36. Board members noted paragraph 19 and that the FSA had to find a way that allowed it to protect consumers but in a manner that was consistent with the principals of sustainable development. One Board member suggested that the phrasing of the final sentence, in particular the reference to ‘an imperfect consideration’ might be recast. In response, Alison Spalding pointed out that, as this was an evolving area, the evidence base was often weak. In drafting the paper it had been considered that it was better to try to explore ways of taking the issue forward based on incomplete knowledge than to suggest doing nothing.

37. Some Board members noted the criteria set out in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the paper and the integrated policy appraisal framework detailed in Annex B. They agreed the need to prioritise, noted the importance of asking the right questions (those most pertinent to the FSA) and to developing guidance notes to accompany the framework. In response Alison Spalding felt that the framework needed to be a tool to allow officials (and others) to focus down on the specific issues of concern.

38. One Board member suggested that it would be useful if examples of the implications of sustainability on some of the targets in the new strategic plan could be worked through. Another Board member acknowledged the need to separate the issues of introducing sustainability into the personnel/management tasks of the FSA from the wider FSA agenda and press ahead with implementation.

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

• noted the background information and had had a preliminary discussion on the matter
• requested a further paper after the strategic plan had been finalised
• noted the need to remain focused on the core FSA purpose of ensuring the safety and choice of food
• noted the importance of continuing to consult with consumers
• requested worked examples to illustrate the impact of sustainability on policy development.

Action: Richard Harding

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared a material interest as a public analyst whose firm earned fees from analysis of these samples. The Chairman agreed that this was a material interest and that Michael Walker should withdraw from discussion of this item.]

40. Bill Knock introduced the paper and noted that this was the first time that the Board had considered the FSA's work on chemical contaminants in the round, although the subject had been considered broadly when specific contamination issues had arisen. The paper briefly introduced the range of work the FSA carried out, including the programme of research and food surveys on environmental and process contaminants (such as heavy metals, dioxins, acrylamide), chemical migration from food contact materials, and naturally occurring mycotoxins produced by moulds. This work informed the FSA’s advice to consumers as well as its negotiations in Brussels. The range of contaminants that was dealt with continued to increase and the shape of the FSA’s programme evolved in response to:

• expert and consumer concern about specific contaminants
• previous knowledge becoming dated
• the availability of new toxicological information
• new regulations (eg EC proposals)
• assessing the effect of legislation, codes of practice, manufacturing methods

41. The paper proposed three separate reviews of the work on mycotoxins, process and environmental contaminants over the next 15 months. The reviews would look at quality and relevance issues as well as how the FSA prioritised the work. In line with the FSA’s new strategic plan, the paper proposed to put more effort into working collaboratively with the food industry to reduce contamination and the number of incidents. The FSA also planned to work more closely with LAs on food surveys. Finally there was a need to communicate the issues clearly. In an ideal world there would be no chemical contamination.

The Board was asked to endorse the proposal for greater collaboration with stakeholders and note that the Executive would report back to the Board in 18 months time when the three reviews had been completed and evaluated.

42. Board members welcomed the paper and thanked the Executive. One Board member asked whether there was sufficient flexibility built into research projects to allow them to react to new compounds so that the FSA could ‘stay ahead’ in identifying potential new contaminants. Another Board member noted that it would not be possible to have all the answers and to identify all the contaminants. Acrylamide was a good example of a ‘new’ contaminant, what had happened to that issue?

Bill Knock informed Board members that the FSA remained in close contact with its contractors and would react to new contaminants either by seeking to amend a current contract or by setting up a new one. Currently 120 projects had been completed or were underway worldwide on acrylamide which were being co-ordinated in the hope of reducing duplication of effort, thereby speeding up the process. There remained a considerable amount still to be done before definitive ways of reducing the levels could be identified. The Chairman pointed out that Germany had introduced a systematic reduction programme. However, there was a range of views amongst experts about the likely effectiveness of this.

43. One Board member asked about the options to extend the collaborative work with LAs by involving them in food surveys. She also asked for progress on the national sampling database which had been piloted recently. Bill Knock informed Board members that, at present the criteria which the FSA used to design its sampling plans for a food survey were different to those used by LAs. However, discussions were planned to increase the level of collaboration. The database was still being piloted and work to improve the software was on-going. He would inform the Board as to when this was expected to be completed.
Action: Bill Knock

44. One Board member asked what influenced the choice of chemicals to be monitored and asked whether large European projects were the best way to progress the work. Bill Knock informed Board members that the large European projects, for example Framework 6, were important in that they encouraged collaborative working across Europe and reduced the possibility of duplication of effort. In response to a question from one Board member, he acknowledged that the information generated by the EU REACH programme referred to in paragraph 12 was unlikely to generate information on the usage and hazard potential of the major chemicals in use much before 2007.

45. Some Board members expressed concern that the FSA could advise consumers that a food met safety standards when the contaminants it might contain were known to have chronic effects. The Chief Executive explained that there were well established internationally agreed safety limits and exposure guidelines, which allowed acceptable intakes over a lifetime to be calculated. This was a widely accepted approach. The FSA also consulted expert advisory committees and used their knowledge to assess potential risk in the case of ‘new’ contaminants.

46. Some Board members asked, in view of the earlier paper and the concern with pesticide residues, whether there was a ‘cocktail effect’ with chemical contaminants. The Chief Executive replied that the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) had made some recommendations that were being taken forward. In addition, there was a project underway that was looking at the interaction of four well known additives as a means of assessing the potential of chemicals in food to interact with each other.

47. One Board member noted that the paper highlighted the FSA’s dependence on contract laboratories and also noted the expense of the research and survey work. Had the FSA considered setting up its own laboratory? The Chief Executive informed Board members that this had been considered when the FSA was established. However, it had been decided that competitive tendering would offer the best value for money. There were occasions when specialist techniques were required which might only be available in one or two laboratories.

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

• noted the report
• requested information on the timescale for setting up a national sampling database
• requested a further paper in eighteen months time that, in addition to reporting the outcomes of the reviews, dealt with the possible 'cocktail effect', provided a clearer understanding of how to horizon scan for the presently unknown contaminants which might become important in the future

Northern Ireland
49. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) informed Board members that NIAC had discussed imported food controls and the majority of its members were of the opinion that, if another agency were to be established, there would be a considerable amount of unnecessary duplication. There was, however, a specific Northern Ireland aspect in so far as any new agency would need to maintain the involvement of DARD.

Scotland
50. The Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) referred Board members to the report where the agenda items taken at a recent open meeting were listed. SFAC had considered Food Safety Management systems and concluded that there needed to be tailored training in Scotland suitable for SMEs. A report on the SFAC working group that had looked at issues related to wild game was due shortly.

51. The open meeting planned for 25 May would not now take place as the Walker report had been delayed.

Wales
52. The Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) apologised that the forward agenda had not been included on this occasion. She informed Board members that the committee members and FSA Wales were currently engaged in a considerable amount of work on the Food and Well Being Strategy. She had chaired a stakeholder meeting on 11 May in Llandudno that had facilitated a networking opportunity for health practitioners. The strategy was helping to build a body of knowledge that would be useful in terms of what happens in Wales, but she thought the initiative could also be translated into England.

UK Controls on Imported Food
(Paper INFO 04/05/04)

53. There was one item of other business. The Chairman welcomed David Statham to the table and invited him to give a brief introduction to the paper. He apologised that the paper had come to the Board at this late date, but the data had only been received by the FSA during April (after the end of the financial year). More than 80% of LAs involved with checking imports had responded and the FSA was indebted to them for all their efforts. Other information in the paper had been supplied by the FSA’s Imports branch.

Board members were asked to note the work that had been carried out and that the Chairman would present a paper, based on this one, to a Ministerial group later in May. That group would decide whether the step change project had been successful and whether or not a single agency would be a more appropriate way forward.

54. Board members commended the work that had been done to achieve the step change, both by LAs and also by FSA officials. They noted that Annex 1 indicated that all the step change criteria had been met, although they recognised that, at this stage of the project, many of the criteria measured process rather than outcome.

55. Some Board members expressed concern about the proposal to establish a new agency to take on this work. The step change process had been successful because it had relied heavily on building good partnerships; the FSA should therefore resist a move to a new agency.

56. One Board member commented that more should be done at the point of entry to deter people from bringing foodstuffs into the UK personally, for example more posters and the use of in-flight videos. In response, David Statham pointed out that Defra, in conjunction with HM Customs and Excise, had the lead responsibility in this area. Much had been achieved over the last year; videos had been taken up by some airlines and posters were now being displayed.

57. One Board member pointed out that some information included in the paper could be better quantified, for example, the appendix quoted a 'sample survey' but did not indicate how many samples had been taken. The Chairman had also noted that the increase in emails needed similar clarification.

58. Board members agreed to delegate authority to the Chairman to present a summary of the work completed based on the information in this paper to the Ministerial group.

Date of next meeting

59. The next open meeting would be held on 15 July 2004 in London.