Board meeting minutes: 12 May 2005

Tuesday 19 July 2005

The Hotel Russell, Russell Square, London, WC1B 5BE

Present:
Julia Unwin, Acting Chair
Richard Ayre, Acting Deputy Chair
Chrissie Dunn
Maureen Edmondson
Michael Gibson
Ann Hemingway
Valerie Howarth
Iain MacDonald
Graeme Millar
Christopher Pomfret
Sandra Walbran
Nelisha Wickremasinghe

Officials attending:
Jon Bell – Chief Executive
Chris Lawson – MHS Chief Executive (item 6 only)
Judith Hilton – Head of Microbiological Safety Division (item 5 only)
Alan Harvey – Head of TSE Division (item 6 only)
Keith Gregory – Board Secretary
Barbara Gallani – Board Secretariat

Others attending:
Patrick Wall – Chair of the Independent Inquiry Steering Group (item 6 only)

Acting Chair's Introduction

1. The Acting Chair welcomed all observers attending the open Board meeting and invited the Acting Deputy Chair to introduce the meeting. The Acting Deputy Chair reminded those attending the meeting and watching the webcast that the FSA Board discussed policy issues at its open meetings to meet its commitment to transparency and accessibility. There would be an opportunity for questions immediately after the formal session and those watching the webcast could also send questions to the Board.

2. The Acting Chair noted that apologies had been received from Sati Ariyanayagam and 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:

• Outcome of the action plan to implement the recommendations of the Waste Food Task Force (INFO 05/05/01) – (Ann Hemingway).

Item 1 - Minutes of the Meeting on 10 March 2005, SAS Radisson Hotel, Edinburgh (Paper FSA 05/05/01)

4. The Board agreed the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2005 at the SAS Radisson Hotel, Edinburgh, as an accurate record.

5. No issues were raised regarding the table of follow up actions.

Item 2 - Acting Chair's Report

New FSA Chair's starting date

6. The Acting Chair informed Board members that, on 31 March, it had been announced that Dame Deirdre Hutton had been appointed as the next Chair of the Food Standards Agency. Dame Deirdre Hutton - who was currently Deputy Chair of the Financial Services Authority, a member of the Better Regulation Task Force, Chair of the National Consumer Council and Deputy Chair of the European Food Safety Authority - would be taking up her position as Chair of the FSA on 18 July and would be chairing her first scheduled FSA open Board meeting in September.

Incidents Task Force (Terms of Reference)

7. The Acting Chair reminded Board members that, in response to the Sudan I incident (which had led to the largest recall of contaminated products ever in the UK), the Board had agreed that an Independent Inquiry into the incident should be conducted upon completion of any possible legal action. Investigations by enforcement authorities into the Sudan I incident were currently underway.

8. The Board had also agreed that a Task Force should be set up to advise on the handling of food contamination incidents more generally. The Task Force would consider ways of strengthening controls in the food chain in order to reduce the risk of future contamination incidents occurring and identify the most effective ways of managing such incidents when they occur. The Task Force would include representatives from the food industry, enforcement authorities and consumer organisations, together with some independent members, and would be chaired by the FSA Chief Executive. Its work would be taken forward in two phases. In the first phase, the Task Force would gather a range of views from the food industry and enforcement bodies on ways of reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring and would report on this in the autumn. In the second (longer) phase, it would look at the many issues related to effective management approaches.

9. Full details of the terms of reference for the Task Force and for the external review would be made available on the FSA website.

Meeting with the Chairman of the Wine Standards Board

10. The Acting Chair informed Board members that she had met the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Wine Standards Board (WSB) on Tuesday 10 May. The review of inspection and enforcement conducted by Philip Hampton had recommended consolidation into the FSA of the work of the WSB. Discussions would shortly begin with Defra focussing on the transfer of the relevant policy responsibilities and finance to the FSA. The WSB, a small organisation with significant technical expertise, would continue to be consulted at all stages.

11. In response to a question from one Board member, the Chief Executive noted that, although new legislation might be needed to effect the agreed changes, it might be possible to make interim arrangements in advance of legislative change, provided that these ensured clarity of policy responsibilities and reporting arrangements.

Item 3 - Chief Executive's Report

Para Red food dye

12. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that the FSA had first become aware of the use of the illegal dye Para Red on 14 April 2005. A Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed notification (RASFF) had been issued by the European Commission (EC) to all member states alerting them to the presence of the dye in a batch of paprika originating from Uzbekistan that had been imported into Spain. The UK had not been listed in the original RASFF as one of the member states that had received the adulterated product. However, it later became apparent that the original alert had only covered part of the supply chain from the Spanish company (Ramon Sabater) and that companies in the UK had received supplies directly from this company which had tested positive for Para Red.

13. The Chief Executive noted that Para Red was a dye that was not permitted for use in food. The FSA's independent scientific advisers (Chairs of the Advisory Committee on Carcinogenicity and Committee on Mutagenicity) had concluded that it would be prudent to assume that Para Red was a genotoxic carcinogen. Although, as in the case of Sudan I contamination, the risk to health posed by the presence of this dye in food at the levels which had been found was likely to be very small, it was clearly sensible not to consume foods containing it.

14. To date, the FSA had published a list of 69 products containing Para Red on its website. However, the FSA was still awaiting notification of where an additional 2 tonnes of chilli powder from the Spanish company that had recently been found to have been contaminated with Para Red had been used. An updated list of contaminated products would be published on the FSA's website as soon as possible.

15. The Spanish company had also supplied other member states, which were now carrying out their own investigations. It was therefore possible that products from other member states had been imported into the UK, but this information was not yet available.

16. The Commission had held a meeting with member states on Tuesday 10 May to discuss the adulteration of food with illegal dyes (in particular, Para Red). The conclusions of that meeting had been published on the Commission's website. A conflicting summary document had also been published and talks were being held with the Commission to clarify the situation. In the meantime, the Commission had advised that the document containing the detailed conclusions was the one to be followed. The key points from this were:

• EFSA would undertake an assessment of the toxicological data on Para Red and other illegal dyes, the conclusions from which would be available within two months;
• the UK would lead a working group to collate details of the method that is available in all member states for testing Para Red and other dyes, based on HPLC to report within two weeks; an agreed version would then be validated in ring trials using reference materials supplied by the UK (a further two weeks had been allowed for this);
• performance criteria would be established for a more sensitive method based on LC-MS for laboratories capable of using this technique.

17. The Commission had made clear at the meeting that the presence of any dyes not permitted for use in food would be unacceptable at any level. The limit of detection for the HPLC method had been set, for the time being, at between 0.5 and 1mg/kg (0.5 - 1 parts per million). Where an illegal dye was found above this level, using this technique, either in the spice itself or a food in which it had been used, the product would need to be withdrawn from the market. HPLC is used routinely by all member states. The Commission had not set a limit of detection for testing with LC-MS but had advised that if testing was carried out using this method and an illegal dye was found, companies had to take action to withdraw the food concerned.

18. The situation would be revisited after completion of the risk assessment being carried out by EFSA and when performance criteria had been set for LC-MS and methods validated for HPLC. The FSA planned to carry out surveillance of spices to check for the presence of illegal dyes following validation of a detection method by the EC working group.

19. Board members asked what was being done by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to reduce the presence of illegal dyes in foods originating outside the EU. The Chief Executive confirmed that the FSA would work closely with other EU member states and the Commission to make sure that the WHO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission were aware of the need for this issue to be tackled in the originating countries.

20. Board members enquired about the possibility of other illegal dyes being present in food and were informed by the Chief Executive that the FSA, like other food authorities, was on the look out for information that might point to the possible presence of other illegal dyes in food. The Commission had asked member states to notify EFSA of any other dyes found. Board members asked that the FSA be as proactive as possible in its investigations and that it consider looking for other dyes that could be added to foods to enhance their natural colours.

21. Board members strongly agreed that the FSA and the Commission should send very clear signals to countries producing spices that the practice of enhancing natural colours with illegal dyes was unacceptable and would lead to the withdrawal of products and the possibility of prosecution.

22. Some Board members were concerned about the difficulty of maintaining a proportionate approach when dealing with issues that could be highly amplified by the media. The Acting Chair recognised the FSA's commitment to communicating information to consumers promptly and fully. The Acting Deputy Chair noted the responsible approach to reporting that had been adopted overall by the media on this occasion.

23. Some Board members commented that certain sectors of the press had accused the FSA of over-reacting to this incident and asked for information on how other member states had dealt with the issue. The Chief Executive noted that a number of other countries (such as Denmark, France, Ireland and Sweden) had reacted in much the same way as the UK. Others (like the Netherlands and Germany) had not publicised their action but had nonetheless acted promptly to withdraw affected products from the market. A note would be circulated to Board members providing comparative information.
Action: Andrew Wadge

Bt10 GM variety - Methodology for testing

24. The Chief Executive noted that the FSA had been informed by the biotechnology company Sygenta, on 22 March 2005, that a variety of genetically modified maize (Bt11 - grown legally in the USA and approved for food and feed use in the EU) had been inadvertently contaminated with an unauthorised antibiotic resistant GM variety (Bt10). The Commission and other member states had also been informed of this contamination at the same time as the FSA. The Commission had subsequently introduced a requirement for all EU imports of maize, gluten feed and brewers' grains from non-segregated maize from the USA to be accompanied by an analytical report from an authorised USA laboratory demonstrating the absence of material derived from Bt10 maize. Emergency EC regulations had been enacted giving the necessary powers to enable national authorities to enforce this requirement.

25. A detection method had recently been validated and published by the EC's Joint Research Centre and reference material had been provided by Syngenta to allow testing by member states. The FSA would carry out its own surveillance work and the results would be used to inform the EC's review of this new requirement in October 2005. There were no immediate health risks.

26. Board members asked whether cross checks were in place to inspect certificated consignments of maize. The Chief Executive confirmed that Port Health Authorities had been instructed to carry out spot checks and to ensure that certificates accompanying consignments had been provided by authorised laboratories or, if not, that consignments were held until the appropriate tests had been carried out.

Food Supplements

27. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that the legal position had not been changed by the Advocate General's (AG) opinion, issued on 5 April 2005: the Directive would come into force on 1 August in the absence of a decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to the contrary.

28. In order to maximise the number of products remaining on the market when the Directive came into force, so as to maintain consumer choice, the FSA was providing some limited resource to the industry to assist with the appointment of an independent expert to help put together as many dossiers as possible for EFSA assessment.

29. To date, industry had submitted 25 dossiers to the UK and one to the Netherlands. It was expected that between 50 and 150 additional dossiers would now be produced and submitted to EFSA. Board members would be kept up to date with the ECJ's decision.

30. One Board member asked the Chief Executive to describe developments briefly. The Chief Executive summarised the background and reminded Board members that this had always been a controversial Directive and that any EU measure could be subject to challenge through the courts. Member states generally had very different regimes: some controlled the sale of food supplements very strictly, others (like the UK) had adopted a more liberal approach.

31. Some Board members asked for more information on the AG's opinion. The Chief Executive explained that the deficiencies pointed out by the AG were of a technical nature and would not in themselves necessarily invalidate the whole Directive. If the ECJ decided to accept the opinion of the AG, the Commission would then have to decide how to respond. A note on the AG's opinion would be circulated to the Board.
Action: Clair Baynton

32. One Board member noted that other European legislation had placed great pressure on small businesses, which sometimes found it difficult to meet the additional costs, and asked why the FSA had chosen to provide support for industry in relation to food supplements and not in other cases. The Chief Executive explained that the modest support provided to industry had been made available in order to maintain consumer choice.

33. In response to a question from one Board member, the Chief Executive confirmed that it would be unusual for the AG's opinion not to be accepted by the ECJ. In the unlikely event that the ECJ had not taken a view by 1 August 2005 (when the legislation was due to take effect) the FSA would need to discuss with LAs appropriate and proportionate ways of dealing with potential contraventions.

Item 4 - Report from the Chair of the MHS Board

34. The Acting Chair invited Chrissie Dunn, Chair of the MHS Board, to report on recent developments. Chrissie Dunn reminded Board members that, following an FSA review of the governance arrangements for the MHS, and with Ministerial approval, the MHS Board had been formed in October 2004 to strengthen the governance of the MHS on behalf of the FSA Board. The MHS Board comprised a Chair, two FSA Board members, two external members, and two ex-Officio FSA members - the Chief Executive of the FSA and the Veterinary Director. It was hoped that the two external members would be appointed before the July MHS Board meeting.

35. To date, three MHS Board meetings had taken place. Quarterly meetings would be held each year and an additional meeting with stakeholders would be held annually. Meetings would normally be held in York and the annual stakeholder meeting at different locations in England, Scotland, and Wales. A report on MHS performance would be presented at the FSA's July 2005 Open Board Meeting.

36. Board members asked about the processes that had been put in place for the FSA Board to discuss the advice provided to it by the MHS Board. The Acting Chair noted that clear and efficient processes were necessary since the MHS Board had been established to focus responsibilities rather than to transfer them from the FSA Board. The Chair of the MHS Board noted that the MHS Board Secretariat was still being established and that, once it was in place, the flow of documents from the MHS Board to the FSA Board would become more regular.

37. One Board member asked about the MHS Board's advice on the continued use of Plant Inspection Assistants (PIAs) in slaughterhouses under the new EU Food Hygiene Regulations . The Acting Chair apologised for the delay and assured the Chair of the MHS Board that it would be circulated shortly to FSA Board members.
Action: Board Secretariat

Item 5 - Foodborne Disease Strategy (Paper FSA 05/05/02)

38. The Acting Chair welcomed Judith Hilton, Head of Microbiological Safety Division, to the table and invited her to introduce this paper. Judith Hilton reminded Board members that they had considered the last report on the FSA's foodborne disease strategy in September 2004 . The present paper reported on work that had been completed during the four years of the strategy's activity, reviewed the strategy's effectiveness and the proposed work for the future. Annex 3 to the paper contained data explaining the rationale for concentrating on red meat and poultry, and on cooking and cross contamination messages. Work in these areas was described in the text of the main report. A full listing of work carried out to date was in Annex 4, which needed to be supplemented by data from Northern Ireland on activities in the meat sector. Annex 2 contained the planned activities for the current year.

39. Judith Hilton acknowledged contributions from people outside the FSA, in particular industry and local authorities (LAs), which had been essential in implementing the strategy. There had been some delay in receiving some of the monitoring data and figures announced earlier for 2003 had been revised by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) at the end of 2004. However, there had been a decrease of 15% in the number of cases of foodborne illness with a major effect on public health by the end of 2003, compared to the 2000 baseline. It was not yet possible to tell whether the 20% target would be met but it was likely that there had been a further reduction in 2004. Talks were underway with the HPA to try to ensure quicker data collection in the future.

40. The Acting Chair thanked Judith Hilton and her team for this paper and invited Board members to comment.

41. One Board member acknowledged the large amount of work done by the FSA in this area and asked what other sources of evidence were used for measuring progress. It was noted that some data on the intermediate stages of food production was available from Defra.

42. One Board member referred to the FSA's work on providing businesses with a range of equivalent HACCP tool kits and noted that in this area it was not clear if there would be a choice or whether one way of implementation would be favoured. The Chief Executive confirmed that businesses in all parts of the UK would be given the full range of options.

43. One Board member asked for an explanation of the steep increase in Clostridium perfringens reports shown in Annex 1 to the paper and was informed that the data were misleading due to the fact that laboratories very seldom tested for this pathogen and only did so in the case of outbreaks. Many outbreaks were diagnosed clinically and no tests were carried out. Therefore, if tests were carried out in just a few additional outbreaks, this could increase the reported figures considerably.

44. One Board member, noting that a Task Force on E. coli had been established in Scotland, asked for comments on the data reported in the paper and was informed that more than 50% of the outbreaks reported were likely to be due to direct contact with contaminated animals or environments rather than being food related. There had been no attempt to correct for this in the final statistics.

45. One Board member noted that the number of deaths caused by Listeria was high and asked whether this should be taken into account in setting targets. It was pointed out that, under the new strategic plan, there was no specific disease reduction target. However, the new plan also made clear that, in future, the FSA would monitor the effectiveness of its strategy by looking not only at the numbers of cases but also at their severity.

46. Board members asked whether comparative data were available from other EU member states. Although comparative data were not currently available, because different countries had different recording systems, it would be possible to show trends within countries for individual pathogens and a note would be circulated intersessionally to the Board.
Action: Judith Hilton

47. One Board member asked for an update on the project on on-farm pasteurisation and was informed that FSA officials would have to wait until the conclusion of Defra's review of its inspectorate functions before continuing with this project. Whilst the milk-borne outbreaks could cause severe disease, they tended to be very localised and therefore did not have a big impact on the national figures.

48. One Board member asked why pilot studies were always carried out in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland rather than in one of the English regions and was informed that the FSA was in the process of establishing a regional presence and would then be better placed to pilot food hygiene work in the English regions. FSA officials were also aware of a number of examples of good practice in many of the English regions which they hoped to learn from in taking forward the '4 Cs' strategy in the new strategic plan.

49. One Board member asked whether the Salmonella outbreaks due to Spanish eggs had had a noticeable effect on the data and was informed that, because outbreak cases were a small minority of all cases, they had not made a significant difference to the statistics.

50. Board members asked whether sufficient information was available on Campylobacter to allow the setting of clear reduction targets. Work was on-going to understand and identify control measures better. The research conducted by the FSA had been presented to industry at a seminar and the strategy would be updated as more results emerged from current research.

51. One Board member, expressing support for the work presented, said that the FSA needed to continue to press on with promoting food hygiene and recognised that industry had spent large sums of money improving the input end. Another Board member noted that the payback implied by the figures reported in paragraph 30 of the paper was phenomenal and congratulated Judith Hilton on the success of this strategy.

52. Board members recognised the complexity of the data and the uncertainties caused by changing sources, evolving methodologies and changing reporting systems. It had also appeared, from some of the discussions, that some of the data would need to be adjusted for a number of factors (eg severity of the disease, non-foodborne routes of transmission, etc). Board members asked for an opportunity to review the way in which effectiveness was assessed and agreed that there was a need to work in partnership with industry and LAs to derive sensible performance indicators. It was noted that FSA statisticians were currently working on a review of the data and a report to the Board, in the light of their conclusions, would be possible by the end of the year. The Board Secretariat was asked to schedule time for this.
Action: Board Secretariat

53. In summary the Acting Chair noted that the Board had:

• recognised the enormous amount of work that had been done and the progress that had been made;
• noted the uncertainties surrounding measurements of the incidence of foodborne disease and asked for an opportunity to discuss the current approach to monitoring;
• noted the work done in partnership with external organisations, particularly the food industry, and the need to seek additional sources of data to monitor effectiveness ; and
• agreed the proposed forward plan.

Item 6 - Update on progress on robustness of BSE testing regime (Paper FSA 05/05/03)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Gibson declared an interest as a primary producer and butcher, which he considered sufficient to warrant his exclusion from the discussion of this issue. The Acting Chair agreed that this was a material interest and that Michael Gibson should not participate in the discussion and determination of this issue. Michael Gibson left the table for this item.]

54. The Acting Chair welcomed Patrick Wall (Chairman of the Independent Group), Chris Lawson (MHS Chief Executive) and Alan Harvey (Head of TSE Division) to the table and invited Alan Harvey to introduce this paper.

55. This paper was a progress report on preparing for changing the Over Thirty Month (OTM) rule for cattle. The OTM rule was one of the three main BSE controls put in place since 1996 and consisted of a ban on cattle older than thirty months entering the food chain.

56. At previous meetings, Board members had considered the consequences of changing this rule. In July 2004, Ministers had been advised that replacing the OTM rule by BSE testing for cattle born on or after 1 August 1996 was justified on grounds of foodborne risk to consumers and proportionality, subject to the putting in place of a robust testing system. Ministers had already decided that cattle born before 1 August 1996 would remain permanently excluded from the food supply. In the light of this advice, the Government had announced, on 1 December 2004, the start of a managed transition towards the lifting of the OTM rule and its replacement with a robust system for BSE testing for cattle born on or after 1 August 1996. That announcement had made clear that the change would only happen when the FSA had advised Ministers that the testing system was robust. To assist with that process, the Board had appointed a group of outside experts in order to ensure that the advice it received on the robustness of the testing regime was independent.

57. At its meeting in December 2004, the Board had considered and approved the Independent Group's initial report containing its recommendations for a testing regime and had agreed that the next stage should be a full trial of the system to assess whether or not it would be robust.

58. The Independent Group had now reviewed the outcome of some trials of the system and had concluded that, whilst they had provided an excellent opportunity to assess the proposed testing system critically, a further round of trials should take place in GB. In addition, the EU Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) would be carrying out a mission to Great Britain from 6 - 15 June 2005 to evaluate the implementation of the EC BSE rules. This would concentrate on BSE testing and surveillance and the identification and traceability of bovine animals as well as on removal and disposal of SRM and the feed ban. The mission would include an examination of the proposed system for BSE testing.

59. The Acting Chair thanked Alan Harvey for his introduction and invited the Chief Executive of the MHS to update the Board on the action the MHS had been taking to address the recent OTM breaches. The Chief Executive of the MHS told the Board that any breach of the OTM rule was unacceptable and that preliminary results had shown there to have been no breaches in February, one breach of one animal being found to be one day over thirty months in March and no breaches in April.

60. Page 8 of the present paper listed the actions the MHS had been taking, including speeding up the reporting system; the use of IT portal information to bring key dates to the attention of staff working in plant and the introduction of laminated documents for staff on the slaughter floor. Of the 937,000 animals that had been slaughtered and checked between September 2004 and February 2005, 18 breaches had been noted and 56 OTM animals stopped from entering the food chain.

61. The Acting Chair thanked the Chair of the MHS for his update and invited Patrick Wall to comment on the paper.

Definition of robustness

62. Patrick Wall started by looking at the definition of the term 'robust', which the Independent Group, in the context of a testing regime, had taken to mean a system that:

• was simple in design, easy to implement and operate;
• was capable of being standardised;
• was compatible with existing industry processes;
• had sufficient internal controls and cross checks to ensure no positive carcasses, or parts of such carcasses, could be released onto the market for human consumption or for pet food;
• provided for adequate supervision by the MHS;
• contained an in-built mechanism to monitor the performance of plant operators, the MHS and the laboratories on an ongoing basis; and
• was subject to periodic external audit.

The trials

63. Patrick Wall reminded Board members that, in other member states, testing had been introduced as an additional control measure whereas, in the UK, it was being introduced as a replacement for an existing control requiring the exclusion from the food chain of any animal over thirty months old.

64. During the design phase, four plants in the Republic of Ireland had been visited to see testing in operation and learn from their experiences in introducing testing. Nine abattoirs throughout the UK had participated when the regime was taken from the design table to the field. A diverse range of plants had been used with different throughputs and had included two low, four medium and three high throughput plants.

65. The trials had been audited in Great Britain by the MHS auditors and in Northern Ireland by the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland (DARD) auditors and both had been reviewed by external auditors. While the trials had shown a range of deficiencies, they had nonetheless been of considerable value, as they had enabled the Group to see where the difficulties arose so that they could be addressed appropriately. The areas identified as requiring further attention were:

• when agreeing the 'required method of operation', more guidance was needed for MHS and plant staff on the process;
• improved paperwork and simplified forms to verify compliance for ease of audit;
• an outline of the additional resources was required for plant staff and meat hygiene staff;
• training of the MHS and plant staff; and
• the controls needed to be fully integrated so that hygiene and other practices would not be compromised.

66. The barrier to entry for those plants wishing to participate in processing OTM cattle would be high, as strict criteria would have to be met and plants would have to complete a trial, which would be a pass/fail test.

67. The trials had run almost simultaneously and the auditors had highlighted many of the same faults in each trial. It would have been more productive to carry out the trials in sequence, separated by a sufficient interval to capture the auditors' recommendations and take corrective action. Testing in the Northern Ireland plant had run smoothly with no problems, demonstrating that the system was potentially workable.

68. Patrick Wall acknowledged that the different government agencies and the industry had participated in the trials in a professional and constructive manner.

Roadmap for the way forward

69. A workshop would be held with representatives of all the players on the 24 -25 May 2005 to integrate the testing system into factory processes, including incorporating the critical components into the operations' HACCP plan and to clarify procedures to reduce the likelihood of human error.

70. There would be another series of trials, which would be subjected to external audit. One of these trials would be reviewed by the auditors of the FVO, which would provide the opportunity to benchmark the proposed UK system against those in other member states.

71. The Board required assurance that financial and non-financial risk was appropriately managed. In the context of this testing system there would be a system of internal controls and external audit arrangements so that the Board could be satisfied that everything that should be done was being done.

72. The Acting Chair thanked Patrick Wall for his comments and clarification on many aspects of the work of the Independent Group and asked Board members to comment. The Board noted that the approach being taken to robustness was very thorough and wondered whether all these considerations applied also to testing systems in other members states. One Board member was concerned that the UK's approach might be more rigorous than elsewhere in Europe and would thus have proportionality implications.

73. Board members agreed that it was important to maintain public confidence when it came to introducing the new testing regime. To that end, success or otherwise would depend largely on the ability of the MHS to deliver. Board members were concerned that appropriate resources should be made available and asked officials to continue talks with Defra.

74. Board members were also concerned that the change to the new testing regime would put a strain on MHS staff and that not enough qualified staff could be found to meet the new demands. Patrick Wall assured Board members that only abattoirs that would be committed, willing and able to operate according to the new regime would be permitted to handle OTM cattle for the food chain. It remained to be seen how many such abattoirs would have been approved for this purpose by the time OTM rule change eventually took effect.

75. Board members agreed that the new testing regime should be introduced simultaneously in all four UK countries.

76. In summary the Acting Chair noted that the Board had:

• agreed that it was important to move quickly, but that a decision should be taken only after completion of the report of the Independent Group and of the FVO;
• agreed that all four UK countries should implement the new testing regime at the same time; and
• asked the MHS Board to examine the suitability of the current MHS structure and report back to the FSA Board.

Item 7 - Reports from Chairs of Advisory Committees (Papers FSA 05/05/04, FSA 05/05/05 and FSA 05/05/06)

77. The reports from the Chairs of the Advisory Committees were noted and the Acting Chair asked the Chairs of the Advisory Committees to comment on the reports.

78. The Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee reported on the good partnership work which was behind the success of the Get Cooking Tool Kit project. These tool kits could be used by teachers of community cooking classes throughout the UK.

79. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Food Advisory Committee reported on the concern expressed by the members of the Committee about the food technology/science skills gap in Northern Ireland.

80. The Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) noted that the FSA had taken part in the biggest bi-annual catering event in Scotland. The event had attracted people from all catering sectors as well as the 32 Scottish Local Authorities. The Chair of SFAC and the FSA Director for Scotland had been invited to meet Health Ministers during a recent Food Labelling conference.

Any Other Business

81. One item was raised for discussion under Any Other Business: `

• Outcome of the action plan to implement the recommendations of the Waste Food Task Force (INFO 05/05/01) -(Ann Hemingway).

Ann Hemingway asked for an opportunity to discuss this paper at an open Board meeting.
Action: Board Secretariat

Date of Next meeting

82. The next open meeting would be held on 14 July 2005 in Cardiff.