Board meeting minutes: 14 July 2005

Friday 30 September 2005

The Hilton Hotel, Kingsway, Cardiff

Present:

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

Officials attending:
Jon Bell - Chief Executive
Chris Lawson - MHS Chief Executive (items 4 and 5 only)
Alan Harvey - Head of TSE Division (item 5 only)
Neil Martinson - Director of Communications (item 6 only)
Jaswinder Bangar - Head of Consumer Branch (item 6 only)
Keith Gregory - Board Secretary (items 1-3 only)
Barbara Gallani - Board Secretariat

Others attending:
Nancy Robson - Chair of the Consumer Committee (item 6 only)

Acting Chair's Introduction

1. The Acting Chair welcomed Dame Deirdre Hutton (who was attending as an observer) and all other 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 Graeme Millar and reminded Board members of their obligation to declare interests before discussion of relevant items.

3. There were no items raised for discussion under Any Other Business.

Item 1 - Minutes of the Meeting on 12 May 2005, Hotel Russell, London
(Paper FSA 05/07/01)

4. The Board agreed the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 May 2005 at the Hotel Russell, London, as an accurate record.

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

Index 254, p. 21: Report back on the criteria for allocating funds to local authorities (LAs) to assist with the implementation of new legislation. (Para 25) A grant scheme for LAs had been launched in May 2005; applications would be assessed by a stakeholder panel including Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) and the British Hospitality Association. A note was being prepared for Board members.

Index 245, p. 21: Provide a note describing lines of accountability and definitions of roles of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), the FSA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (Para 25). The MHS/FSA Framework Agreement was currently with Ministers for approval.

Item 2 - Acting Chair's Report

Ministerial briefings on progress on transition from the Over Thirty Months (OTM) rule to BSE testing

6. The Acting Chair informed Board members that she had met with Defra Ministers Lord Bach (Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food) and Ben Bradshaw (Minister for the Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare) on 29 June to discuss progress on the work towards a possible transition from the OTM rule to BSE testing. She had outlined the three lines of assurance that the Board would need in order to finalise its advice to Ministers on the robustness of the planned UK BSE testing system. These were: satisfactory separate reports from the Independent Advisory Group (chaired by Patrick Wall) and the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission, and an acceptable outcome from the public meetings being held by the FSA that had been scheduled for the end of July in different parts of the UK. Subject to these all being available in time, the Board would aim to finalise its advice to Ministers at an extraordinary Board meeting currently scheduled for 15 August. She had emphasised that the FSA would only make a decision once all three lines of assurance underpinning the development of a robust testing system had been satisfactorily completed.

7. She had also updated the new Public Health Minister, Caroline Flint, and the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) on the same subject.

8. Board members agreed the importance of having a common implementation date across the UK for any agreed changes.

Visit to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 24 June

9. The Acting Chair informed Board members that she had visited the EFSA headquarters in Parma on 24 June and had met with Geoffrey Podger (Executive Director) and Christine Majewski (Head of International and Institutional Affairs). The main issues discussed had been the handling of the Sudan I and Para Red incidents, the establishment of EFSA's Communications Working Group and Food Supplements.

Proposals for a Consumer and Trading Standards Agency (CTSA)

10. The Acting Chair reminded Board members that the Hampton review had recommended, and the Government had accepted the establishment of a new Consumer and Trading Standards Agency. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) had issued a consultation paper on the establishment and functions of the CTSA. This included proposals in several areas which might impact on the work of the FSA, including:

• improving the consistency of inspection and enforcement
• performance management of trading standards
• collective agreement between Government departments on the priorities for local authority trading standards departments

11. An opportunity for the Board to discuss the proposals in the consultation paper would be provided at the September open Board meeting. This would allow the FSA to make a formal response to the consultation before it closed on 12 October.

Meeting with Suzi Leather, School Meals Trust (SMT)

12. The Acting Chair informed Board members that she had met with Suzi Leather, interim Chair of the SMT, on 28 June. Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, had also attended. The Acting Chair had explained that the FSA had welcomed the creation of SMT and was ready to support it in any way it could within its remit in relation to promotion of food to children including school meals.

Item 3 - Chief Executive's Report

Shopping basket survey and actions to strengthen the FSA's survey guidelines

13. The Acting Chair noted that the Board had discussed the internal management issues in their closed meeting. This open meeting provided an opportunity for the Board to discuss the external implications.

14. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that a ?shopping basket survey - of own-label products from each of the major retailers and branded products had been carried out for the FSA earlier in the year, with the intention of comparing fat, sugar and salt levels across a range of similar own brand products from different retailers and a basket of comparable branded products. The aim had been to provide the basis for strong messages about the difference in salt levels of commonly available processed foods as part of the FSA's ongoing policy of raising public awareness of salt issues and to act as a baseline against which progress being made by supermarkets and manufacturers to reduce salt levels in processed products could be assessed.

15. Some 249 products had been purchased by a contractor commissioned by the FSA, who had then extracted relevant information from each of the labels and placed this on a large spreadsheet. The data had subsequently been checked and corrected where necessary by the FSA. Unfortunately, the protocol for this survey had not been set out in sufficient detail in regard to the aim of the work nor had the methodology been clearly defined. As a result, numerous analyses of the data had been undertaken over a period of some months in order to obtain robust comparisons between the salt levels in the various baskets. Ultimately, it had become clear that there was no significant difference between the salt levels in the various baskets given the broad sweep of products that had been chosen and the difficulty in working out what an average diet would look like that contained these. It had therefore been decided to look at the extent to which own brand and branded products declared information about salt on the labels.

16. The Chief Executive apologised for the fact that significant errors had occurred in collating this information which had not been discovered until after the results had been published. As a result, the survey was withdrawn within two hours of its publication. He had subsequently carried out a detailed Inquiry to discover the reasons for this. This had revealed that a number of key factors had led to this situation:

• Confusion over the aim of the analysis and the methodology to be employed as a result of insufficient planning
• failure to follow the FSA's survey guidelines
• the adverse impact of staff vacancies in the Branch concerned
• pressure to publish the results before the information became out of date

17. He had therefore set in hand a number of key actions to minimise the chances of such an event occurring again:

• All key staff in the organisation had been reminded of the importance of following closely the FSA's survey guidelines
• Arrangements had been made for all those involved in surveys to attend refresher courses on how to conduct surveys (four courses had been organised for July and these would include the vast majority of FSA staff involved with surveys)
• All future survey protocols would set out clearly the aim of the work and the means by which it would be achieved. These would be circulated to relevant stakeholders and published on the FSA's website for comment before any survey begins
• On joining the FSA, all new staff would automatically attend a course on surveys
• A working group of staff involved with surveys had been established to review the survey guidelines. Stakeholder input would be invited
• Middle and senior managers would be required to undertake refresher management courses to ensure the effective management of workloads and resources

18. The Acting Chair noted that the Board had taken this issue very seriously and thanked the Chief Executive for summarising the outcome of his Inquiry. Some Board members were concerned that this incident could have undermined confidence in the independent and evidence-based approach adopted by the FSA. They therefore welcomed the actions taken by the Chief Executive to minimise the risk of similar events occurring in the future.

19. One Board member expressed concern that the survey data appeared to have been used inappropriately. Another Board member asked why, as part of the FSA's openness and transparency principle and commitment to publish all of its evidence, the original results showing no difference between baskets was not published. The member also suggested, in light of this incident that the Board revisit the use and purpose of surveys and the policy regarding publication of outcomes. The Chief Executive explained that the data was now considered to be out of date so its publication was likely to be misleading.

20. Some Board members asked whether the FSA had the appropriate capacity to commission, monitor and evaluate surveys prior to publication. The Chief Executive responded that the FSA generally did have enough capacity, but that there was a need constantly to review priorities.

21. In summary, the Acting Chair noted that the FSA was a learning organisation and would learn much from this issue. She noted that the Board had:

• thanked the Chief Executive for carrying out an Inquiry and providing a clear explanation of why this incident had occurred
• asked the Chief Executive to consider the views expressed by Board members when finalising his action plan
• noted the actions that he had taken to minimise the chances of mistakes occurring in the future which she considered now brought this matter to a conclusion

Food Supplements

22. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that the Food Supplements Directive, due to come into force across the European Union on 1 August 2005, had been subject earlier to legal challenge in the High Court in England and Wales and judicial review in the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, the ECJ had published its judgement on 12 July confirming the validity of the Directive.

23. The Directive provided a positive list of vitamins and minerals which had been considered safe for use in food supplements after scrutiny by scientific bodies. Dossiers on any vitamin and mineral sources seeking addition to the positive list had to be submitted to EFSA by 1 August 2005.

24. The FSA had received over 500 dossiers and had passed these to EFSA who are responsible for making the safety assessments. Products already containing substances referred to in these dossiers would remain on sale in the UK pending consideration and assessment by EFSA. This had to have been completed by 2009. This meant that the vast majority of substances currently used in food supplements on sale in the UK would remain on the market for the time being. Information received from industry indicated that the main ingredients used in food supplements were covered by these dossiers and that consumer choice would therefore be maintained.

25. The FSA would work closely with the European Commission and EFSA to facilitate the safety evaluation process.

26. One Board member noted that the Board had been advised on this issue in the past by the Expert Committee on Vitamins and Minerals. Board members asked for a note on the background and history of this issue.
Action: Clair Baynton

27. Some Board members noted that a large number of dossiers had been submitted to EFSA through the FSA and asked whether comparable submissions had been made by other Member states. The Chief Executive noted that, in the UK, the market for food supplements was considerably more developed than in other Member states and that the number of dossiers submitted in the UK was therefore higher than elsewhere.

Incidents Task Force

28. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that a Task Force had been set up to advise on the handling of food contamination incidents. The Task Force had met twice and had focussed on identifying control points in the food supply chain and sharing the lessons learnt from past incidents.

29. The Task Force was aiming to revise and expand the existing FSA Guidelines on handling incidents so that they covered the action required of all stakeholders and not just the FSA. In the meantime, a sub-group of the Task Force had been considering the immediate steps that could be taken to improve the response to any future major incidents.

30. Board members asked the Executive to ensure the consumer representation on the Task Force was strengthened if at all possible.
Action: Nick Tomlinson

31. They also asked for more information on the actions taken by other EU food safety authorities to recall and withdraw products from the market.
Action: Clair Baynton

EFSA opinions

Sheep and goat meat

32. The Chief Executive noted that EFSA had issued an opinion on the potential health risks of goat meat and goat meat products, following the confirmation of a case of BSE in a French goat in January 2005.

33. The EFSA opinion had concluded that the likely prevalence of BSE in the European Union goat population was very low. It had considered that the current risk was small for goats born after the introduction of the European wide ban on feed containing meat and bone meal in 2001. EFSA had also advised earlier on the safety of goat?s milk and goats milk products and had concluded that these were unlikely to present a significant risk. A large-scale surveillance programme had been put in place across Europe and the scientific evidence would be reviewed as necessary in the light of its findings.

34. The Acting Deputy Chair asked for an update on BSE in sheep and goats to be presented at a future Board meeting.
Action: Alan Harvey

Safety assessment of wild and farmed fish

35. The Chief Executive noted that EFSA had published an opinion on the safety of wild and farmed fish on 5 July. An earlier UK review, conducted jointly by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) and the Committee on Toxicity (COT) had made a substantial contribution to the EFSA review process. The EFSA opinion had concluded that there were no consistent differences between wild and farmed fish, either with respect to safety or nutritional value. It had also noted the need for food authorities to take into account national dietary habits in offering advice on fish consumption. FSA advice on this, based on SACN and COT views, was contained on its website.

36. Following a question from a Board member the Chief Executive offered to provide a note on the safety of fish from the Baltic.
Action: Nick Tomlinson
Semicarbazide in food

37. In October 2003 the FSA had issued advice to consumers following the discovery of semicarbazide in jars of food, including baby food. The main source had been a chemical by-product of plastic seals used on the inside of some lids of glass jars containing food.

38. Based on new evidence that had become available since 2003, EFSA had recently concluded that semicarbazide was not a genotoxic carcinogen and was not therefore a concern for human health at the levels found in food.

Item 4 - Report from the Chair of the MHS Board (Paper FSA 05/07/02)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Gibson declared an interest as a primary producer and butcher. The Acting Chair agreed that he should participate in the discussion of this item.]

39. The Acting Chair welcomed the Chief Executive of the MHS to the table for this and the subsequent item and invited the Chair of the MHS Board (Chrissie Dunn) to present her report. The Chair of the MHS Board apologised to Dr Maureen Edmondson for the omission of her name from the list of MHS Board members in Appendix 1 at page 8 of the paper. She thanked the Acting Deputy Chair, who had recently stepped down as a member of the MHS Board, for his contribution and informed Board members that the appointment of the two independent members had been completed. Deryk Mead, until recently Chief Executive of NCH (formerly known as the National Childrens Home) and Celia Bennet, former joint Director of the British Meat Processors Association, would attend the next meeting of the MHS Board on 21 July. A stakeholder meeting was planned for September.

40. Board members congratulated the MHS and its Board on the progress of the past few months. One Board member asked about the perceptions from the fact-finding visit to the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) carried out by the Chair of the MHS Board and Valerie Howarth and reported in paragraph 17. The Chair of the MHS Board noted that she had been impressed by how the MHS and the BCMS were working together and addressing the difficulties that had arisen in the past. Valerie Howarth noted the limitations imposed by primitive technology and the need to speed up communication processes to reduce errors.

41. One Board member noted that the report referred - in Annex 2, paragraph 3 - to some meat plants not complying with the law relating to the application of HACCP principles and asked whether this compromised meat safety. The Chief Executive of the MHS noted that the absence of approved HACCP principles did not compromise the safety of products since the OVSs provided assurance of control through application of the health mark. A large number of those plants which had not reached full implementation were working towards achieving compliance and making progress. There were only a small number of plants which were not taking any action to comply and these were now being recommended for prosecution. In the last few weeks a plant in Yorkshire had been successfully prosecuted and fined for not addressing compliance issues.

42. One Board member asked what actions would be taken to raise the very low number of responses received on the customer satisfaction survey (only 20%). The Chief Executive of the MHS noted that there was a need to establish confidence that the MHS would address all issues raised in the customer satisfaction survey, and also to improve communication through industry representative bodies to encourage their members to participate.

43. One Board member noted that the governance framework agreed with the establishment of the MHS Board differed from other models in Whitehall and felt a review of the system would be needed. Board members accepted that a review would be appropriate at some stage, but considered that the MHS Board should work for a reasonable length of time before considering the need for review.

Item 5 - Progress Report on Possible Transition towards a Robust BSE Testing regime
(Paper FSA 05/07/03)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Gibson declared an interest as a primary producer and butcher. The Acting Chair agreed that he should participate in the discussion of this item as no decision was being made.]

44. The Acting Chair welcomed Alan Harvey (Head of TSE Division) to the table and invited him to introduce this paper. He reminded Board members that, in December 2004, the Government had announced the start of a managed transition towards lifting the OTM rule and replacing it with testing. An essential pre-requisite mentioned in the announcement had been the establishment of a robust testing regime. Patrick Wall's Independent Group had been established to advise the FSA on this issue and a progress report from the group had been presented to the Board at its open meeting in May 2005 .

45. The purpose of this paper was to provide a further brief update and to remind Board members that there were three streams of assurance required before making a decision: the Board would need to consider

• the report of the FVO mission
• the report from the Independent Group
• the outcome of the consultation which would be held with stakeholders and the public in open meetings in London, Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh by the end of July

46. The paper was very careful to avoid anything definitive about timing because, until enough evidence had been made available, a decision could not be taken. The earliest possible date to discuss this issue would be at the additional Board meeting proposed for 15 August, which would need to be confirmed. The paper also proposed that an independent audit of the testing system be submitted to the FSA in the first six months following implementation. Finally, the paper confirmed the details mentioned at the May Board meeting on the level of risk to public health if there were to be a failure to test a significant number of animals.

47. The Acting Chair thanked Alan Harvey and his team for this paper and invited Board members to comment. Board members welcomed this update, noted the importance of working closely with Defra and the MHS and asked whether abattoirs would have the capacity and ability to cope with the likely requests. He explained that the Independent Group was looking at the issues of capability and critical mass and had asked Defra to submit a paper on implementation for consideration at their next meeting. The Chief Executive of the MHS added that any plant, as part of the approval process, would first have to demonstrate a successful outcome to a 2-day trial of the testing arrangements before being approved.

48. Some Board members asked for clarification of the change made to the Terms of Reference for the independent Group. Alan Harvey explained that the Group had initially been asked to receive the report of an independent audit 6 months following any implementation but it had been agreed that this independent report would instead be provided directly to the FSA. The Board would be informed about this at the time.

49. One Board member asked for clarification with regard to rule change and any impact this could have on a change in age at which vertebral column would become specified risk material (SRM). This had been set at 30 months in the UK some years ago, in conjunction with the lifting of the ban on beef on the bone. Alan Harvey confirmed that, whereas the current harmonised age in the EU for removal of vertebral column was 12 months, the Commission was currently considering whether this should be changed to 24 months for all Member states, including the UK. A risk assessment carried out by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) had shown that any public health benefits that would result from a reduction in the UK from the current 30 months limit would be negligible. In view of known consumer preferences, the FSA would therefore be looking to secure an EU outcome which would enable the present UK arrangements to be maintained.

50. The Board supported the view of the Executive about the timetable and agreed with the importance of ensuring that all the appropriate resources were in place before proceeding with the proposed changes.

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

• accepted the change to the Terms of Reference of the Independent Group
• asked the Executive to liaise with Defra to ensure appropriate resources would be in place before the implementation of the proposed changes
• supported the views of the Executive with regard to the proposed timetable

Item 6 ? Consumer Engagement Strategy (Paper FSA 05/07/04)
(Views of the Consumer Committee tabled as FSA 05/07/04 (ADD))

52. The Acting Chair welcomed Neil Martinson (Director of Communications), Jaswinder Bangar (Head of Consumer Branch) and Nancy Robson (Chair of the Consumer Committee) to the table and invited Jaswinder Bangar to introduce this paper, which set out how the FSA could move forward with its work with consumers.

53. It was timely to look at the FSA's Consumer Engagement Strategy for two main reasons:

• the review of the FSA led by Baroness Dean had identified a number of issues in relation to engagement with consumers where the FSA needed to improve
• the FSA had a new and ambitious Strategic which would require strengthening and improvement of work with stakeholders in order to deliver the targets

54. This paper comprised five main components:

• identifying priority groups
• improving current mechanisms
• improving relationships
• maximising the use of research
• evaluating the impact of the strategy

55. A major component of the strategy was a reform of the mechanism through which the Board currently received consumer advice. Over the last three years the Consumer Committee had provided much useful advice. The paper however looked at ways to improve the breadth of views from consumer and public interest groups; ensure that there was a greater level of accountability to the Board; and improve the flexibility through which the FSA sought, engaged and understood different consumer perspectives.

56. The Acting Chair thanked Jaswinder Bangar and her team for this paper and invited the Chair of the Consumer Committee, to express her views on the proposals made in the paper. In response, Nancy Robson reported that the Consumer Committee supported the development of a new consumer strategy and in particular the plans to involve consumers who did not belong to one of the principal consumer organisations. She considered that the new approach needed to be flexible and address the difficult issue of reaching out to the disadvantaged. In particular it should provide a voice for consumers not currently involved in the decision-making processes.

57. The Acting Chair thanked the Chair of the Consumer Committee for her contribution and for chairing the committee. The Board appreciated the committee?s advice that the current arrangements were not working. Board members welcomed the paper and the opportunity it provided to discuss ways to improve the current arrangements for engaging with consumers. A number expressed concern however that the proposed options lacked the necessary flexibility and appeared to be excessively structured.

58. Some Board members felt that the title of the paper - Consumer Engagement Strategy - did not properly reflect its contents which appeared to be mainly focussed on making structural improvements to the current arrangements. They thought that there was a real need for a debate on what the FSA was trying to achieve in engaging with consumers and the meaning of the FSA's core value of 'Putting the consumers first'.

59. A number of Board members believed that the establishment of another body to replace the Consumer Committee would not help to address the real difficulties of communicating effectively with consumers and consumer representatives. They did not think that the establishment of a consumer panel alone would add sufficient value to the FSA Board decision making process. Other Board members expressed a preference for option 2 outlined in the paper but asked for it to be refined to allow for more flexibility.

60. Board members strongly agreed with the need to engage with minorities and to define clear target groups as part of any consumer strategy. In doing this they considered that the Executive should try to take into account the views of consumers in the devolved administrations as well as engaging with elderly people as one of the target groups.

61. In discussion, Board members suggested the following issues for consideration:

• maximising the use of existing research on consumer views
• strengthening social science input to FSA policy development
• strengthening the Agency's involvement in the English Regions

62. The Director of Communications noted that a vast amount of consumer research had been collected by Government, but that this needed to be shared by different departments, and the paper made proposals for tapping into this knowledge base.

63. The Acting Deputy Chair invited Board members to make a decision as whether or not to discontinue the Consumer Committee.

64. Board members thought there was a need for a broader discussion before making a decision. They therefore asked Nancy Robson if members of the Committee would be prepared to continue in post until a conclusion could be reached on the best way forward. She thought that this should be possible. As a next step, Board members agreed with a suggestion by the Chief Executive that a working group of Board members and members of the Executive be established, which could also include some independent input, in order to identify consumer engagement options for further consideration.

65. In summary the Acting Chair welcomed the Board's aspirational approach and noted that the Board had:

• expressed a wish to identify creative and ambitious ways of engaging with a wide range of consumer views when determining future policies
• agreed the importance of an independent stream of advice
• agreed to the establishment of a working group of Board members and the Executive, to possibly include some independent members, to identify consumer engagement options for further Board consideration
• agreed that the members of the Consumer Committee should be asked if they would be prepared to continue to serve in their current capacity until a decision had been made as to the best way forward

Item 7 - Reports from Chairs of Advisory Committees
(Papers FSA 05/07/05, FSA 05/07/06 and FSA 05/07/07)

66. 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.

67. The Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) acknowledged the valuable contributions to the work of WFAC made by David Smith and Gilli Cliff and informed Board members that the recruitment of two new WFAC members had been successful.

68. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Food Advisory Committee noted that two new members had recently been appointed and thanked the four retiring members - Dr David Stewart, Mr Will Taylor, Dr Vinod Tihani and Ms Maria McGuiness for their valuable contributions to the work of the FSA. Two additional members were being sought.

69. The Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) noted that the wild game and shellfish working group response from FSA would be received next week and not in September as indicated on page 2 of the report. The ScotHot event in Glasgow had been a good opportunity to engage with the catering sector. A new Minister, Lewis McDonald, had been appointed.

70. The Chair of SFAC welcomed the meeting between the Chairs of the Advisory Committees and the Directors of the FSA offices in the devolved administrations to discuss improvements to the work and interactions between offices. Board members agreed that England should always be represented when discussing devolved issues.

Item 7 - Information Papers

First report on Freedom of Information (FoI)
(Paper INFO 05/07/01)

71. One Board member asked whether it would be appropriate to present to the Board a joint document covering requests under FoI and information on complaints received by the FSA. The Acting Chair assured Board members that this proposal would be considered by the Executive.

72. The Acting Deputy Chair suggested there was a need for a discussion in open session to clarify whether there were any circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the FSA to withhold from the public advice it gives to Ministers, given its existing commitment to publishing all such advice on policy matters. It was noted that the Board would be considering a paper on 'openness' at the earliest opportunity in 2006.
Action: Steve Wearne/Barbara Richards

UK Controls on Imported Foods
(Paper INFO 05/07/02)

73. One Board member commended the Executive for the preparation of the 10 point plan and noted the relatively high failure rate summarised in Annex C on the Surveillance Programme. The Chief Executive noted that FSA staff were working very closely with other responsible bodies, including Defra, HM Customs and Excise and the Port Authority to improve the controls on imported food and to ensure consumers felt protected.

Outcome of the Action Plan to implement the Recommendations of the Waste Food Task Force
(Paper INFO 05/07/03)

74. One Board member welcomed the work produced by the Waste Food Task Force, which had focussed on meat issues, and asked the Executive to update the Board on actions taken to ensure that waste food was not improperly recycled or used for animal feed. The Chief Executive informed Board members that arrangements were in place with Local Authorities to ensure food withdrawn from sale could not be re-used or used as animal feed.

Any Other Business

75. There were no other business items raised.

76. Board members thanked Julia Unwin and Richard Ayre for their work as Acting Chair and Acting Deputy Chair respectively over the last few months.

Date of next meeting

77. The next scheduled open meeting would be held in London on 15 September. There was a possibility that an additional meeting would be held in London on 15 August in order to discuss whether to advise Ministers to replace the OTM rule with a robust system for BSE testing.