CFG
08/03
Foodaware: the Consumers’ Food Group
Minutes of the seventh meeting – held on 10 April
2003 at UK European Parliament, Queen Anne’s Gate, London,
SW1
European Food Safety Authority - Discussion
Amendments to members rules
Veterinary Medicines Directorate
FSA tender process
UK Co-ordinator’s Report
EU Update
Commission review of labelling
legislation
Food fortification
Health claims
Nutrition labelling
Pesticides in food – FSA
strategy
GM Public debate
Any other business and date of
next meeting
PRESENT
Members:
Paul Allen - European Food Law Association, UK
Judy Brander - National Council of Women
Dorothy Craig - Veterinary Residues Committee
Janet Graham - EU Standing Group on Veterinary Matters
Mike Jobson - Trading Standards Institute
Susan Knox -Chair, UKROFS, Meat Hygiene Policy Forum
Margaret Langley - Committees on Mutagenicity of Chemicals and Carcinogencitiy
of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment
Penny McNeill - General Consumer Council for N.I.
Helen Millar - National Consumer Federation
Mike O’Neill - National Consumer Council
Sue Payne - National Consumer Federation
Dilwen Phillips - Advisory Committee for Wales
Jacquie Salfield - Institute of Consumer Sciences, Committee on
Toxicity of Chemical in Food
Frieda Stack - Veterinary Residues Committee
John Verrall - Veterinary Products Committee/FEC?
Grace Wedekind - European Centre (ICW)
Margaret Williams - National Federation of Women’s Institutes
Anne Wilson - Meat Hygiene Advisory Committee
Observers:
Elizabeth Stockdale - Food Standards Agency
Foodaware:
Ann Davison - Manager, Member EU Economic and Social
Committee
Lucy Harris - UK Co-ordinator
Jane Jeffreys - Administrator
Caroline Naett - Researcher
Apologies:
Gillian Asbury - Consumer Branch, Food Standards Agency
Erica Bargman - European Union of Women
Gilli Davies - Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
John Godfrey - FSA Consumers Committee
Sheila Graham - Veterinary Products Committee
Jeanette Longfield - Sustain
Jenny Morris - Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Barbara Saunders - UK Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals
Stella Walsh - Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
European Food Safety Authority - Discussion
Speaker: Frieda Stack, Assistant to Deirdre Hutton
(member of the EFSA Executive Board)
Susan Knox (Chair) welcomed Frieda and thanked her for coming to
speak about the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). She introduced
Frieda, currently Assistant to Deirdre Hutton (member of the EFSA
Executive Board). Many members knew Frieda from her time as a Vice-chairperson
of Consumers in Europe Group.
Frieda said she was delighted to have the opportunity to meet Foodaware
members. In her presentation she would describe how the EFSA was
working in practice, talk about Deirdre Hutton’s role and
some of the challenges facing this new institution. The discussion
could then focus on how Foodaware might input to the EFSA.
EFSA role
Frieda stressed that the EFSA was not an EU version of the UK Food
Standards Agency. It had a limited remit, primarily to undertake
risk assessment. Its risk assessment reports would be placed on
the Internet and it would carry out some risk communication by issuing
independent information to the public on the basis of its findings.
This role was important because of its independence. However, it
would not make policy recommendations and the main responsibility
for risk management and communication would remain with the Commission.
Likewise, enforcement was not within its remit.
Scope
It had a wide scope that, by and large, met the aspirations of consumer
groups. For example, it covered food and feed at all stages of production
and supply from primary production through to consumers. The definition
of ‘food’ included drink (bottled but not tap drinking
water), chewing gum and any substance intentionally incorporated
during preparation, manufacture or treatment, for example, processing
aids. ‘Feed’ included all substances including additives
intended for oral feeding of animals and/or fish. It would cover
human nutrition (not dietary surveys etc), animal health and GM
products. The emphasis would be on scientific assessments of new
and emerging issues, for example, acrylamide, or old issues where
new evidence became available. They would mainly review existing
research with only a very limited budget for original research.
Structure and governance
The role of the Executive Board was to ensure that the EFSA carried
out its mission and performed its tasks. It consisted of 14 people
appointed by the EU Council and approved by the European Parliament
plus one person appointed by the Commission. Deirdre Hutton was
the only member from a consumer background and she was one of two
Vice Chairs of the Board. Frieda noted that, although Board members
were not there to represent national interests, there was one member
from each member state apart from Luxemburg. Some were civil servants,
others from industry or research establishments and there was one
farmer in addition to Deirdre (from the UK National Consumer Council).
Since September 2002 there had been seven Board meetings and four
more were being held in 2003. These were also being broadcast on
the Internet via a ‘webstream’ i.e. in the public domain.
The Executive Director (Geoffrey Podger) had started work at the
beginning of February and, while 250 staff were planned for 2006,
so far only 30 staff had been appointed, all on temporary contracts.
The reason for this was the 50% budget cut being imposed by the
European Parliament until the Council of Ministers decided upon
the location of the EFSA (along with a number of other Agencies).
In addition to the above, an Advisory Forum existed to advise the
Executive Director (who Chaired it) on the work programme and to
exchange information between Member States. It consisted of one
civil servant from each Member State with new applicant countries
and Norway also being invited. This Forum has only recently started
meeting.
Finally, there were a number of scientific panels whose role was
to provide the risk assessments. These included:
- Food additives, flavourings, processing aids, materials in contact
with foods
- Additives and products of substances used in animal feed
- Plant health, plant protection products and their residues
- GMOs
- Dietetic products, nutrition and allergies
- Biological hazards (including TSE/BSE)
- Contaminants in the food chain
- Animal health and welfare.
The mandates for these were very wide, for example they included worker
and environmental safety, and it was hard to see how this could be
done on their limited budget. The panel members would consist of independent
scientists and the posts had been advertised in January. These were
being assessed and independently vetted. Appointments were expected
in May with work starting in the summer. Frieda noted that a provision
existed for ‘observers’ on these panels but this had not
been activated and Member States had differing views (French against,
British for). The Chairs of each panel would make up a Scientific
Committee. The five existing Scientific Committees would cease and
be replaced by the above.
Discussion
Members expressed their concern that there was only one representative
with consumer credentials on the Board. Frieda fully agreed this was
a weakness.However, she pointed out that some of the other Board members
were very good and had so far shown themselves to be independent.
Members also welcomed Geoffrey Podger, as the Executive Director,
as they felt he had a good understanding of consumer issues and viewpoints.
It was agreed that Foodaware could play a useful role in flagging
up areas where it was thought work was needed. These might include
new problems and risks or new findings concerning old problems (butter/eggs
and cholesterol). Foodaware could request Deirdre Hutton (through
Frieda) to raise these at Board level.
The issue of the budget crisis was discussed and it was agreed that
Foodaware would consider writing to UK MEPs (but would await a further
update from Frieda before doing so).
In response to a question about representations, Frieda advised that
public interest groups should approach the Board and Executive Director.
National groups might also consider going to the their country’s
representative on the Advisory Forum.
A question was asked about co-operation with other committees such
as the EU Consumer Committee and Codex Alimentarious committees. It
was noted that referrals between EU committees could be made while
the ‘scientific co-operation procedure’ would be followed
if EFSA and Codex work overlapped. The regulation that established
the EFSA and its structure also provided for contacts with stakeholders.
Frieda thought that Geoffrey Podger would hold a meeting if finances
permitted. It was agreed Foodaware should be represented at any such
meeting.
The EFSA website address was: www.efsa.eu.int
Susan Knox thanked Frieda, on behalf of Foodaware members, for her
very helpful presentation. It was noted that a report of the session
would be sent to Frieda, Deirdre Hutton and Geoffrey Podger for information.
ACTION: Members to forward ideas for EFSA risk assessment
work to Foodaware for forwarding to Deirdre Hutton via Frieda. Foodaware
to consider writing to UK MEPs pending a further update from Frieda.
Foodaware to ensure it was represented at any stakeholder meeting
with the EFSA.
FOODAWARE BUSINESS MEETING
1. Welcome and apologies for
absence
Susan Knox welcomed everyone to the eighth meeting of Foodaware and
members briefly introduced themselves. Susan announced that sadly,
Irene Watson, a long-standing member of Consumers in Europe Group,
had died on 1 April. She had sent a condolence letter on behalf of
members, many of whom knew her well from that time.
2. Minutes of the last meeting
The draft minutes of the last meeting (CFG 02/03) were agreed without
amendments. Action points from the last meeting had either been completed
or were on the meeting agenda. Mike O’Neill mentioned that in
relation to the Assured Food Standards (AFS) consultation on the Red
Tractor logo, NCC was planning to hold a consensus workshop with AFS,
probably in May, and consumer groups would be invited. Debate on the
country of origin issue was continuing (at present all products carrying
the logo were British but in theory it could be applied to non-British
products as long as they fulfilled the criteria).
3. Matters arising
3.1 Amendments to members
rules
Ann Davison asked members for their views on whether the members’
rules should be revised to permit two representatives from each full
member organisation to attend Foodaware meetings. Following a brief
discussion it was agreed that there should be some flexibility for
the next couple of meetings to see how much interest there was. The
focus meanwhile should be on efforts to expand the membership. Sue
Payne had followed up earlier suggestions for new members. New suggestions
put forward were: the Women’s Food and Farming Union, hospital
catering, school and nursing home meal providers, and some of the
ethnic minority groups already involved in FSA stakeholder meetings.
It was agreed that Foodaware should follow-up with FSA on their existing
links with ethnic minority groups. It was noted that Foodaware could
provide a useful ‘training ground’ for new and existing
consumer representatives on government committees as well providing
ongoing as support for members.
ACTION: There should be no immediate change to the
rules but there should be some flexibility re attendance for the next
couple of meetings. Efforts should continue to expand the overall
membership.
3.2 Veterinary Medicines
Directorate
Paul Allen reported that the Steering Group, and a few others involved
with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), had met earlier that
day to discuss ways of encouraging the VMD to be more responsive to
consumer input following a number of concerns raised by consumer representatives.
They had concluded that the VMD should be invited to the next Foodaware
meeting for an exchange of information and to discuss issues of concern.
A suggestion was made that it might be better to wait until the meeting
after next due to the consultation taking place on Section 118 of
the Medicines Act. If this were to be repealed (due to the Freedom
of Information Act being implemented in 2005) the secretive culture
of the VMD might change. In conclusion it was agreed to invite the
VMD for the next meeting (24 July) and offer them the October date
as an alternative.
Some members expressed their concern about the widespread use of acronyms
in reports being circulated. It was agreed that all papers and reports
etc should always give the full name (plus acronym in brackets) the
first time mentioned - as is the normal custom.
ACTION: Invite VMD to the 24 July meeting with 30
October meeting as an alternative.
3.3 FSA tender process
Ann Davison explained that, in addition to the recent review of ERICA’s
contract to run Foodaware (when some members had been approached for
their views), FSA was obliged to put the contract out to tender every
two years. ERICA was preparing its application and was hoped to be
in a strong position as Foodaware was operating effectively on a small
budget.
Members expressed their strong satisfaction with the current arrangements
under which they felt the group was working effectively and achieving
much. They hoped that the present situation would continue.
4. UK and EU Update and
campaigns
4.1 UK Co-ordinator’s
Report
Lucy noted that both the UK and EU updates had been circulated via
email earlier in the week. Hard copies were available in the room
if required. She ran through her report that gave an update on the
status of various policy papers. It also gave details of representation
work carried out by staff and members, current FSA consultations and
organisational development.
John Verall mentioned that the VMD was carrying out a consultation
on hormone growth promoters. It was agreed that Foodaware should submit
its existing policy on this.
Judy Brander noted the consultation on the review of the Over Thirty
Month (OTM) rule in relation to BSE. It was agreed Foodaware should
respond (even though there might not be a full consensus on the subject).
4.2 EU Update
Caroline said that there were no major new issues to report since
the last meeting. Developments on labelling were continuing (see agenda
item 5). Full details were in her report but she emphasised the following:
- A proposal had been published for a regulation on food and feed
controls. Foodaware could respond to the FSA consultation.
- Developments on the harmonisation of pesticide residue levels.
- A new online research database on acrylamide made available
by the Commission in co-operation with the EFSA.
- Ongoing debate on the co-existence of GM and conventional crops,
how to ensure the separation of crops and the lifting of the moratorium.
She mentioned a European Parliament meeting on 28 May at which
Foodaware might be represented.
A request was made for both the UK and EU reports to be circulated
earlier.
ACTION: Foodaware to submit its existing policy on
hormone growth promoters to the VMD, and prepare responses on the
OTM rule and the food and feed controls consultations if feasible.
UK and EU reports to be circulated at least one week in advance of
meetings.
5. Food labelling issues
5.1 Commission review of
labelling legislation
Caroline Naett introduced the draft paper (CFG 05/03) and explained
that a consultancy firm was carrying out an evaluation of EU food
labelling legislation on behalf of the European Commission (DG Sanco).
It would make recommendations on where changes to food labelling legislation
might be needed. It covered the whole range of legislation covered
in a number of Directives (both horizontal and vertical). Although
no formal consultation was taking place at this stage the evaluators
were supposed to take stakeholder views into account. It was agreed
Foodaware should send its comments to the evaluation team as well
as to the Commission.
Caroline explained that the draft paper was based on old CEG/Foodaware
papers and summarized existing policy to date. It followed the structure/questions
that the evaluators were using in their assessment. She invited comments
on the paper.
It was agreed that many of the references were now quite old and these
should be updated where possible, for example, a new Institute of
Grocery Distribution (IGD) document with their latest code of practice.
Concerning the use of the terms ‘salt’ versus ‘sodium’,
there were differing views. It was agreed that the section should
be reworded to reflect the current legal requirement for the term
sodium to be used but that, ideally, salt should also be used alongside
this. The need for labelling post-harvest treatments was highlighted.
There was also discussion on the ‘country of origin’ issue.
It was agreed that a more detailed response to this was needed. Foodaware
was, in principle, in favour of country of origin labelling and therefore
should support the extension of the regulations to cover a wider range
of primary products (especially meat and meat products). However,
concerns about the possible misleading labelling of processed foods
were highlighted.
ACTION: Caroline to amend the paper taking account
of the above comments and any others received via email. New version
to be circulated for final comment and approval then sent to the evaluators
at the end of April or soon after.
5.2 Food fortification
Lucy reminded members that a draft paper was produced in February
and sent to FSA in response to their consultation. It remained draft
as it had been felt further work on it was needed and members should
be given more opportunity to comment. Caroline added that there was
no news from the Commission on their draft proposal.
ACTION: It was agreed that the paper should be left
as draft until further developments took place at the Commission level.
5.3 Health claims
Caroline updated members on the state of play with this proposal.
Three Directorates General in the Commission were involved: Consumers,
Enterprise and Agriculture. The first two agreed on the current, as
yet unpublished draft, while DG Agriculture was effectively blocking
it. Caroline had a copy of the latest version.
ACTION: It was agreed that the Foodaware draft response
should remain on hold until the proposal was officially published.
5.4 Nutrition labelling
There was not enough time to discuss this item. However, at present
no major action had been proposed on this due to lack of resources.
6. Pesticides
in food – FSA strategy
Speaker: Elizabeth Stockdale, Food Chain Strategy Division, FSA
Susan Knox introduced Elizabeth Stockdale and welcomed her to the
meeting. Elizabeth explained that FSA was drafting an introductory
paper for the FSA Board meeting in June. This was part of their wider
strategy to minimize pesticide residues in all foods to the lowest
possible levels. FSA was carrying out an on-going discussion with
all stakeholders to identify key issues and these would contribute
to the action plan being developed.
She highlighted some questions members might like to consider:
- What was the consumer perspective on the overall policy of pesticide
minimization?
- What impact/changes did they think might result?
- What specific aspects should be included in the FSA Action Plan?
- Did members have views on the policies adopted by such retailers
as Marks and Spencers or the Co-op?
In the discussion members raised the following points:
- Concerns were expressed about the widespread prophylactic use
of many pesticides on fruit and vegetables and subsequent resistance
developing amongst target species. What was known about the efficacy
of this kind of use?
- How would the policy impact on legislation given that legal
controls and their enforcement were based on safety levels (not
minimization)? Enforcement officers had to have consistent, standardized
maximum residue levels (MRLs) to carry out their task. Would the
policy be implemented through voluntary controls?
- How would consumers know which products had reduced or no pesticide
residues?
- The public’s attitude to less ‘attractive’
fruit and vegetables should be taken into account as consumers
were now accustomed to blemish and pest-free products. Might this
impact on consumption levels?
- On the other hand, the quality of pest-free products could remain
high and would be enhanced by the fact that they were residue-free.
- Could pesticide products be developed that degraded over a specific
time period after which residues disappear?
- Had any cost-benefit analyses been carried out?
- Farmers, other producers and retailers would all need to be
brought on board to ensure implementation of the strategy.
Elizabeth confirmed that implementation of the strategy would mostly
be at the voluntary level but she felt that industry would respond
to the pressure to keep their competitive advantage. She added that
the environmental costs of heavy pesticide use, for example cleaning
up the water supply, were perceived to be a strong driving force behind
other government strategies to reduce the environmental impact of
pesticides.
Finally, she said that the draft paper for the Board meeting would
be finalised in mid-May and so comments for this were needed quickly.
In addition to comments made at the meeting she invited members to
send their comments directly to her.
The Chair thanked Elizabeth for coming to the meeting and listening
to members concerns.
ACTION: Lucy to post a reminder on the list-serve for members
to forward comments to Elizabeth Stockdale (Tel: 020 7276 8475, Fax:
020 7276 8477, Email:
7. GM Public
debate
Lucy informed members that the FSA citizen’s jury conclusions
had been announced a few days previously and details were on the FSA
website. It was agreed that Foodaware should re-submit its existing
policy to FSA in advance of the June Board meeting. Judy Brander expressed
her concern about the need for more work to be done on traceability
issues.
ACTION: Foodaware to re-submit its existing policy
to FSA in advance of the June Board meeting.
8. Any other
business and date of next meeting
There was no other business. Susan thanked members for their contributions
and noted that the next meeting was on Thursday 24 July.
The meeting closed at 4.10 pm.
|
