Minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2007

CFG 22/07 final

Foodaware: the Consumers’ Food Group
Draft Minutes of the twenty-fourth meeting - held on 21 June 2007
at FSA, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH

Welcome and apologies
Presentation on the work of EFSA by Victoria Villamar
Co-ordinator’s report
EU Update
Defra Consumer Engagement Project
Meat Hygiene Controls Review Programme - Geoff Tierney , FSA
FSA Draft saturated fat and energy intake programme
EC proposal to exclude small businesses from HACCP
Foodaware funding
Date of next meeting

Present:

Ms Chris Andrew – ERICA
Ms Teresa Baldwinson – National Council of Women
Ms Erica Bargman – European Union of Women
Ms Hilary Burrage – Science Advisory Council, Defra
Mr Stephen Crampton – EU and Consumer Affairs Consultant
Ms Ann Davison – Defra Consumer Engagement Project
Ms Lucy Harris – Foodaware
Mr Salim Ingar – Halal Monitoring Committee
Dr Majid Katme – Muslim Council of Great Britain
Ms Susan Knox – Chairperson, Foodaware
Ms Diane McCrea – SCAF, SEAC, ACP
Ms Penny McNeill – Individual member
Ms Helen Millar – Individual member
Ms Katie Palmer – Welsh Food Advisory Committee
Ms Sue Payne – National Consumer Federation
Ms Dilwen Phillips – Women’s Food and Farming Union
Ms Elena Renier – Islamic Foundation for Ecology & Environmental Sciences
Ms Jacqui Salfield – Pesticides Forum
Ms Christine Sanderson-Fagan – Soroptomists International of Great Britain
Ms Barbara Saunders – Foodaware consultant
Mr Geoff Tierney – FSA, Meat Hygiene Controls Review Programme
Mr John Verrall – Veterinary Products Committee
Ms Victoria Villamar – European Food Safety Authority
Mr Michael Walker – NI Food Advisory Committee
Ms Stella Walsh – Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
Ms Grace Wedekind – European Centre, International Council of Women
Ms Alma Williams – COT, ECOSOC

Apologies:

Mr Paul Allen – European Food Law Association UK
Ms Alison Bayley – Scottish Women’s Rural Institutes
Ms Judy Brander – National Council of Women
Ms Joanna Burke – Townswomen’s Guilds
Ms Gilli Cliff – Guild of Food Writers
Ms Dorothy Craig – Veterinary Residues Committee
Ms Margaret Foss – National Federation of Women's Institutes
Dr John Godfrey – ERICA
Ms Jeanette Longfield – Sustain
Ms Jill Moss – Bella Moss Foundation
Mr David Pickering – Trading Standards Institute
Mr Om Prakash Sharma – Hindu Council UK
Mr David Smith – Welsh Food Alliance
Ms Marion Taylor-Cotter – Hyperactive Children’s Support Group

1.     Welcome and apologies

The Chair opened the meeting and made some introductions.

She welcomed the guest speakers, Victoria Villamar (European Food Safety Authority) and Geoff Tierney (FSA), the lay members of Scientific Advisory Committees who had attended the FSA /Foodaware training session in the morning, as well as the five new member organisations that had joined Foodaware since the last meeting:
· Guild of Food Writers
· Halal Monitoring Committee
· Hyperactive Children’s Support Group
· Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences
· Women’s Food and Farming Union

It was noted that a number of apologies had been received and these would be included in the minutes.

2.     Guest speaker: Victoria Villamar,
         Senior Policy Officer/External Relations, European Food Safety Authority

Victoria said that she had previously worked in the legal department at BEUC (the European Consumer Organisation) in Brussels before joining the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). She now dealt with all stakeholders as part of her job including consumer groups, industry and environmental groups. She thanked Foodaware for inviting her. Her presentation would focus on EFSA’s mission, structure, work priorities and future challenges.

Mission and Tasks
EFSA was established in 2002 with the mission of providing independent scientific advice and technical support for Community legislation and policies which impacted on food and feed safety. It had only recently reached 250 staff and the full establishment foresaw 375 staff that would be reached in the next two years. Its tasks included providing EU institutions and Member States with the best possible scientific opinions; providing technical and scientific assistance; developing uniform risk assessment methodologies; collecting data; networking, and communicating rapid, reliable, objective, and comprehensive information about risks. EFSA aimed to be independent, transparent, open and responsive. It was not responsible for food safety legislation; food safety/quality controls or labelling etc and nor could it act as a substitute for national authorities.

Structure
The Management Board was made up of 14 members selected on the basis of individual expertise and competence through an open call. They did not represent Member States and came from a variety of backgrounds (consumer, government, agriculture, industry, retail as well as scientific experience). One member represented the European Commission (DG Sanco). There was also an Advisory Forum which had a representative from the national food safety authority in each Member State, a Commission observer and invitees from accession countries and the European Parliament. There were currently nine Scientific Panels covering different areas and made up of independent scientists selected on the basis of proven excellence in their field. Any interests had to be declared annually and per meeting.

Work priorities

Current priorities included:

developing active networking and stronger cooperation with Member States
strengthening relationships with institutional partners and stakeholders
enhancing the impact and effectiveness of its communications
developing its role in nutrition

Four work themes:

responding to requests for scientific opinions and advice
risk assessment of regulated substances and products
monitoring and assessing specific biological risk factors for human health and animal diseases
improving European risk assessment approaches and methodologies

The level of work was high: in 2006 136 scientific opinions were adopted and 38 scientific reports published. The majority of requests for opinions came from the Commission, with others coming from Member States and the European Parliament.

Stakeholder relations
Stakeholders had been involved in EFSA from the start through a range of activities e.g. public consultations (on website), technical meetings, scientific colloquiums, bilateral meetings. A Stakeholder Consultative Platform was set up in 2005 with the aim of assisting the EFSA with the development of its relations and policy with regard to stakeholders. Its members consisted of EU-wide organisations representing consumers, food-chain operators, and other relevant NGOs. Sue Davies, from Which?, was currently its Chair. It provided a forum for regular dialogue and exchange. One of the aims was to develop stakeholder involvement across Scientific Committees and Panels and to increase awareness of stakeholder concerns. Success would depend on meaningful stakeholder input to the work of EFSA, and creating a collaborative and mutually beneficial relationship, and in some cases to identify and resolve areas of conflict. Following an external review of stakeholder activities a ‘Stakeholder Policy’ would be presented to the Management Board at the end of 2007.

Future challenges

New areas of work included Nanotechnology, Animal cloning, Health/nutrition claims and Global warming and food safety/animal disease
Improving scientific cooperation with Member States
Building international strategy
Managing the workload
Raising awareness and visibility
Managing external relations with risk assessors, risk managers, policy makers, scientists/academics, stakeholders, and the media.

‘My vision is for the EFSA to become globally recognised as the European reference body for risk assessment for food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, nutrition, plant protection and plant health’.
Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, Executive Director, EFSA.

The Chair thanked Ms Villamar for her presentation and invited questions and comments from the floor. It was noted that a copy of her presentation would be made available to members on request after the meeting.

Discussion:
A question was raised about consultation with stakeholders – not all organisations were formally represented at EFSA – how could these get their views across?
Victoria said that any organisation could approach EFSA directly but the Stakeholder Consultative Platform, to be effective, had to be limited and balanced. EFSA also held an annual meeting where there was opportunity for representation from a much wider range of organisations. They did not have formal relations with any ethnic minority organisations at present. They did not cover food inspection or hygiene matters which were the responsibility of the competent authorities in Member States.

In response to a question on how relations with the scientific communities in Member States were managed, Victoria replied that EFSA tried to avoid duplication of work. It concentrated on networking and communicating regularly with the scientific communities and tapping into their resources, including national experts, where possible. There was a short discussion on how conflicting advice might be managed.

She confirmed that there were no consumer/lay representatives on the Scientific Panels as yet. The panels covered different scientific areas. An Advisory Group on Risk Communication had been created to advise the Executive Director on risk communication and risk perception matters. The Stakeholder Consultative Platform advised the Executive Director on strategic orientations re stakeholder involvement.

3.     Approval of minutes of last meeting (CFG 12/07)

Members were invited to comment on the draft minutes of the last meeting (CFG 12/07) held in March. It was noted that John Verrall should be added to the list of apologies. A comment was made about the words ‘farm origin’ (page 4, first paragraph. It was agreed that this sentence should be amended to read ‘However, the flag in the logo indicated the country of origin of the food … ’.

There were no other comments on the minutes which were then approved subject to the above amendments.

4.     Matters arising

4.1   Foodaware funding

Due to time constraints, this item was deferred to the end of the meeting (see AOB).

5.     Updates:

5.1   Co-ordinator’s report

Lucy went through this report which summarised Foodaware’s main activities over the last quarter. These included nine responses to FSA and Defra consultations and representation at a number of FSA and Defra stakeholder meetings. A very positive reply had been received from the Director General of DG Sanco to Foodaware’s paper (CFG 30/06) on the EU Animal Health Strategy encouraging Foodaware to engage further with them on this issue. It was agreed that Foodaware, resources permitting, should respond to the following consultations:

FSA consultation on EC Proposal to Amend Regulation (EC) 852/2004. Deadline 1 August 2007.
FSA consultation ‘Food Competency framework: food skills and knowledge for young people aged 7-9, 11-12, 14 and 16+’. Deadline 22 August 2007.
Cabinet Office consultation on ‘Effective Consultation: asking the right questions, asking the right people, listening to the answers’. Deadline 28 September 2007 (to FSA).

5.2 EU Update

Members thanked Foodaware for this update. There was a brief discussion about the issue of Coccidiostats – feed additives used in the production of feedingstuffs for certain target species. It was noted that their use was controlled at EU level but that there were concerns about residues in subsequent batches of compound feedingstuffs for non-target species. Dorothy Craig, Foodaware member and Chair of the Veterinary Residues Committee, had alerted Foodaware to Commission proposals for these substances to be phased out and used only as veterinary medicines. The UK feed industry was against increased regulation arguing that it would damage the UK feed industry and lead to more imports – of possibly less well regulated products. Given this situation the Veterinary Medicines Directorate was interested in gathering consumer views on the use of these substances and whether more regulation was required.

On the paragraph (page 8) concerning the re-examination of the evidence regarding the safety of GM maize (MON 863), a question was raised about whether the Pudzai experiment with rats and gm potatoes had been repeated. It was not thought to have been.

It was noted that a number of the issues covered in the EU Update were covered in a Defra Scientific Advisory Council report which was available on their website.

5.3 Defra Consumer Engagement Project

Ann Davison said that the next meeting of consumer representatives with the Chief Veterinary Officer was taking place on Tuesday 26 June. The new date for the re-scheduled VMD meeting would now be 18 September and consumer organisations were invited to send a representative.

Defra was working on a model of having a one-stop-shop approach enabling consumer groups to raise issues concerning wider parts of Defra e.g. food sustainability. Defra was developing its work on the global impact of food consumption and production and was keen to have feedback from consumers on this. Ann would be looking at how this work could be developed between Defra and its stakeholders. DG Sanco had published an invitation to register expressions of interest in Membership of their new Stakeholder Dialogue Group. Details were on DG Sanco’s website.

VMD would be launching a consultation on the procedures for setting Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and dealing with banned substances. Ann also undertook to pass on any views concerning Coccidiostats. Members recognised that this was a technical issue and more details would be needed before Foodaware could take a view. However, they highlighted some concerns e.g. were there public health risks associated with unwanted Coccidiostats residues in feed? Would the benefits justify the additional costs of further regulation?

Action: It was agreed that Ann Davison and Susan Knox would find out more and report back to the group.

Ann Davison invited Foodaware and its members to contact her on any of the above issues at ann.davison@btinternet.com The Chair thanked Ann for her update. She hoped Foodaware’s contributions via consultation responses and stakeholder meetings would continue to inform Defra’s policies.

6. Geoff Tierney – Programme Manager
Meat Hygiene Controls Review Programme, FSA

The Chair introduced Geoff Tierney and invited him to give his presentation on the Review of Delivery of Official Controls in Approved Meat Premises.

Geoff thanked the Chair and members for the invitation and for Foodaware’s input to the Review to date. He said that the aim of the Review was to ‘ensure that the delivery of Official Controls in approved meat premises provided necessary consumer protection in a targeted, risk-based and proportionate way that represented value for money for operators, taxpayers, consumers and government’. There needed to be confidence in the system as well as compliance, co-operation and cost effectiveness. A flexible delivery model that could adapt to future changes was needed. The Review was nearing its end and the report would be presented to the FSA Board at its meeting on 19 July in Cardiff.

At present, the Food Standards Agency was the central competent authority with the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) being the in-house delivery agency with about 2000 staff. The MHS dealt with more than 60 private contractors who supplied about 300 Official Veterinarians (OVs) and about 200 Meat Inspectors (MIs). MHS’s customers were the FSA, Defra and the devolved Ministries, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the British Cattle Movement Service. It was a complicated landscape with many different players interacting in addition to the above.

The Review had looked at all possible models from a transformed MHS to FSA contracting out front line meat inspection with one or more independent delivery partners. With either of these options they could have the possibility of using Local Authorities for small and lower risk plants, more joined up working between MHS and Animal Health, and Food Business Operator (FBO) responsibility, first in poultry.

If they opted for a transformed MHS, FSA would have a smaller but overarching role i.e. ensuring UK compliance with legislation, providing an audit of MHS delivery and be the guarantor of last resort. MHS would have greater responsibility for policy and delivery, relations with FBOs, plant approval/disapproval, audit of FBO controls, enforcement and prosecution, charging and collecting money, data collection and reporting. There would be fewer contractors who would have a smaller role in recruiting, training and supplying OVs and some MIs.

Alternatively, the Control Bodies model would mean FSA had a larger overall responsibility with the Veterinary Division and MHS liaising with a number of external delivery partners.

On the issue of charging and cost sharing – at present the total MHS cost was approximately £90 million, with £57 million being spent on official controls. There was an average of 46% cost recovery leaving more than £30 million as a taxpayer ‘subsidy’. Both FSA and Defra were aiming for full cost recovery from the industry but there were questions about who should pay what, and what was affordable and viable for farmers, small rural abattoirs and sustainable for the rural economy.

Geoff completed his presentation with posing some questions for Foodaware:

What were the views on the different delivery options?
How could meat regulation be made more risk-based?
How could FBO responsibility and trust be built?
What were the expectations of consumers?
How should costs be covered?

The Chair thanked Geoff and opened floor to questions and comment. Members agreed that it was in everyone’s interest that the system should be efficient, effective and consumers should have confidence that safe food was being delivered. Poor communications and a disparate industry had led to problems in the past. Improvements were being made with better IT systems for traceability and tagging. Better understanding of how the industry was structured and where the risks lay was also important for consumer confidence. Members also expressed their view that small abattoirs should be maintained where possible, that assurance schemes should be well regulated and systems for traceability robust. Consideration for how food miles could be reduced should also be taken into account. A question was raised about health marks on carcasses and how they could not always been seen by the retailer/consumers. Geoff confirmed that no carcass should leave the abattoir without a health mark on each quarter. However, once the meat was cut up into small pieces these were not always evident. There was also a problem with any meat produced illegally which would not be health marked.

It was noted that Foodaware had contributed to the Review both at meetings and through the formal written consultation. Members would await the recommendations of the final report, and the FSA Board’s decision, with interest.

7. FSA Draft saturated fat and energy intake programme

The Chair said that FSA was consulting on their draft Programme for reducing saturated fat intakes. Members had received the FSA website summary of this consultation with their papers. She thanked Jacquie Salfield for preparing a draft Foodaware response which had been circulated by email. Although the deadline for comments had been 19 June, Foodaware had arranged to submit its response immediately following the members’ meeting.

Jacquie Salfield then introduced the draft paper. She thought Foodaware should welcome FSA’s initiative although much of the work to reduce saturated fat and energy intake was long overdue. For example, the need for a fat audit had been made 13 years previously as part of the Health of the Nation recommendations. She had included draft responses to the specific questions in the consultation where they fell within Foodaware’s remit.

In discussion members made the following comments which could be emphasised in the Foodaware response:

They agreed that it was important to reinforce the message about the differences between different types of fat and their role in health.
The reformulation of products had an important role to play (good experience had been gained in the salt reduction campaign) but this was not the only answer.
Greater public awareness concerning the use of basic foods and ingredients and education in basic cooking skills were needed.
The large and growing catering sector was a big challenge and must not be overlooked. Large portion sizes were contributing to the problem.

Action: it was agreed that the draft response should be finalised, taking into account the above points, and submitted to FSA as soon as possible.

8.     EC proposal to exclude small businesses from HACCP

The Chair introduced this item. She reminded members that in April Foodaware had consulted via email about the European Commission proposals to amend the Food Hygiene Regulation 852/2004. These proposals would have allowed small businesses (e.g. those with less than 10 employees) to be exempt from HACCP requirements. Members had been very concerned about this development and Foodaware wrote to FSA (in response to their ‘pre-consultation’ on the subject) accordingly. It had also joined forces with a number of major players in the food chain to co-sign a joint letter addressed to the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons. This had been very favourably received and had made an impression. The two letters had been sent to members with the meeting papers.

Barbara added that FSA were now carrying out a formal consultation on the issue with a deadline for responses of 1 August. FSA were opposing the EC proposals. Foodaware therefore had a further opportunity to comment should it wish to do so.

Action: Members recommended that Foodaware should reiterate its concerns in a brief response to the formal consultation.

9.     Any other business

9.1   Foodaware funding (see item 4.1 above)

The Chair referred members to the paper ‘Continuation Strategy’. This was sent to all full members of Foodaware in the mailing. Spare copies were available in the room for participants who had not received a copy. The paper described the situation at the present time. Namely that Foodaware’s officers had been asked, by the FSA, to attend a meeting on 29 June to ‘review’ its grant. It had been suggested that the annual grant, which had hitherto rolled over from year to year since Foodaware won the competitive tender in 2003, and which was due to end in June 2008, might not be renewed for the final year due to reallocation of funds within FSA.

Having discussed the implications, the officers had agreed to put some specific proposals to the Group for discussion, so that they had a clear mandate from members to take any necessary action following the meeting with FSA. These proposals were outlined in the paper.

In discussion, members made the following points:

Foodaware was unique in being able to provide a voice for a broad range of grass-roots consumer organisations across the UK including Scotland, NI and Wales.
It was able to provide informed consumer responses to food policy developments through its democratic structures and ability to tap into the aggregate expertise of its members.
Foodaware provided extremely good value for money and its achievements should be promoted.
Officers and members gave their time on a voluntary basis e.g. at numerous stakeholder meetings.
Foodaware had illustrated that it could work with industry where it was in the consumer interest to do so.

Members recommended that Foodaware should explore other possible sources of funding/support including other government departments (e.g. Defra, DH, DfES, Cabinet Office), the devolved administrations and European funds etc. It should establish support from friendly parliamentarians and where possible tie its work in with wider government policies. They recognised the value of being associated with an organisation (ERICA) which had charitable status.

9.2 Agenda for next meeting

Members requested that the issue of, and draft Foodaware paper on, the implications of food production and consumption on climate change, should be revisited at the next meeting.

10. Date of next meeting

Assuming that funding was available, the next meeting would take place on Thursday 27 September, venue to be confirmed. Members would be informed as soon as details were available.

The meeting ended at 4.00 pm.