CFG 27/06

Foodaware: the Consumers’ Food Group
Minutes of the twenty-first meeting - held on 21 September 2006
at the Office of the European Commission, 8 Storey’s Gate, London

Welcome and apologies
Guest Panel on Enforcement:
  Steve Dean – Director and Chief Executive, Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD)
  Jenny Morris – Policy Officer, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH)
  David Pickering – Senior Trading Standards Officer, representing the Trading Standards Institute (TSI)
  David Lock – Policy Officer, Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS)
Discussion on enforcement with members
Minutes of the last meeting (CFG 17/06), matters arising:
  Proposal for a training event for consumer representatives
  Upcoming meetings
UK, EU and Defra Consumer project updates
Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring (CFG 21/06)
Food miles – draft information and discussion paper (CFG 22/06)
EU Organic regulations – draft paper (CFG 26/06)
Any other business and date of next meeting

Present:

Ms Chris Andrew - European Research into Consumer Affairs
Ms Teresa Baldwinson - National Council of Women
Ms Alison Bayley - Scottish Women's Rural Institutes
Ms Judy Brander - National Council of Women
Ms Fionnuala Cook - General Consumer Council for N.I.
Ms Dorothy Craig - Veterinary Residues Committee
Ms Ann Davison - Consumer Engagement Project, Defra
Mr Steve Dean - Veterinary Medicines Directorate
Dr John Godfrey - European Research into Consumer Affairs
Ms Lucy Harris - Foodaware
Ms Fiona Hodgson - Individual member
Dr Majid Katme - The Muslim Council of Britain
Ms Susan Knox - Chair, Foodaware
Mr David Lock - LACORS
Ms Penny McNeill - Foodaware individual member
Ms Jenny Morris - Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Ms Sue Payne - National Consumer Federation
Mr David Pickering - Trading Standards Institute
Ms Jacquie Salfield - Institute of Consumer Sciences
Ms Christine Sanderson-Fagan - Soroptomists International of GB and Ireland
Ms Barbara Saunders - Robustness of BSE testing group
Ms Alma Williams - Committee on Toxicity (COT)

Apologies:

Mr Paul Allen - European Food Law Association UK
Ms Erica Bargman - European Union of Women
Ms Sarah Buckley - Veterinary Residues Committee
Ms Gilli Cliff - Livestock Register Governance Group
Mr Jonathan Clogstoun-Willmott - Age Concern Scotland
Ms Susan Cole - Girlguiding UK
Ms Margaret Foss - National Federation of Women's Institutes
Mr Tom MacMillan - Food Ethics Council
Ms Diane McCrea - SCAF, SEAC, ACP
Ms Helen Millar - National Consumer Federation (Individual member)
Ms Jill Moss - mrsa subgroup, Defra; Bella Moss Foundation
Ms Dilwen Phillips - Sheep Scrapie Steering Group; Women’s Food and Farming Union
Ms Hazel Phillips - Pesticides Residues Committee
Ms Jillian Pitt - National Consumer Council
Ms Melanie Ruffell - Joint Health Claims Initiative
Mr David Smith - Welsh Food Alliance
Mr John Verall - Veterinary Products Committee
Ms Stella Walsh - Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
Ms Grace Wedekind - International Council of Women

1. Welcome and apologies

The Chair welcomed everyone and especially those attending their first Foodaware meeting. It was noted that a number of apologies had been received and these would be included in the minutes. The Chair welcomed the guest panel of speakers from the enforcement world. She thanked them for agreeing to come and give an overview of the main enforcement challenges affecting consumers from their organisation’s perspective.

2. Guest Panel on Enforcement (12.30 pm – 2.00 pm)

Steve Dean – Director and Chief Executive, Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD)

Steve Dean said he was pleased to join Foodaware at one of its meetings and have the opportunity to listen to its members. He welcomed the fact that Defra was working on consumer engagement and said that the VMD was planning to develop a similar approach which could dovetail into this.

He explained that, since 1990, the VMD had been responsible for overseeing the safe use of all veterinary medicines by ensuring their safety, quality and efficacy. Pre-authorisation work involved receiving, assessing and reviewing dossiers for each veterinary medicine prior to market authorisation. They were also responsible for post-authorisation procedures which involved monitoring adverse reaction data, reviewing the risks and benefits of products once on the market, and enforcement.

Inspection work took place at all levels, from manufacturers, wholesalers and other trade outlets, through to pharmacies and veterinary practices, and finally on the farm itself to ensure medicines were being used correctly and accurate records were being kept.

Surveillance work involved monitoring residue levels at abattoirs (with the Meat Hygiene Service), at consumer outlets and of produce coming from countries outside the EU. This was to ensure Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs), set at the time of authorisation, were not exceeded. He said that every positive violation of MRLs was investigated right back to the farm. Any suspected illegal use of substances would be investigated. Intelligence about possible illegal use was gathered from vets, manufacturers and the public. While the VMD would prosecute where necessary, the first step was education. In most cases people were breaking the law due to ignorance rather than with intent.

The VMD now published results of prosecutions and also improvement notices issued to farmers, pet owners and professionals.

The VMD also ran the national Suspected Adverse Reaction Surveillance Scheme (SARSS) which aimed to record and monitor reports of suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines causing harm to animals or humans. Recall of products was an option in serious cases. These procedures were underpinned by stringent EU standards.

Jenny Morris – Policy Officer, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH)

Jenny began by saying that the CIEH was the professional body for Environmental Health Officers (EHOs). It was a charity and aimed to uphold and improve standards within the profession. Members had to pass various exams and also continue to ‘learn while practising’. It had 11,000 members (not all working on food), 60% of whom worked in the public sector.

CIEH worked with the FSA on food policy issues (also Defra, the DTI and DH) where it contributed to discussions and consultations with the aim of improving standards. Their response to breaches of standards was based on risk assessment and proportionality – with prosecution being used as a last resort. More often, education, advice and support were needed to ensure compliance.

One of the challenges facing enforcement bodies was to provide better public information about results of inspections of businesses. For example, the ‘scores on doors’ scheme was being implemented and results could be posted on the web. FSA was carrying out a number of pilot projects in this area, including a pan-London scheme early next year.

The new EU food hygiene legislation was now being implemented. For example, this involved new requirements for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems for all businesses. EHOs were supporting and monitoring the implementation of these, and checking for problems where exemptions were permitted or gaps existed.

Also on the policy agenda was the ‘Better Regulation’ initiative for which tough decisions had to be made about how to allocate limited resources. A balance had to be struck between protecting consumers and encouraging business by not over burdening them.

Another area of importance was building up the knowledge base of how people’s behaviour could be changed and sustained over time. CIEH was liaising with the Department of Health (DH) over social marketing models. For example, in public health and obesity it was important to have evidence of what worked in tackling the problem. Such models could also be applied in the enforcement sector.

As for the future, Jenny felt that there would be less reliance on inspection for enforcement of food standards. However, research was needed on what would best deliver the desired results.

David Pickering – Senior Trading Standards Officer, Buckinghamshire Trading Standards, representing the Trading Standards Institute (TSI)

David said that the issues facing Trading Standards Officers (TSOs) were largely similar to those of CIEH members. The Trading Standards Institute had 2,500 members who were mostly employed in Local Authorities, although increasing numbers were moving to the private sector.

One of the main challenges facing TSO’s was that they were required to meet ever greater demands to deal with issues with diminishing resources. There seemed to be a climate of constant change, coming from central government at the national level and at the local level, over what was expected of enforcement officers. Increasing amounts of time were now needed to work out what they could and could not cover and they were competing with other local services for resources. A balance had to be found between providing an adequate level of consumer protection and the cost of doing so. Changes to legislation often had serious implications for TSOs, for example, new rules about on-farm mixing of feed.

He encouraged consumers to let TSO’s know what aspects of enforcement were most important to them. Businesses would always be pushing for their interests to be represented and it was important for the consumer voice to be equally heard.

The concept of risk-based enforcement had been around for a long time and had now been given greater emphasis with the publication of the Hampton Report. The days of TSOs visiting every premise every year were long gone. Checks were now more intelligence based and targeted but measuring effective enforcement was still very hard. Nevertheless, the fundamental approach of having independent checks on businesses with the threat of sanctions remained crucial.

David Lock – Policy Officer, Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS)

David said that LACORS was a small local government organisation funded by Local Authorities. Their job was to represent and provide guidance for local government. Local authorities were covering and funding a wide range of services, and enforcement of the food sector had to compete with these for funding. Part of LACORS job was to flag up and publicise the importance of enforcement work.

They were concerned about the need for consistency in enforcement standards in different areas and provided advice and guidance to local authorities on this. They promoted the use of the home authority principle and encouraged the practice of different authorities auditing each other.

The central challenge was to constantly look for better ways to achieve compliance with standards, for example, in the food hygiene sector. Rigid systems of enforcement were not usually very effective. Education and support was always preferable where possible as it led to better understanding of the issues/problems and better ongoing compliance.

The Hampton Review had had quite a considerable impact. It was now generally accepted that local authorities should not do inspections for the sake of it but look to more effective methods of targeting businesses. Much work still needed to be done into alternative interventions that would be more effective.

Discussion

The Chair thanked the speakers for their presentations and invited questions and comments from the floor.

Concern was expressed about fringe medicines in the animal health sector which were increasingly available on the internet. This was a problem since internet sales were not operating under UK or EU laws. Likewise, there was a problem of counterfeit products, such as for avian flu vaccines for humans, being promoted in this way. While Steve Dean agreed that these were problems he added that it was also important not to over legislate since this pushed up costs which, in turn, pushed some players to move into the grey or black market.

Jenny Morris stressed that it was vital to have a level playing field across the EU and to ensure compliance levels were similar. Different derogations existed in different countries and, while some flexibility was helpful, this could also cause problems. With meat legislation, the emphasis had been on guidance and methods of meat inspections were likely to adapt over time. Effective food safety management systems (HACCP) were crucial. Over reliance on end-product testing could lead to serious problems, and this may have been the case in the recently reported incident involving a major chocolate manufacturer.

David Lock added that the new 2006 food hygiene regulations were fairly sensible and were only flexible where it was helpful to be so. However, consistency of standards was an issue. For example, problems had been identified with imported eggs and some meat products. Also it was important to compare how the rules were being enforced in different countries, e.g. what standards were being applied to farmers’ markets?

On health claims, David Pickering said that the imminent Directive should be helpful as it included, for example, pre-market approval of claims by an independent body. It would make it much easier for local authorities to enforce dubious health claims on products.

In response to a question about the need for co-ordination and partnership between the different authorities and organisations, the Bucks ‘Healthy Sandwich Project’ was quoted as a good example. David Pickering said that pockets of such activity had always existed but now they were taking place in a more structured way. While this was welcome, it also could lead to problems of competition for resources between the different players. The ‘Foodvision’ website (www.foodvision.gov.uk), jointly run by the FSA, LACORS and the Local Government Association, was recommended as giving a number of interesting case studies of projects promoting safe, sustainable and nutritious food to improve local community health and well-being. It was also noted that the VMD had strong links with the Health Protection Agency on matters which related to both animal and human health such as avian flu. The VMD also had links with FSA and other organisations such as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

A question was raised about the effect of global warming, together with the increasing movement of food products around the world, on the risks for human health and the emergence of new diseases. Steve Dean said that the VMD was involved in a number of groups and meetings at the UK and EU level dealing with zoonoses and surveillance for new and emerging diseases. These were taken very seriously and models for predicting trends were being developed together with planning for possible outbreaks. Jenny Morris added that she sat on the Advisory Committee for the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) which had horizon-scanning for such problems in its brief. She invited Foodaware members to forward any questions to her.

Members expressed the need for public information about how previous problems were being dealt with, for example, the recent E. coli outbreak in Wales. Jenny Morris said that the Pennington public enquiry into the outbreak in Lanarkshire had led to butchers' shop licensing. A public enquiry was also planned for the Welsh case but was pending the completion of a related prosecution. Local authorities would drop everything else when a serious outbreak occurred.

The Chair thanked the speakers for making the time to meet and discuss these issues with Foodaware members. It had been a helpful exchange of perspectives on a wide-range of issues and she looked forward to building on this in the future.

3.   Minutes of the last meeting (CFG 17/06)

Members were invited to comment on the draft minutes of the last meeting (CFG 17/06) held in June. There were no amendments and the minutes were approved.

4.   Matters arising

a)   Proposal for a training event for consumer representatives:

The Chair explained that, following the finalisation of Foodaware’s 3-year Strategy paper, Foodaware had met with FSA in July. FSA was content with the strategy and further discussions then took place about a possible training event for new consumer representatives on FSA scientific advisory committees. Foodaware had discussed this idea with Dr Andrew Wadge at the June members meeting, and FSA were keen for Foodaware to be involved. Barbara added that Sue Payne had since drafted a proposal for such a training event which Foodaware could undertake in partnership with FSA. The proposal, including the budget, had now been approved by FSA but their confirmation of the date was still awaited. The event would involve up to 20 people who would be invited by the Secretariat for each Scientific Advisory Committee. The half-day event would include an introduction from FSA, a session on consumer principles from Foodaware, and a consumer representative panel to present the role of a consumer representative with examples from a variety of committees. The overall aim was to enable the consumer representatives to acquire new knowledge and confidence and to share experience.

After lunch, Foodaware would hold an open members’ meeting and morning participants would be invited to stay on for this to illustrate how Foodaware could provide an ongoing forum for discussion and support.

Members agreed that it was an excellent idea but asked whether it was limited to FSA committees. Other relevant committees included the pesticide and veterinary committees which came under Defra. It was agreed that, ideally, committees with joint Secretariats should be included. Ann Davison pointed out that the Defra paper for consumer representatives could be a useful source of material.

It was noted that the next members’ meeting scheduled for 30 November could be subject to change if the training event could not also be on this date. Members would be informed as soon as possible.

b) Upcoming meetings:

The Chair announced a number of forthcoming meetings which members were encouraged to attend:

Salmonella Control in Laying Flocks meeting – 20 October, HPA
Veterinary Residues Committee – 18 October 2006, Fishmongers Hall, London
Joint VMD/Veterinary Products Committee meeting – 15 November 2006, Barbican Centre, Silk Street, London

Lucy said that she would be compiling a list of representatives for the main stakeholder meetings at which Foodaware was represented and be looking for volunteers to follow committees where gaps existed. The idea was for all main committees to have one or two named members who would take the lead in following committee proceedings and attending meetings where possible. She would contact members further about this.

Action: Develop list of main stakeholder meetings and list of volunteers to cover these.

5. Updates

Co-ordinator’s report
Lucy ran through her Co-ordinator’s report which summarised Foodaware’s main activities over the last quarter. Eight responses to consultations had been finalised and submitted, while three draft papers had been prepared and were on the agenda for discussion. Foodaware had also been represented at a wide range of stakeholder meetings. Lucy drew members’ attention to the recent NCC report entitled ‘Greening Supermarkets’. She recommended that members contact NCC if they were interested in getting hold of a copy.
EU Update
There were no specific questions or comments on the EU report.
Defra Consumer Engagement project
Ann Davison spoke first about avian flu and said that Defra was preparing itself for the autumn migration period. A lot of work had been done on preparedness, building on experience gained from previous cases. Consumer organisations had contributed to Defra’s policy on vaccination. Biosecurity remained the mainstay of Defra’s preventative and containment strategy. A query was raised about the efficiency and cost of calls to Defra when members of the public reported finding a dead bird which might be suspicious. Sue Payne added that she had attended the recent Defra stakeholder meeting on avian flu where it had been said that the telephone system for reporting was being upgraded. The meeting had covered surveillance data, computer modelling and contingency planning. Ann replied that comments from consumer organisations such as NCF had led to improvements in the telephone helpline and more advice on the website.

The meeting of consumer representatives with the Chief Veterinary Officer on 7 September had been very helpful. It was clear from that meeting that zoonoses, including BSE, were the main priority for the consumer representatives present, followed by animal welfare issues. It was possible that Foodaware might be invited to a meeting with the minister, Jeff Rooker.

On Defra consultations, Ann said that officials were now making good use of consumer cover sheets. She thought Foodaware and its members could usefully think about how to use the power of the mass membership base more effectively, such as encouraging members to participate in online discussions. Defra had used citizen panels as an additional way of listening to people’s views on BTB.

6. Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring (CFG 21/06)

The Chair invited Barbara Saunders to introduce this draft letter/paper and highlight the main issues for consideration. Barbara said that Foodaware was trying to comment on the principles raised in the consultation rather than on the detail of what data FSA required local authorities to collect for the purpose of monitoring the performance of enforcement authorities. She felt it was important to concentrate on the broader strategic framework, namely the purpose of the monitoring system and what consumers and the public would expect from it, and this had been emphasised in the paper.

During discussion members requested that the remit of the consultation be checked – did it cover England only? Members agreed that enforcement interventions should be based on a range of possible actions from education through to prosecution (Q.1). On the issue of ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ risk companies, members were concerned that there should be particular triggers for companies losing their status. They also felt that the status of any particular company should be publicly known (Q.3). Members were concerned about the use of the term ‘broadly compliant’ (Q.4) as, since it could not be defined, it would be impossible to enforce. On the issue of educational and advisory work (Q.19), members agreed that Trading Standards Officers were not necessarily the best placed to carry out health education work. However, overall, the value of the local enforcement services should not be underestimated and transparency in the system was essential.

Action: It was agreed that the paper would be revised and sent to FSA in time for the 20 October deadline.

7. Food miles – draft information and discussion paper (CFG 22/06)

The Chair thanked Barbara for drafting this paper, which tackled a new policy area for Foodaware, and invited her to introduce it. Barbara said that the paper was intended to inform, generate discussion and assist in the development of Foodaware policy. Public concern about the implications of modern food transportation was increasing and the paper highlighted a number of specific areas where Foodaware might wish to take a position. Sections 1 - 4 outlined the background and trends, and the implications of these. Section 5 highlighted the various trade-offs for consumers. Policy implications, including a number of specific questions for members to consider, were set out in Section 6.

Discussion
Overall, there was enthusiastic support for Foodaware to develop a position on food miles and the environmental costs of food transportation and storage. Members felt that consumer organisations should be upfront about the choices consumers faced and should play a role in exposing the hidden costs of modern food production. The trend for an ever increasing variety of foods being available, from all around the world and throughout the year, was not sustainable.

There was a discussion about the term ‘food miles’ and whether this should be broadened to reflect wider concerns about the sustainability of food production and transportation methods. There was a feeling that the emphasis should, at this stage, be on how consumers could contribute to reducing ‘unnecessary’ food miles. Raising public awareness of the implications of buying exotic or out of season fruit and vegetables should be the first step. At the same time, support should be given to protecting and supporting the rural economy by promoting local food production, food co-ops and local farmers markets etc. Experiments using alternative, less polluting transport methods and arrangements should also be encouraged. Consumer information as to how to differentiate between different products was essential.

Supermarkets had had a huge role in creating the current situation where consumers were accustomed to a vast choice of products at great environmental cost. Increasing pressure was now needed to force the supermarkets to take more responsibility. Members recognised that this raised wider policy issues concerning competition policy and questioned whether there should be restrictions on further expansion of supermarkets under planning laws and/or support for smaller shops.

The role of cash crops in developing countries was discussed and the challenges involved in supporting alternative income-generating schemes for these economies. However, no clear conclusions were reached.

It was suggested that the paper should mention the multicultural nature of British society and that ethnic groups had specific food preferences. Whatever view Foodaware might take on the reduction in international food transportation, this should not limit the choice of particular ethnic or social groups. Nutritional deficiencies in particular groups were also mentioned, for example, in the elderly and during the winter months. Availability of good quality fresh food should not be compromised in these cases.

Members supported the list of policy issues at the bottom of page 6 which reflected positions Foodaware had previous taken in other papers. It was felt that a tougher stance should be taken in the next paragraph (top of page 7). For instance, that consumers should not necessarily have the right to buy the products they want from anywhere in the world irrespective of the environmental and social impact (first bullet point).

In conclusion, it was agreed that this was an important issue and members should consider a revised version, with a bit more flesh on the recommendations, at their next meeting.

Action: Revise paper for November meeting

8. EU Organic regulations – draft paper (CFG 26/06)

The Chair thanked Barbara for this draft paper and asked her to introduce it. Barbara said that this paper was rather late to influence developments at the EU level due to the fact Foodaware appeared not to have been consulted by Defra back in January. Nevertheless, officials had said that they would be happy to receive comments at any stage. Therefore, it would be helpful to get members’ feedback on the key issues and especially where questions to members were highlighted in the text.

Members generally welcomed and supported the paper. A few specific points were made: for example, they were in favour of a specific logo for EU organic produce. In the very last paragraph, it was agreed that the first half of the second sentence should be deleted and that it should start from ‘If there is to be no such participation … ‘.

Action: Amend paper and distribute to Defra, Commission officials and MEPs etc as appropriate. A request to Defra to ensure Foodaware is included in future consultations should be included in the covering letter.

9. Any other business and date of next meeting

It was noted that the next members’ meeting was scheduled for Thursday, 30 November. Members were told that this could be subject to change as Foodaware was waiting to hear from FSA regarding the proposed training event. Confirmation to members of the date would be circulated by email as soon as possible.

The meeting ended at 4 pm.