CFG
17/06
Foodaware: the
Consumers’ Food Group
Minutes of the twentieth meeting - held on 22 June 2006 At
the Office of the European Parliament, 2 Queen Anne’s Gate,
London
Welcome and apologies
Minutes of the last meeting (CFG 12/06)
Foodaware constitution
Foodaware Strategy Paper (CFG 08/06)
UK Co-ordinator's report and EU Update
Defra Consumer Engagement Project
Television food advertising to children – draft
Foodaware response to Ofcom consultation
Guest speaker: Dr Andrew Wadge, acting Chief Scientist,
FSA -
The role of scientific
evidence and advisory committees
Any other business and date of next meeting
Present
Chris Andrew - ERICA
Dozie Azubike - ACAF
Erica Bargman - European Union of Women
Ann Davison - Consumer Engagement Project, Defra
Margaret Foss - National Federation of Women's Institutes
Christine Gratus - Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
Lucy Harris - Foodaware, Coordinator
Dr A Majid Katme - Muslim Council of Britain
Susan Knox - Chairperson
Penny McNeill - General Consumer Council for NI
Helen Millar - National Consumer Federation
Sue Payne - National Consumer Federation
Dilwen Phillips - Advisory Committee to FSA Wales
David Pickering - Trading Standards Institute
Melanie Ruffell - Joint Health Claims Initiative
Jacquie Salfield - Institute of Consumer Sciences
Christine Sanderson-Fagan - Soroptimist International UK
John Verrall - Veterinary Products Committee
Andrew Wadge - Acting Chief Scientist, FSA
Alma Williams - Committee on Toxicity, ECOSOC
Apologies
Paul Allen - European Food Law Association UK
Jaswinder Bangar - FSA, Consumer Branch
Judy Brander - National Council of Women of GB
Sarah Buckley - Veterinary Residues Committee
Gilli Cliff - Livestock Register Governance Group
Jonathan Clogstoun-Willmott - Age Concern Scotland
Susan Cole - Girlguiding UK
Dorothy Craig - Veterinary Residues Committee
Dr John Godfrey - FSA Consumer Committee/ERICA
Janet Graham - Individual member
Jane Jeffreys - Foodaware, administrative support
Jeanette Longfield - Sustain
Diane McCrea - SCAF, SEAC, ACP
Micah McGuire - FSA, Consumer Branch
Jill Moss - The Bella Moss Foundation
Jillian Pitt - National Consumer Council
Barbara Saunders - Foodaware, Consultant
Michelle Smyth - Which?
Grace Wedekind - International Council of Women
Anne Wilson - Meat Hygiene Advisory Committee
FOODAWARE BUSINESS MEETING
1. Welcome and apologies
The Chair welcomed everyone, especially those who were attending their
first Foodaware meeting. Everyone introduced themselves and their
organisations.
It was noted that a number of apologies had been received and these
would be included in the minutes.
2. Minutes of the last meeting (CFG
12/06)
Members raised two points on the draft minutes of the last meeting
(CFG 12/06). Firstly, that there appeared to be no mention of the
role of food technologists in Suzi Leather’s presentation on
the School Food Trust nor in the ensuing discussion. Members agreed
that this was an important issue that should not be forgotten. A note
to the minutes would be added.
Secondly, the point raised during discussion with Suzi Leather, about
the need to support, not to marginalise, those children bringing packed
lunches into schools, was reiterated. It was agreed the minutes should
be amended to reflect this.
The minutes were agreed subject to the above amendments.
Action: Amend minutes (CFG 12/06)
and post on the website.
3. Matters arising
There were no matters arising.
4. Foodaware constitution
The Chair updated members on the state-of-play concerning the future
of Foodaware as discussed briefly at the March meeting. She said that
the Steering Group had been looking into the best way to secure Foodaware’s
future. The aim was to become a more independent organisation with
a governing board and continuing links with ERICA. It had been looking
into the various pros and cons of becoming a company limited by guarantee.
ERICA was already registered as a charity.
In the meantime, Foodaware was expecting the existing contract with
FSA (via ERICA) to be rolled over for another year. The Steering Group
would keep members informed of developments.
5. Foodaware Strategy Paper
(CFG 08/06)
The Chair introduced this paper which had been revised taking account
of the group’s views expressed at its meeting in March. For
example, the aspects which required further funding had been separated
out from the central priorities. The main theme was ‘maintaining
a successful organisation within limited resources’.
Membership
She drew members’ attention to the list of members at the end
of the paper and invited members to check this for any corrections.
Christine Sanderson-Fagan said that she had already alerted Foodaware
to the fact that the Soroptimists International had been omitted from
the list. Lucy apologised for the mistake and assured her that it
would be corrected.
Sue Payne explained that she and Chris Andrew were in the process
of updating the main membership lists to ensure that these were fully
up-to-date and there were two named representatives for each organisation.
As part of this process, they were checking that all the consumer/lay
representatives, currently serving on government food-related advisory
committees, had been contacted. Foodaware was always keen to recruit
new members and some suggestions were being followed up, e.g. an organisation
representing Muslim women.
Public profile
There was a discussion about media exposure and whether Foodaware
should aim to get more media coverage for its work and policies. Members
expressed different views on the value of this. Some felt it was important
to promote Foodaware’s policies more widely through the media.
This could be done quite easily and cheaply as long as one or two
of the staff and/or officers were willing and able to be contacted
by the press and comment where relevant. Others felt that the organisation,
with its very limited resources, was already hard pressed to cover
its existing commitments. Its main strength lay in being an active
lobbying organisation - primarily at government level - feeding into
the policy development process through consultations and stakeholder
meetings etc.
Action: Steering Group to consider this
and aim to gradually build a stronger relationship with press contacts
where feasible.
Measurable outputs and targets
Some suggestions were put forward for measurable outputs and targets.
It was agreed that sending letters in response to consultations, rather
than longer papers, was efficient and valuable to policy-makers. Likewise,
priority should continue to be given to ensuring Foodaware was represented
at, and contributed to, relevant stakeholder meetings where possible.
Even though it was difficult to measure the outcome of representation
work, Foodaware had received good feedback from officials on its ability
to get people to meetings. To build on this further, it would be useful
to develop a list of representatives to track particular stakeholder
meetings. This would enable individuals to gain greater expertise
in a subject and make better use of Foodaware members’ skills.
It would also help in creating a 'bank' of possible candidates for
government advisory committees and working groups. It was suggested
that a pairing system could be established, whereby a newer representative
could go to a stakeholder meeting, in a training capacity, alongside
someone with more experience although the cost element would have
to be taken into account.
Action: Responses to consultations to continue
at about the current level. The Co-ordinator to develop a list of
possible representatives for particular stakeholder meetings in consultation
with members.
Members were very complimentary about the Foodaware website which
they felt was extremely user friendly and extensive. They suggested
that Foodaware should measure use of the website, by plotting the
number of hits it received over time, whether the figures were increasing
and decreasing and which subjects were most popular. Chris Andrew
distributed a summary of exactly this type of information which she
had collected for a 17-day period in June. It had received 658 visits
with 985 pages viewed. The individual subjects receiving most visits
had been organic farming and food, food fortification and food supplements,
food in schools, EU nutrition policy and the recent labelling paper.
The membership page had also had 17 visitors. It was suggested that
an on-line survey of how useful users found the information on the
website could be helpful.
Action: It was agreed that this information
should be collected and reviewed regularly. Consider the possibility
of an on-line survey.
Members discussed the difficulty of how to measure Foodaware’s
success in terms of influencing government or the EU on particular
food policy issues. It was noted that there had been occasions when
Foodaware’s exact wording had been used in final texts e.g.
on food allergens and, most recently, on the availability of fresh
water in schools. However, for the most part it was hard to pinpoint
Foodaware’s precise influence even when policies were improved
in line with Foodaware recommendations. An example of this was the
recent EU agreement on health claims. It was suggested that when Foodaware
sent letters etc it should always include specific questions or a
request to the recipient (MEP, Minister or official) to comment. This
would require the recipient to answer and might help Foodaware measure
its impact to some extent. Another useful tool was to ask an MEP to
ask a question for Foodaware at committee or plenary level.
A wider review of Foodaware and its work might be useful although
specific funding for this would have to be found. It was noted that
it was reviewed by an independent consultant for FSA a couple of years
ago, the conclusions of which were generally very positive.
Funding
It was acknowledged that Foodaware should try to seek a wider funding
base in order to help secure its long-term future. Members mentioned
other government departments, in addition to FSA, that might be approached
(DTI, Defra, DH and DfES). It was noted that the Steering Group was
always on the look out for other potential funders and any suggestions
would be gratefully received.
Other specific points on the draft paper:
- Background: add ‘and website’ after ‘mailing
list’ on 8th line, third paragraph.
- Core Responsibilities: the sixth bullet point should refer
to the UK rather than Great Britain. Other references concerning
devolved issues should be checked.
- Priorities for the next three years: it was suggested the sixth
and seventh bullet points might be moved to the top of the list.
- Areas for future development: remove first sentence (but not
because members disagree with it) and strengthen this paragraph.
- Key aims: check for duplication with earlier text. Department
of Health should be Departments of Health. Add a comma after ‘zoonoses’
in first paragraph. All subheadings in this section should be
in italics.
- Appendix 1: consider adding ‘individual’ before
the word ‘members’ in the note concerning government
advisory committees.
Subject to these amendments the paper was agreed by the group.
Action: Revise and finalise paper in the light of
the comments received. Discuss with FSA at the forthcoming meeting
with the Consumer Branch. Publish on website. Also check whether membership
paper is on website.
6. UK Co-ordinator's report
and EU Update
UK Co-ordinator’s report: Lucy noted that the Co-ordinator’s
report, which summarised policy and representation work since the
last meeting, was mainly for information. Copies had been sent to
all members by email. She drew members’ attention to the Foodaware
responses to consultations listed at the end of the report. These
included food in schools, labelling, health claims, and enforcement.
The draft response to the Ofcom consultation, on television advertising
of food and drink to children, would be discussed under Item 7.
Lucy noted that Diane McCrea, who had been unable to attend due to
illness, had forwarded some brochures on the EU funded BioCop project.
These were for distribution to members and she invited everyone to
take a copy. Two Foodaware members, Gilli Cliff and John Godfrey,
had attended the BioCop workshop held in Budapest in May, which had
focussed on new technologies for screening multiple chemical contaminants
in food.
Helen Millar spoke about the meeting she had attended with the British
Egg Industry Council in May. Her report, which had been circulated
on the email mailing list, had emphasized her concern that any future
meetings should have wider consumer representation. She said that
the main concerns with eggs were probably about those not produced
under the Lion Mark quality scheme.
EU Update: Chris was thanked for her very comprehensive
review of the state-of-play on a wide range of EU issues. There were
no specific questions on this. It was noted that the recent political
agreement on the health claims proposal should be welcomed. While
not containing everything that consumer groups had lobbied for, it
would lay down strict conditions for the use of nutrition claims such
as ‘low fat’, ‘high fibre’ or ‘reduced
sugar’. The controversial Article 4 on nutrient profiles had
been retained which was very good news. Foodaware had written to UK
MEPs just before the vote requesting their support on this. A positive
response had been received from the Socialist group of MEPs.
6b. Defra Consumer Engagement
Project - Animal Health and Welfare DG
Update
from Ann Davison
Ann thanked Foodaware for enabling her to update members on the project.
Ann mentioned the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report, published
on 14 June, regarding salmonella contamination on layer flock holdings.
Foodaware had pressed for such comparative monitoring across the EU.
The UK had come out in the lowest third, with evidence of contamination
in 12% of poultry houses tested. Defra was working on ways to bring
that level down further. The FSA was considering its policy regarding
imports from those countries with significantly higher levels of contamination.
On Avian ‘flu, there was a brief discussion about the need to
inform the public not only when a case was reported but also when
the danger was over e.g. the recent outbreaks in Scotland and Norfolk.
While Foodaware members had been largely reassured by what they had
heard from Defra concerning vaccination, some would want reassurance
at the time as to its effectiveness in preventing disease. Susan Knox
was on the Defra email list for receiving regular updates and she
would be attending the stakeholder meeting to be held on 11 July and
again in August.
Ann said that the Defra website now had information on the consumer
engagement strategy and encouraged members to consult these pages:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/consumer/index.htm
The best way to contact Ann directly was through her email:
ann.davison@btinternet.com
Members suggested that ideas about best practice on consumer engagement
could usefully be shared with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate
(VMD) at a forthcoming meeting as well as with other parts of Defra.
John Verrall distributed a paper on the possible impact of exogenous
oestrogens on children, recently published by Oxford University Press,
on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
It was written by a group of Danish academic scientists and he recommended
it to those with an interest in the subject.
7. Television food advertising
to children – draft Foodaware response to Ofcom consultation
(CFG 14/06)
The Chair asked Lucy to introduce this paper. Lucy explained that
the paper had been drafted by Barbara Saunders who had sent apologies
for not being able to attend the meeting. Members’ comments
would be forwarded to Barbara who would revise and finalise the paper
in order to meet the Ofcom deadline for comments of 30 June.
Lucy explained that Ofcom had been asked, by government, to examine
the case for restrictions on the television advertising of food and
drink products to children. This was in the light of a number of government
initiatives concerning child health and obesity as well as growing
public concern. Ofcom had proposed four options which were described
in the draft Foodaware paper – the fourth being an invitation
to propose an alternative option. Foodaware had already received comments
from Which?, NCC and GCCNI which expressed serious concerns about
all the options put forward by Ofcom.
Lucy invited members to comment, particularly on how tough a line
they felt Foodaware should take in its response. She drew members’
attention to a number of issues for consideration:
- whether restrictions should be targeted at foods high in fat,
sugar and/or salt (HFSS foods);
- whether restrictions should cover all children up to age of
16 years, i.e. 10 - 15 year olds as well as those up to 9 years
of age (the limit used in options 1 and 2 of the Ofcom proposals);
- whether restrictions should apply to programmes which large
numbers of children are actually watching (i.e. early evening
up to the 9 pm watershed), rather than just children’s programming.
It was noted that the NFWI felt strongly that restrictions should
be targeted on HFSS foods: that they should apply up to 9 pm, and
that they should be designed to protect all children (i.e. also include
10 - 15 year olds).
Members agreed that the restrictions should apply to HFSS foods. The
FSA nutrient profiling model was a robust system for distinguishing
between less healthy and healthier foods. It was the best tool available
and should be used.
It was also agreed that restrictions should be aimed at protecting
all children up to the age of 16 years old. There was little logic
to a cut-off point of nine years old and all children would benefit
from greater restrictions on the advertising of HFSS foods. Concern
was expressed about the levels of obesity, overweight, and also other
diet-related health problems, amongst teenagers. And, although this
age group might have more critical awareness of the purpose of advertising,
they could be highly influenced and had considerable spending power.
Concerning the timing, most members felt that restrictions on advertising
of HFSS foods in the early evening were justified and that a 9 pm
watershed was appropriate. Limiting restrictions to children’s
programming was not sufficient given the large numbers of children
watching early evening television (see Which? and NCC figures). Adults,
while not requiring the same level of protection, would also benefit
from less exposure to such adverts. Other adverts would fill the slots
and manufacturers might even be encouraged to reformulate products
so that their nutritional profile improved.
Members felt strongly that any proposals put forward must be evidence-based.
They were concerned by the inconsistencies in Ofcom’s interpretation
of its own data as highlighted in the NCC paper: for example, concerning
parents’ attitudes towards a possible ban on HFSS advertising
before 9 pm.
On the specific question in paragraph 2.3 of the draft Foodaware paper
concerning the BCAP code, it was felt that a 6 month period of grace
for existing campaigns and those under development was far too long.
Action: Points raised to be forwarded to
Barbara Saunders who would amend the draft paper in time to meet the
Ofcom deadline of 30 June.
8. Guest speaker: Dr Andrew
Wadge, acting Chief Scientist, FSA
The role of scientific evidence
and advisory committees
The Chair welcomed Dr Andrew Wadge and thanked him for making the
time to speak to Foodaware members. She said that Foodaware was very
committed to the importance of science in decision-making and one
of its aims was to play a role in furthering the public understanding
of science. It had an important role in consulting and supporting
the UK consumer representatives on food related committees, several
of whom were present.
Dr Wadge started by saying that science was central to the work of
FSA. From its outset it had aimed to be an ‘evidence-based’
organisation. Its aim was to act in the consumer interest, in a proportionate
way, based on the best possible scientific evidence. This evidence
was gained through three main channels:
- Staff - 40% of FSA staff had scientific training, including
social sciences, and many of these provided the secretariats to
the scientific committees;
- Scientific committees – the role of these was to provide
independent advice on a range of issues;
- Research and surveys – FSA spent £20-£25 million/year
on commissioned research and surveys.
Evidence from all these sources was used by FSA when responding to
emerging events, e.g. high levels of benzene in soft drinks, or implementing
longer-term policies, such as the salt awareness campaign.
The job of the Chief Scientist was now separated from that of the
Chief Executive. As Chief Scientist, (at present acting due to FSA
having an interim Chief Executive), he was responsible for ensuring
FSA’s policy advice was evidence-based and scientifically robust.
He had three main areas of work:
- to make sure the processes by which FSA obtained its scientific
advice were robust and transparent;
- to represent FSA within the scientific community both across
Whitehall and externally;
- to consider the needs of the scientific staff within FSA, including
resources and training.
The two main foci of work were: a) improving the understanding of
food safety issues, including contamination, with the aim of reducing
the incidence of problems, and b) identifying factors that could help
consumers make better food choices. These reflected FSA's twin-track
priorities of 'Food Safety' and 'Diet, Nutrition and Consumer Choice'.
Discussion
Research:
In response to a question about how FSA spent its research budget,
Dr Wadge explained that of the £20-£25 million/year for
commissioned research in-house expenditure was allocated, by management,
to different policy groups. For external expenditure, there was a
quarterly call for tenders for research projects which aimed to fill
outstanding gaps in the Strategic Plan. The Scientific Advisory Committees
also identified issues where research was needed. Unlike the public
research committees which might fund ‘blue sky’ research,
FSA funded research projects specific to policy needs. In response
to a question about research into ‘natural’ as opposed
to processed foods, he said that MAFF/Defra had done quite a lot on
natural toxicants. Research on diet and nutrition included natural
and man-made foods.
Transparency:
Disappointment was expressed about continuing problems concerning
access to information, especially safety data, relating to veterinary
medicines despite the Freedom of Information Act. Dr Wadge expressed
his view that all data, with the exception of that which concerned
commercial sensitivities, should be in the public domain. He said
that transparency was increasingly becoming the norm for advisory
committees such as the ACNFP. He said that FSA did not have an in-house
ethics committee for research but this was covered by clear policy
statements setting out core values in its ethical code.
Furthering the public understanding of science:
Dr Wadge said that FSA aimed to ensure that information was presented
to the public in an understandable form, even when the science was
complex. For example, on dioxins, it should explain what dioxins are,
what kind of risks they presented, and how a situation might affect
an individual’s choice of foods. Advice on whether to avoid
certain foods or ‘not to worry’ should be very clear.
Openness and engagement with stakeholders was crucial as all parties
had a part to play. FSA also supported a number of school-based activities
and science weeks etc. A further point was raised about the need to
move from engagement to involvement of interested parties, e.g. in
setting research priorities.
Role of scientific advisory committees:
A question was asked about how FSA assessed the effectiveness of its
advisory committees. Dr Wadge said that these were regularly reviewed.
A major review had taken place three years ago including the role
of lay people. The advice provided to FSA was highly valued and new
areas for research were often identified. Scientific staff within
FSA provided the committee secretariats and so links were close. On
some scientists’ links with industry, Dr Wadge confirmed that
all members of advisory committees were required to declare any financial
interests and these were listed on committee websites. Possible conflicts
of interests on specific issues under discussion also had to be declared
at meetings. It was important to ensure there was no basis for bias
and for this to be transparent.
He stressed that the committee chairs were now generally very positive
about having lay representatives and valued having an outside voice
to ask sensible questions such as whether advice being issued was
understandable. On the question of whether to use the term ‘consumer’,
‘lay’ or ‘public interest’, he thought the
latter was most appropriate. Members felt that the term ‘lay’
was rather negative since representatives were defined by what they
didn’t know. It was acknowledged that more support for these
representatives would be helpful e.g. better induction training in
procedures and clarity over their role. There was a suggestion that
public interest representatives could have a scientific mentor to
support them in meetings and to be available in between meetings.
Dr Wadge thought that the Secretariats were best placed to give such
support, but also that representatives should not feel pressure to
understand all aspects of the science under scrutiny. Their role was
to stand back, look at the broader picture and highlight any wider
issues of concern. It was important for them to feel confident in
their role and there should be opportunities for them to meet and
share their experiences.
Enforcement:
It was agreed that enforcement was a crucial part of securing food
safety and enforcement officers had a vital role to play. It was important
for FSA to consider what the evidence base was for particular enforcement
methods i.e. what worked most effectively? Should there be more or
less emphasis on inspections, heavier fines, and/or more overall resources
for enforcement?
The Chair thanked Dr Wadge for coming to the meeting and for sharing
his views with Foodaware members in what had been a very interesting
discussion.
9. Food and sustainability
Due to insufficient time this item was deferred to a future meeting.
It was noted that Foodaware did not have a specific paper on this
at present but it would be helpful to get members’ views on
sustainable consumption and air miles etc. Liaison with other groups
working on these issues, most notably Sustain, but also NCC and others,
would be important.
10. Any other business and date
of next meeting
Susan Knox notified members of the Veterinary Residues Committee (VRC)
open meeting to be held on 18 October at Fishmongers Hall, London.
She said that Dorothy Craig, Chair of the VRC, was very keen to have
as many consumer representatives there as possible and for their questions
to be included on the agenda. One of the issues to be covered was
to explain what happens to samples when they tested for veterinary
residues. Members suggested that a discussion about how to deal with
aggregates (or mixtures) of residues should also be included and whether
these are, or should be, taken into account when setting maximum residue
levels (MRLs).
Forthcoming meeting dates:
- Thursday 21 September 2006
- Thursday 30 November 2006
It was agreed that Foodaware would send out agendas for future meetings
earlier than at present. However, it was acknowledged that speakers
could not always be confirmed until nearer the date. The meeting ended
at 3.50 pm.
|
