Draft minutes of meeting held on 22 March 2007

Minutes of Foodaware meetings

CFG 12/07

Foodaware: the Consumers’ Food Group
Draft Minutes of the twenty-third meeting - held on 22 March 2007
At the Office of the European Commission, 8 Storey’s Gate, London

Welcome and apologies
Presentation on the Red Tractor Scheme followed by questions and discussion
Approval of minutes of last meeting

Matters arising:
  Animal welfare labelling
  Training session for consumer representatives on FSA scientific advisory committees

Updates:
  Co-ordinator’s report
  EU/EFSA update
  Strategy for influencing EU decision-makers
  Defra Consumer Engagement Project

FSA consultation on the implementation in England of the European Directive on additives 2006/52/EC
Draft Foodaware paper on climate change in relation to food production and policy
Any other business
Forthcoming members’ meeting dates

Present:

Mr Paul Allen – European Food Law Association UK
Ms Chris Andrew – ERICA
Ms Erica Bargman – European Union of Women
Ms Sally Boole – Assured Food Standards
Mr David Clarke – Chief Executive, Assured Food Standards (Guest Speaker)
Ms Fionnuala Cook – GCCNI
Ms Ann Davison – Defra Consumer Engagement Project
Ms Joanne Eggleton – Townwomen’s Guilds
Ms Lucy Harris – Foodaware
Mr Salim Ingar – Halal Monitoring Committee
Dr Majid Katme – Muslim Council of Great Britain
Ms Susan Knox – Chairperson, Foodaware
Mr Micah McGuire – FSA, Consumer Branch
Ms Penny McNeill – Individual member
Ms Helen Millar – Individual member
Ms Sue Payne – National Consumer Federation
Ms Dilwen Phillips – Women’s Food and Farming Union
Ms Elena Renier – Individual
Ms Barbara Saunders – Foodaware consultant
Ms Marion Taylor-Cotter – Hyperactive Children’s Support Group
Mr Michael Walker – NI Food Advisory Committee
Ms Grace Wedekind – European Centre, International Council of Women

Apologies:

Mr Dozie Azubike – ACAF
Ms Alison Bayley – Scottish Women’s Rural Institute
Ms Teresa Baldwinson – National Council of Women
Ms Susan Cole - Girlguiding UK
Ms Gilli Cliff – Guild of Food Writers
Ms Margaret Foss – National Federation of Women's Institutes
Ms Dorothy Craig – Veterinary Residues Committee
Dr John Godfrey – ERICA
Ms Fiona Hodgson – Individual member
Ms Jeanette Longfield – Sustain
Ms Diane McCrea – SCAF, SEAC, ACP
Ms Jill Moss – Bella Moss Foundation
Professor Richard Moody – Manchester Metropolitan University
Ms Sylvia Owen – NCF
Ms Katie Palmer – Welsh Food Advisory Committee
Mr David Pickering – Trading Standards Institute
Ms Melanie Ruffell – JHCI
Ms Jacqui Salfield – Pesticides Forum
Ms Christine Sanderson-Fagan – Soroptomists International of Great Britain
Mr O P Sharma – ex National Association of Hindu Temples
David Smith – Welsh Food Alliance
John Verrall – Veterinary Products Committee
Stella Walsh – SACN
Mr Colin Walker – Which?
Ms Alma Williams – COT, ECOSOC

1. Welcome and apologies

The Chair opened the meeting and introduced those who were attending their first meeting, in particular: Joanna Eggleton (Townswomen’s Guilds), Salim Ingar (Halal Monitoring Committee), Elena Renier (individual), Marion Taylor-Cotter (Hyperactive Children’s Support Group) and Michael Walker (Food Advisory Committee, Northern Ireland).

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

2. David Clarke, Chief Executive, Assured Food Standards -
Presentation on the Red Tractor Scheme followed by questions and discussion

The Chair thanked David Clarke for agreeing to come and talk to Foodaware about food assurance and the Red Tractor Scheme. Mr Clarke said that he and colleagues had recently held a meeting with Susan Knox and Sue Payne from Foodaware and was glad to have the opportunity to meet the wider membership.

The food industry, throughout the food chain, was responsible for ultimately providing safe food to the consumer (as required by Food Safety Act 1990). This meant they must take all reasonable precautions and be accountable when things went wrong. Assured Food Standards (AFS) was owned by key players in the food chain: British Retail Consortium, Meat & Livestock Commission, Dairy UK, NFU (England and Wales) and the Ulster Farmers Union. Observers included the Food and Drink Federation, DEFRA and NFU Scotland. In this way, they could work together across the food chain and support each other in taking their responsibilities seriously.

The Red Tractor Scheme set technical standards relating to food safety, animal welfare and, to some extent, environmental protection. These standards, specified separately for each commodity sector, followed EU and UK legislation and also consisted of a large number of Codes of Good Agricultural Practice. All standards were available to view at www.redtractor.org.uk. To use the Red Tractor logo, farmers and suppliers had to be registered with the Red Tractor Scheme and be subject to regular inspections to ensure standards were being followed. The commodity sectors covered by Red Tractor Scheme, which was run by AFS at a national level, included arable, horticulture, chicken, beef/sheep, pork and dairy. Eggs and turkey production were not covered but these sectors ran their own quality assurance schemes.

An example was the chicken sector where one of the requirements was for the parent stock to be vaccinated with a licensed Salmonella enteriditis and typhimurium vaccine. Other requirements set out details for suitable hand-washing facilities to be available for all personnel and visitors. He emphasised the progress that had been made in controlling levels of Salmonella in UK chicken meat whereby an 85% reduction had been achieved in just two years (compared to the FSA target of a 50% reduction over five years). This was largely due to the vaccination of the parent stock. Reported cases of Salmonellosis in humans had decreased significantly since 1997/98 when the Red Tractor scheme for chicken, and the Lion Egg Scheme for eggs, had been introduced. In the pig-meat sector, veterinary residue levels had also been greatly reduced since the introduction of the Red Tractor Scheme.

Regular independent inspections were made on all participating farms and businesses about once a year with the frequency varying from every 3 to 16 months depending on the nature of the business. These followed ISO Guide 65 (EN45011) and the inspectors themselves were inspected to ensure competence, independence and quality/reproducibility of systems.

A number of outcomes were possible following the inspection of a business:

All requirements were achieved - certificate remained valid
Minor non-conformances found - certificate remained valid but problems must be rectified against an agreed action plan
Major non-conformances found - certificate suspended pending rectification
Problems not rectified - certificate withdrawn and re-entry to scheme may be conditional

Suspension of a certificate had serious commercial consequences for the business concerned and therefore acted as an effective sanction. For example, the producer would no longer be able to supply other players in the food chain including supermarkets and other retailers.

The scheme had been running for over 10 years and had a good uptake with 80,000 farm members in the UK and 60,000 farm inspections each year. The proportion of UK production covered varied from 95% of the dairy sector to 65% of the sheep sector.

The Red Tractor Logo could only be used under licence and was controlled by Assured Food Standards. It acted as a mark of assured food and a mark of origin (the background flag indicating country of origin). For example, for beef to carry the logo, certification would have to be in place at all stages of the supply chain (certified feed, certified farms, certified livestock transport, certified livestock markets, certified abattoirs and processing plants). In terms of origin, the scheme had to comply with EU single market rules. However, the flag in the logo indicated the country of origin of the food and followed FSA guidelines on origin labelling. The union flag indicated that the food was ‘home-grown’. In theory, the flag part of the logo could be changed for food originating in other countries, but there were no example of this at present.

Funding for the scheme came from a royalty payment for use of the standards (85%) and from licence fees for use of the logo on the pack (15%). Until recently, AFS had received a grant from Defra (under the Agriculture Development Scheme) but this had now ended. It was hoping to raise funds to support their communications work for which there was a gap at present.

In summary, Mr Clarke said that the Red Tractor logo acted at a kite-mark for assured British food. More than 350 companies were licensed to use the logo, and it appeared on £5.3 billion worth of UK food. All the major food retailers supported the scheme, and there was growing interest from brands and the food service sector. Red Tractor week would take place from 9 – 15 July when a number of PR activities, special events and competitions would be held.

AFS were keen to increase their dialogue with consumer groups through a stakeholder forum at which consultation on changes to standards etc. could be discussed. Currently, there was also a vacancy on the AFS Board for a consumer representative.

The Chair thanked Mr Clarke for his overview and invited questions and comments from the floor.

Members were concerned that the Red Tractor logo was not well understood by consumers and in some cases even retailers could not explain its meaning. What about food produced outside the UK but processed or packed in the UK? Could these products carry the logo? David explained that EU rules meant that all such schemes had to be open to participation by all Member States. However, the flag in the logo indicated where the food had been farmed. The flag could be changed, for example, if a Dutch producer wished to participate. He also said that AFS had recently set up a website aimed specifically for consumers, the address for which was www.myredtractor.org.uk and suggested that a link could be made with Foodaware’s website if members thought it would be useful.

When asked about the relationship with other quality assurance schemes, he said that AFS had previously owned many of those that covered primary produce. However, it did not cover the organic sector which was dealt with separately.

Concern was expressed that the scheme did not mean food products were ‘assured’ from a Muslim/Halal point of view. An example was given of the use of vaccination in production of chickens. Mr Clarke stressed that only the parent stock of chickens produced for meat was vaccinated – not those to be consumed. Nor was vaccination routinely used in pork, beef and lamb production.

Feed quality and the problem of illegal substances used in feed were mentioned. Mr Clarke responded that while there were always a few loopholes, AFS inspections were more frequent than local authority inspections. It had a memorandum of understanding with local authorities in which they agreed to share information and co-ordinate inspections.

Concerning the move within local authorities towards a more risk-based approach to inspections, he said that AFS was generally resisting this and continued to aim to be on farms once a year as well as carrying out some spot checks. The integrity of the scheme was vital.

In response to a question about antibiotic resistance, he said that proper use of veterinary medicines was essential, including proper disposal of needles, appropriate storage of medicines on farms and respect for recommended withdrawal periods. These would be covered in an inspection. Antibiotics should only be used when prescribed by a vet and to treat animals that were ill. AFS was also working with Defra on strategies to prevent and reduce levels of illness.

Members thanked Mr Clarke for his useful overview. A copy of his presentation would be made available to members on request after the meeting.

3.     Approval of minutes of last meeting (CFG 34/06)

Members were invited to comment on the draft minutes of the last meeting (CFG 34/06) held in November. Lucy noted that the version sent to members had not included amendments received from Stewart Horne from FSA (pp 6-8 Section 5.2 FSA Consumer Engagement Model). The updated version was on the website. There were no other comments on the minutes which were then approved subject to the above.

4.     Matters arising

4.1   Animal welfare labelling

Susan reported that she had attended a Defra meeting on animal welfare labelling on 7 March (her report had been circulated via email). She said that it was part of the Commission’s action plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006 – 2010. There had been a fair bit of scepticism expressed about the need for this. Susan had argued that country of origin labelling was more important to consumers and that welfare should be dealt with separately, not through labelling.

Another point was raised about allergens labelling and the need for shellfish to be distinguished separately on labels. It was agreed this should be raised when Foodaware responded to the EU Review of Labelling that was taking place.

4.2   Training session for consumer representatives on FSA scientific advisory committees

Micah McGuire, FSA Consumer Branch, apologised for the delays on FSA’s side concerning the planning of this event. He had recently held a meeting with David Atkins and Julie Norman (who worked with FSA Chief Scientist, Andrew Wadge) and things were now in place at FSA to proceed. The training session would take place at FSA and he would discuss possible dates with Foodaware after the meeting.

Following the adoption of the FSA Consumer Engagement Model, two new committees were being set up:

the Advisory Committee on Consumer Engagement
a Social Sciences Research Committee to advise the Agency on its social science research programmes.

Any new consumer representatives on these would be invited to take part in the training.

5. Updates:

5.1 Co-ordinator’s report

Lucy ran through the co-ordinator’s report which summarised Foodaware’s main activities during January - March. Four major policy papers had been completed (two of which responded to Defra consultations); three letters had been sent in response to FSA consultations, and a draft paper on Climate Change was on the agenda for discussion. The papers on ‘The sustainability of food transportation and production (food miles)’ and the ‘EC Animal Health Policy (CAHP) Strategy 2007-2013’ had been widely distributed at UK and EU level. As always, Foodaware had been well represented at a wide range of stakeholder meetings.

Lucy drew members’ attention to a number of forthcoming consultations:

Defra consultation on Fisheries 2027 – towards a contract for the future of marine fisheries
FSA consultation on implementation of EU regulation on nutrition and health claims
FSA consultation on implementation of EU regulation on addition of vitamins and minerals
FSA consultation on EU Food Labelling Review

It was agreed that Foodaware should respond to these.

A brief discussion took place on that fact that parallel consultations often took place separately for England and the devolved administrations in NI, Scotland and Wales. To date, Foodaware had always sent its responses to FSA in London but it was agreed that these should also be distributed to the relevant administrations in NI, Scotland and Wales since Foodaware’s membership was UK-wide. Foodaware’s representatives in NI, Scotland and Wales should be asked to check papers for any necessary adaptations to their situation e.g. meat hygiene and controls were sometimes different. A system should be set up to ensure that papers were distributed to the relevant officials in the regions. A suggestion was also made to include a caveat in Foodaware responses to the effect that the comments had been drafted in response to the situation in England and that it was recognised that there may be differing circumstances in the devolved administrations.

Action: Set up a system to ensure Foodaware letters/papers are distributed, as appropriate, to relevant officials in the devolved administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

5.2 EU/EFSA update

Members thanked Chris for this update noting that it provided a helpful overview of developments.

5.3 Strategy for influencing EU decision-makers

Lucy said that Foodaware’s lobbying at the EU level to date had included sending relevant papers to Commission officials, to UK MEPs and to the Chairs or Rapporteurs on specific committees where relevant. While this had produced some positive outcomes, it would be helpful to have members’ thoughts on how to build on this, bearing in mind that Foodaware’s resources remained limited.

A number of ideas and suggestions were discussed:

Include current EU information in policy papers where practical
Identify opportunities early
Use existing opportunities for identifying priority issues and influence
Make contact with EFSA stakeholder liaison officer
Build on members’ links with their local MEPs
Increase links with London offices of the European Commission and Parliament
Send people to paid conferences and meetings where practical

Grace Wedekind said that the ECICW was keen to mobilise consumer and women’s interest in the activities of the EFSA in relation to food safety issues. Members agreed that it would be helpful to build links with EFSA. It was also suggested that EFSA should consider publishing summaries of consultation responses on its website.

Action: It was agreed that Foodaware should invite the EFSA Stakeholder Relations Officer to the June members’ meeting. Members would try and find out more about their MEPs, which committees they sat on, and what their interests were. Foodaware should consider inviting an MEP to a future meeting (as had been done on occasions in the past).

5.4 Defra Consumer Engagement Project

Ann Davison said that it had been agreed to submit the Defra consumer engagement project to the Cabinet Office as an example of ‘best practice’. Its positive aspects, for example, using someone from the sector to co-ordinate, feeding in priorities, building trust, listening to consumers and feeding back, would be stressed. A Cabinet Office representative would be invited to the next consumer meeting with the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO).

The Veterinary Medicines Directorate had agreed with consumer representatives to encourage UK best practice regarding openness and consumer representation to be followed by EU and international scientific committees. The CAP team in Defra was also looking at how it could involve consumers as more active stakeholders.

It was noted that restructuring within Defra was taking place and Foodaware stressed the value of the co-ordination meetings currently held with the CVO.

There were a couple of upcoming meetings to be held at Defra: provisionally on 3 April (cost sharing) and on 19 April (fisheries policy). Foodaware had been notified of these and representation had been organised for the fisheries meeting. It was noted that environmental issues and sustainable production including fisheries were hot topics and should be covered in Defra’s consultations with consumers.

The Chair thanked Ann for this update. She hoped Foodaware’s contributions via consultation responses and stakeholder meetings etc. would continue to inform Defra’s policies in these matters.

6. FSA consultation on the implementation in England of the European Directive on additives 2006/52/EC

Barbara Saunders introduced this item. She said that the FSA consultation covered various amendments to existing EU additives legislation. She suggested that Foodaware should write a letter highlighting a number of points on which Foodaware had commented in the past. She summarised the main issues and members agreed that Foodaware should:

support the process whereby EFSA carries out safety evaluations and assessments on substances but stress the need for adequate resources to be allocated to this;
highlight the need for post-marketing surveillance of newly approved substances and changes in levels of use of certain substances;
support the proposed reduction in levels of nitrites and nitrates in meat and other food products;
support the withdrawal of the preservatives (E216 and E217) for which no Acceptable Daily Intake or safe level could be established;
welcome the withdrawal of the authorisation for gelling agents for use in jelly mini-cups making permanent an earlier Commission Decision to suspend the marketing of jelly confectionary containing Konjac (E425); and
support the proposal that where erythritol is used as a sweetener, consumers should be informed of potential laxative effects through labelling.

There was short discussion about existing derogations for some traditional cured meat products, such Wiltshire cured ham, secured under the UK Presidency. While members did not want such traditional meats to disappear from sale, they had some concerns about these exemptions and wanted assurance that the levels were kept as low as possible and reduced where possible.

Some member organisations also had strong views about the use of particular sweetening agents, such as aspartame for which no changes were proposed in these proposals.

Action: Draft Foodaware letter on basis of above points and send to FSA in time for 9 April deadline.

7. Draft Foodaware paper on climate change in relation to food production and policy (CFG 06/07 draft 1)

The Chair asked Barbara to introduce the paper which represented Foodaware’s first attempt at putting together a consumer perspective on climate change in relation to food production and policy.

Barbara said the paper was long as it included a general introduction to the subject. Climate change had been pushed to the top of the political agenda in the UK following the publication of the Stern report in autumn 2006. The political emphasis at present seemed to be on how to prevent future climate change and make reductions in carbon emissions. Barbara had found there was surprisingly little research and documentation on the specific impact of climate change on food production, supply and cost.

She drew members’ attention to sections 6.4 (What may be the impacts on food in the UK) and 6.5 (Foodaware policies) which set out a number of questions for members to consider. In particular, how to focus Foodaware’s policy development on the most relevant aspects of climate change? Where might Foodaware influence emerging policies and make a difference? Should Foodaware be pressing policy makers to look at the impacts of climate change as well as prevention?

A number of points were made in discussion:

Members agreed that Foodaware’s work should focus on the UK situation taking into account the EU and the wider global context especially in relation to the impact on food production, supply and cost.
Many issues raised by climate change overlapped and accentuated the need for sustainable agricultural policies.
Government and EU institutions, e.g. EFSA, needed to carry out detailed research and horizon scanning on the implications for food production and supply. This was also needed for the safety issues raised by the increased risks of, for example, dioxins (from forest fires) and aflatoxins in the food chain.
Awareness raising of the issues was a central priority for consumer organisations.

The issue of whether GM technology and foods had a significant role to play in adapting food production to climate change was raised. However, other members felt strongly that GM technology was just as likely to contribute to problems since it tied farmers into dependence on high input, e.g. fertiliser use, farming under the control of large multi-nationals.

Micah McGuire said that FSA had commissioned the think-tank, Demos, to carry out two pieces of horizon scanning work, namely, ‘Science 2025’ and ‘Consumer 2025’. These would go to the FSA Board meeting in May and might lead to more detailed research. These had been initiated by the Consumer Branch and the Strategic Planning Unit within FSA.

The Foodaware paper, when finalised, should be widely distributed including to the FSA Chief Scientist, Defra, the Government Chief Scientist (Dr David King), and EFSA. In addition to this paper, Foodaware should factor climate change issues into other aspects of its policy work.

Action: Revise paper taking into account the above comments. Discuss again at next members’ meeting to be held in June.

8. Any other business

Micah informed members that the new Head of External Affairs at FSA had been appointed and was due to start in the next couple of months. There would be a press release on the FSA website at the time.

Action: It was agreed that Foodaware should invite the new post-holder to a members meeting at the earliest opportunity.

Elena Renier told members that there was to be a ‘Living Islam’ camping event to be held in Lincolnshire in July and organised by the Islamic Society of Britain. Food and environmental issues would be strong themes. Details could be circulated to members by email.

Paul Allen told members that the Steering Group had continued to investigate the possibility of Foodaware becoming a company limited by guarantee. It had invited Dame Suzi Leather to be the President of such a company but this was complicated by the fact that she was currently Chair of the Charity’s Commission. Members would continue to be updated and a proposal for any changes would be circulated to members and fully discussed at a future meeting.

9. Forthcoming members’ meeting dates

The next members meeting would be held on Thursday 21 June 2007.

The meeting ended at 3.50 pm.