Minutes of meeting held on 23 March 2006

Minutes of Foodaware meetings

CFG 12/06 rev.

Foodaware: the Consumers’ Food Group

Minutes of the nineteenth meeting - held on 23 March 2006 At the Office of the European Parliament, 2 Queen Anne’s Gate, London

Guest Speaker: Dame Suzi Leather, Chair, School Food Trust:
   Presentation followed by questions and discussion

Foodaware business meeting
   Welcome and apologies
   Minutes of the last meeting (CFG 36/05)
   Matters arising
   UK Co-ordinator's report and EU Update
   Defra Consumer Engagement Project Update from Ann Davison
   Avian Influenza:
      Avian Influenza: Update from Defra officials
      Draft Foodaware response to Defra consultation (CFG 07/06)
   EU Commission Green Paper on the promotion of healthy diets and physical activity
   Foodaware Strategy Paper (CFG 08/06)
   Any other business and date of next meeting

Present

Paul Allen - European Food Law Association UK
Chris Andrew - ERICA
Dozie Azubike - ACAF
Erica Bargman - European Union of Women
Dorothy Craig - Veterinary Residues Committee
Ann Davison - Consumer Engagement Project, Defra
Margaret Foss - National Federation of Women's Institutes
Dr John Godfrey - FSA Consumer Committee/ERICA
Lucy Harris - Foodaware, Coordinator
Jane Jeffreys - Foodaware, administrative support
Andrew Jones - Defra (Avian Influenza)
Dr A Majid Katme - Muslim Council of Britain
Susan Knox - Chairperson
Dame Suzi Leather - School Food Trust
Paul Manser - Defra (Avian Influenza)
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
Jillian Pitt - National Consumer Council
Christine Sanderson-Fagan - Soroptimist International UK
Barbara Saunders - Foodaware, Consultant
Grace Wedekind - International Council of Women

Apologies

Carolyn Allen - COC/COM
Jaswinder Bangar - FSA, Consumer Branch
Varsha Bavishi - UK Asian Women’s Conference
Judy Brander - National Council of Women of GB
Helen Channa - Girlguiding UK
Gilli Cliff - Livestock Register Governance Group
Jonathan Clogstoun-Willmott - Age Concern Scotland
Sheila Graham Veterinary Products Committee
Fiona Hodgson - ex ACAF
Micah McGuire - FSA, Consumer Branch
Jill Moss - The Bella Moss Foundation
Hazel Phillips - Pesticide Residues Committee
Pam Pollock - Townswomens’ Guilds
Jacquie Salfield - Institute of Consumer Sciences
Shree Om Parkash Sharma - National Council of Hindu Temples
David Smith - Welsh Food Alliance
John Verrall - Veterinary Products Committee
Stella Walsh - Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
Katy Waters - National Childbirth Trust
Alma Williams - COT and ECOSOC
Anne Wilson - Meat Hygiene Advisory Committee

Guest Speaker: Dame Suzi Leather, Chair, School Food Trust

Presentation followed by questions and discussion

The Chair welcomed Dame Suzi and thanked her for making time in her busy schedule to come and talk about her work with the School Meals Review Panel, and now as Chair of the School Food Trust. She invited Paul Allen to say a few words of welcome and introduction.

Paul talked about the early days of Consumers in the European Community Group (CECG, later CEG) and how Ann Davison, as the then Secretary, had appointed Suzi Leather as a researcher in 1979. Suzi had impressed them all with her sharp mind, and quiet but determined approach to defending the consumer interest in food. It was no surprise, therefore, when she was appointed as Deputy Chair of the Food Standards Agency when it was established in 2000. He thanked her for her support for the setting up and funding of Foodaware in 2001 and for her contributions to the FSA during its first five years. She was also Chair of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority and had recently taken up a new appointment as Chair of the School Food Trust.

Dame Suzi thanked Paul for his words and said it was a pleasure to join Foodaware for its meeting. She said her presentation on the School Food Trust (SFT) and its strategy would be set out in four parts:

1. Why create a School Food Trust?

The need to tackle the growing problem of childhood overweight and obesity was increasingly being recognised. The UK was ranked 23rd out of 29 European countries for child malnutrition. In 2002, 28% of girls and 22% of boys aged between 2-15 years were overweight or obese and this problem was growing. Obesity was directly linked to diabetes, heart disease and many cancers. The estimated cost of obesity to the NHS was around £1 billion a year and, to the UK economy, a further £2.3-£2.6 billion in indirect costs. Anecdotal evidence suggested that children’s diets were linked to concentration and behaviour, and therefore had an impact on educational and social achievement, although research was needed to explore this further.

School food had been high on the Government’s agenda for the last year, partly as a result of the Jamie Oliver television series on school dinners. In May 2005 the School Meals Review Panel (SMRP) was formed. Increased funding to Local Authorities was announced (£220 million over 3 years). In October 2005 the SMRP reported to the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) with a set of recommendations including: food and nutrient based standards for school lunch; training for school catering staff; and an increase in uptake of school lunch over a transitional period. In November 2005 the School Food Trust (SFT) was formed with a full Board appointed by the DfES.

The SMRP food based standards had been accepted by Ministers and would apply from September 2006. These were:

Fruit and vegetables: not less than 2 portions per day per child;
Oily fish: at least once every 3 weeks;
Deep fried products: not more than 2 deep fried products in a single week;
Bread: unrestricted throughout lunch;
Confectionary and savoury snacks: not available;
Drinks: only water, skimmed or semi-skimmed milk, pure fruit juices yoghurt and milk drinks with less than 10% added sugar;
Water: easy access to free drinking water (and not just in the toilets).

A phased approach to introducing these standards, and also the nutrition-based standards, had been agreed, with secondary schools having longer to do so.

What is the School Food Trust?

The SFT is a new independent public body funded by the DfES. There is wide representation on its Board with full details on their website. Its remit is to promote the education and health of children and young people by improving the quality of food supplied and consumed in schools. It has a budget of £15 million over 3 years.

It aims to transform school food and food skills to improve health and education for school age children and young people. This includes 4 goals which they aim to achieve by 2009:

Ensure all schools meet the food and nutritional standards for lunch and non-lunch food;
Increase the uptake of school meals;
Help to reduce diet-related inequalities in childhood;
Improve food skills through food education, and school and community based initiatives.

What will the School Food Trust do?

A detailed work programme has been developed which includes a wide range of activities including supporting the workforce (catering staff, lunch-time supervisors, teachers etc) many of whom have been demoralised by the recent criticisms of food being provided in schools. Initiatives are also being developed to use school kitchens for teaching food preparation skills within the wider school community including local families etc. Nutritionists at King’s College, London, are developing a project to map improvements in nutritional intake and assess whether this has any impact on behaviour.

What can people expect from the School Food Trust?

Support for schools:

Guidance and best practice to support schools in meeting standards.
Delivery of a pathway to help schools move to a 'whole school' approach to school food that included all members of the school, from teachers to lunchtime assistants.
A coordinated schools transformation programme for primary and secondary schools and pilot interventions with secondary schools.

Support for parents:

Information about food and nutrition and how to improve our children's diets through campaigns and the website.
Support of after-school cooking clubs for children, young people and the wider community.
Research on school food and its impact on academic attainment, behaviour and health.

Support for professional catering staff:

Support for the development of new national training standards and encouragement of employers to invest in the skills development of their staff.
Regional events for catering staff to meet, network and discuss common challenges and opportunities.

Support for industry:

Guidance on new nutritional standards for school meals, and support to meet these standards.
Focus groups and information sharing with the food and catering industry to identify new, innovative approaches to school meals.

In conclusion, Dame Suzi stressed that while much was now being done, the overall task was huge and many challenges lay ahead. It was important to sustain demand for improved school food so that the political will for change continued and, with it, much needed financial investment. The SFT would welcome Foodaware’s views on its work and the issues it was addressing. Any comments or suggestions could be sent to:

School Food Trust, Caxton House, 6-12 Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9NA
Email: info@sft.gsi.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7273 5205

The Chair thanked Dame Suzi for her interesting and encouraging presentation and invited questions and comments from the floor.

Questions and discussion

In response to a question about how much cooperation there was between the SFT and regional governments and local initiatives, Dame Suzi confirmed that the SFT covered England only. However, she said there was coordination and they were keen to promote good practice emerging from regional and local initiatives. For example, they had learnt a huge amount from the experiences in Scotland.

On food promotion to children and the effect of advertising, members expressed concern about the need for good role models to counteract this. It was important for children and young people to associate healthy eating with being ‘cool’. Dame Suzi agreed and said the SFT had given careful consideration to its slogan ‘Eat Better, Do Better’ – they had deliberately avoided using the word ‘healthy’ because 'healthy' was equated with 'boring' ^[1].

Members stressed the importance of including the needs of ethnic minority groups, for example, the 0.5 million Muslim children in schools. Schools needed to involve the parents of minority groups when developing whole school food policies so that, for example, school lunch menus, met their needs.

The issue of packed lunches, and other food brought into schools, was discussed, including how to ensure that parallel improvements were made here. It was recognised that this was a difficult area but it should not be ignored. While schools could not impose standards to cover these foods, members felt it was reasonable for whole school policies to set out guidance especially if the wider school community was involved in developing this. Examples existed where there were ‘rules’ in primary schools about only fruit and vegetable snacks at playtime, and children voting to keep chocolate out of lunchboxes etc. Encouragement from teachers and lunchtime supervisors was crucial – particularly with younger children and it was important to support, not to marginalise, those children bringing packed lunches into schools. Establishing good practice in secondary schools would, of course, be much harder. However, members thought encouraging parents and children to consider the issue and come up with suggestions would be the right approach. Discussions with industry about promoting genuinely healthy products for lunch-boxes would also be worthwhile.

FOODAWARE BUSINESS MEETING

1.   Welcome and apologies

The Chair welcomed everyone, especially those who were attending their first Foodaware meeting.

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 36/05)

It was noted that Christine Sanderson Fagan should have been listed under Attendees, not Apologies. Also that Stella Walsh was a member of the SACN and not the NCF. John Godfrey suggested revised wording for the last line of the second full paragraph on page 7: “...causing gene interchange leading to a form which could be passed from human to human”. There were no other amendments and, subject to these changes, the minutes were agreed as a true record of the meeting.

3.   Matters arising

a)   Organisations issues

The Chair announced that, following the call for nominations for the two Vice-chair positions in February 2006, Sue Payne and Paul Allen had both been nominated to stand again. There had been no other nominations for candidates willing to stand and so Sue and Paul had been duly re-elected.

b)   New email mailing list

Chris explained that the Steering Group had decided to change the host for Foodaware's mailing list as there had been a number of problems with the previous arrangements. She had recommended Googlegroups which would enable attachments to be sent out via the electronic mailing list. Also, all previous messages could be viewed on the website. The email address was the same as before (foodaware@foodaware.org.uk). Chris thanked everyone for their patience and said that everyone was now on the new system. She mentioned that, when replying to an email sent via the mailing list, members could either send a copy to everyone by clicking ‘reply all’ or just to the sender by clicking ‘reply’.

Lucy added that a few issues had arisen during the change over to the new system including, in particular, how to enable members to share information without being overwhelmed by it. Lucy suggested establishing some ground rules and it was agreed that:

the electronic mailing list should be used primarily for exchanging information about, and progressing Foodaware policy work and business between meetings;
all members were welcome and encouraged to post information where it was directly related to the above;
other types of information, e.g. job adverts, press articles etc, should go through a member of the Steering Group before being sent to everyone.

4. 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. She added that, since the report had been circulated, Foodaware had written to the European Parliament rapporteur and UK MEPs urging that Article 4 on nutrient profiling to be retained in the nutrition and health claims proposal.

Members briefly discussed other developments including the lifting of the beef export ban and news from FSA’s recent Board Meeting.

Action:

It was agreed that Susan Knox would write to Dr Jon Bell (standing down as FSA Chief Executive) thanking him for his support of Foodaware.

It was agreed that Foodaware should respond to the following consultations:

DfES consultation ‘Transforming School Food: Standards for School Food other than lunch’. Requesting responses to the recent School Food Trust advice to Ministers (deadline 30 March)
FSA consultation on EU discussion document ‘Labelling: Competitiveness, Consumer Information and Better Regulation for the EU’ (FSA deadline - 5 May and DG SanCo deadline - 16 June)
Food Standards Agency priorities for local authority food law enforcement (deadline - 2 June)
OfCom consultation on television advertising of food and drinks products to children (deadline 6 June)

EU Update: Members thanked Chris for this report and briefly discussed the issue of aspartame. It was suggested that concerns about aspartame could be discussed further at the next meeting.

5. Defra Consumer Engagement Project - Update from Ann Davison

Ann thanked Foodaware for enabling her to update members on the Defra Consumer Engagement Project. She said they were working on an advice booklet for Defra staff, pilot cover sheets to accompany consultations, a system for sending responses to those who had commented on consultations, and development of the Defra website with materials and information. She also mentioned a government initiative called ‘Changeup’ which provided grants for capacity building in the voluntary sector.

Members made suggestions for the agenda for the meeting with the Chief Veterinary Officer, Debby Reynolds on 28 April. These proposals comprised, in particular, BSE including animal movement and traceability, vaccination policy in relation to avian flu, and how to ensure all relevant groups get included in consultations (e.g. Foodaware only found out about the recent fisheries consultation from the Defra website).

There was a short discussion on the difference between consumer and citizen representation and Foodaware’s unique role in representing a wide range of consumer groups. It was agreed that Foodaware should maintain its focus on ‘farm to fork’ food issues.

6. Avian Influenza

a) Update from Defra officials - Andrew Jones and Paul Manser

Andrew Jones, who worked with Graham Lewis on vaccination issues, said that Defra was currently consulting on the detail of bringing the Avian Influenza Directive into UK law. He said that the Directive allowed Member States to use vaccination preventatively or in an emergency situation. However, the UK would need to put forward a plan to the Commission on how it would be done in either case. A vaccination plan for zoos would be forwarded to the Commission in the next few days. If the plan was approved, the plan would only be implemented if the situation was considered serious enough to do so. Sufficient vaccine for zoo animals was available. The use of vaccination was under close review but there were problems with its use (see previous minutes CFG 36/05) and it could not be used for wild birds. ‘Ring’ vaccination around affected areas was one option.

He said that the disease was spreading across the EU more quickly in wild birds than expected, possibly due to the cold weather, but it had not passed into domestic flocks apart from isolated cases in Sweden and France. The risk in the UK over the next few weeks and months was from the East Atlantic flyway from North Africa (although these were mainly small songbirds etc which were low risk). In the autumn greater risk was posed from migration of birds from Scandinavia.

He stressed that early detection of avian flu was crucial in its control as well as good biosecurity by poultry keepers etc. In the case of an outbreak, free range flocks would have to be housed and could be included in vaccination programmes.

FSA had updated their advice on the vaccination of poultry, stating that vaccination did not pose a health risk if carried out under proper conditions and if all eggs and poultry meat were properly cooked. There would not be a need for labelling.

Discussion

Members asked what the time-scale would be in relation to an outbreak. Andrew confirmed that emergency vaccination would be carried out on a case-by-case approach taking into account the plans for when and how to do this as required by the Directive.

Members expressed concern that the total population of virus carriers worldwide was growing and therefore the risk to humans was likewise rising. Paul Manser acknowledged this and agreed that more global surveillance was needed. He pointed out that wetland bird species were the main carriers and they were regularly exposed a whole host of avian flu strains. It was not in the interest of the virus to kill its host species. Highly pathogenic strains emerged from time to time but these tended to be self-limiting.

On the issue of slaughtering birds in the case of an outbreak, it was noted that the Animal Health Act contained the right to slaughter in the interests of disease control. Details of how and when such powers might be implemented were under discussion.

b) Draft Foodaware response to Defra consultation (CFG 07/06))

Barbara Saunders introduced the draft Foodaware response to the Defra consultation on plans to implement Council Directive 2005/94/EC on the control of avian influenza. She said that she had tried to highlight the key issues from Foodaware’s recent paper on Avian Influenza (CFG 34/05 rev) and concentrate on issues where Defra had specifically asked for views. She explained that the proposed legislation included three extra provisions not contained in the Directive namely:

powers to separate poultry from wild birds and to ban gatherings of birds;
a requirement for those who notify the suspicion of disease not to move anything from the premises concerned that might pose a risk pending the arrival of the Veterinary Officer;
the power to close footpaths in a protection zone under certain circumstances.

Members agreed that Foodaware should generally support these provisions, and also vaccination as a control option under certain circumstances. They stressed the importance of improved biosecurity on farms and felt it should form a central part of farm assurance plans. Members were concerned about how biosecurity could be tightened on open farms, the need for further consultation on the status of organic poultry and eggs (if flocks were brought indoors and/or vaccinated), and the wider issue of the overall risk to human health and the possible routes for this to become a human disease.

7. European Commission Green Paper on the promotion of healthy diets and physical
activity: Draft paper for discussion and agreement (CFG 06/06)

Barbara Saunders introduced the draft paper explaining that it had been prepared in response to the Commission (DG SanCo's) consultation on its Green paper. The Commission’s deadline for comments had been 15 March and Foodaware had sent its draft paper. A final version, incorporating members’ comments during the meeting, would be sent to the Commission within the next few days.

Barbara said that the Commission’s paper was very ‘green’ and general with no specific recommendations. She had received some helpful comments from Jacquie Salfield by email (concerning nutritional labelling, the FSA traffic light labelling scheme and the need for such a scheme to be EU-wide) which would be incorporated. Margaret Foss suggested giving greater emphasis to the need for teaching and developing practical cooking skills. Inconsistencies in the text should be ironed out, particularly concerning whether examples of good practice should be replicated. It was agreed that low income groups should be the highest priority when it came to areas needing more resources.

Action: Paper finalised following meeting and re-sent to DG SanCo.

8. Foodaware Strategy Paper (CFG 08/06)

Susan introduced the draft strategy paper, explaining that Foodaware had asked Barbara to update its 2005 strategy paper and turn it into a 3-year strategy (2006-2008). Its purpose was to identify priorities and ensure Foodaware’s limited resources were used most effectively. The Steering Committee would also discuss the draft with key FSA officials to make sure it was in line with their expectations. She explained that the section ‘Core responsibilities’ was based on the FSA contract. She invited members’ comments, particularly on the sections ‘Priorities for the next three years’ and ‘Key aims’. A further appendix would be added with the list of member organisations.

Members made the following points:

There was a need to develop greater awareness of Foodaware, for example, amongst FSA policy departments, advisory committees and the devolved FSA offices.
Foodaware could play a useful role in training people to be consumer representatives. However, without additional funding this was not a practical option. Members did support the idea of doing this in co-operation with FSA.
Regional meetings, held with local groups, would be worthwhile, but more funding would be needed for this.
Publicity was mentioned and some felt that Foodaware should try and raise its public profile, for example, through the press. However, other members were concerned that this was not practical given Foodaware’s very limited resources and that its profile was already high where it mattered.
Members suggested that only the main priorities should be highlighted with a further section listing additional areas for development when resources became available (training work, publicity etc).
It was agreed that it would be useful to develop an ‘at a glance’ document briefly summarising key policies. This could be included on the website and in an updated version of the leaflet.

Members expressed concern about what was happening in the light of FSA's decision to abolish its Consumer Committee. It was thought that its Consumer Engagement Strategy would be discussed at the FSA Board meeting in June including further consultation. Foodaware should ensure it contributed ideas where possible. It was noted that, if the independent advisory committees were to have more contact with the Board in future, then Foodaware's role in supporting consumer/lay members on these would be even more important.

Paul Allen referred to the bullet point concerning ‘securing the organisational independence of Foodaware’. He explained that the Steering Group had been discussing the possibility of establishing Foodaware as a company limited by guarantee. This would mean becoming independent of ERICA (which currently held the contract with FSA), establishing its own Board of Directors and constitution. It could apply for charitable status (which it currently had via ERICA). He confirmed that this possibility had been discussed with FSA who had had no objection to the idea.

9. Any other business and date of next meeting

There was no other business.

Forthcoming meeting dates:

Thursday 22 June 2006

Thursday 21 September 2006

Thursday 30 November 2006

¹ Although not mentioned at the time, members have since noted the important role of food technologists in schools in teaching basic cooking skills and awareness of healthy eating.