Minutes of meeting on 24 July 2003

CFG 13/03 rev.

Foodaware: the Consumers' Food Group

Minutes of the ninth meeting – held on 24 July 2003 at
UK European Parliament, Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1

Government Food and Health Action Plan: Department of Health Paper
New members
FSA Tender process and contract
Consumer representation
Children and Food Promotion (CFG 12/03)
BSE: Over Thirty-Month Rule (CFG 10/03)
Official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption
Foodaware's contribution to the GM public debate (CFG 11/03)

Present:

Members:

Paul Allen - European Food Law Association, UK
Erica Bargman - European Union of Women
Judy Brander - National Council of Women
Miriam Dub Israel - National Consumer Federation
Dr John Godfrey - ERICA
Janet Graham - EU Standing Group on Veterinary Matters
Susan Knox, Chair - UKROFS, Meat Hygiene Policy Forum
Margaret Langley - Committees on Mutagenicity of Chemicals and
   Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and
   the Environment
Penny McNeill - General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland
Helen Millar - National Consumer Federation
Sue Payne - National Consumer Federation
Ruth Potts - National Federation of Women's Institutes
Jacquie Salfield - Institute of Consumer Sciences, Committee on Toxicity
   of Chemical in Food
Grace Wedekind - European Centre, International Council of Women
Alma Williams - EU Agriculture Committee on Sheep, and EESC

Observers:

Carolyn Ainsbury - Food Standards Agency, Scotland
Mark Browne - Food Standards Agency, Labelling Division
Victoria Combe - Food Standards Agency, Consumer Division
Irene Hill - Food Standards Agency, BSE Division
Dr Christine Julios -Ethnic Minorities Foundation
Paul Marshall - Department of Health
Dr Sheela Reddy - Department of Health
Annie Seeley - Sustain
LeMarra Walker - Food Standards Agency, Consumer Division

Foodaware:

Amanda Cleary - Consultant
Ann Davison - Foodaware Manager, ERICA
Lucy Harris - UK Co-ordinator
Jane Jeffreys - Administrator
Jon Pettigrew - Consultant
Barbara Saunders - Consultant

Apologies:

Mike Jobson - Trading Standards Institute
Linsey Kearton - Welsh Consumer Council
Jeanette Longfield - Sustain
Sylvia Owen - National Council of Women
Dilwen Phillips - Advisory Committee for Wales
Michelle Smyth - Association
Stella Walsh - Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
Margaret Williams - National Federation of Women's Institutes

Government Food and Health Action Plan: Department of Health Paper

Discussion with Paul Marshall and Dr Sheela Reddy, DH - (click here please)

FOODAWARE BUSINESS MEETING

1.    Welcome and apologies for absence

The Chair (Susan Knox) welcomed everyone to the ninth meeting of Foodaware particularly those representatives from organisations who had come to observe with a view to possible membership. She also congratulated Alma Williams, on behalf of the food working party, on her recent OBE, awarded for her consumer representation work.

2.     Minutes of the last meeting

The draft minutes of the last meeting (CFG 08/03) were agreed without amendment.

3.     Matters arising

3.1   New members

The Chair said that efforts to widen the membership had been continuing with positive interest being shown by the following organisations:

Child Poverty Action Group
Ethnic Minority Foundation
Girl Guiding
National Childbirth Trust
National Federation of Parent and Teachers Associations
National Pensioners Federation
Soroptimists

The Steering Committee recommended that these be invited to become members once a staff check on their credentials had been undertaken.

3.2 FSA Tender process and contract

The Chair announced that ERICA had been successful in winning the bid for the new FSA contract and would continue to run the food working party (Foodaware). This was very good news and she thanked members and staff for their efforts in making Foodaware so successful over the past two years. The contract was for up to five years (renewable annually).

3.3 Consumer representation

Sue Payne said she understood the FSA Consumer Branch was to reintroduce an updated version of its consumer representation training workshops. It was agreed that this would be useful. Ann Davison added that FSA was keen for Foodaware to put forward suitable representatives, including for EU level representation, on relevant subjects. It was hoped that a larger 'bank' of volunteers for representation work could be built up in this way. It was also agreed that members could invite non-member 'guests' to Foodaware meetings on occasions where there was a clear justification.

4. UK and EU Updates

These had both been circulated on the list-serve prior to the meeting. The Chair noted that these were primarily for information and that, due to time constraints, they would not be discussed. However, Lucy would be happy to answer questions. It was then agreed that responses should be prepared on the Animal feed (EC proposals) and Campylobacter in chickens consultations. Alma Williams reported on the forthcoming Commission reorganisation of the agricultural committees due to the accession of new member states. In response to a query over Foodaware's comments on smoke flavourings in foods, Ann Davison confirmed that the comments had been quite strong.

5. Children and Food Promotion (CFG 12/03)

The Chair introduced Jon Pettigrew, a consultant, who had been asked to draft the paper on children and food promotion. At present it was a draft discussion paper with an emphasis on food industry activities. Following members' discussion it could be developed further and recommendations could be added.

Jon explained that he had experience of working in the advertising industry and was currently doing a PhD on children's use of new media. He quoted what he felt were the three 'great lies' the food industry widely used to justify its actions. These were:

That advertising was about choice (between brands) and not sales, and that the influence of parents and peer groups were much more important.
That the small number of complaints about adverts made to the Independent Television Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority indicated that people were generally happy with advertising.
That obesity was a problem of insufficient exercise alone rather than also influenced by diet. He quoted the Cadburys 'Get Active' campaign as an example.

He believed the challenge for public interest campaigns was to work out ways to counteract these arguments.

Members raised the following points in the discussion:

Parents were generally very concerned about food promotion to children. The problem was that they lacked the time and energy to complain about specific adverts and they were more concerned about the cumulative effect of advertising and promotion. Also, they were not organised to act collectively. An example illustrating the level of concern, was the 'Parent's Jury' set up by the Food Commission, which provided an opportunity for parents to express their views. It had started with 12 members and now had 1,500. The campaign was an opportunity for parents to speak out against the unhealthy foods aimed at children and the manipulative marketing techniques used to sell them. The Food Commission had also criticised the Cadbury’s ‘Get Active Campaign’ that encouraged children to buy chocolate to get tokens to go towards school sports equipment.
It was noted that the National Union of Teachers had passed a resolution encouraging members and schools not to participate in in-school promotions.
It was also suggested that Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) and Governor bodies (through the National Association of School Governors) were important groups. Governors in particular had the opportunity to influence such things as vending machines in schools, money raising schemes, school meals and how the curriculum was taught.
On the other hand, it had to be recognised that schools were desperately strapped for cash, were under huge pressure and, without more public money, inevitably looked elsewhere.
In response to a question about product placement and whether existing codes were being undermined, Jon said that, in his experience, this went hand-in-hand with direct methods of advertising. Companies would not spend money on product placement promotion unless it was being backed up with more traditional methods. However, he agreed it was an increasing problem.
It was noted that the FSA was carrying out research into the impact of advertising on children. Also that the Consumer Committee would be discussing this issue at its meeting on 18 September.
The National Federation of Women's Institutes had passed a resolution calling on the Government to regulate food promotion to children and to increase opportunities for sport in schools. Foodaware needed to consider whether any restrictions or bans were needed in relation to food promotion to children. One suggestion was for the precautionary principle to be applied.

The Chair thanked Jon for his work on the paper. Lucy mentioned that a longer version of the paper was available for members who wished to have a copy.

ACTION: It was agreed that the above points, together with existing Foodaware recommendations (such as from the EU Nutrition Policy paper), should be added to the paper. A new version would be circulated on the list-serve for members' comments. Foodaware's submission to the Department of Health paper should also include specific mention of this issue.

6. BSE: Over Thirty-Month Rule (CFG 10/03)

Ann Davison introduced this item explaining that Amanda Clearly (Brussels-based food lawyer) had been asked to draft Foodaware's response to the FSA consultation on the lifting of the Over Thirty Month (OTM) rule. Amanda said she had based the paper on feedback from members, amongst whom the majority had shown concern about the ban being lifted at this stage. However, there had not been a full consensus on this. This was why the paper remained draft and it had been felt that a face-to-face discussion amongst members would be useful.

Lucy confirmed that the draft paper had been submitted both to FSA and DEFRA. She also pointed out that the FSA Board, following its 10 July meeting, had recommended to Ministers that it would be acceptable on public health grounds to replace the OTM rule with testing of cattle older than 30 months in 2 stages.

The main points members had raised in the consultation on the paper were about: the reliability of the tests; whether testing would be adequately enforced, the cost of a universal testing regime; whether the risk assessment model on which the recommendations had been based was sufficiently transparent, and the fact that consumer views on a change of policy had not been sought – would it increase or decrease consumer confidence?

Some members present said that they were not against the lifting of the OTM rule per se. They were, however, concerned that the transition to a testing regime must be implemented slowly and only as satisfactory answers to the above concerns were received. It was also pointed out the specialist beef herds had a history of low or no incidence of BSE. They were usually 'finished' slowly on grass and were therefore generally over 30 months when ready for market. Any such 'closed' herds should be exempted. Members also agreed that 'casualty' animals should not be included but removed from the food chain.

John Godfrey said that, in his capacity on the FSA committee drawing up the proposal, he had argued in favour of a two-stage approach. The reasons for this were that:

He believed the tests were sufficiently accurate especially on older animals (details of the risk assessment methods were available on the Internet)
Although the costs would be high, they would be less then killing all animals over 30 months
A two-stage implementation would be more effective as it would allow more time to recruit and train relevant personnel.

Irene Hill (FSA, BSE Division) said that testing was at present reliably showing up problems in older animals. The SRM regulations (removal of specified risk materials) would still be applied to all animals over 30 months. The Department of Health, DEFRA and FSA were working closely together on this review including at Ministerial level.

In conclusion, as there was not a full consensus on the lifting of the OTM rule, the possibility of putting it to a vote of full Foodaware members was discussed. However, given the issue was now at Ministerial level, it was decided that it would be more practical to send a letter to FSA regretting the FSA recommendations to Ministers concerning the replacement of the OTM rule. This letter should restate Foodaware concerns about the issue.

The Chair thanked Amanda for her work on the paper.

ACTION: Letter to be sent to FSA as above.

7.     Official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (CFG 09/03)

Paul Allen mentioned that he had recently attended an open meeting of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (in Inverness). He felt this relatively new committee was important and hoped its (mainly academic) members would be open to the more practical aspects of the subject. He had promoted the Foodaware Aquaculture paper and all ACAF members had since received a copy of it. This was particularly relevant as a visit to a fish farm had been part of the meeting's programme. It was noted that Keith Millar, who ran the ACAF Secretariat, had accepted an invitation to attend Foodaware's 30 October meeting.

Barbara Saunders said that interviews had recently taken place to replace three members of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs including a consumer member. A decision from Ministers was awaited.

Ann Davison then introduced the Foodaware paper saying that it formed a response to one of three food hygiene proposals currently being debated at EU level. This particular proposal was now at a fairly advanced stage and Foodaware needed to submit its views as soon as possible. The two others were on: a) feed hygiene (where there was less urgency) and, b) official feed and food controls (where a quick response was also needed).

Members generally agreed that the proposal made sense, given that it was part of the wider 'farm to fork' approach. A discussion also took place concerning the type of legal instrument being used i.e. the use of a regulation versus a directive. Members agreed that, despite in the past favouring directives for such legislation (as they allowed flexibility in implementation at the national level), the use of a regulation was most appropriate as long as some flexibility was still possible. A regulation was more clear-cut and would ensure greater consistency across all member states. It was noted that the other proposals under the Hygiene package would also be regulations. The paper was then agreed, subject to some detailed points that were noted.

ACTION: Paper to be amended slightly and distributed as soon as possible.

8.      Foodaware's contribution to the GM public debate (CFG 11/03)

Barbara Saunders introduced this item having worked on the Foodaware contribution to the GM public debate. She said this national debate had been ongoing for two months and had ended on 18 July. Lucy added that the Foodaware paper had been submitted to the Debate Steering Committee and receipt acknowledged.

Barbara said that the paper had summarised existing Foodaware policy under the specific questions on the public questionnaire. However, this had not been very easy given the very simplistic nature of these questions. It had also emphasised members' unhappiness about how the debate had been organised. Overall, she felt Foodaware had hit the right note in its view that there were few economic or consumer benefits to the technology.

It was noted that the Government decision on whether to allow imports and the growing of GM crops in Britain had to be made by December. This would be based on the outcomes of the recent Economic Review, the GM Public Debate (conclusions to be published in September) and the just-published Scientific Review.

The Chair thanked Barbara for her work on the paper.

ACTION: It was agreed that a watching brief should continue on the above developments and GM related issues in general.

9.     Any other business and date of next meeting

There was no other business. Susan thanked members and noted that the next meeting was on Thursday, 30 October.