CFG
26/05
Letter dated 31 October
2005 from Foodaware to Sarah Butler, Microbiological Safety Division,
Food Standards Agency:
Dear Ms Butler
Consultation on Draft EU Regulation for Microbiological Criteria
for Foodstuffs 2005
The FSA is consulting on the draft EU Regulation and partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment before consulting on the draft Statutory Instrument
and guidance which is due to be in place by 1 January 2006. Foodaware
and its predecessor, the Consumers in Europe Group have opposed the
way new European legislation on technical subjects is negotiated through
Standing Committee procedures because of the lack of openness in the
way these committees function and inadequate consultation as the legislation
develops. At this point in time, the regulation cannot be changed
so there is little point in formal consultation.
This specific proposal will update the Community’s approach
to end-product testing and bring the testing regime more in line with
risk-based assessment and HACCP principles. Foodaware has previously
welcomed the Commission’s proposals to simplify the hygiene
regulations and include the whole food chain from farm to fork within
the scope of Community food safety rules. Microbiological testing
is valuable to identify the hygiene status of a product at a point
in time, but is only one tool in an effective food safety system.
An appropriate and comprehensive HACCP is a means of ensuring that
safety has been assessed and that controls are in place to assure
the quality and safety of the production processes on an ongoing basis.
This regulation will apply to all UK food businesses and will require
them to have a sampling and testing plan in place to ensure compliance
with microbiological requirements. It is intended that this should
be proportionate to the nature and size of the business and be part
of their risk-based food safety management plan.
We support this approach, but are acutely aware that small-scale operators
and many in the farming community do not yet have a HACCP plan in
place. Unscrupulous or poorly informed producers may not implement
these important controls, especially where they require additional
testing. While the FSA states that ‘as a general rule there
is no requirement for increased end product testing’, there
are additional requirements for listeria and salmonella and the FSA
will need a communication programme to ensure that small producers
are aware of their responsibilities. Given the continuing high levels
of foodborne disease in the UK, there is no room for complacency.
The Regulation requires that the Competent Authority must verify that
individual businesses comply with the regulation and use the microbiological
criteria for official control purposes. It is unclear how the FSA
and local government enforcement authorities will ensure that they
meet their obligations in this regard. HACCP and Microbiological testing
plans are not a substitute for official inspection. Checks must be
made to ensure that the plans are in place and being implemented effectively.
Foodaware would like the FSA to be more explicit about its requirements
for inspection, audit arrangements and the records that will be required
to demonstrate compliance. We are concerned that some firms will simply
ignore these obligations believing that with the competing pressures
on enforcement authorities there is little likelihood of inspection
or enforcement action being taken.
The FSA has specifically asked for evidence on increased costs of
enforcement and the implications on the ground. This regulation will
be introduced alongside revisions to the hygiene regulations and official
control regulations, all of which will have significant resource implications
for enforcement authorities and small businesses. The implementing
regulations are technically difficult and will add to cost if they
are to be properly enforced, which we believe they must be. These
regulations should be viewed in the broader context and the necessary
resources made available.
The proposed regulation allows some flexibility to derogate from the
proposed sampling frequency and for small slaughterhouses and establishments
producing minced meat and meat preparations to be exempt from the
sampling frequencies. We do not accept that producers of minced meat
and meat preparations (which are high-risk products) should be exempt
from these public health measures. Most food poisoning has come from
animal products, meat, eggs and shellfish. It is extraordinary that
the FSA is considering any exemptions for this category of foods.
While there may be a case for reduced frequency testing for low volume
enterprises, this must be decided in the context of their HACCP arrangements
and hygiene status. We would certainly not favour general exemptions.
Foodaware is content for this response to be made publicly available.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Saunders
pp Susan Knox
Chairperson
|
