Minutes of meeting held on 27 September 2007

Minutes of Foodaware meetings

CFG 27/06

Foodaware: the Consumers' Food Group
Draft Minutes of the twenty-fifth meeting - held on 27 September 2007
At the London Office of the European Parliament, 2 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AA

Strategic Future of Foodaware:
  Introduction
  Breakout group discussions
  Feedback from group discussions

Matters arising:
  Review of the Meat Hygiene Service
  Defra Science Advisory Committee Open Meeting – 17 October 2007

Updates:
  Co-ordinator's report – for information
  EU/ECCG Update – for information
  Defra Consumer Engagement Project - Ann Davison
  Defra project on environmental impact of dairy industry

Climate change
Cabinet Office Review of Government Consultation Policy
Next meeting

Present:

Mr Paul Allen – European Food Law Association UK
Ms Chris Andrew – ERICA
Ms Teresa Baldwinson – National Council of Women
Ms Alison Bayley – Scottish Women's Rural Institutes
Ms Hilary Burrage – Science Advisory Council, Defra
Ms Jean Carter – Townswomen's Guilds
Ms Fionnuala Cook – The Consumer Council of Northern Ireland
Ms Dorothy Craig – Veterinary Residues Committee
Ms Ann Davison – Defra Consumer Engagement Project
Dr John Godfrey – ERICA
Ms Lucy Harris – Foodaware
Ms Susan Knox – Chairperson, Foodaware
Ms Penny McNeill – National Council of Women (Northern Ireland)
Ms Helen Millar – Individual member
Ms Stella Nicholas – National Consumer Federation
Ms Dilwen Phillips – Women's Food and Farming Union
Ms Elena Renier – Islamic Foundation for Ecology & Environmental Sciences
Ms Jacqui Salfield – Pesticides Forum
Ms Diane Sanderson – National Federation of Women's Institutes
Ms Christine Sanderson-Fagan – Soroptomists International of Great Britain
Ms Barbara Saunders – Consultant Policy Advisor
Ms Marion Taylor-Cotter – Hyperactive Children's Support Group
Ms Helena Twist – National Consumer Federation

Apologies:

Ms Avril Baker – Advisory Committee on Pesticides
Ms Erica Bargman – European Union of Women
Ms Gilli Cliff – Guild of Food Writers
Ms Jayam Dalal – ACNFP
Ms Margaret Foss – National Federation of Women's Institutes
Mr Salim Ingar – Halal Monitoring Committee
Dr Majid Katme – Muslim Council of Great Britain
Dr Tom MacMillan – Food Ethics Council
Ms Diane McCrea – SCAF, SEAC, ACP
Ms Jill Moss – Bella Moss Foundation
Ms Sue Payne – National Consumer Federation
Mr David Pickering – Trading Standards Institute
Mr David Smith – Welsh Food Alliance
Mr John Verrall – Veterinary Products Committee
Mr Michael Walker – NI Food Advisory Committee
Ms Stella Walsh – Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
Ms Grace Wedekind – European Centre, International Council of Women
Ms Alma Williams – COT, ECOSOC

1. Welcome and apologies

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. She noted that it was an important meeting as the future of Foodaware would be discussed following the end of the FSA grant.

The Chair welcomed and introduced three new participants:

Jean Carter – Townswomen's Guild
Diane Sanderson – National Federation of Women's Institutes
Helena Twist – National Consumer Federation

A full participants list was circulated. A number of apologies had been received which would be included in the minutes.

2.     Approval of minutes of last meeting (CFG 22/07)

Members were invited to comment on the draft minutes of the last meeting (CFG 22/07) held in June. There were no comments or amendments. The minutes were then approved as final.

3.     Strategic Future of Foodaware

3.1   Introduction

The Chair said that since the last members' meeting, Foodaware's Officers and staff had been busy trying to secure the future survival of Foodaware. As discussed in June, the FSA grant, which had been on an annual renewable contract for the last four years, was under threat. Unfortunately, despite all efforts, including a high level meeting with FSA on 29 June, FSA had confirmed in July that the contract would end at the end of the month. Foodaware had been told this was a result of 'downward pressure on budgets' following the Government Comprehensive Spending Review together with the Agency's moves towards developing more 'direct' engagement with consumers through its new Consumer Panels.

Over the summer a funding application to the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust had been put together and submitted under their Power and Responsibility Programme. If successful this would provide core funding for up to 3 years. A decision should be made towards the end of the year.

In the meantime, in recognition of the fact that Foodaware needed time to secure new funding and to consult its members on possible options for the future, FSA had made some money available to fund the September meeting. The main aim of the morning session, therefore, was to gather members' feedback on how they thought Foodaware should develop in the future.

3.2   Breakout group discussions

Barbara reminded members that Foodaware had held its first meeting in 2001 following its launch that year. It had emerged from the Food Working Party of Consumers in Europe Group. It was made up of a variety of voluntary groups with an interest in food issues together with the main consumer organisations. These groups and organisations had wanted their own independent voice to continue to be heard and had been fortunate to have received, via ERICA, the FSA grant to date.

She then listed some ideas based on an informal SWOT analysis done in preparation for the meeting:

Strengths

Broad membership base
Independence
Committed voluntary effort e.g. stakeholder meeting participation
Quality of papers
Contacts in UK government departments and EU
Understanding of political processes by which policy decisions are taken
Adaptability and responsiveness
Electronic mailing list for efficient communications

Weaknesses

Limited resources (funding and staffing)
Consequently, limited input to external organisations, contacts with member organisations etc.
Voluntary members are busy people and are not always able to attend
stakeholder meetings at short notice
Excessive reliance on officers and staff

Opportunities (if funding secured):

Sustain activities
Improve communications with members and with policy-makers etc.
Engage more members more actively

Threats:

Difficult to secure core funding
If not secured, will face closing down or severely scaling down activities (e.g. meetings, papers, representation)
Membership can be viewed, by some, as marginal and unrepresentative
Unable to meet demands placed on us e.g. stakeholder meetings etc.

Members had a copy of some questions circulated in advance. Barbara suggested
that it would be helpful for the group discussions to focus on funding opportunities,
what members wanted from Foodaware, and what they could do to contribute to Foodaware and future priorities. Members then divided into three break-out groups.

3.3 Feedback from group discussions

Group C

The group were concerned that the new FSA arrangements would not bring in the type of grass roots' informed opinion that Foodaware provided from its broad membership. Complex EU legislation would not be considered by consumers and the FSA would not consult their panels on such matters. If the FSA set the agenda, their approach would be biased.
Foodaware's strengths lay in proactively following up issues of concern to its members as well as reacting to policy developments. Its approach could be broader and higher profile.
Its role in providing education and information to, and communication with, the general public and members could be strengthened and improved.
Papers should be simplified to help people understand them better. The website could be easier to use possibly with an intra-net for discussion questions.
Foodaware should develop its media role. It could make use of member's magazines as channels of communication and supply information for their newsletters.
It was unrealistic to think that members would fund the organisation through subscriptions. Boundaries for fundraising had to be established. Foodaware should be pragmatic but maintain its independence: funders such as John Lewis, Assured Food Standards and National Trust might be considered.
Foodaware could identify new needs and consider charging a fee to meet them.

Group B

Present Foodaware as meeting a niche market.
Promote the brand: Foodaware as representing a broad base of consumers with large numbers of members, nationally and internationally. The collective way Foodaware developed and refined its views gave the organisation strength and validity.
Foodaware's profile could be raised by the wider distribution of papers via the website; extending knowledge of Foodaware through the membership; providing web links to member organisations through the Foodaware site (NB isn't this already done?); placing articles in member's newsletters.
On funding, priority should be given to ensuring a positive outcome to the Rowntree Trust bid. Selling research papers was not likely to be viable and would lead to a hand to mouth existence. Consideration should be given to whether individual organisations would be willing to contribute towards membership costs.

Group A

It would be worthwhile seeking small scale support for its activities from the FSA and Defra Secretariats for Advisory Committees. For example, these might be willing to fund a member to participate in Committee Open Meetings.
Foodaware could continue to develop its training activities for consumer representatives and market this, for example, to the Scientific Committee Secretariats.
Commercial funding was very controversial while the organisation's actual and perceived independence was vitally important. It would be worthwhile investigating possible budget lines in other government departments, such as health and education as well as the Nuffield Foundation, the Welcome Trust and Comic Relief.
Foodaware should stress its unique role including its broad and regional representation. The difference between consultation of the public (market research and focus groups) and the lay representative who develops a body of knowledge to inform discussion should be highlighted.
It could further develop its policy work in areas where food, health and environmental issue were brought together.
Its research and educational activities could be strengthened and underlined. Social Science Research funders might be a possibility especially if Foodaware's research was seen to strengthen the evidence base for comment.
Consider project funding
Consider the possibility of regional representation and involvement with other organisations in the regions

3.4 Group agreement on action

In discussion all representatives present agreed that Foodaware was a unique, independent and nationally representative organisation. Its core business was research and representation and it should continue on a similar basis if funding could be found.

4.     Matters arising

4.1   Review of the Meat Hygiene Service

The Chair noted that at its 19 July meeting the FSA had endorsed the proposal that a Transformed Meat Hygiene Service (TMHS) should continue to be responsible for delivery of Official Controls provided it transformed to reduce costs, improve productivity, change charging structures to meet savings targets, and ensure by July 2008 there was a better integration of Official Vets and Meat Inspectors in plants and that full use was made of independent contractors. It had agreed to set up an Advisory Committee and the board noted the importance of involving consumers to maintain public trust during the period of change. There was also a suggestion that local authorities should be involved in inspection of low throughput plants and small abattoirs. Other points could be found in the FSA minutes on the FSA website. This was the outcome Foodaware supported.

Action: Foodaware should try and follow up on the details of implementation and press for a consumer representative on the new Advisory Committee. Levels of training were crucial as was the need for checks to ensure high standards were maintained at all times.

4.2   Defra Science Advisory Committee Open Meeting – 17 October 2007

The Chair brought this meeting to members' attention and it was agreed that, if possible, Foodaware should be represented. Details would be circulated via email immediately after the meeting. (NB Sue Payne subsequently offered to attend.)

5.     Updates

5.1   Co-ordinator's report – for information

Lucy briefly ran through this report. She noted that Foodaware had continued its high level of output (input at stakeholder meetings and submission of consultation responses) over the summer quarter. This was in addition to staff and officer time being focussed on securing the future of the organisation. It was noted that Foodaware representatives had also been involved in the Defra teleconferences in response to the outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Blue Tongue. The report would be amended to reflect this.

5.2   EU/ECCG Update – for information

A couple of points were raised on issues mentioned in the EU report. It was noted that FSA had not 'rejected' calls for a ban on the additives highlighted in the Southampton study but rather had 'not called for' a ban. Members felt that FSA should clarify their position given that they had commissioned the research. It was noted that EFSA had the final say on the safety or otherwise of additives. However, lobbying at the UK level would be helpful. One way to do this would be to email FSA Chief Scientist, Dr Andrew Wadge, on his blog. There was a short discussion on whether antibiotic markers were still being used in GM technology.

Barbara ran through her report on the European Consumer Consultative Group (ECCG) meeting she had recently attended. The main issues on the agenda had been: Representation and Working Methods; Taskforce on Consumer Markets; Enforcement; Sustainable Consumption, and CAP Health Check. Copies of presentations were available if anyone was interested.

5.3   Defra Consumer Engagement Project - Ann Davison

Ann said that Foodaware was not alone in looking for financial support. The Defra Environment Action Fund had funded some other 'third sector' organisations in the past. Defra was considering future grant funding arrangements for the third sector in the context of a very tight financial settlement for 2008 and beyond. Further information was due on this early in 2008.

Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) meetings were continuing to evolve and develop positively, for example, environmental concerns were being incorporated, fisheries issues covered and some wider food issues included. These were in addition to the core focus of animal health and welfare. Debby Reynolds would chair these meetings as Stakeholder champion on the Defra Board. The next CVO meeting might cover how to measure public concern over animal disease (e.g. use of public opinion data).

FMD – 3 teleconferences had been held with consumer stakeholders and the recent Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) consumer meeting had also discussed it. Events were moving fast and it was hard to keep up. The CVO was committed to listening and it was important to get views and concerns to her.

The VMD was thanked for making some money available to pay members’ travel expenses to its consumer meeting on 18th. Consumer cover sheets had been produced by the VMD on coccidiostats, hormones and minimum residue limits.

Other ongoing issues were fish farming and health (Commission and Defra were working on it) and a CAP health check briefing note. The consumer pages on the Defra website were being adapted to cover more issues. Also a DVD was available on climate change.

5.4   Defra project on environmental impact of dairy industry

Lucy introduced this item on behalf of Mike Jobson, former Trading Standards Officer and Foodaware member. Mike represented Foodaware on the Defra Task Force looking at the environmental impact of the dairy industry, specifically liquid (drinking) milk. The project was still in its early stages of information gathering. Mike would be interested to hear whether Foodaware members had views on how the dairy industry might reduce or minimise its environmental impact. The project was looking at packaging, transport, storage (including refrigeration), and waste of milk from any causes from the time it was collected from the farm tank to disposal of the milk bottle/carton/pouch. It was also looking at which types of milk might be better for the environment.

Members discussed the role of doorstep milk delivery, noted its use of electric milk floats and the importance of its social role. They felt that research into the environmental impact of different types of milk containers should be investigated i.e. glass versus plastic, recycling versus reusing etc. It was thought that tetrapak containers (often used for UHT milk) could not be easily recycled. Concern was expressed at any prospect of fresh milk being 'phased out' in favour of UHT milk.

6. Climate change

Barbara introduced this item reminding members that a first draft of the paper, which focussed on how climate change might impact on food production and policy from a consumer angle, had been discussed at the March members' meeting. The paper had since been revised to focus more clearly on the key strategic questions. Members were invited to comment again, specifically on the conclusions and recommendations which had been brought to the front of the paper. It was noted that the paper did not comment on specific targets in the Climate Change Bill.

Members felt that overall it was a very good paper. A number of specific suggestions over wording were put forward and agreed.

There was discussion over the extent to which fiscal tools could or should be used by governments to change behaviour and whether force or incentives were most effective. It was noted that the voluntary shift from leaded to unleaded petrol had been achieved with tax incentives being used to keep unleaded petrol cheaper.

It was suggested that the migration of animal (and plant) diseases as a result of climate change should be highlighted more clearly with the recent outbreak of Blue Tongue being an example of possible future problems.

Other points to be included:

the importance of a strategic approach to land-use planning;
the fact that new allergies and immune responses could take a long time to emerge (in relation to GM technologies);
the need for retailers to be encouraged to take responsibility for their role;
the importance of seasonality;
the need for FSA to state and detail its interest in climate change and food policy.

Action: the paper should be finalised and distributed to key people in the European Commission (those responsible for sustainability, agricultural and climate change policy); the European Parliament; Defra; FSA; devolved governments; House of Lords and political parties.

7. Cabinet Office Review of Government Consultation Policy

The Chair explained that this review of the Government's consultation policy by the Cabinet Office aimed to establish how consultation could be improved and was intended to lead to better consultation practices across government.

Barbara introduced the draft Foodaware response (CFG 29/07) and explained some background. Namely, that a Code of Practice on Consultation outlining the minimum standards for all government consultations had been adopted in April 2004. This had established criteria for government departments including the 12 week consultation period. The Cabinet Office monitored implementation and reported annually to government. This had led to a substantial increase in the number of consultations and in improvements in timing etc. Now the code itself was being reviewed.

Members welcomed the opportunity to comment on this issue and made the following suggestions on the draft Foodaware response:

to spell out more clearly the relation between Foodaware and its members (p2, second paragraph);
to mention capacity building and national voluntary organisations as well as community and independent groups (p3, first paragraph) concerning better engagement mechanisms;
not to mention specific government departments/agencies on p3, paragraph 6;
to add 'for example' at the EU level' (p4, paragraph 3);
to stress the importance of the Code – must not lose progress gained over the last three years;
to amend covering letter to invite further discussion on these issues.

Action: the paper was agreed subject to these amendments. It would be submitted the next day to meet the consultation deadline of 28 September.

8. Any other business

The Chair invited members' feedback on a mock-up of a Foodaware newsletter. This would act as a communication tool between Foodaware and its members and also government and other policy makers. The idea was for it to be free (not subscription based) and distributed electronically for the most part. The Chair stressed that the idea for this had been included in the Rowntree Trust application and it would only go ahead subject to funding.

Members strongly welcomed the idea of having a newsletter. They stressed the importance of ensuring it went to the right people with frequent mailing list updates.

9. Next meeting

The Chair confirmed that the next meeting would be held on Thursday 6 December 2007 subject to resources being available. Final confirmation, agenda and venue details would be circulated nearer the time. The meeting ended at 4.00 pm.