Minutes of meeting held on 28 April 2005

Minutes of Foodaware meetings

CFG 10/05

Foodaware: the Consumers’ Food Group

Minutes of the sixteenth meeting – held on 28 April 2005 at the Office of the European Parliament, Queen Anne’s Gate, London, SW1

Members present
Matters arising from last meeting
UK Co-ordinator’s report and EU Update
Over thirty month rule and BSE testing
Draft Veterinary Medicines Regulations
Food allergens with Hazel Gowland of the Anaphylaxis Campaign
Foodaware strategy

PRESENT

Members:

Carolyn Allen - Committee on Carcinogenicity/Mutagenicity
Dozie Azubike - Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
Judy Brander - National Council of Women of GB
Jonathan Clogstoun-Willmott - Age Concern Scotland
Margaret Foss - National Federation of Women’s Institutes
Paul Gallacher - Defra
John Godfrey - ERICA, FSA Consumer Committee
Hazel Gowland - The Anaphylaxis Campaign
Sheila Graham - Veterinary Products Committee
Mike Jobson - ex Trading Standards Institute
Dr A.Majid Katme - Muslim Council of Britain
Susan Knox - Chairperson
Susanna Lewis - Advisory Committee for Organic Standards
Micah McGuire - Food Standards Agency
Helen Millar - National Consumer Federation
Sue Payne - National Consumer Federation
Pamela Pollock - Townswomen’s Guilds
Jacquie Salfield - Institute of Consumer Sciences
Christine Sanderson-Fagan Soroptimist International UK
Barbara Saunders - Independent Enquiry into failures in BSE Testing
Shree Om Parkash Sharma - National Council of Hindu Temples
Katy Waters - National Childbirth Trust
Grace Wedekind - International Council of Women
Anne Wilson - Meat Hygiene Advisory Committee

Foodaware:

Ann Davison - Manager
Lucy Harris - UK Co-ordinator
Jane Jeffreys - Foodaware, Administrative support

Apologies:

Paul Allen - European Food Law Association UK
Jaswinder Bangar - FSA, Consumer Branch
Erica Bargman - European Union of Women
Dr Paul Bramton - Ex Veterinary Products Committee
Professor Ruth Chadwick - Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and
Processes
Dorothy Craig - Veterinary Residues Committee
Gilli Cliff - Advisory Committee to FSA Wales
Fiona Hodgson - ex Committee on Animal Feedingstuff
Catherine Humphries - The Cooperative Group, UK
Jeanette Longfield - Sustain
Dr Tom MacMillan - Food Ethics Council
Diane McCrea - Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
Penny McNeill - General Consumer Council for NI
Charlotte Meller - LACORS
Jenny Morris - CIEH
Mike O’Neill - National Consumer Council
Dilwen Phillips - Advisory Committee for Wales
David Pickering - Trading Standards Institute
Patience Purdy - National Council of Women
David Smith - Advisory Committee to FSA Wales
Michelle Smyth - Which?
John Verrall - Veterinary Products Committee
Stella Walsh - National Consumer Federation
Alma Williams - Committee on Toxicity and EESC

FOODAWARE BUSINESS MEETING

1. Welcome and apologies for absence

The Chair (Susan Knox) welcomed everyone to the sixteenth meeting of Foodaware especially those who had not previously attended a meeting. She invited participants to introduce themselves. It was noted that apologies would be included in the minutes.

2. Minutes of the last meeting (CFG 05/05)

The draft minutes of the February meeting had been circulated on the email list-serve and with the meeting papers. There were no amendments and they were agreed as a true record of the meeting. Members were reminded that all meeting agendas and minutes, as well as final papers, were placed on the Foodaware website: www.foodaware.org.uk

3. Matters arising

a) Organisational issues

Susan explained that the Steering Committee had agreed to Ann Davison being seconded to Defra’s Animal Health and Welfare Directorate for six months to a year. She would be carrying out a project on consultation issues with the aim of assisting Defra, and the consumer movement generally, engage consumers as fully as possibly in that area of policy-making. The FSA had been informed and was pleased to hear about it. Ann would remain in touch with Foodaware during this period. Paul Allen and Sue Payne, as Vice Chairpersons, had kindly offered to cover Ann’s managerial responsibilities.

In the light of this situation, members agreed to defer the elections for positions of Vice Chairpersons until spring 2006.

b) Prescribed Quantities

Ann updated members on developments concerning prescribed quantities for foods. Members had received a copy of the final version of Foodaware’s paper (CFG 03/05) that opposed the abolition of UK standard sizes for basic foodstuffs. The Commission’s proposal would remove the right to any separate national nominal quantities. There was not full agreement on this issue amongst consumer groups across the EU but Foodaware’s position was in line with that of Which? and the NCC. Ann had also cleared it with BEUC. She was not optimistic about what could be achieved since the Commission’s proposal looked like it would go through. At best some compromises might be agreed. The paper had been sent to the DTI and would also be sent to the Commission.

c) Pesticide Residues Committee Open meeting

Lucy informed members that the Pesticide Residues Committee was holding its 2005 Open Meeting in York on 18 May. She asked if anyone might be able to attend. Members suggested she try Sylvia Owen (NCW).

NB. Patience Purdy, following Sylvia’s recommendation, attended on behalf of Foodaware.

d) Veterinary Residues Committee

Members were informed that Foodaware’s nominee, Susan Knox, had been appointed to the Veterinary Residues Committee.

e) Food Ethics Council workshops

Lucy reminded members that she had circulated details of the Food Ethics Council workshops on the subject of ‘Power in the food system; understanding trends and improving accountability’. These were taking place on 25, 26 May and 5 July.

f) FSA Wales – Food and Well Being

Lucy had received a request from FSA Wales for information about local healthy eating initiatives as part of its ongoing ‘Food and Well Being’ nutrition strategy for Wales action plan. She asked Foodaware members to let her know of any relevant initiatives so she could forward the details.

4. UK Co-ordinator’s report and EU Update

Lucy explained that she had not had the time to do her usual Co-ordinator’s report. It would be circulated by email following the meeting. Instead, she gave a verbal summary of policy-related work carried out since the last meeting. This included the completion of the following papers:

Comments by Foodaware on priorities for government-funded research priorities in the area of food (CFG 01/05 rev1)
Comments by Foodaware on BSE and on the incorporation of EU amendments related to specified risk material into UK legislation (CFG 02/05 rev)
Comments by Foodaware on the proposal laying down rules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products (CFG 03/05)
Foodaware letter responding to the FSA consultation on the future of butcher shop licensing in England (CFG 06/05)

She also drew members’ attention to some consultations to which Foodaware might wish to respond. These were:

Proposals for implementing a managed transition from the over thirty months rule to BSE testing (deadline 31 May) – Barbara Saunders preparing draft
FSA approach to regulatory decision-making (deadline 30 June)
PSD National Pesticide Strategy (deadline 30 June)
Defra consolidation of feedingstuffs regulations (deadline 30 June)

Following a short discussion it was agreed that Foodaware should respond to all these with the exception of the Defra feedingstuffs regulations which mainly concerned transposing EU legislation into UK law.

Action: Lucy to coordinate the production of these consultation responses with input from members.

The EU Update paper had been circulated on the list-serve before the meeting and also included in the mailing. Members were concerned about the reported case of aflatoxin contamination in paprika powder in Hungary and about contamination issues in general, particularly following the Sudan 1 scandal. They also raised concerns about whether food spices were being irradiated and not labelled or whether ethylene oxide (prohibited in the EU) was being used. Members wanted more monitoring alongside the implementation of robust traceability systems throughout the food chain.

Dr Katme and Shree Om Prakash Sharma raised concerns about the need for better food labelling that would enable the Muslim and Hindu communities to avoid foods that contained banned substances according to their faiths. For example, an ‘Asian vegetarian’ symbol would be useful for the Hindu population. Lucy said she would forward contact details for the Food and Drink Federation and the British Retail Consortium to enable Dr Katme and Shree Om Parkash Sharma to take this up with the food industry.

Action: Lucy to provide contact details

5 Over thirty month rule and BSE testing

Susan explained that both FSA and Defra were consulting on the proposals for implementing a managed transition from the over thirty months rule to BSE testing. The deadline for these was 31 May. Barbara Saunders had agreed to draft Foodaware’s response and Susan invited Barbara to introduce the discussion.

Barbara said that she was on the expert group that had been asked by FSA to establish the key criteria for ensuring a robust BSE testing regime. They had reported to FSA last December and were now advising on the testing regime to be put in place for OTM animals. For example, all parts of the animal would have to be segregated, labelled and held by Meat Hygiene Inspectors with carcases only released once the test results were back (usually within 24 hours). Abattoirs were required to simulate the procedures for testing, including segregating OTM animals, taking samples and sending these off to the laboratory. Specialist auditors were checking this and assessing whether the system was workable.

The consultation covered many issues. For example, how would animals be batched and handled separately? Should abattoirs only carry out testing on certain days, or at end of each day?

It was agreed that Foodaware’s response should focus on concerns about monitoring and enforcement issues. One question was whether all abattoirs should be permitted to take OTM animals or whether they should be individually tested before being allowed to do so. Members stressed the need for health and safety issues to be paramount and for extreme caution over the whole process of transition. Another food scare, as a result of public doubt over the procedures, would be disastrous.

Judy Brander noted that the Which? BSE reports contained useful data. For example, she asked how many ‘Barbs’ (born after the reinforced ban) had been confirmed as having BSE and were these all born after 1996 but before 2000? She expressed concern about the impact of large numbers of animals being tested once the OTM rule was lifted and suggested that a phased approach might be more manageable. For example, it could initially be limited to younger animals e.g. those born after 2000.

The importance of animal passports was noted and it was pointed out that these had only been introduced for animals born since 1998. Members were concerned about the over 1 million pre-1996 cattle which were still were alive, which had no economic market value and would not be released even under new testing regime. A reliable solution for disposing of these was needed or the risk of fraud would be high.

Members were asked to forward their own organisation’s policy on this issue (if they had one) to Barbara to ensure a consistent response.

Action: It was agreed that the draft response would be circulated on the list-serve for members’ comment. The paper would then be finalised and sent to FSA and Defra by the end of May.

6. Draft Veterinary Medicines Regulations

Susan said that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate was consulting on new draft Veterinary Medicines Regulations (2005). Barbara Saunders had agreed to draft a Foodaware response and this had been circulated on the list-serve for comment and discussion at the meeting.

Barbara explained that much of the consultation concerned the proposed streamlining of UK legislation to incorporate various EU requirements as well as to clarify and simplify it. She thought Foodaware should focus its response on advertising of veterinary medicines, specific issues concerning food producing animals, the classification of medicines and some comments on specialist producers such as bee-keepers.

Members raised concerns over the classification of veterinary medicines particularly between prescription only medicines (POM) and over-the-counter (OTM) products. Concern was expressed about the fact that vets could prescribe and supply veterinary medicines, which meant they could have a commercial interest in supplying specific products. This could lead to the overuse of some products, including antibiotics whose use should be discouraged because of increasing resistance.

The sale of veterinary medicines on the Internet was a problem area that should be flagged up. Members also mentioned the issue of training and the qualifications of veterinary personnel. They felt that the definition of Suitably Qualified Professionals should be wide enough to encompass veterinary nurses – to help keep the costs of medication down while allowing different types of medicine to be administered by appropriately qualified personnel.

Action: Members to post any further comments on the list-serve and/or to Barbara Saunders in the next few days. The response, in the form of a letter, would then be finalised and sent to VMD by the 5 May deadline.

Following the discussion of these to animal health related issues, Susan invited Paul Gallacher, Defra, to introduce himself and say a few words about his role.

Paul thanked members for the invitation to the meeting and said that he had worked at Defra for 20 years. He had recently taken on the role of facilitating meetings between the consumer movement and Defra (previous carried out by Steve Banks). Several Foodaware members had already been involved in these regular meetings with officials (held every six months) and at the Ministerial level with Lord Whitty. The meetings provided an opportunity for discussion of specific issues and also as a forum for raising wider issues or concerns. He invited members to get involved and said that he looked forward to getting to know the consumer movement and working with its representatives.

7. Food allergens with Hazel Gowland of the Anaphylaxis Campaign

Susan welcomed Hazel Gowland to the meeting and thanked her for finding time in her busy schedule to come and meet Foodaware members and discuss the issue of food allergens.

Hazel said that she was pleased to have the opportunity to meeting Foodaware members. She had read the Foodaware paper on allergens and thought it was very good and covered the main issues. She explained that she herself suffered from serious (life-threatening) food allergies and as a result had got involved in raising awareness through the Anaphylaxis Campaign which was a patient member charity.

She started with some background information and figures on the prevalence of, and challenges facing, allergy sufferers:

One in 50 children are allergic to nuts and/or peanuts. Not all suffer dangerous reactions but one difficulty was how to predict the level of problem. Indicators include early childhood eczema and asthma (particularly a risk factor if not managed well).
Ten deaths per year are fully attributed to allergic reactions. The total figures are likely to be higher e.g. some of the 1,500 asthma deaths per year are likely to be wholly or partially attributed to food. More investigations are needed into what is going on in these cases.
There is no cure for serious allergy sufferers. It is effectively a life sentence of avoiding trouble and constantly being prepared for emergencies. There are very few allergy specialists and most hospital doctors are not experts in this field.
Diagnosis involves taking an ‘intelligent’ history of the patient to build up a whole picture of their family background and experience. This is followed by skin prick tests to determine whether they have been sensitised to particular allergens.
The unpredictability of reactions in different people and even in the same person from one occasion to another makes life very difficult. Reactions seem to vary dependent on age, stress, exercise or additional illness e.g. having a cold, recovering from a virus.

Next Hazel mentioned the new EU legislation requiring foods to label all potential allergens listed in its Annex. While this was not perfect (it is primarily concerned with labelling ingredients in pre-packaged foods) it was progress.

One important issue was that processing using particular refining methods could denature some of the relevant proteins in the food, e.g. peanut oil, reducing or eliminating its allergenicity. The problem in such cases was that if such a refined ingredients was labelled as if still present in its active form, allergy sufferers might eat the food, experience no reaction, and be led into a false sense of security. They may then eat the same ingredient labelled in different foods and suffer a reaction. Ideally, only active allergens should be labelled. However, there is much debate about the levels of allergen below which allergic people will not react. They only way to determine such allergy thresholds is to feed the allergen to allergic people in highly controlled clinical challenges, which carries obvious dangers to some people.

It was also important to differentiate between labelling allergens present as intended food ingredients and labelling designed to cover for possible contamination i.e. ‘may contain’ type labelling. The problem with the widespread use of ‘may contain’ labelling is that some people at risk ignore it.

The emphasis should be on cleaning up production in factories and only using such labelling in cases where all other measures to eliminate or control an allergen had not proved effective. Cases involving allergen contamination had been taken using the Food Safety Act 1990 (Section 14) where it is an offence to sell food ‘not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the consumer’ and under Section 15 where it is an offence to mislead when selling food. Food allergy risks should also be assessed and controlled by HACCP/hazard analysis schemes, including in the catering sector, based on the principle that if you sell food to the public you should be liable for its safety and need to take steps to control all risks.

She believed that improving consumer information on ingredients in the catering sector was probably the biggest challenge, but also the most necessary. This was especially important given that most deaths from food allergens were due to food allergens present as ingredients and not due to contamination.

The FSA had a working group producing Best Practice guidance for manufacturers on how to control allergens in manufacturing and how/whether to label them as ingredients/possible contaminants. This would be out for consultation later in 2005. A key principle was that dealing with allergens was a food safety as well as information issue.

Susan thanked Hazel for her very interesting contribution.

Action: It was agreed that the Lucy would send Hazel the revised version of the Foodaware allergens paper before it was finalised.

8. Foodaware strategy

Susan told members that Foodaware’s contract with FSA was due for renewal in July. The Steering Committee had been holding a dialogue with FSA over the last few months concerning Foodaware’s role. And, while it was expected that the contract renewal would be routine, some interesting ideas for the future had emerged. For example, after four years in existence, Foodaware had proved itself to be a professional and effective group and it might appropriate to consider becoming more independent (ERICA currently hold the contract with FSA on Foodaware’s behalf).

The key priorities that had been identified in the course of the discussions were:

Make the most of Foodaware’s broad grassroots membership - through its member organisations - and ensuring maximum input into research, policy and lobbying work.
Continue to extend the membership with an emphasis on groups representing young, ethnic minority and poorer consumers.
Be active at the regional level e.g. holding a meeting in Northern Ireland later in 2005.
Through the above, focus on involving and nurturing a new generation of consumer representatives.
Continue successful lobbying at EU level especially the European Commission, European Parliament and at the Economic and Social Committee.
Continue regular, and high quality, representation at key stakeholder meetings.
Build up a bank of individuals interested and willing to be considered to serve on official food-related committees.
Continue to support lay members serving on official food-related committees by providing the forum and opportunity to exchange ideas and expertise.
Consult experts within the membership, including those on official committees, at an early stage when developing policy papers.
Maintain an emphasis on policy issues with a European angle and some of the more challenging or technical issues such as zoonoses.
Consider co-operating with FSA on training consumer representatives.

Members discussed the pros and cons of Foodaware carrying out its own consumer research (qualitative or quantitative) as this had been considered in relation to both nutrition labelling and food allergens. Opinion was divided on whether this was a good use of limited resources. Some member organisations were well placed to include specific questions in regular membership consultations but it would be more difficult for others. It was recognised that including the results of focus groups or members' resolutions etc, would illustrate concrete support on specific issues and add greater authority to Foodaware. However, members pointed out that they, as representatives of their organisations, were mandated to speak on their behalf and this should provide sufficient authority in itself.

Concerning further recruitment, Sue Payne emphasised the importance of meeting potential new members face-to-face. In relation to younger consumers, it was suggested that it might be worth trying the school governors’ umbrella organisation and/or PTAs.

Specific comments on the strategy paper included:

The paper should spell out abbreviations the first time used.
Remove the reference to jelly sweets as it was too specific.
Use alternative wording for describing ‘hard’ subjects.

Overall, members welcomed the developments concerning strategy.

Action: It was agreed that the Steering Committee should be given a mandate to continue to negotiate with FSA on these matters.

9. Any other business

There was no other business.

Next meeting: Thursday 21 July 2005
Autumn meeting: 1st December 2005

The meeting closed at 4.00 pm