CFG
15/01 rev.
Foodaware: the Consumers' Food Group
Minutes of the second meeting
held on 29 October 2001
UK European Parliament, Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1
Dr Andrew King: Foot and Mouth Disease:
what consumers need to know
Phillip Whitehead, MEP, Rapporteur
on European Food Authority
Foodaware Business Meeting:
Welcome and apologies for
absence
Minutes of the last meeting
Matters arising
Foodaware membership paper
Health claims paper
GM labelling
Response to the FSA consultation
on the Farming and Food Commission
Zoonoses, irradiation
and labelling of allergens - new work
Present
Members:
Dorothy Craig - Chair, FAC
David Alexander - NCC
Judy Brander - National Council of Women
John Godfrey - ERICA/CEG
Janet Graham - Individual Member
Michael Jobson - Trading Standards Institute
Susan Knox - CEG and UKROFS
Penny McNeill - GCCNI
Jenny Morris - Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Sue Payne - NFCG & Consumer Rep Veterinary Products Committee
Pamela Pollock - Townswomens Guild
Barbara Saunders - FSA Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals
Penny Viner - EFLA (UK)
Grace Wedekind - ECICW and Women's National Commission
Margaret Williams - NFWI
Anne Wilson - MHS
Foodaware: Ann Davison - Foodaware Manager and
ERICA
Lucy Harris - UK Co-ordinator
Robert Moreland - EU Consultant
Caroline Naett - Researcher
Jane Jeffreys - Administrative support
Apologies for absence:
Paul Allen - European Food Law Association
Ann Goodwin - Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Donna Heaney - Scottish Consumers’ Council
Suzi Leather - Food Standards Agency
Helen Millar - Individual member
Mona Patel - Consumers’ Association
Jacquie Salfield - Institute of Consumer Sciences, FSA/DH, COT
Mary Shelley - National Housewives Association
Irene Watson - National Housewives Association
Alma Williams - ECOSOC, EU Standing Group on Sheepmeat
1. Welcome
Dorothy Craig (Chair) welcomed everyone to the second and official
launch meeting of Foodaware: the Consumers' Food Group. She said
that Foodaware had been set up earlier in the year to coordinate
the wider UK consumer movement's work on food safety, nutrition
and standards. Its mission was to give UK consumers a strong voice
on food policy by bringing together the organisations that represent
them; to consult and support the UK consumer representatives on
food related committees, and to further the public understanding
of science. It was supported by a grant from the Food Standards
Agency and a Secretariat provided by European Research into Consumer
Affairs (ERICA). It built on the past food policy work of the Consumers
in Europe Group.
She welcomed and introduced the two invited speakers: Dr Andrew
King from the Institute of Animal Health to speak on Foot and Mouth
Disease and Phillip Whitehead, MEP to speak on the European Food
Authority.
Foot and Mouth Disease: what consumers need
to know
Dr Andrew King, Head of Molecular Biology, Institute of
Animal Health, Pirbright Division
Dr King said that he would focus on three aspects of foot and mouth
(F&M):
- What was the likelihood of humans catching the F & M virus?
- What risk, if any, did vaccination pose to humans?
- Should animals be vaccinated or not?
On the first question he explained that the F & M virus was extremely
small and basic and belonged to a group of 'host-specific' viruses
that are not generally considered to be infective agents in humans.
They required host cells in the animal to survive, where the RNA replicated
itself, killed the cell, and released particles into the host. Humans
had been exposed to the virus continually for centuries but there
had been only 37 authenticated cases documented (since c1950) one
of which was in the UK (1967). None of the four recent suspected cases
had proved positive on testing. He pointed out that there was a human
disease called 'Hand, foot and mouth' which had some similar symptoms
and was sometimes confused with F & M.
On vaccination, he stressed that a policy of vaccinating animals should
not pose any risk to humans given that humans were not vulnerable
to the disease. All farm animals were routinely vaccinated against
various diseases and this did not generally cause problems. The F
& M vaccine was completely inert, was not infective, and meat and
milk from vaccinated animals should be fit to enter the food chain.
However, in terms of whether or not to vaccinate animals, Dr King
explained that this was very controversial for a number of reasons.
The main reason vets were reluctant to vaccinate was because vaccinated
animals remained in the “carrier state”. In other words,
animals would be protected against the disease but would continue
to carry the live virus and would shed fresh, live virus for several
months. Vaccinated animals would be able to infect other animals and
would therefore have to be quarantined until slaughtered. It was also
difficult to identify vaccinated animals because tests were inadequate
at low levels of infection.
He said there were also logistical problems with a vaccination policy.
Models that looked at ways the disease was spread indicated that vaccination
could actually exacerbate the problem unless every animal in the country
was vaccinated. Creating rings or barriers of vaccinated animals would
only have a small impact on how many animals would have to be culled.
As the virus spread so fast, it was almost impossible to get ahead
of it through a vaccination policy. In conclusion, he summarised that
the positive aspects of vaccination were primarily political (avoids
so much culling, something is seen to be done, and possibly enabling
the agricultural and rural economy to continue operating). However,
on the negative side were the problem of the ‘carrier state’,
logistical problems, financial cost and consumer resistance.
Questions:
- Why a full vaccination programme could not be implemented? There
would still be the carrier problem and associated problems with
international trade, and cost.
- Were we closer to better vaccines? There had not been much support
for this until recently but now work was being carried out. However,
there was doubt about whether a vaccine could be produced that
would avoid the 'carrier state'.
- Could the virus adapt and become infectious to humans? F & M
belonged to the enterovirus group and some had been documented
as having jumped hosts. However, there were no serious concerns
about this at present.
- How much research was going on into other means of prevention?
Research was going on into anti-viral agents in the form of drugs
that could be quickly applied, reversible and would probably prevent
the 'carrier state' but this research was only at a very basic
stage.
Dorothy Craig thanked Dr King for his presentation. She said it had
been very helpful in clarifying the issue.
Phillip Whitehead, MEP, Rapporteur on European
Food Authority
Dorothy Craig introduced Phillip Whitehead, thanked him for sponsoring
Foodaware’s meetings at the European Parliament, and invited
him to give his presentation on the European Food Authority.
Phillip Whitehead said he would focus on two questions: why do we
need a European Food Agency (or European Food Standards Agency - EFSA
- as he preferred to call it) and how would it relate to other international
agencies such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Codex Alimentarius?
He summarised the changes that had taken place over food production
in the region leading to the need for an EFSA:
- Changing in agricultural practices, including feeding practices
- Extension of markets over much wider areas
- Increasing complexity of the food chain
- BSE crisis and governments' fear of consumer panic had overridden
the provision of full information and application of the precautionary
principle
- 'BSE-free' countries proving not to be
- Loss of confidence in the Commission.
Food safety was now a priority under the new Commission and the Commission
should be judged on how well consumers were protected against malpractices
in the food chain. The new DG Sanco had a wide remit, supported application
of the precautionary principle, and had started a number of food safety
initiatives – many of which related to BSE.
He said that he had lobbied hard for the new authority to be an independent,
freestanding body, which worked to and with the Commission, to some
extent modelled on the UK Food Standards Agency. The European Parliament
favoured a fairly narrow remit focussing on food safety. It would
co-ordinate risk assessments (and to some extent risk communication
in partnership with the Commission) while risk management would remain
with the Commission.
He believed its workings should be transparent (management board meetings
should be public) and risk assessment information should be in the
public domain. In order to break the direct link with member states
he felt that the board should be kept small: 12 people, plus one from
the Commission, and a quarter of these should represent the food chain
(one likely to be a consumer representative). The advisory panel (four
meetings per year) would have representatives from all member states
and the Executive Director should be the public face of the agency.
Questions:
- Would the EFSA have any role in auditing national food authorities
in member states? No, but it would be able to check that proper
provisions were in place for the application of the precautionary
principle.
- Would it have the means to exert pressure on other Directorate
Generals (e.g. agriculture and fisheries)? Several central scientific
committees would transfer to the EFSA.
- What role would it have in carrying out research to contribute
to scientific debate and knowledge? As above. How would public
interest groups be able to input at early stages in research agenda
e.g. developing scientific research protocols? Questions can be
raised at any time through formal or informal channels.
- Would one consumer representative on the board be enough? This
representative would be taken very seriously. There would also
be other ways to input such as at the public board meetings.
Dorothy Craig thanked Phillip Whitehead for his illuminating presentation
and said that Foodaware would be following the progress of this issue
closely.
Foodaware Business Meeting
1. Welcome and
apologies for absence
Dorothy Craig welcomed participants to the Foodaware business meeting.
A number of apologies had been received and would be added to the
minutes.
2. Minutes of
the last meeting
There was one amendment to the minutes of the last meeting –
Mike Jobson pointed out that the Institute of Trading Standards Administration
(ITSA) was now called the Trading Standards Institute (TSI). The minutes
were then agreed as a true record of the meeting with this amendment.
3. Matters arising
The Chair introduced Lucy Harris, a nutritionist by training, who
had worked on consumer food issues for 10 years (most recently at
Consumers International). She would be working as a part-time coordinator
for Foodaware, primarily tracking FSA activities and consultations
and coordinating Foodaware’s responses. Lucy added that she
would be working from home and was happy for members to contact her
with queries – preferably by email on lucyharrisuk@yahoo.co.uk
– and she would respond as soon as possible. The Chair then
introduced Jane Jeffreys who was responsible for assisting with administration
and was based in the Weybridge Office (tel: 01932 858328 or weybridgeoffice@cs.com).
The Chair noted that the circulated and tabled papers on the BSE enquiry
and the European Food Authority were already agreed and were for information
only.
Lucy added that the letter on food production systems following a
nuclear accident was also for information. Members should also have
received a more recent follow-on letter to FSA concerning radioactivity
in foodstuffs. Both these were sent in response to consultations and
were final.
Judy Brander asked whether members could use draft documents in consultations
with members of their own organisations. It was agreed that all documents,
including drafts, should be considered to be in the public arena unless
stated otherwise. Drafts would also be clearly labelled and a reliable
numbering system introduced.
Lucy noted that there were a number of FSA consultations with approaching
deadlines and said she would circulate these to members for information
and also to ask for feedback on prioritisation. It was agreed that
Foodaware should aim to produce at least 2-3 responses per quarter
and that these should be chosen by staff on the basis of: agreed priorities;
whether Foodaware had existing policy; time and budget considerations.
In some cases a short response would be better than no response.
It was noted that the priorities agreed at the last meeting were in
the minutes and had included the submission to the Policy Commission
on Farming and Food; antibiotics and Foot and Mouth disease. Other
topical issues that had emerged were zoonoses, the 25% labelling rule
and irradiation and that these were on the agenda for discussion.
The issue of marketing strategies aimed at children was also raised.
It was noted that ERICA had done considerable work on this as had
Sustain. An FAC report on food sales on the Internet was due shortly.
ACTION: Jane to develop reliable numbering system
for papers. Lucy Harris to circulate list of current FSA consultations
with suggested action on each.
4. Foodaware
membership paper
This paper was agreed as a sufficient basis on which to work for the
present time. Amendments could be considered in the future if necessary.
Members were anxious to spend time on implementing work rather than
prolonged discussions on administration and process.
5. Health claims
paper
Lucy explained that this paper had been written as a follow-up to
a ‘holding’ letter sent to the FSA in the summer. A follow-up
was considered necessary given that it was an important issue where
it appeared the Commission was finally making some positive progress.
The general principles concerning health claims in the paper were
based on past policy but some detail had been added in answer to specific
questions in the consultation. The paper had been circulated on the
list-serve for comment before being sent to the FSA. Lucy would keep
a watching brief on this issue.
ACTION: Lucy to keep watching brief on health claims.
6. GM labelling
Barbara Saunders noted that members already had a copy of the letter
to FSA, sent in early September, in response to the consultation on
the proposed European regulations on genetically modified food and
feed, and the traceability and labelling of such produce. This letter
had been based on existing policy as there had not been time to discuss
new issues.
She explained that, following the first consultation, FSA had come
out with an opposing view to that of the Commission. They were now
saying that labelling should continue to be based on a ‘substantive
equivalence’ approach rather than shift to be based on traceability
as the Commission was proposing. They were also promoting the use
of GM-free labelling. This was a worrying development as consumer
groups had been pushing for a change to the substantive equivalence
approach for many years. This group and others had argued that it
should be possible to trace products back through the food chain and
label GM products accordingly. Barbara noted that there were many
examples of paper based audit trails, e.g. lot numbers for food products,
so it should also be possible to do this for GM foods especially as
tests could now detect GM material to very low thresholds.
She asked members to confirm whether the traceability approach was
one they still wanted to promote. Members confirmed that this was
the right approach and that they should support the Commission on
this.
Barbara explained that her new paper raised various points that needed
discussion:
- Thresholds – members agreed that accurate labelling was
an essential part of consumers’ right to information. On
the problem of how to enforce very low levels of GM material in
foods they agreed that threshold levels should be set at the lowest
level technologically achievable in relation to detection methods.
Members were not in favour of levels being set higher than this
to allow for adventitious contamination. Nor were they happy about
the use of ‘GM free’ labelling as a marketing technique.
- ii) Non-approved GM material – this concerned the issue
of what to do about labelling GM foods not produced in the EU.
It was agreed that all products should undergo proper risk assessment
and approval before being permitted on the EU market. It would
help to have a decision tree to determine which products were
covered by which legislation. It was noted that the recent NCC
paper covered this issue.
- iii) Labelling – members stated their opposition to labels
using the terms ‘may contain…’. They also opposed
the use of ‘GM free’ labels unless it was done through
a voluntary scheme which included independent testing and didn’t
involve any threshold levels i.e. there was a guarantee that the
product contained no GM material at all. They agreed that identification
of the technology involved in food production and traceability
of foodstuffs back to the source was the best approach.
- iv) Authorisation procedures and Commitology – this involved
the issue of lay representation on scientific committees and openness
of the authorisation procedures. It was decided to keep the focus
of the response on the central issues of labelling rather than
comment in detail on this at this time.
- v) Extension of rules to animal feed – members supported
the view that animal feed should have the same labelling information
concerning GM ingredients as human foods. Consumer research had
shown that 80% of consumers want to know whether animals have
been fed on GM material. Ideally, in the longer term, animal products
should also be labelled if they had consumed feed containing GM
material.
- vi) Unique codes – members were generally in favour of
the code system proposed by the Commission whereby traceability
would be based on the establishment of unique codes for the identity
of each GMO which would accompany the product from the point at
which it was first put on the market until its use as food or
feed.
- It was noted that WTO (or some of its members?) could oppose
GM labelling because there was not currently evidence that GM
material damaged health. Ann Davison had asked Commissioner Byrne
and he felt his proposals would be WTO-safe.
Members thanked Barbara for her paper and for highlighting the issues
so clearly. It was agreed that Barbara would revise the paper and
circulate with a short deadline for comments. The final paper would
be sent to FSA and the Commission.
ACTION: Barbara Saunders to revise paper and re-circulate
for final comments before sending to the FSA and Commission.
7. Response to
the FSA consultation on the Farming and Food Commission
Robert Moreland (ex MEP and ex member of ECOSOC) presented his paper.
He mentioned that there was to be a consumer consultation by the UK
Policy Commission on 31 October (in two days’ time) where he
would represent Foodaware and invited members to accompany him. He
also said that the paper needed a short executive summary that would
be added once he had feedback from members on its overall content.
During the discussion the following points were raised:
- The need for CAP reform and its role in promoting change leading
to improved food quality and prices should be given greater prominence
in the paper. A reference to EU enlargement should also be included
in this section. - Something on sustainability should be added
as should the need for the introduction of effective systems of
traceability.
- The title ‘pesticides’ should be broadened and renamed
‘agric-chemical inputs’ and a reference made to metabolites
included.
- The reference to a pesticide tax should be amended to refer
to the need for cross-compliance whereby subsidies are dependent
on a requirement to reduce pesticide use.
- Delete reference to malaria in section 3.1.2 (antibiotics).
- Last paragraph in section 3.1.2 concerning bans on the use of
antibiotics should be updated and amended.
- Section 3.2 needed to favour a shift to Pillar 2 and ensure
a non-protectionist approach.
- The first paragraph in Section 5 (crisis management) needed
to be tougher and less forgiving of those handling the Foot and
Mouth and especially BSE crises.
- The need for consumer/lay involvement should be spelt out in
section 5 paragraph c).
- Section 6 (other considerations), paragraph on the EMEA should
call for greater transparency in licensing systems.
ACTION: Robert Moreland to amend the paper, taking
these comments into account, in time for the meeting on 31 October.
8. Zoonoses,
irradiation and labelling of allergens - new work
Dorothy Craig introduced Caroline Naett, previously the Director of
Euro Co-op, and a food policy expert. Caroline would be working for
Foodaware on EU issues. She had drafted the discussion papers on zoonoses
and the labelling of allergens and also the one on food irradiation.
The Commission had recently issued proposals on each of these. NCC
and CEG were thanked for their contribution towards this work.
8.1 Zoonoses
Caroline explained that the two Commission proposals on zoonoses involved
a new approach to the problem and were part of the follow-up to the
White Paper on Food Safety.
The proposed Directive on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic
agents would oblige Member States to implement improved and better
co-ordinated monitoring systems throughout the human food and animal
feed chain. They would be required to take part in co-ordinated monitoring
programmes to establish baseline values on the levels of the most
important zoonotic infections in each Member State.
The proposed regulation on the control of salmonella and other food-borne
zoonotic agents would set out a programme of targets for the reduction
in the occurrence of relevant pathogenic organisms at the farm level.
National control programmes would need to be implemented by Member
States to achieve these targets.
Members agreed that these proposals were important and that Foodaware
should comment. They stressed the need for better implementation of
existing requirements pointing out that one problem was that HACCP
was voluntary at the farm level.
ACTION: It was agreed that comments from a relevant
paper tabled by John Godfrey should be integrated into the draft and
the revised version circulated again for comment.
8.2 Irradiation
Caroline explained that the Commission had published a Communication
in August 2001 calling for a wider debate on which foods should be
included on the final positive list identifying which foods could
be irradiated in the EU. This was in follow-up to Directive 1999/3/EC
that contains only a single food category: “dried aromatic herbs,
spices and vegetable seasonings”.
Only limited discussion of this issue was possible due to time constraints.
However, members agreed that a restrictive approach was important
and that particular care should be given to baby foods due to baby’s
differing metabolism. It was noted that the Food Commission had a
campaign on food irradiation and might have some helpful information.
8.3 Food allergens
In September the Commission had issued a proposal to amend the food
labelling Directive 2000/13/EC. The intention was to ensure that consumers
were informed of nearly all the ingredients in their foods and particularly
to enable any allergenic ingredients to be identified. Essentially
this meant the abolition of the “25% rule” which does
not require components of compound ingredients, which make up less
than 25% of the final food, to be labelled. The proposal included
various derogations and also a list of allergenic ingredients that
will always have to be labelled.
Again, there was very limited time for discussion of this draft paper.
However, it was agreed that this was generally a welcome development
and that Foodaware should submit comments (the FSA deadline for its
consultation on this was 14 December). Concern was raised about possible
derogations and also to what extent it was acceptable to use generic
labelling terms.
ACTION: Members to post further comments on the list-serve
and Caroline to revise paper and re-circulate in good time to submit
final paper by 14 December deadline.
9. Dates of meetings 2002
It was agreed that the dates of meetings in 2002 would be:
Thursday 24 January
Thursday 18 April
Thursday 11 July
Thursday 17 October
Meetings would normally start at 1 pm at the European Parliament offices
in Queen Anne’s Gate, London, SW1. An earlier start (approx
11 am) would be needed if an external speaker had been invited, which
members agreed would be welcome.
The meeting closed at about 4.15 pm.
|
