Food Standards Agency
Friday 21 November 2008
Safer food better business banner
AZ-Directory
What's NewRSS
What is RSS?Friday 13 May 2005
Dunedin Room, Radisson SAS Hotel, 80 High Street, The Royal Mile, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH1 1TH
Present:
Sir John Krebs, Chairman
Julia Unwin, Deputy Chair
Richard Ayre
Sati Ariyanayagam
Chrissie Dunn
Maureen Edmondson
Michael Gibson
Ann Hemingway
Valerie Howarth
Iain MacDonald
Graeme Millar
Christopher Pomfret
Sandra Walbran
Nelisha Wickremasinghe
Officials attending:
Jon Bell, Chief Executive
Tom Murray, Head of Food Hygiene Implementation Division (item 2 only)
Catherine Bowles, Food Hygiene Regulations Application Project (item 3 only)
Alick Simmons, Veterinary Director (item 4 only)
Andrew Wadge, Director of Food Safety Policy (item 5 only)
Keith Gregory, Board Secretary
Barbara Gallani, Board Secretariat
Chairman's Introduction
1. The Chairman welcomed all observers attending the open Board meeting and those watching via the webcast. The FSA Board held its open meetings in different locations throughout the UK and webcast them to allow wide access to stakeholders.
2. The Chairman welcomed Christopher Pomfret and Graeme Millar to their first open Board meeting.
3. Christopher Pomfret brought many years of experience in the food industry to the FSA Board. He had a profound knowledge of the food sector, having worked for Unilever in the UK, running Birds Eye Walls £750million frozen foods business. He was a Senior Associate of the University of Cambridge Programme for Industry and member of the Round Table on Sustainable Consumption set up by the Sustainable Development Commission and the National Consumer Council.
4. Graeme Millar was one of the two Board members appointed to represent the interests of Scotland. He was Chairman of the Scottish Consumer Council and a Director of the National Consumer Council for Great Britain. He had started his career as the owner of a pharmacy business and had subsequently covered a series of non-executive roles in different organisations including Vice-Chairman of Quality Meat Scotland. He was currently Chairman of the Scottish Construction Forum and a member of the Medicines Commission of Great Britain.
5. The Chairman reminded Board members of their obligation to declare interests before discussion of relevant items.
6. There was one item raised for discussion under Any Other Business:
Item 1 - Minutes of the Meeting on 9 February 2005, Congress Centre, London (Paper FSA 05/03/01)
7. The Board agreed the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2005 at the Congress Centre, London, as an accurate record.
8. No issues were raised regarding the table of follow up actions and there were no other matters arising.
Item 2 - Implementation of Food Safety Management (Paper FSA 05/03/02)
[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Gibson declared an interest as a primary producer of meat and a licensed butcher. Sandra Walbran declared an interest as Local Authority (LA) enforcement officer, a member of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and a member of LACoRS Food Policy Group and Food Hygiene Focus Group. The Chairman considered that these were material interests and that Michael Gibson and Sandra Walbran should not participate in the discussion and determination of this issue. They both left the table for this item. Nelisha Wickremasinghe declared an interest as a proprietor of a restaurant; however, the restaurant had been recently sold and the sale would be completed by the end of April 2005. The Chairman considered that this was not a material interest and that Nelisha Wickremasinghe should participate in the discussion and determination of this issue.]
9. The Chairman welcomed Tom Murray, Head of Food Hygiene Implementation Division, to the table and invited him to introduce this paper.
Tom Murray reminded Board members that they had previously considered Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
issues at the March 2004 open Board meeting. Board members had agreed that the FSA should give priority to developing guidance for the large number of small catering and retail businesses; provide direct assistance to businesses (within available resources) and recognise the different situations in each of the UK countries in developing assistance for businesses. This paper asked Board members to agree proposals designed to assist UK food businesses in implementing food safety management systems, as required by forthcoming EU food hygiene legislation. Board members were also being asked to agree a way forward on butchers' licensing and prior approval of food premises, in the light of new EU food hygiene legislation that would apply from 1 January 2006.
10. The programme of work proposed by the paper was designed to improve standards of food safety management in the food industry and its assurance. Through this, to deliver a reduction in foodborne disease and increased protection to consumers. It addressed the commitments in the FSA's 2005-10 Strategic Plan, specifically the commitment to:
11. In EU discussions, the UK had argued successfully for a move away from prescriptive legislation on food hygiene towards a risk-based approach that targeted food-safety activity on critical issues in a business. This would achieve the greatest benefit for consumers in a way that was also proportionate for the business.
12. The Chairman thanked Tom Murray for this paper and introduction and invited Board members to comment generally on the proposals and then to focus on the three main elements:
Food Safety Management
13. Some Board members cautioned against promoting different food safety management systems or setting different targets in the different countries of the UK as this might lead to confusion for those businesses operating on a UK basis. Board members from the devolved countries noted that the devolved assemblies had the remit to support the development of different systems where they perceived different needs and Board members acknowledged the importance of maintaining flexibility of approach. Tom Murray confirmed that the devolved countries had been working on their own food safety management for a number of years and that the high degree of local commitment was reflected in each of the plans, but that the decision would be for each individual business in the UK to select the tools it would use.
14. Some Board members asked for some clarification on the content of the tables on pages 9, 10, 12 and 13, indicating the proposed cost per food business across the different countries in the UK. Tom Murray explained that resources would be split in different ways between various aspects of support to businesses, which could be one-to-one measures (e.g. targeted visits) or measures directed to a large number of businesses at the same time (e.g. promotional material).
15. Several Board members recognised that training and support were important elements in ensuring the success of food safety management systems, but that it would not be possible to separate the contribution that training and support had played in the success of the Butchers' Licensing scheme from the impact of the legislation itself. The Chief Executive acknowledged that there would be insufficient resources to apply this particular programme of training and support to all food businesses even if there were evidence to show that this approach had worked. Nevertheless, significant levels of funding were being offered from central government and devolved administrations' resources, as detailed in paragraph 20, 23, 34 and 37 of the paper and part of those would provide training and support.
16. Some Board members noted the proposals of inviting local authorities to bid for a pool of resources to fund initiatives and asked what criteria would be used to allocate the resources. Tom Murray noted that a system would be developed to identify target areas in the UK as well as critical industry sectors, to produce the best outcome for consumers.
17. The Chief Executive added that the ultimate aim was to help businesses to achieve compliance quickly and that there was a need to identify all businesses, usually the small ones, which needed the most support. Board members noted that particular attention should be devoted to supporting ethnic minorities businesses in those cases where language difficulties or specific issues on food preparation could be identified.
18. One Board member asked whether 100% compliance with the law would be expected from 1 January 2006. Some Board members expressed concern that pursuing total compliance from the outset could potentially lead to closing a disproportionate number of businesses. One Board member noted that while the FSA had gone to great lengths to help small companies, it remained the responsibility of every company to take steps to ensure that they complied with the law. The law had been in gestation for some considerable time and the need for compliance was clear. The Chairman noted that the FSA clearly expected companies to comply with the law, but recognised that it was not realistic to expect all LAs to verify compliance on 1 January. The Chief Executive recognised that most businesses wanted to comply with the law. The FSA would continue to encourage LAs to continue to take the action needed to protect consumers, including closing premises where necessary.
Prior Approval
19. Some Board members noted that although there were arguments for the introduction of Prior Approval, there was insufficient evidence of the impact of this approach to justify introducing it at this stage. One Board member asked whether FSA officials, or any other organisation, had explored the effects of the application of prior approval in the care sector. The Chief Executive confirmed that this would be looked into to see what lessons could be learnt.
20. Individual Board members made the following points:
21. Board members acknowledged that there was a wide range of views, even amongst stakeholders who had been promoting the introduction of a prior approval scheme, about its effectiveness and practicalities. They suggested there was a need for more information and evidence on which they could base a decision and for this to be gathered as soon as possible. This might include:
Butchers' Licensing
22. Tom Murray informed Board members that the current legislation on Butchers� Licensing would lapse on 1 January 2006. Specific action would need to be taken immediately, leading to new legislation, if Board members wished to see these provisions continued.
23. Some Board members expressed their opinion that butchers should be treated no differently to other parts of the food sector. The Deputy Chair noted that, although the Butchers' Licensing scheme had worked well, there was no evidence to separate out the different factors that had made the scheme successful and how this experience could be used in the application of the new legislation to other sectors of the food industry.
24. Board members agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support the extension of the Butchers' Licensing scheme beyond January 2006. They welcomed the introduction of food safety management which should improve food hygiene in all sectors and stressed the importance of clearly explaining this decision to consumers.
25. In summary the Chairman noted that the Board had:
Food safety management
Prior Approval
Action: Tom Murray
Butchers' Licensing
Item 3 - Food Hygiene Regulations (Paper FSA 05/03/03)
[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Gibson declared an interest as a primary producer of fresh meat and game products. Sandra Walbran declared an interest as LA enforcement officer with responsibility for the implementation of the regulations. Chrissie Dunn declared an interest as a non-executive director of a meat marketing company. The Chairman considered that these were not material interests and that Michael Gibson, Sandra Walbran and Chrissie Dunn should participate in the discussion and determination of this issue.]
26. The Chairman welcomed Catherine Bowles, Food Hygiene Regulations Application Project, to the table and invited her to introduce this paper. Catherine Bowles reminded Board members that the negotiations of the Food Hygiene Regulations in Europe had been a long journey and that this had left a relatively short time for implementation (the legislation had entered into force on 20 May 2004 and would apply directly in all member states from 1 January 2006). The aim of this paper was to update the Board on progress and on the results of the consultation exercise.
27. The new legislation represented a major streamlining and modernisation of food safety controls. It applied throughout the food chain, including in most areas of primary production, for the first time. It was important to maintain clarity and consistency in implementing this new legislation and in providing clear explanations and guidance to businesses, which would ultimately be responsible for the safe production of food. Annex A of the paper summarised the main issues on which the FSA had sought comments from stakeholders. Annex B mapped out those options where there was an element of national discretion, and summarised the executive's recommendations (in the light of the consultation) on how these should be addressed in the UK.
28. Particular issues addressed in the main paper were:
Catherine Bowles noted that there had been some recent developments in the thinking of the European Commission with regards to the use of plant staff in slaughterhouses for inspection (pararaph 15) and more information would be circulated to Board members as soon as it became available.
29. The Chairman thanked Catherine Bowles for this paper and for her presentation and invited Board members to comment. Board members noted the recommendations in Annex B of the paper.
Use of plant staff in slaughterhouses for inspection
30. Board members acknowledged that this was an important issue and asked the MHS Board to consider the practicalities of this issue at its next Board meeting .
Action: Catherine Bowles
Guidance material
31. Board members noted the importance of maintaining flexibility in the guidance produced and of involving stakeholders in the development of such guidance.
Raw milk and cream marketed for direct human consumption
32. Some Board members asked for more information on the reasons behind the different approaches taken in regulating the sale of these products across the UK. Catherine Bowles responded that the different approaches reflected historical patterns of consumption and the specific customer base and consumer preferences in some countries. The information on this could be circulated to Board members. The Chief Executive added that there was no difference in risk posed by consumption of raw milk and cream in different parts of the UK.
Action: Tim Foster
Temperature control requirements
33. Board members noted the different temperature control requirements currently applying in Scotland and suggested that a more consistent approach would assist those companies operating across borders. Board members asked the executive to provide the evidence to support the different approaches.
Action: Tim Foster/George Paterson
34. In summary the Chairman noted that the Board had:
Item 4 - Food Hygiene Regulations: Risk Based Official Controls in Meat Plants Requiring Veterinary Control (Paper FSA 05/03/04)
[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Gibson declared an interest as a meat wholesaler and retailer. The Chairman considered that this was a material interest and that Michael Gibson should not participate in the discussion and determination He left the table for this item. Chrissie Dunn declared an interest as a non-executive director of a meat marketing company. The Chairman considered that this was not a material interest and that Chrissie Dunn should participate in the discussion and determination of this issue.]
35. The Chairman welcomed Alick Simmons, Veterinary Director, to the table and invited him to introduce this paper. Alick Simmons said that the paper outlined the proposed approach to the application of EU Food Hygiene Regulation 854/2004. It focussed in particular on risk based official controls in approved meat plants that are subject to Meat Hygiene Service or Department of Agriculture control in GB and Northern Ireland respectively. Officials had considered four options, listed in paragraph 5 of the paper. Annex A to the paper explained the proposed risk assessment scheme; worked examples were listed on page 11. The outcomes, comparable to the LA audit system, would determine the frequency of official veterinary (OV) visits to cutting plants and to determine the frequency of audit reporting. The MHS Operations Manual was being rewritten and would come into force in 2006, following consultation.
36. The Board was asked to consider the options for:
37. The Chairman thanked Alick Simmons for this paper and introduction and invited Board members to comment.
38. Board members suggested there was a need to clarify what was meant by the phrase 'where justified' in paragraph 6 of the paper and whether there would be any appeals process in relation to the proposed publication of audit categories. Others were concerned that the audit categories published and the hazard scoring system supporting this, should be robust and should be presented in a way that was meaningful to consumers. One Board member suggested that the criteria that would be used for making the initial assessment referred to in paragraph 7 should be explained.
39. Alick Simmons confirmed that the hazard scoring system had been designed to be robust and accepted that further investigation was needed into the scope for presenting the published audit category information in a way that would be meaningful to consumers.
40. Some Board members were concerned about the references to potential conflict of interest in paragraph 7 and the implicit criticism this conveyed of contract OVs' professionalism. Alick Simmons made clear that the reference to conflict of interest was not a question of professional conduct but recognition of the need for there to be a mechanism to address a difficult situation, which had also been highlighted by the Patrick Wall Report. Board members recognised the possible conflict of interest that might be posed were OVs required to certify that their work would no longer be required and asked that valid checks and balances be put in place in the system to address and prevent this sort of problem.
41. The Chairman asked for some clarification of the relative values of potential hazards used in Annex A. Alick Simmons explained that setting values was difficult because of a lack of evidence.
Some values were self-evident: the risks associated with microbiological hazards in meat plants were greater than those from chemical hazards and this was reflected in the scores.
Other values had been developed by drawing on the views of experienced personnel.
One element of the Agency's strategic plan was to develop better, evidenced-based criteria for the assessment of risk in slaughterhouses and other meat plants.
42. In summary the Chairman noted that the Board had:
Item 5 - Sudan I Contamination of Food
[Christopher Pomfret noted that, at the beginning of the incident, he had still been employed by a company that had been directly affected by the Sudan I contamination and that he did not therefore intend to participate in the discussion of this item.]
43. The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to give an oral report on the recent incident of adulteration of food by Sudan I and invited Andrew Wadge, Director of Food Safety Policy, to the table to answer questions on this subject.
44. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that over recent weeks the food industry had undertaken the largest recall of contaminated products ever seen in the UK. He noted that there was an ongoing investigation into the circumstances which had led to this incident and that he would not, therefore, be able to go into a lot of detail because that could prejudice possible actions by LAs that were under consideration. The legal position was very clear. Food companies had had a legal responsibility for ensuring that the food they sold was safe and fit for human consumption. In addition, from the beginning of 2005, food companies had a legal responsibility for recalling products that did not meet food safety requirements, notifying the FSA and LAs and advising their customers on the reason for the withdrawal. LAs had enforcement powers in respect of any breaches that might occur.
45. Expert advice from the Committees on Toxicity, Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity was that it was prudent to assume that Sudan I was a genotoxic carcinogen and therefore that exposure should be kept as low as reasonably practicable. At the levels found in the current incident the risk was likely to be very small, although it could not be quantified. However it was an unnecessary and avoidable risk and therefore it was sensible not to eat foods containing Sudan I.
46. Sudan I, which was a dye used in products such as shoe and floor polish, had never been permitted in foods. Since June 2003, EC emergency controls had required that all dried and crushed or ground chilli and chilli products imported into the EU be accompanied by a certificate to show that they had been tested and were free from Sudan dyes. Alternatively, they must have been tested at the point of import.
47. The FSA had taken a number of actions since 2003 to check on the effectiveness of these controls. These had included:
48. From the testing that had taken place it had appeared that the control measures were having a significant impact. Of the more than 1000 most recent samples only 6% had tested positive and all had been destroyed. The FSA had also informed food companies that all stocks of chilli that predated June 2003 had to be tested and shown to be free of Sudan I.
49. The current incident had originated from a contaminated batch of chilli powder supplied to a manufacturer of Worcester Sauce (Premier Foods) in 2002. This had been supplied to a large number of other companies who had then used it to make several hundred different food products.
50. Although the FSA had first been informed on 7 February that there might be a problem with Premier Foods' Worcester Sauce following tests by a customer of Premier in Italy, it had not been until the 14 February that the FSA had been informed about the likely scale of the incident. Up until that time, it was thought that, at most, only five products had been affected.
51. In order to provide practical and reliable information to consumers at the earliest opportunity, the FSA had immediately arranged a meeting with food manufacturers and retailers to require full disclosure of affected products. This took place on the afternoon of 15 February. This demand had been repeated at a further meeting on 16 February. An initial list of affected products had then been received from food retailers on the evening of 17 February. The details of these 359 products had been published by the FSA at lunchtime on the following day. The list had been updated over the next week as further product details had been received. By Thursday 24 February the vast majority of affected food had been removed from sale.
52. LAs had played a crucial role in ensuring that information about the recall had reached even the smallest businesses so that contaminated products were removed from the market as rapidly as possible. The Chief Executive expressed his appreciation of the efforts that had been made by LAs in dealing with this incident throughout the UK. He reported, on the basis of information received from LAs and the industry, that all the contaminated chilli powder associated with the current incident had been accounted for and was not being used in food production.
53. Samples of Premier Foods' Worcester Sauces had been tested to ensure that the current production was not contaminated. LAs had also visited companies known to have used the contaminated Worcester Sauce to ensure that they were no longer selling contaminated food. LAs had also been carrying out checks to ensure that the affected foods were no longer on sale.
54. The FSA had offered support to the LAs who were currently investigating this incident and would continue to review with them any support that may be required.
55. The FSA was planning to undertake a review of this incident in order to identify the lessons to be learnt. It was intended that this would cover both the further actions that the industry might need to take to reduce the likelihood of incidents of this kind occurring in the future and the roles of those involved in regulation and enforcement. It would take into account information from all the major stakeholders who had been involved and would provide the means for anyone else who could make a contribution to have their say. The Executive would make proposals to the Board about the scope of the review and the membership of the panel that it was proposed would oversee it. It was intended that the review would include an independent element and that its report would be published.
56. The Chairman thanked the Chief Executive for a very clear summary of the events over the last few weeks and recorded his thanks for the immense effort that the staff of the FSA and LAs had put into handling this incident. He also recognised the enormous amount of work that the food industry itself had done. On behalf of the Board, the Chairman welcomed the notion of a review to look into the whole event and the lessons that might be learned by all those involved.
57. Board members thought that the incident had been handled well and paid tribute to all the staff of the FSA who had worked hard to ensure that the incident could be quickly resolved. They acknowledged that the FSA had a formal process in place to review all incidents but because of the scale of the Sudan I incident they welcomed a more wide-ranging review to look at what lessons might be learnt.
58. Board members recognised that it was important to ensure that stakeholders who had made criticisms had an opportunity to express, in a public and measured way, how they thought the FSA should have acted differently and asked the Deputy Chair, who would shortly act as Chair of the FSA for an interim period, to work with the Chief Executive to ensure a very strong independent element to the review.
59. One Board member asked that the review include some consideration of how to ensure a proportionate response and how to improve communication between all parties involved.
60. One Board member asked that the review consider the European dimension of an incident and the effectiveness of the Rapid Alert System to ensure confidence that UK consumers were protected from importation of contaminated foods.
61. The Chairman noted that, following this first discussion of the matter, the Chief Executive would shortly come back to the Board with proposals for the review, after taking on board the points about independence and the scope of the review and the kinds of questions that had been offered as questions to be considered.
Action: Andrew Wadge
62. One Board member asked for some clarification of the long maturation time for the production of Worcester Sauce and how this had affected the timescale of this incident. The Director of Food Safety Policy noted that Worcester Sauce was subject to a maturation period of 15 months, which may explain why contamination was detected so long after the introduction of controls in July 2003.
63. One Board member asked whether the Health Service and those dealing with vulnerable people had been provided with information in a timely manner. The Director of Food Safety Policy responded that all relevant organisations and their suppliers had been informed of the problem.
64. Some Board members noted that this incident had highlighted the importance of traceability of ingredients throughout food manufacturing and commended those parts of the food industry that had worked with the FSA to recall a large number of products. The Chief Executive stressed that from the beginning of 2005 it had been a legal requirement through the EU that all companies should trace 'one up one down', where they had got their ingredients or their products from, and to whom they had sold their products.
65. One Board member noted the importance of reinforcing the message that having a varied diet was an effective element in protecting the public from incidents.
66. One Board member noted the difficulties encountered by small shops in receiving the appropriate information on the products involved in this incident and invited officials to explore more effective lines of communication with small corner shops.
67. One Board member asked the Executive to look again at the arrangements for keeping members of the Advisory Committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as Board members and other key stakeholders, informed of developments during serious situations.
68. Some Board members asked for clarification on the level of risk associated with Sudan I contamination. The Director of Food Safety Policy responded that the FSA had stated that the risks to health were likely to be very small. However, he did not think that many consumers would welcome illegal carcinogenic dyes being present in their food, albeit at very low levels.
69. In summary the Chairman noted that the Board had:
Item 6 - Chairman's Report
70. There was no report from the Chairman.
Item 7 - Chief Executive's Report
71. There was no report from the Chief Executive.
Item 8 - Reports from Chairs of Advisory Committees (Papers FSA 05/03/05, FSA 05/03/06 and FSA 05/03/07)
72. The reports from the Chairs of the Advisory Committees were noted.
Any Other Business
73. There was one item raised for discussion under Any Other Business:
74. Valerie Howarth noted the publication, by the Department of Health (DH), of 'Choosing a Better Diet: a Food and Health Action Plan' and read to the Board a sentence from chapter 2 (Healthy Eating in a Consumer Society) indicating that 'DH will lead Government in the work to further restrict advertising and promotion of foods to children based on the work of the FSA'.
75. She welcomed this and hoped that DH would recognise the FSA's experience and skills in this area, work in partnership with the FSA and other stakeholders and ensure the best outcome for children.
76. The Chairman and Chief Executive noted the importance of working in partnership and assured Board members that the FSA would discuss with DH the relative roles of Government departments and other stakeholders. It would also discuss how best to ensure that the FSA's work and expertise were duly recognised.
77. Board members noted that the UK-wide nature of the FSA had allowed it to build strong relationships with Health departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that the same should be achieved in England. Board members then asked for their views on this issue to be conveyed to DH.
78. The Deputy Chair reminded Board members that this had been the last open Board meeting for Sir John Krebs and invited Michael Gibson, Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC), to thank him on behalf of the Board.
Date of next meeting
79. The next open meeting would be held on 12 May 2005 in London.
Back to topFind out what our other sites have to offer