Board meeting minutes: 11 September 2003

Sir John Krebs, Chairman
Julia Unwin, Deputy Chair
Richard Ayre
Sati Ariyanayagam
Chrissie Dunn
Michael Gibson
Ann Hemingway
Valerie Howarth
Iain MacDonald
Andrew Miller
Vernon Sankey
Michael Walker
Sandra Walbran

Officials attending:
Jon Bell - Chief Executive
Tim Foster - Head of Meat Hygiene Division (item 4 only)
David Statham - Director Enforcement and Food Safety (item 5 only)
Sue Hattersley - Chemical Safety and Toxicology Division (item 6 only)
Keith Gregory - Board Secretary
Sue Johns - Board Secretariat

1. The Chairman welcomed the new Deputy Chair, Julia Unwin.

2. Apologies had been received from Robert Rees.

3. The Chairman reminded Board members of their obligation to declare interests before discussion of relevant items. This applied to discussions in both the open session and the closed session (which dealt with internal management matters).

4. There was one item raised for discussion under AOB:

• webcasting of open Board meetings.

(Paper FSA 03/09/01)

5. Minutes of the meeting held on 10 July at Kensington Town Hall, London, were considered. These were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to the following amendment:

• paragraph 28 - in the final sentence, delete the words 'to be mindful of the possibility' and replace with 'for careful monitoring to be in place'.

6. In considering matters arising and the table of follow up action, Board members noted that:

• the information paper on 'unacceptable practices' was currently being prepared and would be ready for circulation to Board members in October
• 
  the date for the meeting of the devolved Advisory Committees had been set for 25/26 November 2003
• 
  an information paper on technetium-99 in wild salmon had been circulated on 29 August
• a note on the vagus nerve test had been circulated on 5 September and the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee agreed to contact the family who had originally raised this issue with the FSA Action: Michael Walker
• an update note on progress against the action plan on import controls would be circulated to Board members in October
• following on from the Over Thirty Month Rule discussion, Board members had been invited to visit the Laboratory of the Government Chemist at Teddington to view its testing facilities.

Action: Board members/Secretariat

Over Thirty Month (OTM) Rule Review Update
7. The Chairman reminded Board members that, as a result of their decision at the July meeting, he had advised Health Ministers that it would be acceptable, on public health grounds, to replace the rule excluding cattle aged over 30 months from entering the food chain with BSE testing. This advice had been given subject to Health Ministers being satisfied that the necessary preparations had been made by the relevant Government departments throughout the UK industry and other agencies before any changes were made. Health Ministers had sought further background information from the FSA and from Defra, which had now been provided. The decision on whether or not to replace the OTM Rule now rested with Health Ministers.

Atypical Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) in Shellfish
8. The Chairman reminded Board members that an atypical toxin had been found in cockles nearly two years ago. This had had a dramatic effect on mice, in some cases killing them within ten to twenty minutes of it being administered. The FSA had a programme of work in place to enable the risk to consumers posed by the toxin to be fully assessed and to refine the current testing regime. The purpose of this report was to update Board members on the current status of the various strands of the programme of work. There was good news as, at present, all but two of the sixty eight shellfish areas in England and Wales were fully open. Of the two that were not fully open, there were zones within them that were operational.

9. The Chairman reminded Board members that not all the UK laboratories used for routine testing obtained the same results and that the FSA had commissioned an independent audit of all the testing laboratories. Professor Hugh Makin, from St Bartholomew's and Royal London School of Medicine, had undertaken this work and a report was currently being finalised on which the laboratories would be given the opportunity to comment. It was planned to publish it in early October. Recent reports in the press had claimed that ether had been the cause of the rapid deaths of the mice. This issue had been looked at as part of the audit and was also the subject of additional studies. Following the publication of the report, and the development of an agreed standard operating procedure by the Central Science Laboratory, the three laboratories would take part in a 'ring test', which it was hoped would be completed in November.

10. The Chairman reported that Professor Yasumoto, the Japanese world expert on shellfish toxins, was of the opinion that the results of the tests were consistent with the presence of a neuro-toxin in the cockles. Professor Yasumoto had also agreed to carry out investigations in his own laboratory. This work had been delayed due to his involvement with the building of a new laboratory and lack of suitable samples now that the Burry inlet was fully open for fishing. Similarly, the FSA's toxicological study had been further delayed due to the protracted application for a Home Office licence, which should now be issued in the next few weeks. The results of this study were expected by the end of the year.

11. Chemical analysis by liquid chromatography ¿ mass spectrometry (LC-MS) of the toxin extract that had killed the mice was being carried out at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC). This project was due to finish at the end of October. The Chairman acknowledged that the work had not progressed as fast as had been anticipated. However, in such circumstances, it was important to get the science right rather than rush to a conclusion.

12. The Chairman reminded Board members of the email that they had been sent by Richie Flynn (Executive Secretary of the Fish Farming Section of the Irish Farmers' Association), which had suggested that the testing regime adopted in the Republic of Ireland was more efficient and robust than that used in the UK. FSA officials were in regular contact with their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland and had been assured that the approach used in the UK was broadly the same as that applied in the Republic of Ireland. That included the mouse bioassay. The Irish authorities had had a problem in 1995 with an atypical response which had taken four years to resolve using a similar approach to that being followed in the UK. This had been found to be due to a new toxin, which caused tumours in mice, and which had since been chemically characterised. This toxin had now been added to the EU list and testing for it was now being routinely carried out.

13. The Republic of Ireland had also developed a chemical analysis method for three known toxins for use in place of the mouse bioassay. Board members agreed however that a broad spectrum test, such as the mouse bioassay was the only way at present to pick up the presence of new toxins.

14. Board members asked whether other European member states were carrying out research work in this area and whether EFSA would be prepared to co-ordinate joint working. The Chairman reminded Board members that he had written earlier in the year to Commissioner David Byrne (DG SANCO) about this matter. Commissioner Byrne had agreed that the European reference laboratory should take the lead in the development of a chemical analysis method. The Republic of Ireland had been working collaboratively with two non-EU countries, Norway and New Zealand; but so far there did not appear to be any collaborative effort in the EU to develop such a test. Co-ordination of activities in individual member states was paramount to avoid duplication of effort. Board members asked what import controls applied to shellfish coming into the UK from countries outside the EU. The Chief Executive agreed to investigate this.

Anomalous Testing for TSEs in Sheep
[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Gibson declared an interest as a primary producer and butcher. Chrissie Dunn declared an interest as a Director of a meat marketing company. The Chairman considered that Michael Gibson and Chrissie Dunn should be permitted to participate in the discussion of the issue.]

15. The Chairman updated Board members on the results of Defra¿s work in screening sheep for scrapie or other TSEs. Since last year, the Commission had required all member states to screen a sample of sheep for TSEs. The tests that had been developed and evaluated for BSE in cattle had been used in the screening programme, although they had not been specifically validated for sheep. However, the Commission was shortly to start an evaluation of tests for sheep. The test that had been used in the UK and several other EU countries detected TSEs in general in sheep but could not be used to distinguish between scrapie and other possible TSEs as not enough was known about the different prions that might be involved. So far, some thirty thousand sheep had been screened using this test on post mortem brain samples.

16. The FSA had been informed recently by Defra that, out of these thirty thousand sheep, fifty two had tested positive for TSE (approximately one in six hundred). Each brain sample that tested positive had then been put through a further test in which the sample was stained to show up the abnormal protein typical of scrapie. In the second test, twenty eight of the fifty two brain samples did not show any staining for the abnormal protein. In fact they did not show anything at all. This was a puzzle and could mean one of several things:

• it could be a problem with the Biorad test and not the sheep: the test may have given false positives as it had not yet been fully evaluated for use on sheep,
• it could be scrapie: the Biorad test might be more sensitive at picking up scrapie than the staining method; or
• it could be another TSE, including BSE, that had been detected by the Biorad test and not by the staining.

17. It was agreed with Defra that the next step would be to ask a group of experts to look at the results. A Spongiform Enchephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) group had been convened to meet within the next ten days. The Chairman had spoken to Professor Peter Smith, Chairman of SEAC; they had agreed that it would be unlikely that the group would resolve the puzzle, but would be able to suggest what further work needed to be done. In addition, EFSA's relevant expert group would also be meeting to look at screening results from across Europe before the end of September.

18. Board members would be informed as soon as there was further news. Meanwhile the FSA's advice to consumers remained the same: that the FSA was not advising against the consumption of lamb and sheep meat.

19. Some Board members enquired whether the testing protocol employed by Defra was comparable to those used in other EU member states and whether the UK knew if they too had found unexplained results. Defra's work had been carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), which used the French Biorad test, as did several other countries including France. The details from testing in other EU member states had not yet been published.

20. Some Board members asked whether the twenty eight sheep that had shown the positive results had also exhibited clinical symptoms of scrapie. The Chairman commented that he understood that the screening programme did not test animals with clinical signs of scrapie. The animals sampled were those being routinely slaughtered for human consumption and were therefore free of obvious signs of the disease. None of the meat from the positive samples had gone into the food chain. The Chief Executive confirmed the Chairman's understanding and informed Board members that the results obtained did not look the same as those from sheep that had been experimentally infected with BSE. However, it was not known what BSE might look like after it had passed through several generations of sheep. The Chief Executive also commented that he understood that the screening tests had been carried out throughout the whole national flock .

21. The Chairman informed Board members that Defra had published these results that morning and reiterated that he would keep Board members informed of further developments.

Denby Illegal Meat Trial
22. The Chief Executive reminded Board members of the trial involving people who had allegedly defrauded the public through the sale of unfit meat. This had recently concluded and of those prosecuted, five had pleaded guilty, another had been found guilty and four had been acquitted. It was a reassuring result and one that would hopefully act as a deterrent to others. The FSA had taken the matter very seriously and had participated actively in the prosecution with Derbyshire Police and Amber Valley Borough Council. Since the investigation had started, the FSA had taken a number of further actions to prevent unfit meat entering the food chain. The FSA had:

• introduced new rules on staining high-risk unfit meat;
• established the Illegal Meat Task Force, a UK wide network of specially trained enforcement officers;
• set up the Waste Food Task Force which had made recommendations to the FSA on action it could take to prevent meat scams;
• supported industry to develop a Code of Practice to help ensure food chain security;
• increased the central FSA team of investigators from five to seven; and
• provided funding for a dedicated investigator to help put the case together.

23. The FSA would shortly be convening a follow-up meeting with the police, the local authorities and other stakeholders to consider the lessons that had been learnt from the case. A report of the outcome of that meeting would be circulated to Board members when available.
Action: David Statham

SRM in Intervention Beef from Spain
24. The Chief Executive reminded Board members of the background to this issue. The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) had found a number of breaches of the SRM regulations over the last twelve months when inspecting intervention beef imported into the UK. Initially most of these were from Germany but, following discussions with German officials, significant improvement had been achieved. Earlier this year Spanish imports started to present similar problems, and in April a Spanish delegation visited the UK. As no improvement had been seen, the Chief Executive had written to Robert Coleman, Director-General DG SANCO at the European Commission, on 9 June. He had asked that a Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) mission visit Spain; the European Commission had confirmed that this would take place before the end of 2003.

25. As SRM breaches had however continued throughout the rest of June and the first half of July the Chief Executive had written again to his counterpart in Spain on 22 July and suggested that, unless there was a significant improvement in the situation before the end of August 2003, he would be requesting revocation of the appropriate Spanish licenses. The Chief Executive was pleased to report that, since then, the incidence had decreased from a peak, in March 2003, of 2.5 percent to 0.1 percent in August 2003 and no breaches had been found so far in September.

Added Water in Chicken
26. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that, following their decision to press at European level for a maximum limit of fifteen percent on the total amount of water that may be added to poultry, and a ban on the use of non-poultry proteins in poultry products, he had written to Robert Coleman on 8 July to urge him to bring forward appropriate proposals. A reply had been received at the end of July in which Mr Coleman had confirmed that the Commission was preparing stronger labelling proposals. A meeting to discuss these proposals had now been scheduled for 23 September 2003. The Director General had also copied the Chief Executive¿s letter to his counterpart in DG Agriculture supporting his request for controls on water content and protein use. The Chief Executive had since written to DG Agriculture reiterating his request for action.

27. The FSA had held a stakeholder meeting on 19 August, which had attracted seventy participants representing the full range of interested parties. There had been positive and constructive discussion and support for the principle of restricting the amount of added water, although there had been some inevitable disagreement on the size of the limit proposed. A note of the meeting had been placed on the FSA's website and circulated to Board members. The FSA's Consumer Committee had also discussed the proposals and had been broadly supportive, although they had argued that the percentage of water permitted to be added should be zero.

28. Some Board members asked whether the import of these products had been stopped. The Chief Executive pointed out that these products were currently legal provided that they were correctly labelled. Whilst it was not, therefore, possible at the moment to stop their import, one of the aims of the FSA's stakeholder meeting had been to encourage industry to reject these products, in particular the catering trade (where the majority of this meat was used).

29. One Board member asked what evidence the FSA had to support the claim that consumers preferred products to which water had been added. The Chief Executive explained that chicken meat could lose up to fifteen percent water on cooking and that the industry had argued that such losses could make certain products dry and unpalatable. He was not aware of any specific data on consumer preferences in this area but agreed to ask the industry to check on the availability of this and report back to Board members.
Action: Rosemary Hignett

FVO Mission
30. The Chief Executive informed Board members that the FVO would be starting a routine mission to the UK later this month to evaluate the official control systems on foods consisting of, or produced from, genetically modified organisms (GM). The mission would cover the national and local competent authorities responsible for existing GM labelling legislation. This mission would not cover the labelling of GM derivatives as the new rules on this were not yet in force in the UK or other member states.

(Paper FSA 03/09/02)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Sandra Walbran declared an interest as a local enforcement officer. Richard Ayre declared an interest as a magistrate. The Chairman decided that Sandra Walbran and Richard Ayre should be permitted to participate in the discussion and determination of the issue.]

31. The Chairman welcomed Mr Tim Foster to the table, acknowledged that the chairman of the Waste Food Task Force (WFTF) was in the audience and thanked the WFTF for the work it had done. Tim Foster introduced the paper by reminding Board members that the WFTF had been set up as part of the FSA¿s action plan on unfit meat. The WFTF had sought to identify the problems and had made a number of recommendations that it considered practical and economically viable. Its stated aim had been to make food fraud uneconomical and to provide other effective deterrents, whilst not adding unnecessarily to the burdens on industry. Whilst the WFTF recognised that the implementation of its recommendations could not be guaranteed to stop all unfit meat scams, it considered that they would go a long way to removing the perceived weaknesses in the current control system.

32. There were a number of stakeholders involved: industry had responsibility in law for the safe disposal of by-products, but enforcement agencies, including the State Veterinary Service (SVS), Trading Standards Officers (TS), Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) and, of course, the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) also had important roles to play. The key was for all involved to work together. Significant progress had already been made towards achieving the recommendations (set out in Annex 3 to the paper) and the Chief Executive had mentioned a number in his report on the Denby illegal meat trial earlier. More remained to be done however and the action plan identified the steps that needed to be taken together with target dates.

33. Board members welcomed the report and congratulated the WFTF on the manner in which it had tackled the problems and provided practical solutions. Board members noted that there were a significant number of recommendations and that there would be a need for careful prioritisation. Some Board members felt that waiting for the outcome of the Meat Hygiene Review might unnecessarily delay progress by the MHS in addressing these recommendations. Others took the view that the Review was an important step in deciding what future resources should be made available to the MHS to tackle this and other issues. The Chief Executive pointed out that the review would look at priorities across all MHS functions, but noted that, in the interim, other avenues for improving action in this area would be explored. For example, Defra part funded the existing functions and discussions were planned on how better use could be made of that resource.

34. Some Board members expressed concern about the effectiveness of the current legislative framework and the appropriateness of the available penalties. The paper indicated that the FSA had little or no input into setting or revising penalties and that the penalties open to magistrates to impose under the Food Safety Act 1990 were arguably insufficient. Arising from the Denby illegal meat trial, one of the areas that had to be looked into by the group which would examine the lessons to be learnt was whether the prosecution had been taken under the best legislation. The Chief Executive responded saying that the FSA could influence the severity of penalties through advice to the Home Office. Changes to the provisions in the Food Safety Act 1990 were within our remit to consider and, if they were thought to need strengthening, the FSA could advise Minister's accordingly. Some Board members also noted that there had been some criticism of the FSA's handling of the Denby illegal meat case and asked that this issue be specifically addressed in the follow-up group and included in the report to the Board.

35. Board members noted that the need for good traceability was important if the recommendations made by the WFTF were to be effectively enforced, and asked for a report on the work being taken forward to identify action to improve traceability and quality assurance within supply chains. Board members were reminded that the industry Code of Practice made specific reference to the need for good traceability. In addition, FSA guidelines on traceability were currently out for consultation and any specific points could be picked up in that process.

36. The FSA would shortly be launching a research programme into the use of a non-toxic marker for use with low-risk by-products. The timing of this was critical as the Commission was currently drawing up new rules on staining.

37. Tim Foster confirmed that the Defra led review of the Animal Health and Welfare strategy had begun and was due to be completed in March 2004. The FSA was already involved in this work.

38. The implementation of the recommendation to bring 'intermediaries' or 'food brokers' into the regulatory framework was also on target for completion by January 2005. However, the FSA would look into whether anything could be done to speed up that process.

39. Some Board members enquired whether the WFTF would have any further role. The Chief Executive reassured them that a representative from the WFTF would be among the stakeholders invited to participate in the Denby illegal meat trial follow-up group. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) noted that NIAC had warmly welcomed the report but recommended that it would have benefited from more of a flavour of the devolved administrations and that this might be reflected in any follow up work arising from the report.

40. The Chairman summarised the main points raised in the discussion. The Board had:

• noted the results of the consultation,
• agreed the proposed action plan at Annex 3;
• noted that the action plan needed to be prioritised;
• considered how the WFTF might be involved in future;
• asked for a report on the work being taken forward to identify action to improve traceability and quality assurance within supply chains; and
• requested officials to report back on the public criticism that had been voiced following the Denby illegal meat trial.

Action: David Statham

(Paper FSA 03/09/03)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared a material interest as a Public Analyst who earns fees from the analysis of Local Authority samples. Sandra Walbran declared an interest as a Local Enforcement official. Julia Unwin declared an interest as an independent adjudicator for the Audit Commission. The Chairman considered that Michael Walker, Sandra Walbran and Julia Unwin should be permitted to participate in the discussion and determination of this issue.]

41. David Statham introduced the paper by reminding Board members these were a comprehensive range of performance measures. The FSA had worked closely with the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) to identify better ways of developing performance measures. Table 1 of the paper set out the key criteria for assessing LA performance and suggested listing the performance of all LAs against these criteria. In addition the top and bottom ten percent of LAs would be identified. This would enable LAs to gauge their performance against their peers. Previously the performance measurements had only looked at the bottom of the scale. The proposal was to recognise top performers also and an award scheme would be established in conjunction with LACORS.

42. The paper recommended altering the performance measurements for sampling numbers. At present one sample taken could be construed as a 'pass'. A more detailed report would be produced in future, with each LA having to demonstrate the existence of an acceptable sampling programme. Similarly, the criteria would also access the documented plans and procedures which were in place for pursuing enforcement action. In response to concerns raised by LACORS and some individual LAs, the criteria for measuring inspection levels had also been refined. All inspections would now be measured, and the criteria would no longer suggest that achieving fifty five percent of the total planned inspections was an acceptable level of performance. The proposed key criteria were aimed at driving up standards.

43. Board members welcomed the paper and the proposed performance measurements. Some Board members were unconvinced as to the value of using 'league tables' and felt that an indication of overall performance would be preferable. Other Board members took a different view. Whilst Board members were happy to compliment top performers, many felt that there were sometimes extenuating circumstances for poor performers, such as lack of resources (including suitably trained staff). David Statham pointed out that being listed in the bottom ten percent did not incur an automatic penalty. Those in that category would be investigated so that their situation could be more fully understood; it was likely that some would actually be classified as 'improving'. The availability of resources would be a relevant consideration, as would the influence of a major food safety incident. The purpose of the refined key criteria was to allow the FSA to understand better the circumstances surrounding any LAs performance and to offer appropriate advice and support in conjunction with LACORS and the Local Government Association (LGA). He acknowledged that recruitment and retention were an issue and agreed to report back to the Board on this.
Action: David Statham

44. Some Board members enquired whether it would be possible to provide a breakdown between the number of food samples taken for chemical analysis and those that were taken for microbiological analysis. Whilst recognising the importance of food safety, chemical analysis was equally important as it helped ascertain the nutritional quality and authenticity of food. David Statham agreed to look into this; the manner in which the data were currently gathered might preclude this breakdown, however analysis of the data by LA type might give further insight.
Action: David Statham

45. Some Board members asked for clarification on how the number of inspections required was set, what sort of audit process would follow on from this change in performance measurements and what penalties would be incurred should a LA fail to make its annual return. David Statham replied that the number of inspections of premises was set out in the statutory Code of Practice. The change to the performance measurements would be assessed through a joint targeted audit between the FSA and LACORS. LAs were required by law to make Annual Returns. However, if an individual LA failed to make a return it would be placed on the priority list for a full audit.

46. Some Board members recalled that this process relied on a custom designed IT system. In the past there had been some problems with the system and Board members wondered whether the switch to the new performance criteria would lead to further problems. The teething problems with the IT system were acknowledged but the number of LAs experiencing problems had now fallen. However, as the proposed criteria used the same data, no additional problems were anticipated.

47. David Statham confirmed that, should the Board agree to adopt the proposals, use of the new criteria would start as soon as possible. As the system always looked backwards to the previous year's returns, it was inevitable that any change would occur halfway through the year.

48. The Chairman summarised the main points raised in the discussion. The Board had:

• noted the progress made,
• agreed to the proposed change in the way information is reported to the Board; and
• congratulated David Statham and his team on the work they had done.

(Paper FSA 03/09/04)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Walker declared an interest as a Public Analyst whose laboratory had produced some of the data in paragraph 4 of the paper. The Chairman considered that Michael Walker should be permitted to participate in discussion and determination of this issue.]

49. Sue Hattersley introduced the paper by informing Board members that it summarised the progress that had been made since the Board discussed the issue in February. The paper set out the long term plan to help food allergic consumers eat away from home, and therefore concentrated on catering and enforcement issues. The paper did not cover labelling issues, as these would come forward to a later meeting in a separate paper on the Food Labelling Action Plan. A 'route map' illustrating the progress of the various activities described in paragraph 15 was at Annex 2.

50. The FSA had held several meetings with stakeholder groups since February, which had concluded that the most effective way forward would be to develop a simple 'best practice' advice pack for caterers. They had agreed to work closely with the FSA on this. It had been recognised that working with the catering industry would not be easy owing to its diversity and would be a long term initiative, however the FSA had initiatives already in progress, particularly HACCP, which might allow food allergens to be incorporated.

51. Board members welcomed the paper. One Board member noted that there was considerable emphasis on the role of enforcement officials in the implementation of this plan and asked what extra training and resources might be provided and whether extra provision would be considered if the planned programme necessitated it. The FSA was already an active contributor to regular update courses for enforcement officials; training in food allergen issues could be built into this. In addition, specific training materials and courses would be developed in conjunction with other stakeholders.

52. Some Board members noted the reliance on HACCP and asked how food allergen hazards compared with HACCP's current primary purpose of reducing food borne illness. They were informed that, once a caterer had been taught the fundamental steps in recognising a hazard point for microbiological or chemical contamination, this could in principle be broadened to include food allergens. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that the FSA was putting a lot of effort into identifying effective ways to implement HACCP. Not only were there two pilot schemes in progress in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also the FSA was working in conjunction with a team from Salford University. It was a complex area but good progress was being made.

53. Some Board members asked whether food retailers and manufacturers had been involved in this work and whether other interested government departments, such as those for health and education, had also been involved. They were informed that retailers had been involved at the stakeholder meeting and 'free from' food ranges were beginning to appear on shelves. Manufacturers were also looking at other production processes that might assist. One Board member suggested that if all involved in the food industry, caterers and manufacturers, demanded detailed specifications for their ingredients it would help eradicate the problem of derivatives.

54. The Chairman summarised the main points raised in the discussion. The Board had:

• welcomed the progress made;
• endorsed the way forward; and
• requested a report back on progress made in the future.

(Paper FSA 03/09/05)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Michael Gibson declared an interest as a primary producer and butcher. The Chairman considered that Michael Gibson should be permitted to participate in discussion and determination of this issue.]

55. The Chairman of MHAC, Iain MacDonald, introduced the report and explained that the accompanying paper was self-explanatory. He paid tribute to Suzi Leather, who had chaired MHAC until the end of 2002. He also thanked all the members for their work, including those Board members who were also members of MHAC, and the Secretariat and MHS for their help and support. He noted that there was still a lot of work to do and that MHAC would be considering new performance measurements for the MHS at its meeting the following week. A report of the outcome of that discussion would come to the Board in due course. Board members who were also members of MHAC commented on the positive manner in which the MHS had responded to the challenges with which it had been faced.

56. The Chairman thanked Board members who were members of MHAC for their work on behalf of the Board.

(Papers FSA 03/09/06, FSA 03/09/07 & FSA 03/09/08)

Scotland
57. The Chairman of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC) reported the establishment of the shellfish working group under the chairmanship of Andrew Miller. He informed Board members that all SFAC members had also recently spent a day on a visit to their local authority and would shortly begin a further round of visits, this time to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

58. He further reported that, at the SFAC meeting in Stornoway, he had met with officials from local authorities and discussed a range of issues, including private kills, HACCP in the catering sector and resources. With regard to HACCP, the pilot project had recently been completed and was currently being evaluated. The evaluation report would go to the SFAC meeting in October.

Wales
59. The Chairman of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) informed Board members that WFAC had recently held the first of a series of meetings that followed a different format. The meetings would be 'themed'; the first one had been on the theme of Food Safety. There had been a series of contributions and a short Q&A session after each. At the wash-up meeting afterwards, WFAC members had concluded that it had been a better approach that had led to more feedback from stakeholders.

60. WFAC had also considered whether it was necessary for it to continue to hold closed meetings. The Committee agreed that this was necessary as it allowed for the sharing of confidential information particularly in relation to emerging issues.

Northern Ireland
61. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC) reported that the Committee had considered the foodborne illness strategy and had been generally content. However, it had noted that a proportion of foodborne illness was brought back into the UK by those travelling abroad. No specific advice for those travelling abroad was provided on this issue. NIAC had also considered the consultation on Campylobacter and had sent in comments in the usual manner, to the policy division concerned.

62. NIAC too had begun a review of the style and frequency of its meetings. He added that he would welcome an opportunity for the three advisory committees to share the outcomes of these reviews.

AOB

Webcasting Open Meetings
63. The Chairman informed the meeting that, following a three-month trial period of the webcasting of the open Board meetings, Board members had considered an evaluation report and had agreed that this should become a standard feature of open Board meetings from the November 2003 meeting, subject to a review after one year. Board members had agreed that webcasting provided value for money and increased public accessibility.

Date of Next meeting

64. The next meeting would be held on 13 November 2003 in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.