March 2006 Board update

Monday 13 March 2006

The Agency held an Open Board Meeting in Glasgow on Thursday 9 March 2006. The meeting was chaired by FSA Chair Deirdre Hutton and attended by 70 stakeholders and members of the public.

It was viewed on a live webcast by 1000 people.

Agency's Chair Deirdre Hutton (pictured) and Chief Executive Dr Jon Bell gave reports to the Board, updating members on developments since the previous Open Board meeting in December. FSA Scotland Director George Paterson also presented the Board with a Strategic Overview of the Agency in Scotland.

Report from FSA Chair
Food Standards Agency Chair Deirdre Hutton reminded Board Members that the meeting was the last that would be attended by the Agency's Chief Executive Jon Bell.

She said that Dr Bell, who had helped to set up the Agency and then became its Director of Food Safety Policy, Chief Scientist and Deputy Chief Executive, later becoming its Chief Executive, had been responsible for much of the Agency's progress over the past three years. She said that he should be proud to be leaving at a time when the latest consumer awareness survey shows the highest levels of consumer awareness and trust achieved by the Agency. She wanted to take the public opportunity, on behalf of the Board, to thank Dr Bell for his enormous contribution to the FSA and to wish him well in the next phase of his career.

The Agency Chair then updated the Board on meetings she had attended since the previous meeting in February 2006. She told members that she had recently addressed the annual conference of the National Farmers' Union, which was attended by 800 people. It had provided an opportunity to refer to the move from the Over 30 Months scheme for BSE to testing, and to raise the Agency's concern at the number of pre-1996 animals that have been sent to abattoirs.

She and the Deputy Chair had also had meetings with industry trade bodies, individual companies, supermarkets and manufacturers, and a range of non-governmental organisations to talk about signpost labelling and gather views.

The Chair, with the Chief Executive, had talked to the Policy Issues Council of the Institute of Grocery Distribution - a committee that brings together leaders from the manufacturing and the retail industry and other sections of the food chain. The discussion covered issues such as signposting and the Agency's regulatory stance.

Chief Executive's Report
Agency Chief Executive Dr Jon Bell updated Board members on developments since the previous Board meeting.

Avian Influenza
Dr Bell reminded Board Members that the Agency had advised consumers some time ago that avian flu did not pose a food-safety risk for UK consumers. The Agency had been asked to review that advice on the basis of the possibility that an outbreak of avian flu might occur in this country at some future date.

The Agency had discussed the issue with scientific experts, and concluded that the FSA's advice should remain the same as before; even if an outbreak did occur in the UK, the Agency continued to consider that avian flu did not pose a food safety risk.

He said: 'Our general advice remains that poultry meat should always be cooked properly to avoid food poisoning, and that will destroy any flu virus. In the case of eggs, we feel that if eggs are cooked until the white is firm, that is sufficient to reduce the risk to a very low level, if it exists at all

He added that this was 'because the normal route of infection of avian flu is respiratory and not through ingestion, and the experts tell us there are further safeguards, such as gastric juices and the lack of receptors in the gastro-intestinal tract for this particular virus, that would act as an additional barrier, should there even be small amounts of virus left in any of the products.'

Washing hands remained a very important piece of advice generally for handling of any poultry products, and it also would help to ensure that the virus was not spread.

There was currently no evidence that anybody has been infected by eating poultry products. Even in those countries where people had become infected, it had always been because of close proximity with sick, dying or recently dead birds. The Agency will, however, keep the matter very closely under review in case there is any change in the scientific information available.

The Chief Executive also emphasised that the Agency's role was to keep consumers informed about matters that might affect the safety of food, and was not to promote the sale or consumption of individual foods or food products.

Benzene in soft drinks
The Chief Executive brought the Board up to date on the recent discovery of very low levels of benzene in soft drinks. Following a US survey that had found benzene in soft drinks, the Agency had asked the soft drinks industry in the UK if it had any recent analytical results that would help the Agency form a view as to whether there was a problem in the UK.

The summarised results that had been provided for some 230 drinks indicated that very low levels of benzene could be present in some drinks in the UK, but the expert view was that this was not a concern for public health. However, the Agency felt that more information should be gathered and it had therefore recently instigated a survey to look across the market. The results should be published in about a month's time.

Dr Bell pointed out that the highest level of benzene found in the industry data was eight micrograms per litre of soft drink, and most levels reported were much lower than this. To put this in context he pointed out that benzene is also present in air, and on average people breathe in some 220 micrograms every day. He said, however, that benzene levels should be kept at the lowest levels possible and the Agency was talking to industry about the steps that could be taken to reduce levels or eliminate this substance entirely. It appeared that it was formed as a side reaction between the preservative sodium benzoate and vitamin C under certain conditions

Sudan I
The Chief Executive updated the Board on developments with regard to Sudan I. The main problem with Sudan I in foods had arisen in February 2005 and had appeared to be associated with a batch of contaminated chilli powder used to manufacture Worcester sauce by Premier Ambient Products UK in 2002. The Worcester sauce had been supplied to a large number of other companies that had used it to make several hundred different food products. This resulted ultimately in the need to withdraw a very large number of products from sale.

Dr Bell said that food companies have a legal responsibility to ensure the food they sell is safe and fit for human consumption. In addition, from the beginning of 2005, food companies had had a legal responsibility for recalling products that didn't meet food safety requirements, and for notifying the Agency and local authorities and advising their customers on the reason for the withdrawal. Local authorities had enforcement powers in respect of any breach that might occur in that requirement. Several investigations have been undertaken into the contamination of food products with Sudan I.

In an investigation associated with the product recall, East Anglian Food Ingredients Limited were successfully prosecuted recently by Essex County Council for the sale of hot curry powder containing Sudan I. The legal action was taken by the Essex County Council Trading Standards and the company appeared before Colchester Magistrates Court on 15 February 2006. The company pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 14 of the Food Safety Act 1990, concerning the sale of food not of the substance demanded by the consumer, and was fined
2,000 and ordered to pay
3,000 in costs.

An investigation had also been carried out by Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council into the production of Worcester sauce and its ingredients by Premier Ambient Foods UK Limited at its Middleton factory. The Agency had provided significant resources to Rochdale MBC in order to ensure that the investigation was carried out as effectively as possible. The investigation was largely completed in December 2005, and in February 2006, Rochdale MBC wrote to the Agency and Premier Ambient Products UK Limited with their decision that there would be no prosecution in this instance. Dr Bell said that Premier Foods had always denied any wrongdoing in this matter.

Other investigations are still in progress, and are being carried out by Derbyshire and Lincolnshire County Council.

The Agency had set up a task force on incidents in 2005, with the aim of looking at what steps could be taken to reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring in future, and managing them as efficiently as possible if they did occur. As a result, guidelines had been drawn up, and the Agency hoped that stakeholders, including the main industry representatives, would endorse them in due course, Dr Bell said.

Lifting of Ban on British Beef
The Chief Executive informed the Board that a meeting in Brussels on 8 March had agreed unanimously that a resumption of trade in British beef should be allowed across the European Community and beyond, subsequent to certain conditions being met.

These included: all animals born before August 1996 should continue to be kept out of the food chain, both in this country and for export; only products from animals slaughtered after 15 June 2005 should be eligible for export; and meat from bovine animals slaughtered before the formal lifting of the ban could only be traded with other Member States after the removal of vertebral column. It would take about six weeks for the European Parliament to be consulted and the necessary formalities to be completed before the ban could be lifted.

Malicious Contamination of Kingsmill Bread
Dr Bell reminded Board members that in September 2005 he had reported that there had been cases of malicious tampering with products at the Allied Bakery's Orpington bakery. As a result, certain foreign bodies had been occasionally found in Kingsmill bread produced by that bakery. In September, Allied Bakeries issued a press release warning consumers to be vigilant. That was complemented by information the Agency put on its website to that effect, and an action plan of strengthened security measures put in place in the Orpington warehouse.

Unfortunately, it appears that the incidents did not stop entirely and in the week prior to the Board meeting the Agency had been made aware that the problems had continued. The Agency had spoken to the bakery again on Tuesday 7 March and had been informed that Allied Bakeries had introduced tamper-evident packaging on bread from that bakery with immediate effect, so that it would be much more difficult for any contamination to occur without it being obvious. Police were continuing with their investigations and it was hoped that they would be able to conclude the matter in the not too-distant future. The Agency intended to keep closely in touch with the bakery and local authority to monitor developments.

Finally, the Chief Executive outlined the findings of the Agency's sixth Consumer Attitudes Survey, which was undertaken towards the end of last year.

He said that it showed that consumers were becoming more health-conscious; consumer awareness of the FSA now stood at an all-time high; there has been a substantial increase from 2001 in the number of consumers who believe the FSA is an organisation they can trust and a substantial increase in the number of consumers who describe themselves as confident in the Agency's role in protecting public health with regard to food safety.

In addition, there had been a drop in the number of consumers who felt that the FSA reflected the views of the food industry; an increase in the number of consumers who were more likely to cite the FSA as an organisation they would use for information compared with earlier years; and a substantial increase in the number of consumers who believed that the agency provides clear advice. There was also a year-on-year decline in the number of consumers expressing concern over BSE.

Dr Bell added that while the Agency must be careful not to become complacent, the figures show that the Agency is delivering on the promises that were given when it was set up.

Board report: SEAC Sheep subgroup position statement on atypical scrapie
Cattle and sheep are known to suffer from a group of transmissable neurological diseases known as TSEs. One of the best known of these is BSE in cattle. It has previously been recognised by the Board that there is a possible risk of BSE in sheep because they ate the same feed that gave cattle BSE and it has been shown that sheep can be experimentally infected with BSE.

UK and other member states are required under EU law to undertake TSE surveillance testing of a portion of sheep slaughtered each year. All TSE positive samples are then also tested for BSE using the EU approved tests. In Great Britain a total of over 2,400 samples, collected between 1998 and 2005, have been tested to differentiate between BSE and scrapie with no findings of BSE.

This paper drew attention to a position statement by the SEAC Sheep Subgroup, which summarises the current knowledge on a recently recognised form of TSE disease in sheep known as atypical scrapie. The paper concludes that atypical scrapie could reliably be distinguished from the previously-known TSE in sheep, now termed classical scrapie, and from experimental BSE in sheep. In his introduction to the discussion, the Chief Executive informed the Board that the French and Cypriot Governments had recently announced some unusual results from three sheep that at this stage of testing did not appear to be atypical scrapie. More tests were now underway, but these could take up to two years to complete.

The issues being drawn to the Board's attention were:

• atypical scrapie is relatively widespread in sheep flocks in Europe including the UK
• there are still a great many unknowns about atypical scrapie, including the potential implications, if any, for human health

The Board:

• noted the content of the SEAC sheep sub group statement and the issues
  regarding atypical scrapie
• agreed that there should be no change in the Agency's advice on the consumption of sheep or goat meat or dairy products but that this advice should be reviewed in the light of emerging evidence
• endorsed the need for additional research
• reaffirmed the Agency's commitment to place all knowledge of the issue in the public domain, including research questions to be put forward
• requested that the Agency contact the authorities in other countries that supply the UK with sheep and sheep products to see if these countries were free of atypical scrapie
• agreed that a more detailed paper should be discussed at the April Board meeting

Board paper: Signpost labelling
The Government is committed to a range of initiatives designed to help consumers to be able to improve their diets and thus contribute to reducing the prevalence of diet-related diseases such as diabetes, coronary heart disease and some cancers.

As part of this programme of work, the Agency has been developing a voluntary front-of-pack signpost labelling scheme to help consumers see at a glance the levels of fat, saturated fat, salt and sugars in selected processed foods sold through retail outlets. Several different schemes are in use, aimed at reducing confusion by encouraging a consistent approach.

This paper described the evidence, summarised the consultation responses and proposed an approach based on a set of core principles.

The research and consultation responses indicated that the key elements of a successful front of pack nutritional labelling scheme were:

• separate information on: fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt
• use of red, amber or green colour coding to provide at a glance information on the level (ie whether high, medium or low) of individual nutrients in the product
• provision of information on the levels of nutrients present in a portion of the product
• use of nutritional criteria developed by an authoritative, trusted and independent body such as the Food Standards Agency

The paper also considered how the impact of signpost labelling on consumer behaviour might be assessed.

The Board:

• agreed that there had been a significant change in the attitudes of manufacturers and retailers on front of pack signpost labelling since the Agency had first raissed this issue
• noted the evidence on consumer understanding of the information presented in the signpost labelling schemes tested and on consumer preferences
• noted the outcome of the consultation on the signpost labelling proposals
• recommended that businesses adopt signposting schemes based on all four of the core principles set out in the paper (see above)
• agreed that the Agency should work with stakeholders to promote the
  recommended scheme and use of it; and that it should work with adopters to
  develop a strategy to communicate the agreed core messages
• agreed that the Agency should work with stakeholders to assess the impact of signpost labelling schemes

Board paper: National measures for UK meat plants
The new EU Food Hygiene Regulations allow some of the rules applicable to meat plants to be varied in the interests of proportionality, as long as public health protection is maintained. In many cases this flexibility is provided in order to accommodate the needs of remote or small businesses. This paper proposed a number of such variations, all of which would require the agreement of the EU Commission and the other Member States.

The Board:

• commented on the proposals outlined
• agreed the principles set out in the paper but felt clarification was needed of the terms 'local' and 'satisfactory'
• felt that there should be an emphasis on plants 'earning the right' to operate a meat plant business
• suggested that there should be further thought given to the throughput criteria to be used in the case of wild game
• accepted that the Agency should press for UK trichinella free status
• agreed that there should be a continued low level survey of wildlife and pigs to maintain the UK's trichinella-free state
• agreed to seek the consent of the EU Commission and other Member States to the proposals

Board paper: Harmonisation of specified risk material controls when the beef export ban is lifted
In the event that the ban on UK exports of beef is lifted, the UK will be required under EU law to lower the threshold at which vertebral column becomes specified risk material (SRM) from 30 to 24 months.

SEAC had advised the Government that lowering the 30-month age limit would have negligible beneficial effect.

The paper argued that not allowing the removal of 24-30 month vertebral column to be carried out at authorised butchers would unnecessarily reduce consumer choice.

The Board:

• agreed that, when the beef export ban is lifted, the removal of vertebral column SRM for 24-30 month animals in the UK should be permitted in local authority authorised butchers
• agreed that in the case of head meat, removal is only allowed in slaughterhouses for the time being, but that this position is reviewed after a suitable interval of time
• Requested a further paper on the remaining issues in the summer