Board meeting minutes: 15 June 2006

Monday 7 August 2006

Minutes of the open board meeting, 15 June 2006, Jurys hotel, Bristol

Present:
Dame Deirdre Hutton, Chair
Julia Unwin, Deputy Chair
Richard Ayre
Chrissie Dunn
Maureen Edmondson
Alan Gardner
Valerie Howarth
Christopher Pomfret
Bill Reilly
Ian Reynolds
Sandra Walbran
Nelisha Wickremasinghe

Officials attending:
John Harwood, Chief Executive
Dr Andrew Wadge, Acting Chief Scientist and Director of Food Safety Policy (items 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 4 only)
Alison Gleadle, Head of TSE Division (items 3.1 and 3.2 only)
Irene Hill, TSE Division (items 3.1 and 3.2 only)
Gill Fine, Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health (item 3.3 only)
Rosemary Hignett, Head of Nutrition Division (items 3.3 and 3.4 only)
Alan Harvey, Head of Corporate and Board Secretariat Division (item 3.5 only)
Keith Gregory, Board Secretariat
Claire Voller, Board Secretariat

Others attending:
Peter Jinman, Deputy Chair of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) (items 3.1 and 3.2 only)

Chair's Introduction
1. The Chair welcomed all observers attending the open Board meeting.

2. The Chair noted that apologies had been received from Graeme Millar and from new Board member, Michael Parker.

3. Michael Parker, who would be unable to attend Board meetings until September due to prior commitments, has a background in business, finance and the NHS. He is currently the Chairman of King's College Hospital NHS Trust, chaired the Finance Committee and is a member of the Performance and the Equality and Diversity Committees. Michael is also currently the National Chair of the Equality and Diversity Core Reference Group for NHS Employers.

4. The Chair welcomed Ian Reynolds to his first open Board meeting. Ian has a strong science, regulatory and healthcare background and has held both executive and non-executive roles across public and private sectors. He is a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.

5. The Chair welcomed John Harwood, the interim Chief Executive of the FSA, to his first open Board meeting.

6. The Chair invited the Deputy Chair to introduce the meeting. The Deputy Chair reminded those attending and watching the webcast that the FSA Board discussed policy issues at its open meetings to meet its commitment to transparency and accessibility. There would be an opportunity for questions immediately after the formal session and those watching the webcast could also send questions to the Board.

7. The Chair reminded Board members of their obligation to declare interests before discussion of relevant items.

8. There was one item raised for discussion under Any Other Business:

• Press reports on trout disease and public safety implications (Valerie Howarth)

Item 1 - Minutes and Oral reports

1.1 - Minutes of Open Meeting on 6 April 2006, Congress Centre, London. (FSA 06/06/01)

9. The Board agreed the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2006 at Congress Centre, London as an accurate record.

1.2 - Actions Arising (FSA 06/06/02)

10. The Board noted the table of follow up actions.

1.3 - Chair's Report

Meeting with key folate stakeholders

11. The Chair informed Board members that, since the last open Board meeting, she had met Andrew Russell (Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus) and Carole Sakowiak (Society for Research into Hydrocephalus and Spina Bifida). The Chair had explained that SACN had delayed the publication of its final report on folate to take into account emerging evidence of the safety of high intakes of folic acid and to allow for further population modelling. This had meant that the FSA had been unable to go out to consultation on this issue and had written to inform Health Ministers that the Board would not be in a position to advise them in the autumn as originally anticipated. Although Andrew Russell and Carole Sakowiak had been disappointed with the delay to the FSA's decision, they had nonetheless understood that this was an inevitable consequence of the need to take account of the further scientific assessment that was currently underway.

Stocktake Meeting with Caroline Flint, MP, Minister of State for Public Health

12. The Chair informed Board members that she had also updated the Minster of State for Public Health on the delay to the folate consultation. The Minister was anxious to see a decision on this as soon as possible but had accepted the reasons for the delay.

13. The Chair had congratulated the Minister on behalf of the Board on her recent promotion from Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Public Health. This was particularly welcomed, as it would provide a higher focus in government on public health. The Chair informed Board members that the Minister would now also be responsible for cross-government work on physical exercise.

Visit to Northern Ireland

14. The Chair informed Board members that she had undertaken a very useful visit to meet FSA staff in Northern Ireland and to hold discussions with the Food Standards Authority of Ireland and the Food Safety Promotion Board – the all-Ireland body set up as a consequence of the Good Friday Agreement. The three bodies were now considering holding a joint event in Dublin looking at possible collaboration in science and research expertise. The Chair thanked Maureen Edmondson and the Director of FSA Northern Ireland and his staff for making this a pleasant and interesting visit.

Speech at Women's Institute, Cardiff

15. The Chair informed Board members that she had taken part in an event at the Women's Institute (WI) in Cardiff to launch the FSA's and WI's two joint initiatives of the 'Cooking Bus' and 'Let's Cook'. This was an effective partnership whereby WI members would work directly in the community to provide advice and training on cooking skills.

Signpost labelling

16. The Chair informed Board members that she had had various meetings with the industry, including with the Food and Drink Federation and PepsiCo, mostly to discuss signpost labelling. The discussions had considered the current industry and FSA positions and the way forward. In particular, she had said that the FSA would undertake research in a year's time on what forms of signpost labelling had been most effective in changing consumer behaviour. There would be ongoing discussions on how the FSA was going to do this in the most effective way.

Item 2 - Reports from the Executive

2.1 - Chief Executive's Report

Avian Influenza

17. The Chief Executive updated Board members on developments. Low pathogenic avian influenza (H7N3) had been confirmed on three poultry farms in Dereham, Norfolk towards the end of April. Restrictions had now been lifted on these farms, and the premises had been thoroughly cleansed and disinfected. No further cases had been detected.

18. Outside the UK, outbreaks of avian influenza in poultry and wild birds had been continuing in Asia, Africa and Europe. However, a decline in the incidence of the virus in wild birds in Europe had been noted over the past weeks.

19. In respect of human cases of avian influenza, the World Health Organisation (WHO) had reported seven cases of the virus in an extended family in Indonesia, six of whom had died. An additional case was strongly suspected in a family member who died in early May. All confirmed cases in the cluster could be directly linked to close and prolonged exposure to a patient during a phase of severe illness. Although limited human-to-human transmission had apparently occurred in the cluster, there was no evidence of spread within the general community. Full genetic sequencing of the virus had found no evidence of genetic reassortment with human or pig influenza viruses and no evidence of significant mutations. The WHO had concluded that the current level of pandemic alert did not need to change.

20. The Chief Executive noted that worldwide, the total number of WHO confirmed cases was 225 with 128 deaths. In the last month, all the reported cases had occurred in Indonesia, with the exception of one additional case in Egypt and a case in Djibouti.

SRM Breach

21. The Chief Executive informed Board members that on 16 May, DARD in Northern Ireland had reported the discovery of approximately 3cm of SRM spinal cord in a forequarter of an Over Thirty Month (OTM) bovine that had been received at ABP Lurgan. The consignment had been identified as having been shipped from Shrewsbury. The spinal cord should have been removed at the slaughterhouse in England prior to despatch. The receiving plant was therefore not responsible for the breach. Since the breach had occurred at an establishment in England, the MHS had launched a full investigation into the incident. This had found that all protocols were in place, that all staff were fully aware of them and that no other contributory factors could be identified. The investigation had concluded that the failure appeared to have been caused by human error.

22. The establishment had responded to this failure by introducing a checklist into their protocol requiring the member of staff on spinal cord removal duties to check physically the spinal canal for bone ridges and to record that this has been done. A further check at loading had also now been introduced. In addition, unannounced and regular spot checks would be carried out for the foreseeable future at that slaughterhouse. The OTM bovine had tested negative for BSE. The forequarter in question had been stained and disposed of as a Category 1 animal by-product. The remainder of the consignment had been checked and found to be clear of SRM. News of this incident had been placed on the FSA's website.

Salmonella in eggs

23. The Chief Executive invited the Director of Food Safety Policy to the table to report on this item.

24. The Director of Food Safety Policy informed Board members that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had published a report the previous day of a survey of salmonella in chickens kept for egg production (laying flocks) across Europe. The survey had found low levels of salmonella in laying flocks in the UK, principally due to the effective measures taken by the UK poultry industry over the last 10-15 years, including the introduction of vaccination. The FSA's own survey published in the last couple of years had shown that the vast majority of eggs eaten in the UK are salmonella free.

25. The Director of Food Safety Policy informed Board members that the FSA was working with Defra and the European Commission to address the action that needed to be taken in relation to other member states. This would be discussed at a meeting next week in Brussels. With regard to some press reports that the FSA was considering a ban on the import of eggs, the Director of Food Safety Policy said this had not been ruled out, but for the time being there was no agreed position on the way forward. However, the UK would be pressing for other member states to ensure they put in place measures to allow equivalent high standards to those achieved here, including the introduction of vaccination.

Wine Standards Board

26. The Chief Executive reminded Board members of previous discussions on the transfer of the functions of the Wine Standards Board (WSB) from Defra to the FSA. The Board had previously agreed to incorporate this work and the personnel of the WSB into the FSA subject to certain conditions e.g. that the new work should have synergy with the FSA's consumer protection role, that the transfer should be cost neutral and that their policy brief would transfer at the same time. The Chief Executive was pleased to report that all of these conditions had now been met. Consequently, all of the work of the WSB (including the cost of running the work and the responsibility for maintaining the register of British vineyards), and its 10 staff, would be incorporated into the FSA from 1 July 2006. The transfer included a pro-rata amount of the budget for the WSB for the current financial year.

Eatwell DVD

27. The Chief Executive informed Board members that the FSA's Eatwell DVD (featuring TV presenter Lorraine Kelly and dietician Nigel Denby) had won a Silver Screen Award at the 2006 US International Film and Video Awards in the category of Medicine and Health: Consumer/Patient Oriented. This was a considerable achievement given that there had been over 1,300 entries from over 30 countries for these awards, which were in their 39th year and globally recognised. The DVD had been a joint project between the FSA's Communications and Nutrition teams, and had been produced to support the salt campaign. It was designed to bring to life the FSA�s eight tips for eating well, in a daytime TV format that would be familiar to consumers.

28. The Chair noted that this was the second major award that the FSA had won in the last few months and congratulated the Communications and Nutrition teams on their considerable achievement. This demonstrated that the FSA was effective in presenting its messages to consumers.

Item 3 - Discussion Items

3.1 - Atypical Scrapie in Small Ruminants: Consideration of the Current Precautionary Risk Management Measures (FSA 06/06/03)
3.2 - BSE and Sheep Contingency Policy (FSA 06/06/04)

[Prior to the discussion of these items Alan Gardner declared an interest as a sheep farmer. The Chair considered this to be a material conflict of interest and consequently Alan Gardner left the table and took no part in the discussion or determination of these issues. Following the discussion of these items Ian Reynolds made clear that he had chosen not to participate having realised, after the discussions had started, that he might be considered to have a material conflict of interest .]

29. The Chair welcomed Alison Gleadle (Head of TSE Division), Irene Hill (TSE Division) and the Acting Chief Scientist to the table to introduce these papers and answer questions. The Chair also welcomed the Deputy Chair of SEAC to the table to provide the Board with independent scientific assurance.

30. The Chair noted that Board members had been provided with a factual scientific briefing on atypical scrapie the previous day by the Deputy Chair of SEAC.

Atypical Scrapie in Small Ruminants: Consideration of the Current Precautionary Risk Management Measures

31. Alison Gleadle reminded Board members that atypical scrapie was a degenerative brain disease of sheep and goats. It was different to classical scrapie (recognised for over 200 years and not considered to be a human health risk) and had been newly identified in 2002/2003 following the introduction of more sophisticated testing methods. Since 2002, 114 animals infected with atypical scrapie had been identified in Great Britain from testing in abattoirs of sheep over 18 months. Since 2004, when passive surveillance had been introduced, and 5 clinical animals had been identified by testing animals suspected of having a sheep TSE. Modelling had estimated that around 82,000 sheep out of a national flock of approximately 35 million may be infected.

32. Atypical scrapie was not just a UK issue and had been found in other countries.

33. Experiments had recently shown atypical scrapie infection could be transmitted to sheep and mice. There was no evidence yet that it could be transmitted to humans, but this could not yet be ruled out as a possibility. Research studies were underway but the data for these would not be available for some time. Other uncertainties which had been highlighted in previous papers brought to the Board included the distribution of infectivity within the tissues of sheep, and whether atypical scrapie had been in the national flock for many years or was relatively new.

34. A number of precautionary control measures which had been introduced to protect consumers from the risk of BSE would also help protect against atypical scrapie. These were

• the feed ban
• removal of Specified Risk Material (SRM)
• compulsory reporting of clinical suspects
• differential TSE testing for BSE and scrapie

Estimates of economic costs and practical issues to be overcome were included in the paper at Annex 1.

35. Initial discussion of these options had taken place with stakeholders (Annex 3) and in focus groups with consumers. Board members were now being asked to consider whether additional precautionary measures should be recommended taking into account the current evidence base and uncertainties, the lack of quantitative risk assessment, the costs and proportionality, and the initial views of stakeholders.

36. The Chair drew Board members' attention to a letter dated 9 June from the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers and the National Farmers Union Scotland, which had been tabled . The letter urged the Board to act in a pragmatic and proportionate way in taking any decisions on this issue, given the current uncertainty and lack of sound scientific evidence and knowledge.

37. In discussion of the paper Board members raised the following points and questions:

• If it were known that that atypical scrapie was present in sheep flocks in other European countries, would restrictions on imported meat be introduced consistent with any domestic measures imposed? Additionally if there were suddenly a change in the position, could the UK act unilaterally to protect its consumers?
• Further clarity was needed on the milestones of when evidence would be provided from the research
• Clarity was sought on activity in the European context. For example, was EFSA carrying out any research on the public health aspects which would be relevant to the UK's interim position and what were the timescales?
• The SEAC sub-group had agreed that there was no evidence of risk to human health but a theoretical risk could not be excluded. However, two of the possible precautionary measures related to age of sheep, thus implying that the risk increased as the animals grew older. Was this a correct assumption?
• In relation to Australia and New Zealand having no recorded cases of atypical scrapie in their sheep flock (Annex 6), was this misleading to consumers given that their testing methods were not apparently used to detect atypical scrapie? Furthermore, given the lack of evidence for the disease in the New Zealand and Australian sheep flocks, was any research being commissioned into identifying why this may be the case, from which the UK could draw useful lessons?
• Was there any understanding of what the youngest age was of an animal infected with atypical scarpie?
• Was there evidence atypical scrapie could be transmitted between or within flocks which could help inform the Board's decision on determining the precautionary measures to put in place?
• There had not been any evidence of transmissibility to humans of atypical scrapie so far. Could this be taken as reassurance or when would a human form of the disease be likely to manifest itself?
• A quicker, cheaper but reliable test was needed to detect atypical scrapie. The FSA should also ensure that appropriate research was commissioned to drive this forward
• FSA should be an active partner with Defra on the review of the national scrapie plan

38. In response Alison Gleadle and Irene Hill confirmed that:

• TSE controls operated on a harmonised basis throughout the EU. The UK would thus only be able to consider invoking national safeguard measures if there were clear evidence of a problem going beyond what the regulation was intended to deal with. Such measures would only be possible on an interim basis, until the EU position had been clarified and agreed
• SEAC's advice had been shared with EFSA. EFSA was currently undertaking an assessment of the impact of atypical scrapie on existing sheep TSE eradication measures
• The FSA had made the European Commission aware of the discussion of atypical scrapie at this Board meeting and would be discussing this further, as appropriate, with the European Commission in the light of the Board's conclusions
• There were no particular lessons that the UK could draw from the lack of evidence of atypical scrapie in the Australia and New Zealand flocks. It was a historic fact that any scrapie-infected animals exported there had been culled halting any spread of the disease
• There was no routine testing of TSEs in sheep in Australia and New Zealand. However the small number of sheep that had been tested in Australia with the Bio-Rad test for experimental reasons (which could detect atypical scrapie) had all proved negative. Animals from New Zealand used for UK research had all tested negative
• The FSA was actively involved in commissioning research. A call had been put out for proposals to look at the human health risk of atypical scrapie, and the FSA was currently in the final stages of assessing the proposals. Calls would also be put out next month for proposals for the pathogenesis (tissue distribution) research
• The Acting Chief Scientist added that it was imperative that this process was carried out with due care and opened up to scientists across Europe. It was important to ensure the best possible expertise and research was commissioned, particularly given the long time scales involved
• In respect of ram genotyping Defra had invited the FSA to be involved in the review

39. The Deputy Chair of SEAC confirmed that this was a complex issue. There were significant uncertainties, and research was only in the very early stages. In terms of timescales, some of the collaborative research with other countries might provide preliminary data in 6 months' time at the earliest, but equally it could take up to two years. This was in the nature of the science in this field; there were no short cuts. The clinical disease typically occurred in older animals of approximately 4/5 years old. However, if there were a larger number of animals infected in a particular flock this could result in a lowering of the age at which the disease showed clinical symptoms. With regard to obtaining evidence on the transmissibility of the disease between sheep, the difficulty was in obtaining a sufficient amount of material which was of the right quality that could be used for experimental purposes. Active discussions were taking place on the type of material needed and how this could be generated by infecting animals artificially. But this would be very much long term research which would take a number of years to produce results. Following the discovery of vCJD during the BSE crisis, in the human health field the monitoring of the potential for transmissibility to humans had been active and was ongoing. The neurological community had been on continuous alert to recognise and act on any new reports of related TSEs in humans.

40. In considering the proposals in paragraph 34 of the paper, Board members raised the following points:

• Given the considerable uncertainties, it was important for the FSA to provide meaningful information and work closely with consumers so as to enable them to make choices
• While the contingency policy should be put into the public domain, the Communication team should consider the most effective methods for delivery (i.e. not just the internet) and ways of explaining risk to consumers in a more effective way
• The precautionary measures were sufficient at present, but needed to be kept under review in the light of new evidence, as this emerged

41. In summary, the Chair noted that the Board had:

• noted that the Agency's advice had been reworded to take account of the views of stakeholders and the consumer focus groups and would be tested further
• noted that the background information on sheep TSEs on the FSA's website would be reviewed
• noted that the agricultural departments were planning to review the Ram Genotyping Scheme and welcomed the FSA's involvement in this process
• noted that surveillance for atypical scrapie will be maintained in order to detect any changes in prevalence
• agreed that the Agency's advice and recommendations on precautionary measures should be kept under review and be brought back to the Board if there were significant changes in the understanding of the risk
• agreed that developments on atypical scrapie be kept under review to enable the contingency policy to be refined as new information emerged, but that the contingency plan should be put into the public domain (the wording to be cleared with Board members beforehand)

Action: Alison Gleadle

• in addition, urgent consideration should be given to commissioning appropriate further research, in particular to develop an effective and cheaper diagnostic test for atypical scrapie, while taking account of the need to do so with due care so as to ensure best use of resources
• agreed that the Agency should open discussions with the European Commission on the issue of whether meat from older sheep or goats, or sausages made using natural casings from sheep intestines, should be suitably identified to enable consumers to make informed choices
• agreed that the Director of Communication should consider the methods and language by which messages would need to be delivered, in particular to communicate the potential risk involved of eating older animals

Action: Terrence Collis

BSE and Sheep Contingency Policy

42. Alison Gleadle reminded Board members that BSE was a degenerative brain disease of cattle. Sheep had historically been exposed to BSE by the same contaminated feed that had infected cattle. Sheep could be experimentally infected with BSE and clinical signs were similar to scrapie. However, tests were now available that could distinguish BSE from scrapie. Despite extensive surveillance, BSE had not been identified in sheep to date but it had been identified in one goat in France. From modelling work, the estimated maximum was that about 700 sheep in UK might be infected with BSE, but the more likely scenario was that none were.

43. At the April meeting, the Board had agreed to a graduated approach. Modelling allowed the possibility of assessing the amount by which each different approach would reduce risk, though the figures provided in the paper should be treated with caution and taken as rankings rather than absolute figures. Stakeholder views had informed the paper discussed in April, but stakeholders had not yet been consulted on the detail of the current proposed framework.

44. In considering the introduction of a genotype-based approach, it was necessary to take into account the fact that atypical scrapie had been mainly detected in the sheep that had been considered to have the more resistant genotype for BSE and classical scrapie. The present paper suggested a framework of contingency policy for a graduated approach if BSE were found in sheep taking into account the current evidence base, quantitative risk assessment and uncertainties and the costs and proportionality. Alison Gleadle suggested that the overall strategy would need to be kept under review: any approach agreed now would need to be reconfirmed, taking into account the circumstances at the time of any finding of BSE in sheep.

45. Board members raised the following points during the discussion:

• Was there any evidence to back up the modelling assumptions made in the paper? The Deputy Chair of SEAC said that modelling was based on the best evidence available and was a mathematical process dealing with a number of parameters to assess the implications. The science of modelling was advancing. The risk of a finding of BSE in sheep had decreased over time
• Clarification was sought on how BSE would be transmitted between sheep, and what was meant by 'unrelated flocks'? The Deputy Chair of SEAC confirmed that if BSE was detected, an epidemiological investigation would be conducted to identify how the infection had entered the flock. This would look at all possible routes and identify any common factors
• At what point in the process of confirming a positive result would action need to be taken? Alison Gleadle, supported by the Deputy Chair of SEAC, responded that the confidence that would be placed on such emerging findings would need to be studied in close collaboration with SEAC. It was not appropriate to put timescales in place
• In Annex D, clarification was sought as to why only allowing those sheep over 12 months which had tested negative into the food supply would result in a risk reduction of 60%. The Deputy Chair of SEAC confirmed that this was due to younger animals being unlikely to have sufficient levels of the prion protein which was the clinical marker of the disease, to obtain a positive test result

46. In summary, the Chair noted that the Board had:

• agreed that a graduated contingency plan was required and that this paper provided the overall architecture for such a plan
• agreed that more work would have to be done before such a plan could be finalised
• agreed that a number of key uncertainties on this issue had been highlighted
• the stage at which a BSE in sheep result could be identified with confidence
• at what point the contingency plan should be invoked
• the nature of further epidemiological research that would be required to look at possible prevalence levels
• what constituted an 'unrelated flock'
• related questions on geography and timing
• agreed to remit these questions to the executive and to SEAC
• agreed that an expert group be set up to advise on what additional surveillance should be put in place, if BSE were to be found in a UK sheep, to improve estimates of prevalence of BSE in UK sheep
• agreed that the revised contingency plan for a finding of BSE in sheep, as presented in the paper, should be kept under review and be urgently reconfirmed should BSE actually be found in a UK sheep
• agreed that it would be helpful for the Communications Team to consider the strategy for external communication, if BSE were found in UK sheep

3.3 - Eating for Health (FSA 06/06/05)

47. The Chair welcomed Gill Fine (Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health) and Rosemary Hignett (Head of Nutrition Division) to the table. The Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health set out the programme of work that had been put in place to address the strategic objectives on dietary health, and gave an update on developments.

48. Eating for Health aimed to encourage consumers to choose a healthy diet, make healthy eating an easier option and to help reduce diet-related disease. Nutrition had always been part of the FSA's remit and during its first five years a number of initiatives had been started to raise awareness and stimulate action in a number of key areas e.g. the salt reduction programme and the action plan on food promotion to children.

49. The increasing importance of nutrition had been reflected in the Strategic Plan agreed by the Board in 2005, with the Eating for Health theme comprising 13 (out of a total of 42) targets. The Board had reviewed a number of individual policies recently (signpost labelling, folate intake) but this was the first time since the Strategic Plan had been agreed in 2005 that the Board had taken a strategic overview of the Eating for Health programme.

50. It was important to recognise that the FSA was not the only player in influencing the nutrition agenda; there were opportunities in terms of collaborative working and partnership. However, there were also potential disadvantages in terms of risks of conflict, and duplication of effort. A wide range of activities were taking place within government e.g. the Choosing Health White Paper in England, the Scottish Diet Action Plan, the Childhood Obesity Task Force report, Fit Futures in Northern Ireland and Food and Well Being, a nutrition strategy in Wales. The European Commission had also launched a Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, and had published a Green Paper on this earlier in the year.

51. The landscape was constantly changing. Setting policy objectives in a multi-faceted area was challenging, in particular identifying the most appropriate levers and measures for monitoring progress. Support and action in this area was needed from stakeholders. This meant that there were resource implications for stakeholders as well as the FSA.

52. The Director for Consumer Choice and Dietary Health went on to outline the conceptual framework on how the FSA was delivering its nutrition messaging, including how the aim of improving diet and health in the UK was being achieved (by influencing products, people and the environment), the activities underpinning these and the evidence base which was being used to inform activities. Prior to a review of the Strategic Plan intended for later in the year, focus in the meantime would be given to reformulation, signpost labelling and folate intake.

53. The Chief Executive added that it had been agreed the complete strategic plan would be reviewed by the Board in the autumn. Today's discussion provided the underlying methodology for tackling the ambitious strategic plan targets on nutrition. The immediate challenge was to identify interventions which would make a difference, pending the more substantive discussion of the strategic plan.

54. Board members raised the following points in discussing the paper:

• More emphasis needed to be given to encouraging a balanced diet, and including the messages relating to eating 5 vegetables/fruit a day and omega 3 fatty acids
• There was a particular need for catering establishments to be included in the strategy, especially government institutions such as schools, hospitals etc. The food service industry had useful knowledge of contracts to schools and the private sectors
• Care was needed in using the term 'environment', and sustainability issues should be included in work on diet and nutrition
• The FSA had a role as a regulator and not a campaigner
• The social, economic and cultural influences on consumer behaviour needed to be addressed e.g. vulnerable groups from socially deprived areas
• In relation to the progress report on the strategic plan targets under 'Eating for Health' (Annex A), it might be useful to set proxy indicators to monitor progress more effectively
• Were measures being taken to reduce the amount of sugar in the diet (as was the case for salt)
• The National Diet and Nutrition Survey provided key evidence and should be supported
• The proposal for a complete review of the framework for the strategic plan in the Autumn, including an assessment of the costs of intervention measures and their relative effectiveness was welcomed

55. The Chair of the Welsh Food Advisory Committee (WFAC) reported (as update to para 22) that there was strong support for continuation of the National Diet and Nutrition Surveys in Wales. A further bid had been made to the Welsh Assembly to resource further sampling. WFAC had also agreed it was important to include horizon scanning which took account of nutrigenomics and dietary advice that the FSA could offer e.g. on spreads.

56. In response to these points and questions, the Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health confirmed that the role of sugar was being considered in order to see what could be done to help consumers achieve calorie balance but discussions were more complex (as they related to carbohydrates) than salt targets, and were still in the exploratory phase. Rosemary Hignett commented that the FSA was working closely with food service providers on salt reduction targets, and further ways of involving them were being considered.

57. In summary, the Chair noted that the Board had:

• noted the range of work underway on the Eating for Health agenda and the achievements and changes to the landscape since the Strategic Plan had been agreed
• agreed that these and other developments should be taken into account in an autumn review of the Strategic Plan, but the Board had requested further information on the range of intervention measures, and an assessment of their cost and relative effectiveness. Further consideration also needed to be given to how the FSA acted as a regulator rather than a campaigner
• agreed that further work was needed on how targets should be monitored in assessing progress towards outcomes
• agreed there was a strong need to concentrate on including the catering sector, including small outlets
• agreed that there should be clear and robust science underpinning the policies, particularly in terms of influencing behaviour. However, it was acknowledged that this was a fast moving area with some uncertainties surrounding future developments. There was an important need to take account of horizon scanning

3.4 - FSA Response to Ofcom Consultation on Broadcast Advertising of Food to Children (FSA 06/06/06)

[Prior to discussion of this item, Richard Ayre declared an interest as a potential Committee member of Ofcom. He was also receiving earnings as an advisor on broadcasting. With the agreement of the Chair he left the table and took no part in the discussion and determination of this issue.]

58. The Chair invited Rosemary Hignett (Head of Nutrition Division) to introduce the paper.

59. Rosemary Hignett reminded Board members that the Board had discussed Ofcom's consultation proposals on tightening control on broadcast advertising to children at its closed Board meeting on 11 May 2006 and had agreed that the response should:

• conclude that none of the proposed options provided a sufficient response to concerns about children's diets and the evidence on the effect of promotional activity on children's food preferences and behaviour
• argue that advertising restrictions should be underpinned by the FSA's nutrient profiling model; and
• press for restrictions to apply up to the 9pm watershed in order to provide adequate protection for older children

60. Rosemary Hignett explained that Ofcom had subsequently announced on 19 May that it would extend the consultation deadline to 30 June to allow consultees to take account of an updated impact assessment. On the 23 May, the National Heart Forum had announced that it was preparing an application for judicial review against Ofcom's decision not to include an option based on the 9pm watershed in its consultation package.

61. Rosemary Hignett advised that Ofcom had now published its updated impact assessment. This indicated a decrease in the estimated benefit of the effect on children aged between 4-15 years. This therefore reinforced the inadequacy of the three options proposed. The Board was invited to agree the FSA's draft response at Annex C which took account of the points made at the previous discussion.

62. Board members made the following points in considering the FSA's draft response:

• It was surprising that, on the one hand, Ofcom had not been able to meet the FSA's request for an extension to the original deadline to allow discussion at its open Board meeting in June but, on the other hand, had then chosen to grant an extension to 30 June at the industry's request. A separate letter should seek an explanation from Ofcom on this
• It should be clear that any fourth option that did emerge should be subject to consultation with all other interested parties
• TV advertising was only one of the ways that could influence choices and behaviour

63. The Chair of WFAC indicated that WFAC had concerns in relation to the alternative methods that the industry might use if the measures were tightened. The Committee had indicated it wished to respond separately to the Ofcom consultation. The Deputy Chair suggested it would be more appropriate for WFAC's comments to be appended to the main FSA response and asked the Chair of WFAC to forward appropriate material to Rosemary Hignett for inclusion.

64. In summary, the Board agreed the draft response subject to the addition of points made under the discussion above by Board members.

3.5 - Openness (FSA 06/06/07)

[Prior to discussion of this item, Richard Ayre declared an interest as an advisor on freedom of information and openness. The Chair considered this was not a material conflict of interest and that Richard Ayre should participate in the discussion and determination of this issue.]

65. The Chair welcomed Alan Harvey (Head of Corporate and Board Secretariat Division) to the table and invited him to introduce the paper.

66. Alan Harvey explained that this paper was a precursor to a more wide-ranging review of openness, and invited Board members to take some immediate decisions in two specific areas relating to
(i) opening Board briefings to the public and
(ii) the naming of companies when publishing the results to FSA surveys.

Alan Harvey also invited Board members to provide any views or indications of topics that should be included in the further discussion on openness.

67. On opening Board briefings to the public, there were considerations around whether it was appropriate to put unpublished research findings into the public domain and whether experts might feel inhibited if they had to brief in public or to stakeholders. In relation to the naming of companies when publishing the results of FSA surveys, it was noted that the Better Regulation Executive, when reporting in October 2004, had suggested that the naming of individual companies that did not follow best practice guidance amounted to 'regulatory creep'. In responding, the FSA had commented that it would give further thought to the way it presented survey findings in the future.

68. In discussion Board members made the following points:

• It was not clear from the paper whether it was proposed that Board briefings should be open to the general public or limited to stakeholders. In particular the level of public interest was not known, and briefings involving stakeholders already took place
• It would be difficult logistically to open briefings up to the public, but a compromise solution might be to publish copies and summaries of presentations on the FSA's website
• Some Board members thought that companies should be named in survey results to meet the FSA's statutory remit of openness and transparency. However other Board members thought that there should be some exceptions to the naming of companies in the case of experimental and best practice surveys. The naming of brands might discourage companies from taking part in surveys where there was an imperative for meaningful and accurate results
• Now that the FSA had been in existence for over six years, a fundamental review of openness was needed which looked at the aims, the effectiveness of delivery, and the risks and mitigation measures. This should also include reviewing the cost effectiveness of open Board meetings, how the FSA related to other government departments and developments in openness that other organisations had made from which the FSA could learn
• The framework for considering the reasons, risks and benefits of openness should be considered at a Board meeting in totality, rather than limiting the discussion to the two specific points covered by the present paper
• The Chair of the MHS Board asked that that the future discussion include the MHS, as this was an integral part of the FSA's strategy on openness

69. The Chief Executive explained that, given both the weight of other issues for discussion and the time constraints, it had not been possible to organise a full discussion on openness on this occasion. He had therefore decided to report the two specific questions which had been submitted. These were (a) extending Board briefings to the public, and (b) the naming of companies. The broader discussion of openness would be postponed until after the FSA's Strategic Plan had been reviewed in the Autumn. However, the Board had made it clear that these two specific issues could not be determined in isolation: an analysis of the wider picture on openness was needed first. To that end, a broader framework for discussion would now be prepared which would include consideration of how other government departments and organisations, both in the UK and across Europe, dealt with openness. It should also include factual information on the body of law affecting openness, and the cost-effectiveness of measures.

70. In summary, the Chair reminded Board members of the request to submit to the Secretariat any suggestions for background information that would be helpful in the debate. The Chair noted that the Board had agreed that:

• a fuller and more strategic discussion on openness should be scheduled for later in the year, which would be based on a paper analysing the FSA's policies and procedures with those of comparable organisations and with 'best practice'
• the discussion would need to encompass the work of the MHS, and of the FSA in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and adhere to the Board's principles of sustainability, including cost effectiveness
• in the meantime, the existing policies relating to Board briefings and the naming of brands or food companies should continue

Item 4 - Any Other Business

Press reports on trout disease and public safety implications

71. The Chair invited the Director of Food Safety Policy to the table.

72. The Director of Food Safety Policy advised that the disease (viral haemorrhagic septicaemia) had been discovered in some farmed trout. Full cleaning and disinfecting of the premises where the disease had been found had taken place, and no further produce had been allowed to enter the farms. The FSA had discussed the risk with the environmental experts on the responsible epidemiological body. They had confirmed there were no implications for public health as the virus only survives at low temperatures, and can only be received by the receptors present in fish. However, the situation was being kept under review and the responsible epidemiological group was advising the Chief Medical Officer.

Date of next meeting

73. The next scheduled open meeting would be held in Cardiff on 13 July 2006.