Board meeting minutes: 9 March 2006

Thursday 13 April 2006

Minutes of the open board meeting, 9 March 2006, Royal Concert Hall, Glasgow

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

Officials attending:
Jon Bell, Chief Executive
Rosemary Hignett, Head of Nutrition Division (item 5 only)
Alick Simmons, Veterinary Director (item 6 only)
David Statham, Director of Enforcement (item 7 only)
George Paterson, Director of FSA Scotland (item 8 only)
Keith Gregory, Board Secretariat
Jill Wilson , TSE Division

Chair's Introduction

1. The Chair welcomed all observers attending the open Board meeting and noted that this would be the last meeting for the Chief Executive, Jon Bell. She paid tribute to the valuable contribution he had made as the FSA's Chief Scientist since its inception and, for the last 3 years, combining that role with that of the FSA's Chief Executive. He had served the FSA extraordinarily well and should be proud to be leaving with the most recent consumer attitudes survey showing the highest levels yet of consumer awareness and trust. She conveyed the Board's considerable debt of thanks.

2. The Chair invited the Deputy Chair to introduce the meeting. The Deputy Chair reminded those attending the meeting 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.

3. The Chair noted that apologies had been received from Iain MacDonald and reminded Board members of their obligation to declare interests before discussion of relevant items.

4. There were no items raised for discussion under Any Other Business.

Item 1 - Minutes of Open Meeting on 9 February 2006, Congress Centre, London.(FSA 06/03/01)

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

Item 2 - Actions Arising (FSA 06/03/02)

6. In considering matters arising and the table of follow up actions, the following issues were raised

Index 255c and 255e, p. 1: The date for completion of the actions about prior approval of food premises had been set for July 2008 to allow for completion of the year-long pilot studies in order to ensure an appropriate evidence base to assess effectiveness before bringing the issues back to the Board. If the pilot studies showed clear results earlier than this, proposals would be brought to the Board at that stage. Interim progress reports would in any case be provided.

Item 3 - Chair's Report

NFU Annual Conference

7. The Chair informed Board members that she had spoken to an audience of 800 farmers at the NFU Annual Conference on 27 February. When speaking about the move from the OTM rule to BSE testing, she had expressed concern about the then 57 cases of pre August 1996 cattle sent for slaughter for human consumption. Meat plants and the MHS had detected these and prevented them from entering the food chain, but the cattle should not have been sent for slaughter in the first place. This issue had an added importance at a time when the resumption of exports was being considered. She had urged the audience to ensure everyone knew this was illegal and carried sanctions, pointing out that this was also bad for their reputation.

Meetings with the Food Industry

8. The Chair informed Board members that she and the Deputy Chair had undertaken a number of meetings with industry trade bodies, individual companies, supermarkets and manufacturers, and a range of non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to talk about signpost labelling and gather views. The Chief Executive had also accompanied her to a meeting of the Policy Issues Council of the Institute of Grocery Distribution – a committee that brings together leaders from the manufacturing and retail industry and other sections of the food chain. This had been a useful opportunity to see people at a senior level from the whole food chain and to speak about nutrition, the future direction of the FSA and its regulatory stance.

Item 4 - Chief Executive's Report

Avian Influenza

9. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that the FSA had advised consumers some time ago that avian influenza did not pose a food safety risk for UK consumers. The FSA had decided to review that advice in response to the possibility that an outbreak of avian influenza might occur in this country at some future date. The FSA had discussed the issue with scientific experts and had concluded that the advice should remain the same as before; even if an outbreak did occur in the UK, the FSA continued to consider that avian influenza did not pose a food safety risk. The general food safety advice remained, however, that to avoid food poisoning, poultry meat should always be cooked properly, which would also destroy any avian influenza virus. In the case of eggs, cooking them until the white is firm would be sufficient to reduce the risk, if it exists at all, to a very low level.

The normal route of infection for avian influenza was respiratory, not through ingestion. Expert advice was that further safeguards, such as gastric juices and the lack of receptors in the gastro-intestinal tract for this particular virus, would act as an additional barrier should there even be small amounts of the virus left in any of the products. Washing hands remained a very important piece of advice generally for the handling of any poultry products, which would also help to ensure that the virus was not spread. There was currently no evidence that anyone had 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 deceased birds.

10. The FSA would keep the matter under review in case there was any change in the scientific information available. The Chief Executive also emphasised that the FSA's role was to keep consumers informed about matters that might affect the safety of food, not to promote the sale or consumption of individual foods or food products.

Benzene in soft drinks

11. The Chief Executive updated Board members on the recent discovery of very low levels of benzene in soft drinks. Following a survey in the USA that had found benzene in soft drinks, the FSA had asked the soft drinks industry in the UK to provide any recent analytical results that would help form a view as to whether there was a problem in the UK. Summarised results that had been provided by the industry for some 230 drinks had indicated that very low levels of benzene could be present in some drinks in the UK. The expert view was that this was not a concern for public health. However, the FSA considered that more information should be gathered and had recently instigated a survey to look across the market. The results would be published in about four weeks.

12. The highest level of benzene in the industry data had been 8 micrograms/litre of soft drink, but most levels reported had been much lower than that. It appeared that benzene was formed as a side reaction between the preservative sodium benzoate and vitamin C under certain conditions. To put this in context, benzene was also present in air and, on average, people breathed in some 220 micrograms/day. However, benzene levels should be kept at the lowest levels possible, and the FSA was speaking to industry about the steps that could be taken to reduce levels of benzene, or eliminate it entirely.

Sudan I prosecutions

13. The Chief Executive updated Board members on developments with regard to the Sudan I problem that had arisen in February 2005 and had appeared to be associated with a batch of contaminated chilli powder used by Premier Ambient Products UK to manufacture Worcester Sauce. 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 had ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of a very large number of products from sale.

14. Food companies had a legal responsibility to ensure that the food they sold was safe and fit for human consumption. In addition, from the beginning of 2005, food companies had had a legal responsibility for recalling products that did not meet food safety requirements and for notifying the FSA, local authorities (LAs) and their customers of the reasons for the withdrawal. LAs had enforcement powers in respect of any breach that might occur in that requirement. Several investigations had been undertaken into the contamination of food products with Sudan I.

15. In an investigation associated with the product recall, Essex County Council had successfully prosecuted East Anglian Food Ingredients Limited for the sale of hot curry powder containing Sudan I. The company had pleaded guilty at Colchester Magistrates' Court on 15 February 2006 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 had been fined
2,000 and ordered to pay
3,000 in costs.

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

17. Other investigations were still in progress and were being carried out by Derbyshire and Lincolnshire County Council.

18. The FSA had set up a Food Incidents Task Force 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 FSA hoped that stakeholders, including the main industry representatives, would endorse them in due course.

19. Board members asked whether RMBC had given any reasons for not proceeding with a prosecution and whether these might have a bearing on other cases. The Chief Executive noted that the decision by RMBC not to proceed with a prosecution had been based on their judgement of the situation, which was quite complex, and suggested that information on their reasons for this decision would best be provided by RMBC.

20. When all the investigations had been completed, it was the FSA's intention to look back to see what lessons could be learnt, bearing in mind each case had to be judged on its merits. One Board member observed that the FSA had acted swiftly and appropriately to protect the public and that it was important industry recognised its responsibility to act on the lessons learned and ensure their products were as safe as possible. The Chief Executive concurred; although the food safety risk had been low, the addition of this colour to food was illegal and could have been avoided.

Beef Exports

21. The Chief Executive reported that, at a meeting in Brussels the previous day, Member States had agreed unanimously to the resumption of trade in British beef, subject to the following conditions:

• UK cattle born before 1 August 1996 must continue to be kept out of the food supply
• Meat from cattle slaughtered before 15 June 2005 would not be eligible for export – this was the date an FVO inspection had concluded that the UK controls were satisfactory
• Meat and meat products containing vertebral column from cattle that had been slaughtered before the export ban is lifted cannot be exported

It would take around six weeks for the formalities to be concluded and the measure to enter into force.

Malicious contamination of Kingsmill Bread

22. The Chief Executive reminded Board members that, in September 2005, he had reported on cases of malicious tampering with products at the Allied Bakeries' Orpington bakery. Certain foreign bodies had occasionally been found in Kingsmill bread produced by the bakery. In September the company had issued a press release warning consumers to be vigilant. This had been complemented by information on the FSA website to that effect, and an action plan had been put in place to strengthen security measures at the company's Orpington warehouse. However, in the last week the FSA had become aware that these incidents had continued. As a result, the company had agreed at a meeting with the FSA on Tuesday 7 March to introduce tamper-evident packaging on bread from that bakery with immediate effect. Police investigations were continuing and it was hoped that they would be able to conclude the matter shortly. The FSA intended to keep in close touch with the bakery and the local authority to monitor developments.

23. During the discussion that followed, Board members asked if:

• enough was being done by the company to resolve these problems
• consumers would be able to tell if the bread they had bought had been contaminated
• steps had been taken to recall affected products
• information was available on the geographical distribution of the contaminated products
• the company had issued further warnings to consumers

24. The Chief Executive informed Board members that

• the company was actively seeking to resolve this issue
• contamination of the products had been fairly evident
• product recall had not been considered appropriate because the tampering had been intermittent and had affected only a very few loaves from a potentially very large volume of product;
• most major retailers across the South East of England had stocked products from the factory
• he would ensure that the company was asked to provide further publicity to inform consumers

Action: Andrew Wadge

25. Malicious tampering had been known to the food industry as a potential risk for over 20 years and most packaged foods were now sold in tamper-evident packaging. This had not been the case for wrapped bread, where packaging was often designed to be easy for consumers to open and re-seal. This was an issue for further discussion with the industry.
Action: Andrew Wadge

Consumer Attitudes Survey 2005

26. The Chief Executive reported that the results of the FSA's 6th Consumer Attitudes Survey, undertaken towards the end of 2005, had been published recently and showed that consumers now rated it more highly in many areas than at any time since it was set up. In particular, the survey showed

• that consumers were becoming more health conscious
• that awareness of the FSA was at an all time high
• a substantial increase in the number of consumers who believed the FSA was an organisation they could trust
• a substantial increase in the number of consumers who described themselves as confident in the FSA's role in protecting public health with regard to food safety
• a drop in the number of consumers who thought 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
• a substantial increase in the number of consumers who believed the FSA provided clear advice
• a year on year decline in those expressing concern over BSE

27. The Chief Executive added that, although it was important not to become complacent, the figures showed that the FSA was delivering on the promises that had been given when it was set up. The Chair congratulated everyone who had helped the FSA achieve that position.

Item 4a - SEAC Sheep Subgroup Statement on Atypical Scrapie(FSA 06/03/06)[Prior to the discussion of this item 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 and determination of this issue.]

28. The Chair invited the Chief Executive to introduce this paper. He reminded Board members that they had first discussed the issue of anomalous TSE test results from sheep in September 2003 and that, at that time, they had recognised that the results could be due to another TSE. Since then, surveillance throughout the EU had produced similar findings and the tests could now clearly distinguish between classical and atypical scrapie. In addition, the French and Cypriot Governments had recently announced some unusual test findings from 3 older sheep that did not appear to be classical or atypical scrapie. More tests were now underway, but these could take up to 2 years to complete.

29. The Chief Executive drew Board members' attention in particular to the SEAC sub group's findings that the disease could be transmitted from one animal to another by experimental inoculation and that there was, therefore, the possibility that it could be transmissible to humans (although there was no evidence at present of any risk to human health). A paper covering options, feasibility, costs and views of stakeholders on additional protection measures was in preparation for the Board to consider in April. Based on the SEAC statement, it was considered that the current level of knowledge did not provide enough information to suggest that the FSA's existing advice on the consumption of sheep or goat meat or dairy products should change at this time.

30. The Chair noted that increasing sophistication in the science as applied to sheep testing for TSEs had led to increased uncertainty and invited comments from Board members.

31. One Board member referred to the House of Lords debate earlier that week regarding the TSE Regulations - during which the Countess of Mar had suggested that atypical scrapie had been known for 20 years - and asked that the report of the debate be checked for references to any scientific findings that might be relevant so that these could be addressed in the paper planned for the next meeting.

32. Board members noted that there were some significant questions to be answered including:

• What research was planned and how would this be funded?
• What was the prevalence of the disease and was this increasing or decreasing?
• What was the prion distribution in the sheep carcase?
• Was the disease confined to Europe or was it in the New Zealand flock and would consumers be made aware?
• How was the disease transmitted?
• Could some new method be found within two years that could establish whether the disease was transmissible to humans?
• Would sufficient additional information be available in time for the Board's discussion in April, bearing in mind the need to ascertain and consider stakeholders' views, and those of the FSA's Food Advisory Committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
• Could the FSA's advice be adjusted to use positive, rather than negative phrasing?

33. One Board member asked if the paper planned for the next meeting would be able to address the issue of atypical scrapie having been found in genotypes considered resistant to classical scrapie and the complexity this posed on the provision of any advice. Another Board member suggested that it would be helpful to be reminded of the Phillips' Inquiry lessons and in particular the principle that the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. Finally, one Board member congratulated officials on the paper as an exemplary example of clarity covering a complicated scientific issue.

34. In response to the points raised during the discussion, the Chief Executive undertook to ensure that all the points raised would be taken into account in the next paper which would, if necessary, be postponed for discussion no later than the Board's meeting in June.

35. In summarising the discussion, the Chair noted that there was still a great deal of uncertainty about atypical scrapie, including the potential implications, if any, for human health. The wording of the FSA's advice reflected the fact that it was not FSA policy to endorse a particular food unless this was in the context of general nutritional advice. Although BSE in sheep was likely to be injurious to human health, to date no case had been found and if it did exist, surveillance had shown numbers were likely to be very small; research was key to the way forward and the FSA would continue to be open about emerging findings as these were received. In summary, the Board had:

• noted the content of the SEAC sheep sub group statement and the uncertainty regarding atypical scrapie
• agreed that there should be no immediate change in the FSA's advice on the consumption of sheep and goat meat or dairy products, but that this advice should be reviewed in the light of emerging evidence
• endorsed the need for additional research and the need to explore possible co-funding of projects with Defra and the EU
• endorsed in particular the need for some urgent advice about atypical scrapie prevalence and whether this was increasing or decreasing
• reaffirmed the FSA's commitment to placing all knowledge of the issue in the public domain, including research questions to be put forward
• requested the report of the recent House of Lords debate be checked for references to scientific findings and an analysis of the position be provided to the Board
• requested that the FSA 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 presented to the Board, preferably in April but no later than June, which would provide updated information and discuss whether any additional precautionary measures should be recommended

Item 5 - Signpost labelling (FSA 06/03/03)

36. The Chair invited Rosemary Hignett (Head of Nutrition Division) to the table to introduce the paper. The Government was committed to a range of initiatives designed to help consumers 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 FSA had 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 were currently in use and the FSA's aim was to reduce the confusion by encouraging a consistent approach.

37. The paper described the evidence, summarised the consultation responses and proposed an approach based on a set of core principles. The research and consultation responses had 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 FSA

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

38. The Chair commented that the FSA had moved debate on this issue enormously. She also informed Board members that, at the meeting of the Policy Issues Council of the Institute of Grocery Distribution – to which she had referred in her report – she had floated the idea that a common basis for collecting evidence of behavioural change should be investigated.

39. Board members generally endorsed the concept of front of pack labelling based on the core principles set out in the paper, which allowed for the inclusion of GDA information. A number of points were raised by Board members during the following discussion

• how will the effectiveness of the schemes be monitored and evaluated?
• have children, those with colour blindness, and allergy sufferers been properly consulted?
• does front of pack labelling make a positive contribution to improving diet and will it help consumers construct a healthy diet?
• why are some foods excluded from the scheme?
• are the criteria based on the right science?

40. Responding to these points, Rosemary Hignett noted that the core principles of the proposed scheme included the provision of information on the levels of nutrients present and recognised that evaluation would be difficult because there were a range of factors that would affect people's behaviour. It would be important to get the baseline for such evaluation right and there would be a need to involve independent expertise. She confirmed that those with colour blindness and other minority groups had been consulted, as had young people aged 16 and above, but not children. Front of pack labelling schemes were important both in helping consumers make comparisons, and to help with assessment of individual products, including those bought habitually by consumers. Expert advice had been sought on establishing the sugar criteria for the coding system, and those for salt had been adjusted for the reasons given in the paper. Consumer research had shown that consumers particularly wanted help with assessing the nutritional quality of more complex manufactured foods and that they would use colour coding to achieve a balanced intake of nutrients across their diet.

41. Board members went on to comment that

• it was important to retain the core principle approach to the front of pack labelling scheme; presentational design could be left to marketing experts
• the FSA was committed to providing consumers with useful information to help them choose healthy diets and it would be important to employ an independent evaluator to assess the effectiveness of the scheme
• it should be recognised that this was a living scheme and that it should continue to evolve
• industry had been co-operative in responding to, and positively driving, this initiative

42. In summing up the Chair noted that the Board had:

• agreed that there had been a significant change in the attitudes of manufacturers and retailers on front of pack signpost labelling since the FSA had first raised 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 signpost labelling schemes based on all four of the core principles set out in the paper
• agreed that the FSA should work with stakeholders to promote the recommended scheme and use of it, and that the FSA should work with adopters to develop a strategy to communicate the agreed core messages
• agreed that the FSA should work with stakeholders to assess the impact of signpost labelling schemes

Item 6 - National Measures for UK Meat Plants (FSA 06/03/04)

[Prior to the discussion of this item Alan Gardner declared an interest as a livestock farmer and Bill Reilly as veterinary member of the Game Advisory Group. The Chair considered that neither had a material conflict of interest and that both members should participate in the discussion and determination of this issue.]

43. The Chair invited Alick Simmons (Veterinary Director) to the table to introduce the paper. The new EU Food Hygiene Regulations allowed some of the rules applicable to meat plants to be varied in the interests of proportionality, as long as public health protection was maintained. In many cases, this flexibility was 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.

44. The Chair sought comments from Board members on the three main discussion points raised in the paper and the following points were raised:

Structural requirements (paragraphs 7 – 8)

• were the very small slaughterhouses referred to in paragraph 7 isolated and how difficult would it be to find alternative detention facilities?
• was there a possibility that refrigerated vans could be used?

it would be important to

• clarify the position in terms of compliance and enforcement
• define what was meant by 'local' and 'satisfactory'

Alick Simmons commented that identification of alternative detention facilities and the use of refrigerated vans would need to be addressed on a case by case basis. The Chair noted that the Board had accepted the principles set out in the paper, but that there was a need for further work on defining the terms 'local' and 'satisfactory', probably in guidance.

Official controls (paragraphs 9 – 15)
it would be important to

• ensure that the costs on small plants were not disproportionate
• define what was meant by 'small'
• what was the justification for allowing further flexibility in relation to wild game and could these provisions build on the 'earned rights' concept already applicable in small slaughterhouses?

The Chair noted that the Board had generally agreed with the proposals in this part of the paper, the need for appropriate definitions and the emphasis on plants earning the right to operate. The Chair also noted the concerns about wild game and suggested further consideration should be given to the throughput criteria to be used.

Trichinella controls (paragraphs 16 – 22)

• the costs of testing, currently borne by the FSA, should be recovered
• trichinella free status should be sought for the whole of the UK if possible
• in the event of trichinella free status being granted, testing should continue to maintain it

The Chair noted that the Board had accepted that trichinella free status should be sought for the whole UK or, failing that, Great Britain, and that a low level of monitoring should continue to maintain that status.

45. In summing up the discussion on this paper, the Chair noted that the Board had:

• 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 FSA should press for UK trichinella free status
• agreed that there should be a continued low level survey of wildlife and pigs to provide continued assurance of the UK's trichinella free state
• agreed that the consent of the EU Commission and other Member States should be sought to the proposals

Item 7 - Harmonisation of Specified Risk Material (SRM) Controls when the Beef Export Ban is lifted

[Prior to the discussion of this item Alan Gardner declared an interest as a livestock farmer and Sandra Walbran declared an interest as a local authority environmental health officer, although not currently practising as such. The Chair considered that neither had a material conflict of interest and that both members should participate in the discussion and determination of this issue.]

46. The Chair invited David Statham (Director of Enforcement) to the table to introduce this paper. It had now been agreed that the ban on UK exports of beef could be lifted and, as a result, the UK would be required under EU law to lower the threshold at which vertebral column becomes SRM from 30 to 24 months. SEAC had advised the Government that lowering the 30 month age limit would have negligible beneficial effect. Not allowing the removal of 24-30 month vertebral column to be carried out at authorised butchers would therefore unnecessarily reduce consumer choice. The paper further proposed that the removal of bovine head meat should be allowed only in slaughterhouses, but that this position be reviewed sooner rather than later.

47. During the following discussion, Board members raised a number of points:

• what would be the implications for implementation and enforcement and any potential FVO view of UK compliance?
• butchers would need guidance on the appropriate disposal of SRM
• there would be a need to ensure there was no conflict in the legislation with regard to imported EU carcases
• there was a need, in taking a precautionary approach, to manage the risks proportionately

48. In summing up, the Chair noted that implementation and enforcement would be risk based in the same way as for other hygiene legislation, and that the Board had

• agreed that, taking into account the nature of the risk and questions of proportionality, 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 should only be allowed in slaughterhouses for the time being
• requested a further paper reviewing the position on head meat removal, which should address the management of potential cross contamination risks and any other remaining issues, by the summer

Item 8 - Report on Activities in Scotland

49. The Chair invited George Paterson (Director of FSA Scotland) to the table and invited him and Graeme Millar (as Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC)) to give their presentation.

50. The Chair of SFAC reminded Board members that the Committee was an independent body set up to advise the FSA Board and Scottish Ministers on matters relating to food safety. SFAC was committed to open and accessible operations. Its 11 members had virtually all changed over the last year and the Committee had held 6 open meetings, responded to 8 major consultations and provided advice on Sudan I, wild game and shellfish. The Committee's future work programme included discussions on the fortification of food with folic acid, openness, sustainability, and consumer choice.

51. The Director for FSA Scotland presented some statistics illustrating the political, economic and social distributions in Scotland before explaining the resourcing of the FSA in Scotland and giving some feedback on consumer awareness of the FSA's activities in Scotland. He set out the strategic priorities as

Changing Scottish diets
Scotland had an unenviable health status with high levels of obesity, coronary heart disease and stroke. FSA Scotland was working as a strategic partner with a range of organisations and on a number of specific initiatives to gather evidence and encourage change.

Reducing foodborne illness
FSA Scotland was working actively at raising standards in the catering sector, reducing foodborne disease, fostering consumer education and improving enforcement.

Better regulation
Policy on this was evolving and there was a need to ensure consistency of consumer protection and enforcement across devolved and reserved areas.

Consumer engagement
FSA Scotland was working closely with colleagues across the FSA on an engagement strategy that would involve joined up working with partners and help it reach rural consumers.

52. Looking to the future, the evolving public health agenda, the increasing pressures on local authorities and the drive for sustainability would all pose both opportunities and risks.

Any Other Business

53. The Chair invited the Chief Executive to respond to the comments she had made at the beginning of the meeting. The Chief Executive said it had been an honour and a privilege to serve the FSA as Director of Food Safety Policy, Chief Scientific Adviser and Deputy Chief Executive during its first three years, and a special honour to be asked to be the Chief Executive for the last three. He paid particular tribute to the staff of the FSA, whom he described as its greatest resource, commenting that without their tremendous dedication and commitment the FSA could not have been nearly as effective.

He acknowledged the valuable contribution played by the FSA's Directors to its success and was particularly grateful to his Deputy, Pat Stewart, for her tremendous support over the last 3 years, saying that, without her help, his task would have been much tougher and far more difficult. He thanked the Board, without whose support the FSA would not have been able to achieve as much as it had. He concluded by saying that he thought the FSA was in a position to go forward from strength to strength. He hoped he had been able to make a small contribution in leading the FSA to where it now stood.

Date of next meeting

54. The next scheduled open meeting would be held in London on 6 April 2006.