Meeting of the Stakeholder Group: 24 May 2000

Chairman - Sir John Krebs - Food Standards Agency Chairman

Ms Suzi Leather – Food Standards Agency Deputy Chair
Mr Geoffrey Podger – Food Standards Agency Chief Executive
Mr David Taylor - Head of Veterinary Public Health Unit, Food Standards Agency
Mr Chris Lawson – Head of Meat Hygiene Division, Food Standards Agency
Mr Mike Dawson – Veterinary Public Health Unit and Food Standards Agency Technical Adviser to Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC)
Miss Barbara Richards – Meat Hygiene Division, Food Standards Agency and review secretary
Mr Adam Muggoch – British Meat Manufacturers Association
Mr Stephen Ridge – British Retail Consortium
Ms Susan Baker – Consumers Association
Dr John Godfrey – Consumers in Europe Group
Mr Robert Voyle – Farmers Union of Wales
Mr Bob Bansback – Meat and Livestock Commission
Mr Neil Cutler – National Farmers Union
Mr Bob Tyler – National Federation of Meat and Food Traders
Mrs Jill Nute – Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Mr James Chadwick – Small Abattoirs Federation
Mr Wesley Aston – Ulster Farmers Union
Mr Alan Lawrence – UK Renderers Association
Mr Stewart Johnston – Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland
Mr Alan Harvey – Department of Health
Dr Peter Nash – Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Mr Gwyn Jones – National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department
Ms Carolyn Coote – Office of Science and Technology
Dr Martin Donaghy – Scottish Executive health Department

1. Sir John Krebs welcomed those present at the first meeting of the Stakeholder Group. These included the FSA internal review team, who were introduced, members of the Stakeholder Group and 11 members of the public.

2. Apologies for absence had been received from Mr Richard Hughes (National Assembly for Wales Health Department), Mrs Pat Sellers (Office of Science and Technology), Mr David Dickson (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department), Professor Brian Heap (The Royal Society), Professor Peter Lachmann (Academy of Medicine) and Mr Jim Walker (National Farmers Union of Scotland). Following the meeting apologies were also received from Mr Andrew Chitty (British Meat Federation), Mr Robin Simpson (National Consumer Council) and Dr Liz Mitchell (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Northern Ireland).

Review of BSE Controls – Proposed Working Methods and Timetable – Paper SG1/1

3. Sir John Krebs explained that the Prime Minister had announced the review atthe end of March following his seminar with leaders of the agriculture industry. The terms of reference were attached to paper SG1/1. The Prime Minister had suggested that as a new government department it would be appropriate for the FSA to take stock of the BSE controls relating to the food chain against the background of the difficulties of the agriculture sector. The sector was affected by the impact of many policies, including, in particular, those relating to BSE. The protection of public health was clearly important but so was the proportionality of the controls. The review would therefore be considering both the current and the future situation.

4. Sir John mentioned that the FSA was setting a new standard for openness. Part of that was for the Agency to carry out major portions of the review in public. He thanked the Stakeholders for participating and the public for coming to observe.

5. The review itself would be carried out by the FSA team present. They would call heavily on expert advice, particularly from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). Sir John had discussed the review with the acting Chairman of SEAC who had agreed that the FSA should draw in other expertise to assist with the review. So far, four other experts had agreed to do so. These were Dr Angela McLean (Head of Mathematical Biology, Institute for Animal Health), Professor Jeanne Bell (Department of Neuropathology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh), Professor Bruce Traill (Head of Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading) and Professor A Osterhaus (Department of Virology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam). It was also hoped to engage the assistance of another overseas expert. These experts would be asked to comment on the review papers and the developing arguments. The FSA would also be consulting the Chief Medical Officers, Chief Veterinary Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser.

6. The Stakeholder Group would play a very important role and would be invited to contribute at all stages of the review. The first of these, today, would be to help in formulating the questions to be addressed. Later the Group would be asked to discuss the emerging conclusions and then the draft of the final report. There would obviously be shades of opinion in the Group but he hoped there would also be shared views. He invited Group members to contribute between meetings in writing, by email or telephone to Miss Richards.

Action: Stakeholder Group Members

7. Sir John was keen to ensure that the views of the families of the CJD victims should be taken into consideration.

Action: Secretariat

8. In discussion of the paper Ms Baker (CA) questioned the absence of enforcement bodies from the Stakeholder Group. Mr David Body (from the floor) suggested that those with the greatest stake in the review were the vCJD victims and their families. Sir John explained that membership of the Group had been drawn up by the FSA team. It was inevitably a compromise between maximum coverage and manageable size. The Meat Hygiene Service, which enforced the rules in licensed meat plants, was an agency of the FSA and the enforcement interest was therefore included. Mr Podger pointed out that in the autumn the FSA proposed a wider consultative meeting.

9. Mr Lawrence (UKRA) queried the timing of the end of the review in relation to the publication of the report of the BSE Inquiry. Sir John pointed out that the BSE inquiry was addressing only the period up until March1996. He expected that some of its “high level” recommendations might be relevant to this review but not that the historical detail would be relevant to this look at the present situation and the future. Nevertheless, if, following publication of the BSE Inquiry report, the FSA needed to spend longer on its own review, it would do so.

10. In answer to a further question from Mr Lawrence, Mr Harvey (DH) undertook to check what was being done within the Medicines Control Agency to see whether precautions against BSE being applied in relation to medicines were adequate.

Action: Mr Harvey

Sir John reminded the Group that SEAC covered issues other than food safety controls (such as animal health and medical issues) and assessed risks. The FSA was being asked to advise on risk management.

11. Following the discussion the Stakeholder Group agreed the proposed working methods for the review as set out in paper SG1/1.

Proposed areas and questions to be covered by the review – Paper SG1/2

12. Mr Podger reminded the Group that the Terms of Reference of the review required the FSA firstly to consider whether the current measures were adequate, or whether additions or deletions should be suggested, and secondly to set out for the future whether any milestones could be identified where measures could be reassessed. One of the aims would be to try and clarify our understanding of the issues for the general public.

Questions on Humans

13. In discussion, Mr Harvey (DH) emphasized the importance of Q1. If the likely future incidence of vCJD in humans was not known, it must be made clear why it was not known and what the Department of Health was doing to try to establish answers to the uncertainties. In relation to Q3 Mrs Nute (RCVS) suggested the parameters of the food chain controls needed to be clear. Were final consumers only to be considered or would, for example, the effect on workers in the meat industry also be assessed? Mr Tyler (NFMFT) thought the danger of meat imports from countries with lax controls should also be addressed. Mr Podger agreed that the review should not just look at the theoretical need for controls. Effectiveness of enforcement of the controls was key.

14. It was agreed in discussion that it would be important to take account people’s perceptions and concerns whilst setting out clearly the scientific evidence.

15. Mr Podger suggested that Q4 should be more open and ask what the impact on vCJD would be of any changes in the controls and whether that would be acceptable. Dr Godfrey (CEG) considered this to be the most important question of all and should be the subject of much of the review’s efforts.

16. Questions 1-4 were agreed subject to Q4 being amended as suggested by Mr Podger (see para 15 above) and an additional question 5 on the additional knowledge that would refine or test the predictions and assessments of vCJD and the timescale.

Action: Secretariat

Questions on Animals
Incidence of BSE

17. Mr Podger explained that questions 1-6 had deliberately been phrased as open questions. They were easier to ask than to answer. Ms Baker (CA) wondered whether the review should look at animal TSEs other than the ones listed (such as Chronic Wasting Disease in wild elk). In discussion it was agreed that the review should not go beyond animals used for food in the UK. It would assume (as most do) that the food chain is the route of transmission of vCJD. Questions 1-6 were agreed as drafted.

Pathogenesis

18. Mr Tyler (NFMFT) drew attention to the recurring theme of uncertainties and assumption (as in Q9) and was concerned that the review should concentrate on facts. Sir John pointed out that all these questions dealt with facts which had to be elicited.

19. Questions 7-9 were agreed as drafted subject to making clear that they needed to cover only food animals in the UK context.

Action: Secretariat

Testing

20. Question 10 was agreed as drafted.

Controls

Over Thirty Month (OTM) Rule

21. Mr Bansback (MLC) explained that the Meat and Livestock Commission had given quite a lot of thought to the OTM rule and wished to submit a paper on it to the review. It was difficult to look at the issues without considering its EU aspects. There would be a number of consequences to any changes made (for instance in relation to the Date-Based Export Scheme). The issue should be considered in its widest context. Mr Podger welcomed any input from the MLC but argued that concern about the consequentials should not deter the FSA from looking at the basic issues from a public health perspective. Questions 11-13 were agreed as drafted.

Specified Risk Material

22. Mr Podger reminded the Group that the review was to look at the current arrangements as well as for milestones for possible reductions in the controls. He confirmed that it should concentrate on the public health aspects but recognize that the animal health aspects could not be ignored. In answer to a question from Mr Johnston (DARD-NI) about whether the conclusions might be presented on a regional basis, Mr Podger suggested that the territorial Departments present were well placed to suggest to the Stakeholder Group whether or not a country view should be taken. Questions 14-17 were agreed as drafted.

Feed Ban

23. The Group agreed that this was a very important area and further agreed questions 18-22 as drafted.

Imports

24. Mr Podger explained that the protection of public health in relation to imported food was a key issue for the FSA. Mr Tyler (NFMFT), Mr Cutler (NFU) and Mr Bansback (MLC) were concerned that the review should consider not just whether similar controls were in place in exporting countries but also whether they were properly enforced. Mr Ridge (BRC) suggested that retailers had specifications for imports which did not necessarily reflect the generality of conditions in exporting countries. Mr Podger argued that it should not be forgotten that the UK had the highest incidence of BSE. Resources for obtaining information about other countries were limited. He suggested that the British Retail Consortium and the MLC could both help here. Questions 23 and 24 were agreed subject to Q23 covering the extent to which other countries' controls were enforced.

Action: Secretariat

EU controls

25. Mr Podger reminded the Group that controls relating to BSE were becoming an EU occupied area. The FSA needed to be able to advise the Government in respect of EU negotiations as well as looking at the effectiveness of the implementation of any controls. Dr Godfrey (CEG) thought Q26 should also encompass controls which could be proposed while Mr Tyler (NFMFT) argued that it should consider their relevance. Mr Podger agreed that the review should comment on the appropriateness of EU proposals but should also present good, science-based advice to the Government. Questions 25 and 26 were agreed as drafted.

Economics

26. Mr Podger pointed out that unsubstantiated claims were often made about the cost of controls. The review would need to bring out whether the burdens bore unduly on particular areas or sectors. It was not always easy to obtain basic data. In discussion on the relevance of comparison of other public safety measures Dr Godfrey (CEG), Ms Baker (CA) and Mr Body (from the floor) all supported the wider perspective. Mr Tyler (NFMFT) wanted the review to concentrate on direct costs of the BSE controls but Mr Podger thought that, although these questions should enable the FSA to establish direct costs to different parts of industry, it must also consider Government and social costs in looking at the proportionality of the controls.

27. Mr Bansback (MLC) welcomed the attempt to quantify the impact of the controls and offered the MLC’s assistance. He thought that UK competitiveness in relation to that of the EU should be addressed. Costs were as important as prices. Ms Baker (CA) suggested that the review’s expert economic adviser should be asked to look at the benefits as well as the costs of the controls. Mr Podger recommended that the adviser should be asked to consider the precise formulation of the question in the light of the discussion and advise on the best way forward as well as on the information that would be most useful to the Stakeholder Group in relation to the Terms of Reference of the review. Questions 1-6 of this section were agreed as drafted.

Action: Secretariat

28. Summarising the discussion of the whole paper, Sir John Krebs judged that questions as amended by the Stakeholder Group covered the necessary territory. However, this conclusion was not final. If members thought of other relevant issues they could potentially still be considered for inclusion.

Dates of future meetings

29. Sir John Krebs announced that the next Stakeholder Group meeting was planned for Tuesday 18 July in London. A further meeting would be held early in the week beginning 18 September. The length of the meeting would depend on the agenda. By the time of the July meeting the FSA team should be well forward with provision of answers to some of the questions just agreed. These answers would be tested out on the Stakeholder Group. By the September meeting the draft report should be well on the way. It would then have to be considered by the FSA Board. The FSA would also hold a discussion on the review later in the year with a wider group of interested parties.

30. Mr Voyle (FUW) requested that the Group be provided with relevant facts and figures before the next meeting. It was agreed that the Group should receive discussion papers covering these matters and the FSA team’s initial answers to questions in papers before the July meeting. These papers would also be made publicly available. It was further agreed that correspondence to the FSA team relating to the review should be copied to members of the Stakeholder Group.

Action: Secretariat

Any other business

31. Following a question from the floor, Miss Richards explained that members of the public could contact her with information for the review. It was hoped that a section of the FSA website could be established for matters relating to the review. This would give email and other contact details. N.B. These are set out below.

Action: Secretariat

Conclusion

32. Sir John Krebs closed the meeting by reiterating two points. The FSA was a separate Government Department charged with the protection of public health in relation to food. It had to act in a proportionate way but put public health first. The involvement of the vCJD family groups was important and he hoped to meet them soon. Sir John thanked all those present (including the observers from the public) for their contributions.