Note of the second meeting of consumer representatives and membership organisations with the CVO 6th January 2006
Present
Consumer organisations
Sylvia Owen, Vice President, National Council of Women
Stella Nicholas, Honorary Secretary, National Consumer’s Federation
Sue Payne, Vice Chair, Foodaware
Shirley Percy, Observer, National Federation of Women’s Institutes
Pamela Pollock, President, Townswomen’s Guilds
Jillian Pitt, National Consumer Council
Michelle Smyth, Which?
Advisory Committee representatives
Sue Davies, Which? and Advisory Committee on the Microbiological
Safety of Food
Dorothy Craig, Chair, Veterinary Residues Committee
Susan Knox, Chair, Foodaware, and Veterinary Residues Committee
Jill Moss, Antimicrobial resistance - mrsa sub group
Barbara Saunders, Over thirty month rule testing implementation group
Dilwen Phillips, Sheep Scrapie Steering Group
Ann Davison: Consumer Engagement Project
Officials
Debby Reynolds, Chief Veterinary Officer
Diana Linskey, Animal Health and Welfare Strategy
John Bourne, Animal Welfare
Paul Gayford, Foodborne zoonoses
Nigel Gibbens, BSE
Kate Richards, BSE
Gabrielle Edwards, BTB, milk and meat
Consumer and citizen engagement
The CVO felt the project had made good progress, increasing consultation and consumers’ influence. Examples were BSE, Foot and Mouth and Avian ‘flu.
Ann Davison reported that understanding of the benefits of partnership was growing on both sides. Feedback sheets showed increased satisfaction with consultation and access to information. At the last meeting, representatives had asked for a list of key contacts in the DG, and for a briefing on international committees both of which were tabled. The CVO proposed that, once comments had been taken on board, this paper should appear on the Defra website. A photograph of the meeting was also taken for publicity purposes.
It was agreed to give more feedback on the outcome of consultations. As a start, Ann Davison explained where the summaries of responses appeared on the Defra website. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate would be advising respondents when the summary on hormones would be available. A representative also suggested that the summaries could make clearer the consumer response for the sake of balance.
It was understood that the issues of capacity-building and travel were important. The main needs of the different organisations were established. Several were interested in circulating more information on animal health and welfare to their members. The consumer and membership organisation representatives present asked and agreed to have their email addresses circulated to each other.
The consumer organisations were interested in more advance information on the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) especially since Which? was chairing the new European Food Safety Authority’s stakeholder group.
Prioritisation in Animal Health and Welfare
Diana Linskey described the Animal Health and Welfare strategy; a ten year programme seeking to influence behaviour and give more ownership to industry. The tabled paper highlighted some of the consumer issues that were of key importance to the strategy. Consumer views on when government should intervene and what priorities should be were invited.
The consumer representatives said that:
'Public health must come first. A summary of top consumer priorities could be to have a good supply of food, as safe and as risk free as possible. Zoonoses therefore come higher up in consumer organisations' priorities than other animal health issues. Where maintaining and improving standards of hygiene can help, farmers must take responsibility. Monitoring for disease is important. Government particularly has a role on environmental issues and the long-term, including horizon scanning.'
Consumer representatives suggested a breakdown of spending would be helpful but it was also a question of farmers meeting standards. Key areas were targeting policy based on risk; co-operation right down the food chain; surveillance especially in non-statutory areas and more resources for inspection and enforcement.
Consumers expected farm assurance schemes to do more than cover the legal minimum. Concerns were expressed at the need to target those who were not members of assurance schemes, and were struggling to comply with regulations. Defra explained that the whole farm approach aimed to coordinate inspections, and that work was also in hand under the farming regulation and charging strategy to reduce burdens of regulation where possible.
The consumer input on which themes are considered most important was welcomed and the comments would be passed on to the England Implementation Group and the Evidence and Innovation Strategy.
Animal welfare
Defra was making a particular effort to target enforcement resources on the poorest performers regarding animal welfare. Consultations were coming up on welfare strategy (within six months or so) and on implementation of EU transport legislation (March/April). The EU would be issuing its own animal welfare Action Plan shortly - there had been an internet consultation in the autumn. National Consumers’ Federation was thanked for its snap survey of members which Defra had cited to the Commission as an example of best practice in innovative consultation methods.
BSE
Nigel Gibbens reported that UK consumers’ views as expressed on 1st November had influenced discussion in the EU Council Working Group which had twice discussed the TSE roadmap during the UK Presidency. Nigel had quoted the consumers’ view from the Chair, that a precautionary approach must be maintained, particularly in relation to feed controls and specified risk material (SRM). Partly as a result, a focus on consumer protection and progress towards eradication was reinforced, with limited, proportionate next steps forward. There was no enthusiasm for an early change from SRM. This system was well bedded down and accepted. Member States also took on board the ethical questions related to the use of fishmeal but recommended that it be dealt with as an ethical rather than TSE safety issue. They also agreed that as fishmeal does not in itself present a TSE risk it need not have to be handled in separate factories from feed for cattle.
OTMS
Nigel Gibbens reported that Defra was working with industry and consumer representatives to ensure compliance with the new rules. Following the replacement of the OTM rule, the OTMS would continue in its present form until replaced by the Older Cattle Disposal Scheme (OCDS). The OCDS would begin on 23rd January and end in 2008. It would provide an outlet for cattle born or reared in the UK before 1 August 1996.
Foodborne Zoonoses
Paul Gayford reported on the new Zoonoses Directive and Regulation. The Zoonoses Directive covered the monitoring and reporting of a range of zoonoses and required a report to be submitted to the EC each year. The Regulation covered the controls needed and currently focused on Salmonella. The Regulation required the introduction of controls starting with breeding flocks and moving then to laying flocks, broilers, turkeys, fattening pigs and finally breeding pigs. It included and strengthened the controls on breeding flocks required under the previous Directive and action now had to be taken on the five top salmonellas affecting human health. There had been good progress over the past few years in control of salmonella in breeding flocks and the UK breeding flock sector already met the 2009 target of less than 1% incidence of salmonella in any one year. A National Control plan had been submitted to the EC for approval.
A survey of salmonella in laying flocks had been completed at the end of September and the results submitted to the EC. These would be considered and published alongside results from other member states and a target set based on the results. A national plan for control of salmonella in laying flocks would then be required to be submitted to the EC. EU and UK results should be available April or May. At the same time an analysis of UK results in which the Health Protection Agency, Food Standard Agency and the devolved administrations had also been involved should be available.
A broiler survey was currently underway , then in October 2006 surveys of turkeys and fattening pigs would be carried out and, in 2007, breeding pigs. All these would be followed by target setting and the introduction of National Controls Plans for the various sectors.
In response to questions it was established that: -
Control of Campylobacter was not included in the Regulation. In Great Britain, there is an intention to monitor campylobacter in broilers through the Defra R&D programme. This would complement the FSA strategy for Campylobacter. Vaccination and other measures had reduced salmonella, but the infection was still present in some laying flocks, so needed to be tackled. Also there was a significant amount of salmonella in UK pigs. Other Member States were also making definitive progress.
Avian ‘Flu
The CVO reported that this was being treated as a disease prevention emergency. A poultry register had been launched with a deadline for registration of end February for flocks of 50 and over. Poultry keepers with fewer than 50 birds were being encouraged to register on a voluntary basis. Information on biosecurity, housing birds and reporting any disease was being widely circulated. In a significant increase in vigilance, over 3,600 wild birds had been tested. No highly pathogenic avian influenza had been detected.
In response to questions, it was established that:-
There was currently a general licence permitting bird gatherings to take place provided that the organisers notified their local Animal Health Office and followed bio-security procedures. As normal, Department of Health risk groups, such as the elderly, the young and certain risk groups such and those with chronic respiratory conditions or immunologically compromised were entitled to seasonal ‘flu vaccines. During an outbreak of AI, those working with poultry would receive the seasonal ‘flu vaccine, to reduce the possibility of the AI virus adapting to humans. The Food Standards Agency had advised on the basis of current scientific evidence that Avian flu did not pose a food safety risk for UK consumers.
Bovine TB
This disease of cattle was proving very costly to the taxpayer in compensation and other payments. Pre movement testing of cattle was being introduced to reduce spread and a public consultation on the culling of badgers for the control of bTB in cattle in England had begun.
The consultation, running from December 2005 to March 2006, aimed to explain the issues and involve the wider public in the process to decide whether or not to cull badgers and the methods by which this could be done as part of the overall approach to control spread. The National Council of Women and National Consumers’ Federation both expressed an interest.
It was explained that pasteurisation of milk and slaughterhouse checks on meat ensured minimal public health risk from bTB. The increase in human TB was unrelated, as it was a different strain. Consumer representatives asked about cheese from unpasteurised milk and expressed concern that if bTB got out of hand the milk supply might be reduced.
UK Presidency
The CVO reported that the UK had organised the first meeting between EU CVOs and the European Food Safety Authority. There was a commitment on both sides to continue to improve and increase dialogue and especially for CVOs to be more active in helping EFSA set its priorities. The Avian ‘flu directive had been delivered in December after negotiations starting only in May. This was made possible by using the emergency procedure which encouraged the European Parliament to deliver its opinion earlier than scheduled. There had also been progress on animal by-products, broiler welfare, the Commission’s TSE roadmap and the Community Animal Health Policy.
Next Meeting
Both the consumer organisations and the CVO had found these consumer engagement meetings extremely valuable. It was agreed to meet again in April.
Ann Davison
Page last modified:
May 23, 2008