Note of the fourth meeting of consumer representatives and membership organisations with the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), 7 September 2006
Present
Consumer organisations
- Sue Davies, Which?
- Sylvia Owen, National Council of Women
- Sue Payne, Foodaware
- Pamela Pollock, Townswomen’s Guilds
- Stella Nicholas, National Consumers’ Federation
- Dorothy Craig, Veterinary Residues Committee
- Diane McCrea, SEAC, EIG and Implementation Review Group
- Dilwen Phillips, Sheep Scrapie Steering Group
- Barbara Saunders, Over Thirty Month Rule Testing Implementation Group
- John Verrall, Veterinary Products Committee
- Ann Davison: Consumer Engagement Project
Officials
- Debby Reynolds, Chief Veterinary Officer
- Steve Dean, CEO, Veterinary Medicines Directorate
- Frances Radcliffe, BSE
- Stuart Roberts, Cost and responsibility sharing
- Ruth Lysons, surveillance, zoonoses and emerging Issues
- Rhys Jackson, avian flu
- Paul Gayford, foodborne zoonoses
- Stefan Pietrzyk, feed and food controls
- Brian Bibby, Food Industry and Crops DG
The CVO was delighted to welcome so many consumer representatives to the meeting. The agenda reflected previous requests by the consumer organisations and the importance of consulting consumer representatives on public spending priorities.
Avian flu
Rhys Jackson reported that the spread of avian influenza in wild birds was likely to continue internationally. Experience suggested that the UK might be at increased risk during the autumn migration period but it was unlikely that the virus would move directly into the UK without being detected in the EU first.
The UK had measures in place to mitigate against the risk of introduction of the virus by a variety of pathways, including legal and illegal trade. Contingency plans for action on any outbreak had been sharpened as a result of the experience in Cellardyke and Dereham. Because of these measures, the risk of spread to the UK was currently considered to be low according to Defra's risk assessment.
It remained the case that surveillance and high levels of biosecurity were the most effective ways of detecting and preventing the introduction of the virus into poultry. Vaccination was being borne in mind, as part of contingency planning, as a disease control option, and Defra was obtaining 10 million doses of bird vaccine. However, this did not change the policy not to vaccinate poultry in advance of an outbreak of avian flu. The vaccine would also not be used as an immediate disease control response. Early reporting, rapid action, biosecurity, culling and surveillance remained the most effective ways of controlling an avian flu outbreak. Vaccine would only be used if a risk assessment and scientific evidence indicated it would help to prevent disease spread. As discussed at the previous meeting, products from birds vaccinated against avian influenza did not pose a health risk to humans.
Consumer representatives stressed that biosecurity should be in the uppermost thoughts of farmers and suppliers. Preparation for the Autumn migration season was very important. Defra replied that the biosecurity message was being pushed, including through the poultry register and specialist press, and poultry keepers were being urged to plan for all eventualities.
BSE
The CVO repeated the commitment to keeping consumer representatives well informed - of good news and bad. Frances Radcliffe reported on three incidents of breaches of BSE controls, which were being dealt with rigorously.
On 11 July 2006, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, (DARD) which enforces the regulations in Northern Ireland on behalf of the FSA, reported the discovery of spinal cord, which is specified risk material (SRM), in a forequarter of fresh beef imported from the Republic of Ireland. The remainder of the consignment was checked and found to be clear of SRM. The affected forequarter was condemned. No SRM entered the food chain.
Also in July, vertebral column from cattle aged 24 - 30 months had been discovered in the low risk Category 3 disposal stream at a by-products plant in the North of England. It had come from a cutting plant that had not been segregating and staining the material and disposing of it as Category 1 animal by-product as required by the change in law since May 2006. There is no evidence that any of this material entered the human food chain. In the event that it had, the public health risk would have been negligible, but it was still taken very seriously.
The FSA had written to all cutting plants and local authorities reminding them of the requirements for handling and disposing of 24 - 30 month bovine vertebral column SRM. A survey, conducted by the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), was underway in all cutting plants to check on compliance with the legislation.
A third breach related to the authenticity of brain samples for two over thirty month (OTM) cattle being tested on 26 July. A Northern Irish laboratory, which carried out BSE testing on behalf of DARD, raised suspicions about the two samples submitted. The lab informed DARD veterinary officials and the two OTM animals were detained. No parts of the animals concerned entered the food chain. Subsequent DNA testing showed that the two suspect brain samples did not match the two carcasses detained at the plant.
DARD immediately suspended the plant’s approval to process OTM cattle. A full investigation into the incident by DARD officials was under way. A new system to ensure that tamper-proof sample pots were used was being considered.
The consumer representatives said that picking up mistakes was a sign that the system was working but that deliberate evasion of the rules was a matter for concern and should be dealt with robustly. They thought it might be appropriate to extend the life of the implementation review group.
Consumer engagement
Outreach
The meeting discussed how to be as open as possible to the organisations’ wider membership and the general public. Photos were taken to increase the attractiveness of the website and for publications. Other suggestions were:
- One or two of the organisations might propose an extra attendee, to write articles for the membership newsletters and magazines
- The organisations should send in copies of relevant articles from their newsletters for circulation to the others
- Membership organisations could invite members interested in food issues to email in to them and join an on-line discussion group
Feedback on the outcome of consultations
Ann Davison reported that consumer cover sheets had been well used. She also reported on the outcome of some consultations to which consumer organisations had contributed. Often the role of consumer input was to confirm the Government in its commitment to the public interest.
Consumer organisations and representatives had been part of the policy-making process on BSE (for example on the roadmap and specified risk material) and on avian flu. They had influenced policy on avian flu vaccinations, withdrawals and marking as well as the website advice and the helpline practice.
Foodaware had commented on what should be the England Implementation Group’s (EIG) priorities in driving delivery of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. The EIG’s agreed Work Programme 2006-07 reflected Foodaware’s priority to enforcement. EIG’s emphasis was to encourage the different sectors and regions of England to organise themselves to be able to identify and tackle their own strategic priorities. Once they were organised, hopefully the sector councils would engage consumer representatives in debate on priorities, including on the important topic of public health.
Defra reported on the outcome of the consultation on bovine tubercullosis (BTB). Of more than 47,000 responses, over 95% were opposed to a cull of badgers. There were a large number of letters from individuals. Of key organisations, 41% were for, 50% against and 9% did not give a view or gave a neutral response. The process had included running a Citizen’s Panel. The Panel’s initial view was against badger culling. Providing information about the disease and the options for tackling it resulted in a shift in opinion, with marginal support for a cull, but this depended on Government meeting a number of stringent conditions.
The consumer representatives welcomed the serious effort to engage with the public including by means of the Citizen’s Panel. They strongly welcomed its presentation on the website. People’s values did need to be included in the decision making process. They advised Government to take care not to introduce any bias via the information provided. They felt that letters from members of the public still had validity if they were written to a standard text.
The CVO said that the consumer engagement project and efforts like the Citizen’s Panel aimed to make sure the consumer knew enough about issues to make an informed decision. This helped Government give full weight to the consumer view, in coming to its final decisions.
Consumer representation on animal health and welfare committees
Ann Davison reported that the aim was to produce an agreed set of guidelines for both consumer representatives and for Defra and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) about the role of consumer representatives in animal health and welfare and the support needed. Consumer representatives mentioned clear terms of reference and the need for initial training. A useful background paper on consumer attitudes to risk had been circulated. Social scientists should be involved in advising on consumer attitudes, they said. There was a variety of ways of collecting consumer views.
It was felt that consumer representatives were particularly useful when the science was uncertain and could break down the professional etiquette which could hinder scientists in questioning each others' opinions. Attendance was useful to consumer representatives too, building up their own knowledge. Consumer representatives stressed the need to use every opportunity to network with each other to share information, ideas and expertise.
Priorities
The CVO said that Defra was considering its priorities, including in animal health and welfare. The correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on Defra’s priorities had been circulated. Ann Davison also summarised some relevant public opinion research and what consumer organisations had told the Animal Health and Welfare DG about their priorities.
Stuart Roberts, from the cost and responsibility sharing division set out three main questions:
- Which animal health and welfare issues are most important?
- Where does animal health and welfare fit it with Defra’s priorities generally?
- How should costs and responsibilities be shared with industry?
The consumer organisations said that zoonoses and anything that concerned public health should be at the heart of Government’s role, but that animal welfare was also a very important issue. Consumers also associated well kept animals with safe, good quality food.
Consumer representatives queried the way the animal health and welfare work was structured compared with their priorities as above. Zoonoses strategy concerned immediate and ongoing threats, emerging risks and concerns for the future. Some of AHW’s areas of work concerned the "here and now", whereas some were underpinning.
In terms of Defra’s wider responsibilities, Foodaware would expect Government to be spending its money on zoonoses and public health. In protecting food, farming and the wider community, there was still a lot to be done on sustainability issues such as food miles, quality supplies, food assurance, food deserts and local markets. Foodaware also prioritised enforcement issues. Consumer representatives also mentioned the impact of disease and changes in supply on price.
Consumer representatives felt the balance of attention to BSE was about right. There were still some breaches but these were generally identified. The priority to BSE could not yet be downgraded because, for example, of atypical scrapie.
In terms of cost sharing, it was up to farmers to produce safe food but Government had to set out how, and make sure it happened. Consumer representatives supported the move to greater cost sharing because farmers were favourably treated compared to other industries. However, cost sharing should not put public health at risk or imply deregulation. For example, in the case of BSE, Government oversight and financial contribution helped to ensure confidence - cost sharing, but not responsibility sharing, could be appropriate. Consumer representatives did not favour a hands-off approach by Government.
Ruth Lysons reported on methods to prioritise animal disease according to the risk it posed. This should take account of social issues.
Which? welcomed this deliberative approach to priorities within animal disease. The Food Standards Agency was recognising the importance of the social research function.
Paul Gayford reported that a meeting was being held on Friday 20 October on ‘Salmonella Control in Laying Flocks - Progress to Date and the Way Ahead’. Consumer representatives would be extremely welcome to contact him for a place.
The EU wide survey for salmonella in laying flocks had been publicised in June and simultaneously copied to consumer representatives. An EU-wide survey of campylobacter in broiler flocks and on broiler meat was also being considered. In the UK, 12% farms with laying flock showed evidence of salmonella contamination, which put the UK in the best third of EU Member States, but meant there was still work to do. Defra, the FSA and the devolved administrations were considering the best methods for further reductions. Consumer representatives suggested reducing the target for laying flocks to 0.5% or even to zero. They also expressed concern at the 12% presence.
The Commission was considering how to protect public health further given the high levels shown in some Member States. One such measure could be to bring forward to 2008 the banning of eggs from infected flocks onto the market unless those eggs had been pasteurised. The problem was potential market disruption. Increased third country imports might not necessarily be freer from salmonella than EU eggs. Consumer representatives agreed that this was an issue. The ordinary consumer had difficulty making informed choices and needed more help from assurance schemes.
Paul Gayford said that the egg industry was open to consumer concerns. He also agreed the need to keep reducing from the 12% figure.
Defra was proposing new legislation to provide powers to get samples to carry out the monitoring for foodborne and other zoonotic pathogens. A specific Statutory Instrument would not then be needed every time a statutory EU survey was carried out. A broad inclusion of zoonoses and zoonotic agents would also allow for rapid monitoring for new and emerging pathogens where the public health risk made that appropriate.
Secondly, Defra was consulting on implementing the UK National Control Programme for breeders. The EU target required that no more than 1% of breeding flocks with more than 250 birds remained positive for salmonellas of public health significance by the end of 2008. The UK had already met the target. Defra was now focusing on how the new regulations for enhanced monitoring and controls could be implemented to meet the public health commitment and obligations whilst controlling additional costs for producers. A consumer cover sheet had been provided.
Food and feed controls
Stefan Pietrzyk summarised the EU regulation on "official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed & food law, and animal health & animal welfare rules". This reflected consumer requests for assurance that food law was being enforced consistently across the EU. A consumer cover sheet, summarising the main issues on which Defra was consulting, was tabled. Consumer representative welcomed this emphasis on enforcement. They welcomed a clear system with provision also to inspect the system. They felt that we had to be realistic about the workload of enforcement agencies. Opportunities to combine inspections of farms to reduce the number of visits without undermining effectiveness would be valuable.
Any other business
It was agreed to provide an update on E.Coli. A briefing on avian flu quarantine was tabled. The Veterinary Residues Committee was to hold its Open Day on 18 October in the Fishmongers’ Hall, London. The issue of travel expenses remained important. An interest was expressed in meeting a Minister to discuss animal health issues, but also the organic action plan. Horizon-scanning might usefully be included in the debate on priorities at future meetings.
Page last modified:
May 23, 2008
Page published: December 14, 2006