Minutes of meeting - consumer representatives and membership organisations with the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), 15 March 2007
Present
Consumer organisations and representatives
- Susan Knox: Chair, Foodaware and consumer member Veterinary Residues Committee;
- Sue Payne: Foodaware;
- Stella Nicholas: National Consumers’ Federation;
- Sylvia Owen: National Council of Women;
- Joanne Burke: Townswomen’s Guilds;
- Dorothy Craig: Chair Veterinary Residues Committee;
- Barbara Saunders: OTM testing implementation group and Foodaware;
- John Godfrey: Foodborne Zoonoses Working Party;
- Dilwen Phillips: Sheep Scrapie Steering Group;
- Ann Davison: consumer engagement.
Officials
- Debby Reynolds: Chief Veterinary Officer;
- Steve Dean: CEO, Veterinary Medicines Directorate;
- Frances Radcliffe: BSE;
- Graham Lewis: Avian ‘Flu;
- Paul Gayford: Anti-microbial resistance;
- Dan Hamza-Goodacre: CAP;
- Roy Apsey: Fruit and Vegetables;
- Linda Reay: Rabies;
- Balazs Toth: Rabies Veterinary Issues.
The CVO welcomed everyone to the meeting. Defra was currently re-organising itself to be more flexible and joined-up. The CVO would be championing Defra's focus on stakeholders and continuing to promote consumer access.
Consumer representatives welcomed the opportunity to engage across a wider spectrum, for example increased access to Defra’s agencies. However, they stressed they would need the methodologies promoting their capacity for engagement to be copied. Special interest ngos were much better resourced than generalist consumer interests.
They supported the way their regular meetings were organised now and would not want to see that altered. The CVO understood the need for a one-stop shop approach and would keep consumer representatives informed on Defra’s new structure.
BTB
Consumer representatives were concerned that prices and supply might be affected by BTB and understood that badger numbers had increased significantly since becoming protected. They asked why cases of BTB were falling.
The CVO explained that although the number of cattle had declined, the number of herds being tested for BTB had increased. Defra had genuinely found a reduction in cases across GB in the early part of 2006, compared to 2005. For 2006 as a whole the reduction in new incidents in GB in 2006, combined with the increase in herds tested, suggested a provisional reduction in apparent herd incidence of 22% over 2005. Defra had carried out an investigation into the reduction last year and concluded that it was likely to be caused by a 'complex combination of factors'. Pre-movement testing seemed to be going well. It was estimated that extending pre-movement testing to younger animals would prevent about 610 new incidents a year.
BSE
Frances Radcliffe reported an overall reduction in BSE in cattle. Only 3 out of 332,186 cattle presented for slaughter for human consumption in 2006 in Great Britain had tested positive. She also updated the group on the incidents of non-compliance.
Consumer representatives stressed the need to keep removing specified risk material (SRM) from carcases. One carcass of an animal born just before August 1996 had been misidentified and slipped through to the food chain. Consumer representatives recognised that consumers had been protected by the removal of SRM.
There was a discussion of whether penalties were high enough to prevent efforts to evade BSE rules. Fines were determined by the courts. They reflected income but also escalated with repeat misdemeanours. Consumer representatives said prosecutors should emphasise the serious need to comply with BSE rules. The CVO said it was right that the Implementation Review Group had continued its work.
Consumer engagement
Ann reported that the Cabinet Office was interested in the consumer engagement methodology developed in partnership with this group. It would soon be initiating a consultation on the future of government consultation. It was agreed to offer the Cabinet Office a summary of the methodology as an example of best practice:
- involve someone from the sector;
- identify organisations and representatives closest to the general public;
- develop methodology (e.g. consumer cover sheets) in partnership with consumer organisations;
- collect public opinion data (a summary of the Food Standards Agency’s latest opinion survey was tabled);
- build capacity, for example, through appropriate information provision;
- feedback on results of engagement.
The consumer representatives asked the Cabinet Office to promote this practice to other government departments. It was agreed to invite the Cabinet Office to the next meeting to present its consultation and hear consumer views, including on capacity building. The Meat Hygiene Service had also been invited.
Ann reported on the impact of previous comments by the consumer organisations. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate had agreed with consumer representatives to encourage UK best practice concerning scientific committees (openness, consumer representation, limited terms of office) to be adopted internationally. Ann said that the views of the CVO group tended to be close to those of informed public opinion.
The priority given by this group and the general public to health and to zoonoses had been highlighted in the context of Defra re-structuring and also recognised in the development of the EU’s Animal Health Strategy. The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health would have a stakeholder sub-group looking at the strategy so any interest should be registered with the European Bureau of Consumer Unions.
The National Council of Women’s written comments on rabies policy and on BTB were tabled as useful background to later discussions.
Consumer representatives said they were interested in some engagement on environmental issues. For example, Foodaware was awaiting a reply to its submission on sustainable food production and transportation.
Two consumer representatives had attended a Defra meeting on animal welfare labelling. Defra had found it very useful to note the consumer representatives’ interaction with retailers and others. The consumer representatives had mentioned consumer interest in country of origin. The Food Standards Agency was consulting on EU food labelling, including this issue.
Avian flu
Graham Lewis reported on the recent outbreak on a turkey farm in Norfolk which Defra found was due to a strain virtually identical to the Hungarian outbreak. The interim epidemiological report suggested poultry imports via Hungary were the most probable source. The disease had been successfully contained. Samples were checked from the cold store and no virus detected so on 12 March restrictions were lifted in all zones. The final epidemiological report was awaited.
Consumer representatives said they were very pleased with the regular Defra briefings and that the disease had been contained so quickly but had a few questions. Why was processing allowed to re-start so soon and what had the Meat Hygiene Service done about lapses? They raised the issue of farm assurance for turkeys and ducks. Why were wild birds at first suggested as the source?
The CVO replied that there were two separate premises which, on television, looked like one. The slaughterhouse had been fenced off, with a separate road, and was used to cull the birds. It was then cleaned down and, as normal, allowed back into production.
Defra’s first hypothesis had been wild birds until they knew the strain was so close to the Hungarian one. Scientists usually operate on the basis of a working hypothesis in this way and then seek to disprove it.
The MHS had found minor breaches at the premises in the past but it had issued warnings and these lapses had been remedied, otherwise the MHS would have stepped up action. One of the sheds at the centre of infection did have poor biosecurity but it did not break any law. If the turkeys had been kept outside they could not have had that kind of biosecurity in any case. There was monitoring of Avian ‘flu internationally through the international veterinary community. Pigs were not included as a reference animal because they were not known to be a factor in the onward transmission of the disease.
In general, the majority of poultry consumption had not been unduly affected. Consumer representatives said they found the CVO’s media appearances reassuring. It was agreed that in future more pictures and charts should be issued to the press. This group could act as a sounding board about public reactions.
Foodborne zoonoses
Paul Gayford outlined Defra action on campylobacter, Escherichia coli (E. Coli) and antimicrobial resistance. Besides programmes of control, £2.4m had been spent on campylobacter research over the last five years. E. Coli could not currently be controlled by on-farm measures, so Defra was active in research and surveillance in order to be able to develop control measures.
A briefing note explained the background to antimicrobial (antibiotic) resistance, including research, and the role of the DARC group with its consumer representative (link). Meticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was an emerging issue in veterinary medicine. MRSA isolates indistinguishable from each other had been recovered from companion animals and humans in contact with them, suggesting they were the same strain. MRSA had been found in dairy cows, pigs and chickens outside the UK. Defra had tested 425 samples from UK cows but not found any MRSA.
Extended spectrum betalactamases (ESBLS) had been found in British food producing animals however. These were enzymes which gave their host organism (sometimes E. Coli) the ability to resist a wide range of becta-lactam antimicrobials – penicillins and cephalo sporins. In Autumn 2004 it was found in calves from a Welsh dairy farm and from July 2006 onwards on fifteen cattle farms.
Because not necessarily associated with disease in animals it was very difficult to deal with, even to find the source of the infection. An independent group was therefore being established, possibly as a sub group of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food to review the situation and make recommendations. So far Defra had not isolated exactly the same resistant strain as found in humans. Surveillance was being stepped up and stakeholders and the public were being kept informed. The CVO was letting the Commission know, suggesting an international meeting.
Consumer representatives welcomed the action on ESBLs and asked to be kept informed. They suggested antimicrobial use could be reduced in agriculture, querying mass treatment of animals through feed and whether there was any incentive to prescribe antibiotics. Paul Gayford replied that economic pressures were against overprescription. It was expensive to treat animals with antimicrobials. For example, in the case of poultry, it could wipe out the farmer’s profit. Mass treatment was sometimes appropriate, for example in humans, when there were meningitis cases, a whole group of young people would receive antibiotics. Defra was seeking to standardise EU league tables to improve information on resistance. Steve Dean pointed out that in - feed treatments were produced under veterinary prescription at specific feedmills authorised to carry out the mixing. This reduced any financial incentive for the veterinary surgeon who was not responsible for sourcing, nor supplying the medicinal product in these cases.
Consumer representatives referred to the strong working hypothesis that people were giving MRSA to their pets and vice versa. They wanted vets and doctors to co-operate more to resolve the problem. When a pet was treated, the owners needed treatment too or they were likely to cause re-infection. Patients in hospital should be informed on how to avoid infecting their pet.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
The CAP still took about 40% of the EU budget and cost of a family four about 950 Euros a year in higher food prices and taxes. This was roughly equivalent to paying 15% VAT on food. The average tariff on agricultural imports was 20% compared with 4% on industrial goods. Only about 20% of CAP spending went on environmental strands. During accession, Polish food prices had risen by roughly 40% for rice and sugar and 38% for beef. Only in 2 out of twenty seven member states did people eat enough fruit and vegetables. The next opportunities for reform were the new proposals for the fruit and vegetable regime and the CAP ‘health check’ due in 2008.
The consumer representatives agreed with this analysis of the impact on consumers. They highlighted the injustice that lower income consumers who spent a higher proportion of their income on food were effectively taxed more. Poorer consumers found it harder to get a healthy diet too, so consumer representatives could not accept withdrawal of surplus fruit and vegetables. They also pointed out the value to consumers of local fruit and vegetable production and their concern about reductions in the dairy herd.
Defra said that it would be better for the fruit and vegetable market not to be managed then there would not be state aided withdrawals. There was a need for consolidation of dairy herds for the sake of efficiency and to match supermarket power. But it was recognised that this was a painful process.
It was agreed that consumer consultation should be stepped up now that there were opportunities for reform. For example, regular written briefs would be provided.
Pet movement
A note had been circulated explaining that the UK had derogations from EU rules on rabies and other exotic diseases sometimes carried by pets. A review began in 2005 to see whether there was still a need for different rules. The pet passport system was working well and there had been no cases of rabies in animals moved legally between Member States and approved third countries since it had been introduced. Cases of rabies in the original fifteen member states were very rare. There had been a 90% reduction in confirmed cases in the new member states thanks to large scale vaccination campaigns with both pets and wildlife.
Consumer representatives felt that the situation had changed. At the time the Euro-tunnel was built there had been fears of rabid foxes coming in. But the fact that there were now very few cases of rabies in EU countries like France was encouraging. For animals coming in from countries which could reliably comply with vaccination, chipping etc rules on quarantine could be relaxed.
However, rabies remained a frightening disease so appropriate inspection and control was needed at the ports. Stricter protection measures for non-approved (“unlisted”) third countries were still justified.
It was also important to remain free of other exotic diseases wherever possible so UK rules on ticks and tapeworms should be maintained.
Consumer organisations would be willing to help raise public awareness of animal health but also welfare issues when taking pets abroad. They felt information at ports and airports often came too late. It was needed not just when arriving but also when leaving. For example, advice could be given when applying for a pet’s or even one’s own passport, and via travel agents.
Next meeting
26th June 07 was proposed.
Proposed subjects for future meetings were antibiotic resistance and horizon-scanning.
Chief Veterinary Officer, Debby Reynolds at the meeting of consumer
representatives and
membership organisations, 15 March 2007
Page last modified:
May 23, 2008
Page published:
May 23, 2008