Minutes of the Defra meeting with Consumer and Membership Organisations:
18 October 2007 chaired by Katrina Williams, Director, Food and Farming
Present
Consumer organisations and representatives
- Hilary Burrage: Member Defra Science Advisory Council.
- Dorothy Craig: Chair VRC
- Susan Knox: Chair Foodaware and consumer member Veterinary Residues Committee
- Sue Payne: Foodaware
- Stella Nicholas: National Consumers Federation
- Sylvia Owen: National Council of Women
- Jacquie Salfield: Member, Pesticides Forum
- Barbara Saunders: OTM testing implementation group and Foodaware
- Dilwen Phillips: Sheep Scrapie Steering Group
- Jill Moss: MRSA sub group
Secretariat
- Ann Davison: Consumer engagement
- Barbara Silberstein: Stakeholder hub
Officials
- David Cooper: Sustainable development unit; relations with third sector
- Liz Kelly: Horizon scanning/ surveillance
- Sarah Church: Exotic Disease Policy
- Nick Coulson: Veterinary issues
- Bronwen Jones: Food Chain Programme
- Dominic Pattinson: Food Chain Programme
- Julia Falcon: WRAP
- Steve Wyllie: Foodborne Zoonoses
- Roy Norton: EU animal health policy and stakeholder hub
- Sophia Brecknell: EU animal health policy
- John FitzGerald: Veterinary Medicines Directorate
- Adam Treslove: Food Standards Agency
Introduction
Jacquie Salfield was welcomed to the meeting. It was agreed at the previous meeting to extend the remit of this group beyond animal health and welfare. Consumer representatives had asked to include Defra issues generally, and especially those related to food and farming. Jacquie had therefore been invited as consumer member of Pesticides Forum.
Katrina Williams also reported that the consumer website pages had been adapted. The new title was agreed as Defra consumer representatives’ group.
Water policy
Consumer representatives had asked to include the quality of water supplies on future agendas. Ann Davison briefly described two current consultations. They concerned diffuse sources of water pollution from agriculture and implementation of the nitrates directive in England.
The representatives said they supported efforts to improve the quality of our water supply at source. They favoured a greater commitment to consistent monitoring of water quality, for example by use of satellite technology.
They welcomed efforts to reduce nitrate levels, having expressed concern in the past about nitrate residues. They particularly supported proposals to help keep applications of fertiliser down to efficient levels and to put limits on high pressure spreading of manure.
They would like to be kept in touch with water quality and strategy issues, including through use of a presentation to the meeting and cover sheets where appropriate. They were especially interested in impacts on food and farming, any risks of contamination, drinking water quality and the effects of extreme weather.
BSE
Katrina Williams reported that the point made by consumer representatives at the teleconferences on FMD that they would not want disposals via the Older Cattle Disposal Scheme delayed had been well understood. The recent throughput figures for OCDS plants in GB were being monitored. These were down on the corresponding period last year. But these figures were more or less in line with the throughput figures predicted by ADAS earlier this year, taking into account the estimated number of older cattle left on farm, the number killed so far and changes to the rate of compensation paid for these cattle. There was only one OCDS abattoir (out of a total of 8 in GB) within the FMD/BT restriction zones. The areas of the country covered by the recent outbreaks were not those normally associated with dairy/beef production.
Consumer representatives asked whether the closure of the scheme would need to be delayed. Katrina Williams replied that this was unlikely since probably just a small number of cattle destined for the scheme would be held back slightly. They could be sent for disposal before the end of the Scheme in December 2008 as sufficient capacity existed. Defra would continue to monitor this.
Defra also promised to keep consumer representatives informed of breaches to the over thirty month rules. One company had been found guilty of two offences under the TSE legislation relating to unauthorised training and the submission of an unidentified brain stem from November last year. The company was fined a total of £2,800 with £3,000 costs.
Third Sector
At the previous meeting, consumer representatives had explained to the Cabinet Office (now in the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) their issues including capacity building, travel expenses and the benefits of the model of consumer engagement developed through these Defra meetings. BERR had well understood those points and the meeting expressed the hope that government guidelines would result. BERR was now assimilating the many responses including very welcome ones from Foodaware and National Council of Women.
David Cooper reported that Defra supported the Compact between the Government and the voluntary and community sector. Published in 1998 it was designed to improve the relationship for the benefit of each other and the communities they serve. The Compact set out:
- a shared vision and principles
- undertakings from both sides
- Government’s commitment to respect the independence of the sector
- systems to help make sure that the agreement works.
Defra organised a Compact Group with the third sector, co-chaired by the Global Action Plan which gave advice about working with voluntary organisations. It was clear that organisations like those present could make a big difference to consumer reaction to climate change, having the trust of people, the networks, contacts and the expertise in working at grassroots level. Defra would be publishing a consultation on this subject and would be seeking next year and beyond to work with third sector organisations.
The consumer organisations replied that co-operation on climate change would be of great interest. Consumers certainly needed to hear more clearly how they could help because they received conflicting messages. However, the organisations suffered from scarcity of funding so the costs of co-operation would need to be covered.
Defra had a very tight spending settlement for the next three years and would have to make some difficult decisions. In this context, Ministers were considering whether Defra was able to offer any grant funding to follow on from current initiatives like the Environment Action Fund, Climate Challenge Fund and Every Action Counts.
Scientific Advisory Committee guidelines
Defra, SEAC and the Scientific Advisory Committee had all submitted comments reflecting the value of their consumer membership. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate submitted the statement made at its consumer meeting of 18th September referring to the guidelines produced by this meeting one year ago (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/consumer/consumer_role.htm) and suggesting to use them more widely across government.
Surveillance for new and emerging disease
Defra was involved in cross government and international horizon scanning for example through Foresight. Liz Kelly reported on Defra’s surveillance for new and emerging diseases which included wildlife monitoring. This was in co-operation with the Department of Health and Health Protection Agency because new diseases in humans often appear first in animals. There was multi agency co-operation in HAIRS, the Human Animal Infection Risks Surveillance Group.
Farmers reported anything suspicious to their vets who sent samples to the specialist laboratories. The UK had more reference laboratories than any other country. Samples were sent in from abroad under the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health)
The consumer representatives asked if anecdotal evidence would be accepted. Defra said it would indeed welcome examples from consumers and would proceed by looking for confirming evidence.
Consumer representatives said the UK should ensure there was ongoing and high level scientific expertise in the UK. They feared there had been erosion of laboratory programmes and asked for openness about costs so they would be debated.
Foodborne zoonoses
Salmonella
Laying flocks
Steve Wyllie said that following the release of the draft EU report on the EU wide survey on Salmonella in laying flocks in June 2006, there had been discussion as to how the risk from eggs from infected flocks, in countries with high levels of infection, could be effectively reduced. All countries with a higher than 10% incidence were required to vaccinate the identified flocks against Salmonella Enteritidis.
The requirement for eggs from flocks that have been identified as infected with Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium to be heat treated before entering the food chain was brought forward to the start of 2009. Eggs from flocks identified as being the source of a human Salmonella outbreak would be required to be treated from 1 November 2007. Steve Wyllie said that Defra officials were liaising with the FSA and Health Protection Agency to ensure that outbreak investigation and tracing procedures were sufficiently robust to provide a solid evidence base.
The National Control Programme for the control of Salmonella in laying flocks was approved by the EU Commission and would come into operation from 1 February 2008. Foodaware said it would submit comments to the consultation on the control plan implementation.
Breeding flocks
From 1 January 2007 new measures for the control of Salmonella in breeding flocks were brought in line with EU requirements. Instead of sampling for Salmonella at hatcheries, sampling was now taking place on farm, reducing the risk of infected eggs reaching the hatchery and causing cross-contamination. Results from the first year of operation would be analysed and would become available in 2008. So far this year, only one UK breeding flock had been found to be infected with Salmonella Typhimurium and the flock was compulsorily slaughtered.
Broilers
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released the initial results of its survey on salmonella prevalence in broiler flocks in April 2007. The report provided Salmonella prevalence estimates for the Member States individually, and for the EU Community as a whole: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en.html
The flock level Salmonella prevalence (for all Salmonella) for the UK was estimated at 8.2%. Salmonella Typhimurium was found on one flock only (out of 382 sampled) and no Salmonella Enteritidis was found on UK holdings in the survey.
Pigs and turkeys
EU wide surveys for Salmonella in turkeys and fat pigs were completed in September 2007. For turkeys there was a farm based survey whereas the pig survey was based on samples collected in abattoirs. Following data analysis, discussion would take place at EU level to set targets for the reduction of Salmonella at the farm level for all Member States.
MRSA in pigs
In the Netherlands and Belgium a strain of MRSA in pigs (ST 398) had been found which had also been found in people working on pigs farms. So far this strain had not been reported either in humans or in pigs in the UK. An on-farm survey to establish a baseline prevalence for Salmonella in breeding pigs was due to start in January 2008. Testing for MRSA would now also be undertaken on these farms.
Comments
Consumers representatives asked how samples were taken. They made the point that as standards improved for chickens and turkeys, consumers and caterers would expect the same for ducks and geese. They suggested that as salmonella was brought more and more under control, the EU animal health policy could move towards other priorities.
Steve Wyllie said that samples for salmonella testing were taken from around the birds rather than from the birds themselves. The FSA would continue to promote care of handling poultry meat at retail, catering and consumer level. Priorities were adapted, for example MRSA had been added to the pigs programme. For campylobacter, work was ongoing on vaccination, biosecurity and hygiene.
Foot and Mouth Disease (fmd)
Sarah Church thanked the consumer representatives for participating in three teleconferences on foot and mouth and bluetongue to feed back consumer views and concerns. These had been passed on to the CVO and had influenced Defra’s advice to the public, including on the openness of the countryside, dog walking and use of footpaths. A combined note of the teleconferences had been circulated. It showed Defra had clearly responded to consumer concerns expressed such as about facilitating the meat market outside the Surrey area.
Defra considered the risk of further fmd spread to be low. It was two and a half weeks since the last outbreak. However final tests needed to be conducted in the remaining risk areas and the EU was taking a cautious approach.
Dr Iain Andersen was carrying out a review of Defra’s handling of the outbreak and comments were welcome.
Consumer representatives said that it was worrying to see protection zone signs because they did not know what they were supposed to do. Also some farmers put down straw and disinfectant as a precaution which caused concern about unwittingly entering an exclusion zone. Defra replied that the entrances to exclusion zones were very clear, with official tape, notices and often a police presence. The protection zone notices were to warn, for example, drivers of horse boxes not to enter. It was suggested that plain English be used on the notices and that the organisations provide information through their memberships.
Bluetongue
Sarah Church reported that Bluetongue incidence was around the mid forties. As there were about 8500 cases in mainland Europe it was clear that we were not in the centre of the storm. Nonetheless, Defra and the industry were working hard together to contain the disease in East Anglia. Cold weather would help, as midge activity would diminish and the virus did not replicate well once below 10 to 12 degrees.
Consumer representatives asked whether the quality of the meat was affected by the disease. Defra replied that diseased or sick animals and animals that have died could not be introduced into the human food chain. If the animal had had Bluetongue in the past and recovered, the quality of the meat would not be affected. Defra could be confident that Bluetongue did not affect humans because the disease had been present for a long time in warmer countries without any such impact.
Responsibility and cost sharing
Consumer representatives queried whether it was appropriate for our economy to be so predicated on animal movement. Katrina Williams replied that this was why Defra was working with the industry to help it adapt in order to reduce animal disease spread and thus the cost of handling disease. Defra very much wanted a consumer representative to join in this debate. Its conclusions would not have credibility without such representation.
Food waste
Bronwen Jones said that Defra was keen to hear consumer representatives’ views on food waste because it was a significant contributor to carbon losses. Defra did not want to lecture consumers but to learn from them how we could work together to develop messages for consumers that could help them reduce waste and save money. Julia Falcon said that WRAP was partly funded by Defra and had found that for every three bags of food shopping, the equivalent of one bag was thrown away.
WRAP had researched consumer behaviour and problems identified were:-
- proper cooking and re-heating
- fridge temperature
- need to make lists before food shopping
- disinterest in using leftovers
- loss of cooking skills
- drop in household size
- failure to rotate food from fridge
- need to use the freezer to preserve food for longer and to batch cook.
The WRAP site provided useful advice such as on portion size e.g. half a mug of dry rice was enough for two adults; how to compost; recipes for leftovers.
The consumer representatives said consumers should not be made to feel guilty. There was plenty the food industry and government could do. Consumer organisations had been campaigning for years to restore home economics to the national curriculum and for the redesign of refrigerators. Children who had not been taught to cook were now adults and career women especially had stopped cooking.
Food waste disposal by local authorities and in the catering and food industry should be addressed. Retailers should be encouraged to provide for single person households; for example to sell single not double packed lettuces; to be cautious about buy one get one free.
A strong incentive for consumers was their own and their families’ health. Consumer representatives recommended co-operation with the Department of Health especially on obesity and five a day campaigns. They would also be nervous of any suggestions to take sell and use by dates less seriously. However, education as to what they meant would be welcome and could be combined with the FSA’s campaign against food poisoning. Consumers should aim to buy less in the first place.
Defra said it was working with the transport and food industries. There was a consumer representative on the sector body looking into reducing food waste in the dairy food chain. The offer of help in sharing some of WRAP’s messages with their memberships was very welcome. The organisations could choose which were most appropriate.
Pet import controls
The Commission had produced a report which summarised the scientific evidence and risk assessments. It included four broad options, much as discussed at the March meeting. The Commission proposed to roll over the transitional arrangements applicable to the UK, Ireland, Sweden and Malta until August 2009 so there would be plenty of time to comment on any proposed changes. In the meantime, Defra had informed the Commission and Ministers of consumer comments at the March meeting so they could be taken into account in considering the UK's position.
EU Animal Health Strategy
Roy Norton reported that prioritisation, partnership working and transparency and communication, particularly on risk assessment, were an important part of the new Strategy. Consumer representatives welcomed this and that zoonoses were given particular attention. They felt they had a say in UK prioritisation on animal health and would be concerned if the EU were to overturn UK priorities. Roy Norton replied that there was a strong element of subsidiarity (delegation of decisions to national level). There would be an EU Animal Health Strategy Advisory Committee composed of Government and non-Government representatives, and UK consumer representatives would no doubt be in touch with BEUC to ensure active consumer representation.
Date of next meeting
The next meeting would take place on 31st January 2008.
Page last modified:
May 23, 2008
Page published:
May 23, 2008