Minutes of the Defra meeting with Consumer and Membership Organisations:
26 June 2007 chaired by Debby Reynolds – Defra Management Board and Chief Veterinary Officer
Present
Consumer organisations and representatives
- Sue Payne – Foodaware
- Susan Knox – Chair, Foodaware, and Veterinary Residues Committee
- Stella Nicholas – National Consumers’ Federation
- Ruth Bond – National Federation of Women’s Institutes
- Barbara Saunders – OTM testing implementation group and Foodaware
- Dilwen Phillips – Sheep Scrapie Steering Group
- Hilary Burrage – Member Defra Science Advisory Council
- Ann Davison – Consumer engagement
Officials
- Debby Reynolds
- Ian Ascough – Cabinet Office
- Andrew Baxter – Exotic Disease Policy Programme (Secretariat)
- Sarah Church – Exotic Disease Policy Programme
- David Collins – Foodborne Zoonoses
- Andy Cooke – BSE
- Steve Dean – CEO, Veterinary Medicines Directorate
- Andrew Eldridge – Organic Food
- Brian Harding – Director, Food and Farming Group
- Bronwen Jones – Food Chain Programme
- Steve McGrath – CEO, Meat Hygiene Service
- Roy Norton – Animal Health and Welfare Strategy
- Dominic Pattinson – Food Chain Programme
- Stuart Roberts – Responsibility and Cost Sharing
Introduction
There were three new attendees: Ruth Bond, Chair of the NFWI social policy committee, Hilary Burrage, consumer member of Defra’s Science Advisory Council and Steve McGrath, CEO of the Meat Hygiene Service, who were particularly welcomed to the meeting.
Impact of the Food Chain on the environment
Bronwen Jones introduced the Food Chain Programme (FCP), a 2 year programme aimed at reducing the global impact of UK food production and consumption. The programme encompassed the whole food chain, from post farm gate through to consumers. Its longer term aims included reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of the food chain and the amount of food waste generated through the food chain. Within the FCP, the Influencing Consumer Behaviour project had most relevance to this group. It aimed to provide an improved understanding of the impact of consumers’ buying and consumption of food and drink. It would also identify key behaviour goals and messages that Government wished target groups to adopt and respond to.
While recognising that others in the food chain had important roles to play too, Bronwen hoped to work with consumer organisations to help consumers better understand these issues and achieve behavioural change.
Consumer representatives made the following points:
Discussions on the impacts of food on climate change were becoming more frequent. Some common needs were emerging for measures consumers could rely on for accurate information; government to show that it is active and to avoid mixed messages (for example planning processes failing to support local production and retailing); and research on how to adapt to climate change. This should include the opportunities as well as the negative impacts. There was concern about the impact of changing landuse patterns and especially increased biofuel cropping raising the price of food.
More evidence was needed on consumer behaviour. For example, food waste was a key area of interest. Ruth Bond mentioned that the NFWI was already involved with WRAP’s food waste campaign. It was agreed that it would be helpful to invite WRAP to the next meeting.
Organic production
Consumer representatives said that most production and consumption was not organic so particular effort should be on improving the standard of the generality of food. But organic food was growing in popularity. The representatives felt that, although it was not accessible to all, it could play a part in reducing overall levels of chemical residues. It was therefore important that organic food met demand and maintained consumer confidence. Openness and clarity, including of labelling, were both needed in communicating organic standards to consumers. Consumer representatives should be involved especially as there was a need for consumers to have a better understanding of the evidence base. To help foster this understanding, consumer representatives had asked Defra in January for a briefing on organic food.
Andrew Eldridge responded to Foodaware's commentary on the Commission's proposal for updating standards for organic production and to consumer representatives’ questions. In particular he noted that:
- Catering had been left for control at national level because of the diversity of types of enterprise and the risk that too early prescription might choke off the sector's development. But private standards were being developed which could form the basis of controls and catering establishments. Making organic claims was subject to general consumer protection law.
- The Commission proposal maintained prohibition of the use of GMOs in organic production. But it adopted a pragmatic approach to accidental presence of GMOs to enable organic farmers to cope with the impact of GMOs, for example GM crops being planted on neighbouring farms, without incurring excessive cost. It also provided for the circumstance where certain products, like some veterinary medicines, could no longer be obtained other than from processes involving GM technology.
- Derogations would still be permitted because it was still the case that not all inputs could be obtained in organic form and flexibility was needed to allow organic producers to cope with exceptional circumstances. However the Commission would exercise much tighter control over the derogations which were made available and the circumstances in which they were used.
- The EU logo would be compulsory for pre-packed products which contain at least 95% organic ingredients and would be accompanied by an indication of origin.
Third country organic produce would still have to be produced to standards equivalent to EU organic standards to be marketed as organic in the EU.
It was agreed that it would be useful for a consumer representative to sit on Defra’s Organic Action Plan for England group and nominations were invited.
Discussion on Food and Farming Group (FFG) and Defra general priorities
Debby Reynolds said when David Miliband became Secretary of State, a Strategy Refresh process had resulted in a focus on one-planet living and living within our resources. Animal health issues were seen as part of Defra’s ‘licence to operate’ – something Defra had to get right. It was important for Defra to respond to consumer priorities.
The Food and Farming Group (FFG) had a mission statement to deliver ‘environmental, economic and health benefits by developing new relationships and ways of working that enable food and farming to manage risk, connect with markets and assure the safety and sustainable environmental impact of our food supply systems.’ The concern consumer representatives had expressed about health issues had been taken into account.
Brian Harding said that FFG had been created at the beginning of April, and that food and farming was a high-impact policy area. The Group had restructured around key programmes delivering specific outcomes and would be working with fewer staff. Underpinning work, including stakeholder engagement, was included in core functions. The farming for the future programme built on the Curry report. It aimed to deliver a profitable farming business which made a positive contribution to the environment. Other programmes delivered priorities related to the food chain, CAP reform and EU strategy, responsibility and cost sharing, bovine TB, exotic diseases (responses to new threats), and delivery partners. These programmes indicated FFG’s priorities, and the core functions fed into them.
Consumer representatives welcomed the mission statement of FFG core aims. They asked how Defra determined its priorities, and to what extent they related to budget constraints and historical developments. They advised that a priority was that food is safe and that farming practices are humane, and were reassured that zoonoses were included in core functions. They felt that bovine TB was different from the other, broader subject areas. They recognised the need for efficiency, but felt that the separation between policy and delivery agents had made it harder for stakeholders to engage. They therefore welcomed inclusion of VMD and MHS in the meeting. This meeting was very valuable as it took account of the variety within the consumer sector and provided an opportunity to work with Defra to develop and clarify policies. Consumer representatives needed this kind of support to be able to contribute fully in subject meetings with technical experts.
Brian Harding said that Defra‘s strategic outcomes had been identified in last year’s Strategy Refresh. Budget constraints had not been a factor in determining these outcomes, but they would inevitably have a significant influence on the establishment of priorities. He agreed that policy and delivery agencies should work together to make engagement easier for stakeholders. He recognised this group worked well for consumer organisations, and that the relationship was different from that with other stakeholders. He advised that this group was recognised as at the cutting edge of best practice. Its remit should be extended to cover other parts of the FFG programme if attendees would like it to be. The circulated relationship plan had been offered as a living document. It would build on the ways of working agreed in previous minutes and extend those methods to sustainability issues. Consumer comments had been taken on board and the consumer representatives welcomed and agreed the plan. They commented favourably on the amount of engagement they had had with Defra in recent years.
Consultation policy
Ian Ascough reported on the Cabinet Office review of consultation policy www.consultations.gov.uk and invited consumer responses. Businesses had commented that Government consulted more than it used to, but that it was not clear what happens to responses to these consultations. Some said that Government consulted too much, and it was difficult to decide which consultations were important.
Not everyone wanted to respond in writing, so the Cabinet Office welcomed the chance to speak at this and other meetings. There was also an online discussion forum on Government consultation methods.
Consumer representatives made the following points:
- They welcomed the consultation as very relevant to consumers.
- Some Defra best practice should be highlighted, for example, producing consumer cover sheets to key consultations; this forum
- Written consultation was not always the best method of seeking views – government needed to think about the stakeholders and design consultation procedures accordingly.
- Written consultations were best drawn up after engagement with stakeholders. Engagement should happen early to help Government formulate ideas.
- Funding was a major barrier to consumer representatives’ response to consultations so capacity-building was important. Consumer representatives were often volunteers who attended consultation meetings in the public interest without special commercial or campaigning interests. Help with travel and subsistence was often essential and government guidelines would be appreciated.
- Government needed to improve advertising of consultation exercises. Not everyone actively sought these out – the launch of consultations should be clearly flagged.
- Twelve weeks was about right for most consultation exercises as it allowed membership organisations to canvass their members. The deadline provided a focus. • Deadlines for large organisations could be shorter than for the general public as large organisations have the resource to answer quickly.
- Consultation documents needed to be clearer in their scope. When was Government open-minded and looking at a range of options, and when was it seeking technical advice on decisions already made?
- It was appropriate to get a note thanking you for your response.
- Government responses to consultations needed to be clear and sent out to those who participated
- Respondents needed to know there was a framework for properly analysing responses. Respondents did not expect their views to be always taken on board, but needed to know they had been considered.
- It was useful to have a table in the Government response aligning the questions, the responses to the questions and the Government’s response to these points.
- Response summaries should make clear which interest said what rather than reporting on number of replies. Then if consumer replies were few they would still be noticed.
- Summaries of responses received were sometimes inaccurate. If in doubt, the Government could check what organisations meant to say.
- The Impact Assessment was progress, but it is much easier to identify economic costs rather than consumer benefits.
- An evaluation of the Sure Start programme recently showed that “difficult to reach” groups were important as these were currently disengaged. These groups needed to know that consultations achieved something.
Ian Ascough responded that:
- Current policy was that Government Departments should say whether they have taken respondents’ views on board (and if not, why not) within 3 months. But many respondents were not aware this work had been done.
- Government should not consult on everything, e.g. manifesto commitments, but should consult on implementation issues.
- Government had revised its guidance on Impact Assessments. Consultation was now a more important part of the process – informal consultation with regulated parties was needed to identify unintended consequences.
Debby Reynolds summarised that consumer engagement, including in the EU, was essential for the sustainability of policies. Written consultation was not always the best way of getting views. Influencing thinking at an early stage through groups such as this one was important.
Consumer engagement
A VMD consumer meeting would be held on 18 September. A consumer cover sheet would be produced for the forthcoming consultation on minimum residue limits.
The Council had agreed changes to the fruit and vegetable regime. Defra had regarded the minute of the previous consumer meeting as a contribution to its consultation and the National Consumers’ Federation had also sent in useful comments. The health issues it highlighted had been noted, in that the reform attached importance to increasing public consumption of fruit and vegetables and the Commission would be carrying out a feasibility study into the creation of a school fruit and vegetable scheme.
The EU had also agreed on standards for the welfare of meat producing chickens. Both consumer research and the representatives at this meeting had indicated support for a baseline of animal welfare for meat chickens. This general view and particular consumer comments about the welfare of meat producing chickens made by the National Consumers’ Federation attending stakeholder meetings had strengthened the UK position in Brussels. As a result, with the support of UK industry too, the UK had managed to negotiate an improvement in welfare. The agreed Directive contained somewhat fewer measures than the original proposal but provision had been made to introduce further improvements to chicken welfare by improving monitoring and this would be agreed at a future date through standing committee procedure.
National Council of Women and Foodaware had both commented on Defra’s consultation ‘delivering good animal welfare’ and the comments of this group were also quoted in the summary of responses.
Avian Influenza and bluetongue
Sarah Church (SC) reported that the link between the May outbreak of Avian influenza and Chelford Market raised questions for Defra about this type of informal gathering. Trading Standards Officers were attending the next Market to distribute information to tradespeople. Advice and guidance on biosecurity had also been given to these markets. This type of market was not highly regulated, but Trading Standards Officers inspected them on the basis of risk assessments. The CVO had decided to look at the regime related to these markets and also county shows.
Ann Davison said Defra had followed up the consumer representatives’ comments about farm assurance for turkeys and ducks. There was a quality assurance scheme for turkeys and the British Poultry Council was also looking to set one up for ducks.
Sarah Church updated the representatives on bluetongue, She confirmed that there was no evidence that bluetongue affected humans. Nor would there be any mass culling. The main emphasis of the contingency plan was keeping disease out of the country and, if it came in, on seeking to eradicate the disease mainly through restriction of live animal movements at an early stage. This would move to a proportionate strategy if it became clear that the disease was widespread. Imports of animals from bluetongue restricted zones were banned. The control strategy would be kept under review and be revisited as the science became clearer.
Consumer representatives agreed that it would be inappropriate for there to be excessive use of insecticides with potential human health implications for a non-zoonotic disease. They were also reassured about the low likely impact on food supplies.
BSE
Andy Cooke spoke. There was an ongoing decline in the number of BSE cases in cattle. A further animal had tested positive for BSE in April, bringing the total in the UK to five since the rule change – this was in line with expectations.
Defra was investing money in the Auction Market Roadshow in October 2007, which would visit approximately 80 markets, and also in a poster (circulated) about the Older Cattle Disposal Scheme (OCDS). Defra wanted to maximise the number of animals in this scheme. It expired in December 2008, but because of some cattle rearing practices, some cattle keepers might have to send their animals to slaughter this autumn, if they wanted to receive compensation. Because cattle born before August 1996 were not eligible for the food chain, they would have to be treated as fallen stock once the OCDS ended and their owners might have to pay for their collection and disposal. Following a query on pre-August 96 cattle and home slaughter, Andy Cooke explained that there were strict FSA rules on this practice. Debby Reynolds re-iterated the point that these animals would not be permitted to enter the food chain.
Consumer representatives asked how the breaches in Northern Ireland had occurred. Andy Cooke advised that, unlike GB, Northern Ireland did not require the use of passports for cattle identification purposes. This had led to problems when cattle had been mis-identified in the lairage (reception area for the cattle on arrival) on their electronic system (the Animal and Public Health Information System - APHIS). Northern Ireland had now realised that their testing system needed something similar to Defra’s post-slaughter checks that would allow a cross check of eartag information against APHIS records. Consumer representatives were aware that some parts of the meat industry considered that testing requirements should not be as strict as they were. However, consumer organisations believed that, as long as there was evidence of such breaches, the current controls should remain in place. They also advised the Meat Hygiene Service against giving delivery of the controls over to industry.
Responsibility and cost sharing
Stuart Roberts reported that following the consultation last December, Defra would be moving from a command and control approach towards industry taking more ownership and responsibility. Defra had designed some principles to make this work. Public safety and consumer confidence were a priority and account was taken of the ability to deal with unforeseen issues. Public funds were tight, and Government needed to consider why it should carry out duties that others could carry out to the same standard. The next step would be to go out to consultation again, possibly proposing early legislation. This group could be very helpful in clarifying where concerns would lie in transferring responsibility.
Consumer organisations agreed that every individual had an interest in animal health and was a stakeholder here. If consumers had to pay extra for disease management then they would expect to pay less as taxpayers. They advised that the next consultation should look at particular cases. There would be more concern when it came to zoonotic disease.
Stuart Roberts replied that an economic analysis would help find out who would pay when costs were transferred from Government. The CVO commented that the issue of responsibility and cost sharing was central to the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, and that Defra wanted to work with consumer organisations on this. She considered it would be wise for the group to nominate a representative to help design engagement activities.
Foodborne zoonoses
David Collins focused on the National Control Programme (NCP) implementing EU legislation on salmonella in poultry laying flocks. Targets had been set by the European Commission and agreed by EU Member States. Each Member State had an NCP to demonstrate it would meet this target. The UK’s first NCP came into force at the start of this year for salmonella in breeding flocks. An NCP was now being developed for laying flocks, and there would be a consultation at the start of July. EU legislation was quite strict and a significant number of producers could be affected. A stakeholder group had already been established to examine the UK’s plans and included a consumer representative. An NCP would be developed next year for broiler chickens, and the next NCP would cover turkeys. Defra was also working on surveillance enforcement legislation. Defra consulted on this last summer, and legislation would be in place later this year.
Date of next meeting and any other business
Debby Reynolds said that the next meeting would be held in October, and that the agenda could include the CAP health check, pet import controls and the scientific evidence base. In line with the agreement to expand discussion, a food sustainability issue would also be included. The NFWI reported on its “Great Milk Debate”, which dealt with the difference between the amount farmers received for milk and the selling price by retailers.
Debby Reynolds thanked everyone for their important contributions and Ann Davison for being a voice for consumers within Defra.
Page last modified:
May 23, 2008
Page published:
May 23, 2008