Avian influenza (Bird flu): Avian Influenza Retailers meeting, 10 November 2006
Attending:Sarah Church (Defra)
Julian West (Defra)
John Wilesmith (Defra)
Gordon Hickman (Defra)
Ian Aitken (Defra)
Martyn Dilley (Defra)
Duncan Prior (Defra)
Ian Hill (Defra)
Andrew Opie (British Retail Consortium)
Kerina Cheesman (Food and Drink Federation)
Ian Burgess (Co-op)
Chris Anstey (Tesco)
Peter Wight (M&S)
Mark Ranson (M&S)
Dr Molly Belton (Morrison's)
1. Introductions and Welcome
Sarah Church thanked stakeholders for attending the meeting. She explained that the meeting would focus on the new EU legislation and how it affects retailers; avian influenza modeling; supply chain issues; marking of products from the PZ and withdrawal of meat originating from holdings that had subsequently become an infected premises .
2. New EU legislation
2.1 Julian West gave a detailed presentation on the revised EU decisions for H5N1 in a wild bird and H5N1 in poultry. He explained that the new legislation has been based on a better regulation approach, therefore allowing the industry to operate smoothly in an outbreak. The main points of his presentation were:
- The revisions were made in response to the experiences of member states where the legislation has been applied.
- The AI vaccination regulations were almost complete.
- Stakeholders had been sent a letter informing them of the changes to the legislation.
- The wild bird decisions that were used during the Cellardyke incident earlier in the year, had since been revised at the EU level, but were far from perfect.
- Stakeholders can still comment on the legislation.
- The health mark decision was still outstanding, but lawyers had been instructed to reference it in the new AI order.
- A summary of the new legislation had been produced an was on the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/ai/index.htm#legislationcontrol
2.2 A short discussion on organic status of free range birds ordered indoors as a result of an outbreak of AI. Duncan Prior stated that he believed that the organic status of the birds would be retained should a mandatory housing order be issued. He agreed to confirm this with stakeholders. Action – Duncan Prior (See footnote )
2.3 Julian West agreed to circulate the links to the new decisions and other AI legislation on the Defra website to retailers. Action - Julian West.
2.4 Julian West explained that the Commission will shortly be holding a series of working groups to discuss the Newcastle Disease Directive. He stated that like the AI directive it would offer a degree of flexibility. The draft Directive would be circulated to stakeholders for comment once Defra received it from the Commission. He stressed that as the Newcastle Disease Directive will be similar to the AI Directive it is likely that it well be agreed quicker.
3. AI Monitoring
3.1 John Wilesmith made a technical presentation on of the goals of modelling work. He explained that the aims of modelling are to monitor the threat of AI; to identify priority areas for surveillance; to model potential outbreaks and to provide modelling during outbreaks. The main points of his presentation were:
- The broad conclusions of the current modelling work is that large AI outbreaks of long duration are unlikely and that given this Defra’s current contingency plan appears adequate.
- There are currently 26 species of migratory wild birds which had been identified as potential AI reservoirs.
- Defra have created a wild bird surveillance map which has identified the most at risk areas of the UK.
- Surveillance has been targeted using the best available data and information.
- Epidemiological intelligence of infection in poultry and wild birds will be maintained.
- Surveillance will be re-targeted dependent on the results of surveillance in GB and from Europe.
3.2 Sarah thanked John for his presentation. A short discussion on AI monitoring followed, the main comments where:
- Birds would be housed on the basis of a veterinary risk assessment and this would be unlikely to occur if high pathogenic H5N1 AI was not present in the UK.
- Defra’s primary disease control objective was to stamp out disease quickly to minimise the wider social and economic impact.
- It is important to reiterate the message for strict biosecurity to at risk producers and ask them to work up a contingency plan for possible housing in an outbreak.
- There are still no cases of AI in wild birds or domestic poultry in the EU Member States.
4. Supply Chain / Trade issues
4.1 Sarah Church reassured the industry that during an outbreak Defra have contingency plans in place to minimise the risks and are prepared for supply chain / trade issues.
4.2 During times of disease outbreaks (or serious suspicion), Defra liaises with British Embassies to ensure we have timely feedback about other countries' reactions to the UK situation. That feedback helps inform what action might be appropriate in trying to ensure countries relevant to UK trade are given what reassurance they need not to take disproportionate actions in the context of trade controls.
4.3 Stakeholders explained the need to ensure good relations within the British Isles, and to achieve this they had already arranged similar meetings with the Devolved Administrations. Sarah Church explained that Defra have a working experience after the recent Newcastle disease outbreak to ensure that foreign Governments take a proportional response to a disease outbreak.
4.4 Stakeholders asked what happened to the comments that they had previously fed to Nigel Mattingly. Officials agreed to follow up this request. Action - Nigel Mattingly.
5. Marking of products from a highly pathogenic AI Protection Zone
5.1 Ian Aitken gave a detailed presentation on the legal requirement to mark meat products from birds from a highly pathogenic AI Protection Zone (PZ). He reassured stakeholders that Defra recognise the existing mark is unworkable so have taken the lead in seeking a better one – square with round corners, nothing crossed out and able to be in proportion to packaging.
5.2 Sarah Church thanked Ian for his presentation. A discussion on the marking of products from a highly pathogenic AI PZ followed. The main points were:
- Defra recognise the industry don’t like the mark in any form but have worked hard to have the “least bad” option available.
- The mark is part of a system of supervision which requires separation from unpackaged non PZ meat.
- The marking of meat does not apply in the case of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza.
- The new mark would be in place of the usual ID mark (usually referred to as the Health Mark) not as well as the usual mark
- If a processed i.e. a cooked food product, contained meat which originated from birds from a highly pathogenic AI PZ, the final product could be marked with the usual ID rather than the new mark
- Stakeholders had some concerns about how Defra would communicate the new mark with consumers. Officials explained Defra would use the FSA and the various consumer organisations to disseminate the message.
- Officials explained that consumer organisations were pleased about the work to date and could appreciate that this issue was about animal health and not human health.
- Stakeholders agreed that communication between Defra and FSA had been good in the past (in 2005 when there was a glut of Italian and Greek poultry in UK supermarkets). Stakeholders were reassured that Defra and the FSA would continue to support each other and continue to communicate these messages.
- Stakeholders were working with the EU to change health labelling requirements on retail packs.
6. Policy on withdrawal of potentially infected meat
6.1 Ian Aitken made a short presentation which confirmed Defra policy to withdraw potentially infected meat to a retail level. That is to say meat from birds originating from an infected premises in the period between when disease restrictions were applied and the earlier date on which veterinarians believe infection arrived. The main points were:
- Defra were talking about product withdrawal not product recall.
- This is an animal health issue not a public health issue
- The EU Directive requires withdrawal wherever possible, not to do this down to retail outlet level would leave the UK vulnerable to the accusation of under implementation.
- Enquiries regarding policy in other member states has confirmed they take the same approach.
- The AI Order specifically recognises that meat does not need to be traced after it has left retail premises.
6.2 Sarah Church thanked Ian Aitken for his presentation a discussion on the withdrawal of potentially infected meat followed, the main comments were:
- Defra had also explained this issue to the hospitality sector.
- Although Defra were sympathetic to stakeholders concerns regarding the withdrawal of potentially infected products , the current disease control strategy is based on a combination of measures and that any dilution of these controls would increase the risk of disease spread.
- Stakeholders explained that although poultry products could be traced to the shop floor, it was a huge task to remove individual potentially infected items. The only solution would be to clear whole shelves, which could create panic and a drop in consumer confidence.
- Stakeholders explained that they felt the wording of the Avian Influenza Directive went too far and asked if Defra would raise this issue in the EU.
- If the Commission proposed changes to the legislation, Defra would under take a veterinary risk assessment and would support the change if the risk was low.
- Officials agreed to explore this policy issue further in the context of the Newcastle Disease directive. It was however recognised that meat withdrawal was a horizontal requirement across a number of diseases with a variation in risk level.
EDPC November 2006
Page last modified:
November 14, 2007 13:36