Examination of witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
THURSDAY 16 MARCH 2000
PROFESSOR SIR
JOHN KREBS
and MR GEOFFREY
PODGER
40. There is a risk of the Agency becoming the
busybody, fusspot regime that everyone scorns if you make those
judgments incorrectly, if you grasp that risk, because clearly
credibility of advice on food from politicians and scientists
in this country is low. You start from the position where you
have to rebuild confidence in what public agencies will say, and
some incorrect judgments on dealing with popular perceptions will
leave you subject to ridicule. How are you preparing yourselves?
Sir John, you have been through a process of dealing with a political
minefield already in the agriculture area. You volunteered to
take another shot at an even more risky area.
(Professor Sir John Krebs) As Geoffrey Podger said,
openness and consultation are a very important part of it. Some
of the suspicion of scientific advice has arisen because people
see that scientists are meeting in closed rooms and coming to
decisions that are not fully understood and not necessarily fully
explained. Part of the way forward for us is to become much more
open than has been the tradition in the past.
41. The precautionary principle that was referred
to right at the start the European Commission has published a
paper on which many describe as merely a thin cover for protectionism
in world trade rather than a serious attempt to address the issues
of how to manage risk in food transactions. How do you see that
particular paper?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) I saw it as quite a reasonable
statement of the broad concepts but not a document that would
help you to translate the broad concepts of the precautionary
principle into an operational procedure. You say that others have
said it is a thinly disguised tool for restrictive trade and trade
barriers. I saw the principal point being that acting in a precautionary
way involves being proportionate, looking at risks and benefits
and coming to a judgment about both the costs and benefits of
a particular action. It talks about consistency with other kinds
of health measures that are being put in place, and it talks about
reviewing the scientific evidence. That to me does not seem to
be terribly contentious in terms of trade issues. For us it will
be important that we act proportionately. That is in our terms
of reference so to speak, but the way that one links proportionate
action to the precautionary principle is that in acting proportionately
one takes a very conservative (not in the political sense but
with a small "c") view in relation to consumer safety.
One is making sure that in the area of uncertainty in which we
normally operate consumer safety is protected but in a proportionate
way.
42. One of the issues that would have prompted
this document was hormones in beef and the desire of many European
states to prevent their consumers having access to that particular
product because of claimed scientific uncertainty as to its effects.
(Professor Sir John Krebs) This seems to be an area
where there is a disagreement among the scientific experts. It
depends on which group of experts you get together.
43. Is that not all too often the case?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) I do not know about all
too often the case. It does happen because very often in the food
area we are dealing with rather limited scientific knowledge.
Chairman
44. But, Sir John, you have got the example
of sodium. Mark mentioned salt. You have got an array of scientists
saying that we should all embark on eating a great deal less salt,
and an array of scientists saying there is no proven evidence
of any description that it has any impact at all. The Government
appears to have come down on the former side. In that case you
have got eminently respected scientists lined up in opposing teams.
Where does the precautionary principle operate on the basis of
opposing teams of equal value as it were?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Someone has got to make
a judgment about the opposing teams. In a way to those of us who
are scientists by background we know that that is how science
operates. There are opposing teams with different points of view
and often disagreements last for years if not for decades until
some definitive piece of data comes through or sets of data that
will eventually resolve a disagreement. It is not surprising to
those on the inside that scientists disagree. I think it is surprising
to those on the outside because the traditional way that science
has been presented is as coming up with a definitive answer. In
a way it links right back to my very opening statement that in
the food area a lot of the difficult decisions will be trying
to weigh up different kinds of scientific evidence where different
groups of experts or different individual experts disagree. There
is no formula for doing that. You have just got to be used to
doing it. You have got to exercise judgment and you have got to
exercise a critical faculty to look at why the disagreement is
there.
45. One has got to be careful that one does
not give the balance of the argument automatically to people suggesting
there is a risk if the alternative is to prove the negative. If
you find yourself always in a position of demonstrating a negative
then there is a difficulty, is there not?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Absolutely, yes, I agree.
46. You are going to publish your criteria for
this risk assessment: did I hear you say that?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) We will be publishing our
principles for risk assessment.
47. And that would be an early action presumably
because obviously, as Mark says, it is fundamental to your operation?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Yes.
Mr Hinchliffe
48. My question is totally unfair but I will
ask it anyway. You referred, Professor, to the issue of the BSE/CJD
problem which is a major factor in your emergence as an Agency.
Ahead of the Phillips Inquiry conclusions, which hopefully will
inform policy in a significant way,—and the Chairman said,
"I would not bet on it"—if you had been in existence,
say, 20 years ago as you will be very shortly, knowing what you
know currently about what was in the public arena about BSE/CJD,
how do you feel the whole crisis may have been handled differently?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) I do not want to pre-judge
what Lord Phillips says, I want to make it clear that I am not
in any sense pre-judging his conclusions, but I think if one looks
back to that period there was of course a much greater climate
of secrecy. People did not reveal what was going on. I believe
it was not even revealed that there was a review. The Southwood
Committee was not publicly acknowledged as existing, initially
anyway, so one thing that would be different would be a much greater
degree of openness.
49. Do you think that would be a result of your
Agency being around?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) I think things have moved
a lot in the last 10 years anyway.
50. What I am trying to establish is this. I
appreciate that things have moved. Had you been around at the
time with the function that you have got and the task ahead of
you would it have panned out differently? What would you have
done from what you know now that was not done at the time?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Of course one of the key
principles underlying the establishment of the Agency was to separate
the agricultural industry sponsorship interests and the consumer
protection interests, and therefore we would be in a very different
position in looking at consumer risk if we were publishing our
assessment. We would not be asking ourselves the question, how
does this conflict with our industry sponsorship. That is a very
radical difference in this particular case.
(Mr Podger) The only other thing I would add is that
there may well be issues about enforcement where there are lessons.
One of the things we are trying to do in the Agency is to bring
together more local authority and meat hygiene service colleagues
in working with us so that we have a seamless chain of policy
and enforcement. That does seem to me something which is relevant
to your question.
Mr Todd
51. If one looks at the food chain from plough
to plate or other phrases that are used, where do you feel that
the greatest problems are likely to occur?
(Mr Podger) I think we must be honest about this in
terms of saying that problems in the whole food safety area are
first of all problems of perception which we should not underrate
that people become worried about a particular issue and therefore
it is quite proper to focus attention on it. Also, the agenda
is, quite properly again, driven internationally. We are not in
any sense an island in terms of food policy and therefore we have
to devote resources to that. Also, bearing in mind what the Chairman
was saying earlier about what a Food Standards Agency is, we need
to remember that we have both if you like consumer protection
issues coming up as well as food safety issues. For example, the
coming into being of a potentially large number of so-called functional
foods, that is foods which are thought to have particular health
benefits, may prompt quite a lot of issues in terms of ensuring
that consumers are properly informed and that they can make choices
which reflect the facts. I think there is an issue there for us
on the consumer side that is coming up. On the food safety side
one has to say if one is honest that it is entirely a Forth Road
Bridge issue, that there are always new issues coming along. We
are certainly not in any way complacent across the whole range
of food safety issues we deal with, for example, whether it be
microbiological, whether it be chemical contaminant or whatever.
It is always the case that there is the potential for new threats.
52. Do you think the HACCP approach, which largely
is confined in the processing and preparation area at the moment
but could in theory be extended backwards and forwards in the
food chain towards the farmer and the retailer, has some merit?
(Mr Podger) We would say that the concept certainly
has merit. The way you do it however is critical. It is extremely
important to involve the various interests. There is no point
at all in foisting on people systems which are heavily regulatory
but actually do not produce much public health benefit. We would
want to work very closely with both the agricultural community,
say, and the retail community if we were to extend HACCP beyond
where it already lies. In principle it is well worth exploring
but, as I say, it needs to be done very carefully to produce something
which is actually beneficial and it needs to be done in close
consultation.
53. Just looking at the start of the process,
the farm, what research do you have available on the contribution
towards the risk in the food chain that might be generated there?
You have very appropriately said that some of the methodologies
that might be used in analysing risk might be inappropriate in
some parts of the food chain, so how would you address the issue
with that part of it?
(Mr Podger) I think what you need to do is to address
to all the stakeholders, issues where we believe we actually have
sufficient knowledge to make an improvement. I think this is the
key point that you need to engage in, on issues and specific projects,
so a particular problem that you may have—for example, the
health and welfare of animals on a farm which are destined for
the food chain—once you are satisfied that you have the
knowledge to act, then we need to in partnership. That is by far
the best way of doing it. It means drawing up detailed plans as
to how one is going to behave. Also, it means winning the argument.
It is not just a matter of regulation. It is winning people over
to see that there are benefits from what you are proposing, whether
it is a new kind of hygiene system or whatever. That is the way
we want to go about it.
54. A concrete example may be the long-running
issue of salmonella and campylobacter. How would you address that
particular issue?
(Mr Podger) If we deal with salmonella in poultry,
we are fortunate in that we are now beginning to have a better
understanding than we had of the various hygiene measures that
can be used to bring back production. There are already discussions
going on with the industry about that. It is probably a question
of reinforcing those discussions with a view to ending up, as
I have suggested, with a clear project plan to which everybody
has signed up.
55. Perhaps clearer consumer information on
the risks and issues involved.
(Mr Podger) Inherently so. It is essential that consumers
are themselves, or their representatives, are engaged as stakeholders
in those organisations, when we go forward to a project planning
stage.
56. This is an area which is notorious for misinformation.
My political predecessor spent some time handling that. Pesticides
in foods. Any issues that you feel you may have difficulty in
addressing because of the way in which your responsibilities are
defined?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) That is an area where we
are working closely with MAFF. That is a joint responsibility,
where we have responsibility.
57. Perhaps what you are alluding to is that
your responsibility is not clear-cut?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) I am content that it is
clear-cut.
(Mr Podger) We are quite clear that we have our own
representation on the Advisory Committee of Pesticides. If, for
some reason, we are still unhappy about a decision that was taken
to authorise a product, or if we became subsequently unhappy about
a product which had been authorised, where a new difficulty came
to light in relation to food safety, we are quite confident that
we could work, hopefully within the structure, to get it resolved.
As Sir John has said throughout, at the end of the day the Agency
can make public its advice, and would not hesitate to do so if
it thought there was a serious problem with pesticides which was
not being addressed.
58. There was some concern in the Agriculture
Committee, when we reviewed that issue, as to how you would address
imported foodstuffs. You might make a strong hand at regulating
our own food industry but which had rather less impact because
of the complications with dealing within the EU regime with imported
foodstuffs. How do you address that particular problem?
(Mr Podger) In relation to EU foods, as you rightly
say, we are not allowed to conduct routine searches at ports of
entry; and, of course, we would not find the European Community
doing this in relation to British exported products so it is a
quid pro quo. But at the retail level, of course, it is
as essential that imported products should meet our standards
as products which are produced in this country. We would certainly
look to the local enforcement authorities to ensure that was the
case. Obviously from time to time, and indeed quite frequently
at the moment, we do learn of particular difficulties over products
that have come from the Continent. As you may know, we have had
two potential products with listeria from France this year coming
into this country and then we take whatever enforcement action
is necessary; usually, I may say, with considerable help from
the importers concerned, who are more than ready to voluntarily
withdraw that product.
59. I think someone who was listening to that
answer, who was a food producer, would not find that a terribly
reassuring approach because it does, of course, place very significant
reliance on the third party controls and regulations exercised
by other EU states at their borders. Quite often these products
have come through another state to us. Their controls have been
the ones which have been credited.
(Mr Podger) The other reassurance we should give is
that we do, of course, have a considerable influence and interest
in improving standards of enforcement across Europe. That is entirely
inherent in what you have just said.
|
