Examination of Witnesses (Questions 620-624)
MR NEIL
MARTINSON AND
MS ROSEMARY
HIGNETT
20 JULY 2004
Q620 Joan Ruddock: If the FSA thinks
there is some risk, albeit that risk is low, and you are saying
the only reason for taking that risk is because of another benefit
and the other benefit could be provided by an alternative source,
is it not reasonable for you to advise that that is so?
Mr Martinson: Not in this particular
case.
Chairman: Let us not pursue this line
in too much detail.
Q621 Mr Drew: One of the real issues
about food safety nowadays is the degree to which we have lost
national control of food safety issues because it is invested
in the EU. To what extent does the work of the FSA and now in
the European Food Standards Agency mean that you are always subject
to intensive lobbying pressure at a level in Europe where the
big food manufacturers will literally throw money at an issue
if there appears to be a risk of them losing their potential market?
Ms Hignett: As far as food law
is concerned most of it is made at EU level, which of course,
since much of our food is imported from other EU Member States,
is a plus as well as a minus, if you like. Whether that subjects
us to a greater level of lobbying than would otherwise be the
case I am not sure. Whenever an important issue is tackled, whether
it is at national level or at EU level, there will be lobbying.
Q622 Mr Drew: We all know because we
have had conversations about a particular case, which I am not
going to go into at this stage, but it is just my experience when
I have looked at the operation of this area in particular, and
this is real big bucks at European level because obviously it
is the entry into world markets. To what extent do you think you
would be somewhat hidebound by the fact that there would be a
natural assumption that if a product has become an established
national product it would inevitably therefore be accepted at
EU level and then there would be very little you could do even
if there was some concern over it? I am talking about manufactured
products here; I am not talking about fresh products. We are talking
about the big scale of the market place. I wonder what your worries
would be if there genuinely were concerns being expressed here,
particularly if it came down to the issue of how we might want
to label things with some information being required and the other
European countries being far less concerned about that?
Ms Hignett: I think that the task
we have then is to persuade other Member States, and we are quite
familiar with being in that position of trying to persuade other
Member States. If there is a safety concern, then whether or not
a product is an established product on the market we would be
in favour of appropriate action being taken to protect consumers
from that safety risk. On the other side of the coin we very much
oppose any moves which would have the effect of taking products
off the market if there were not a safety concern, so we would
not want to see any unnecessary reduction in consumer choice.
Q623 Mr Mitchell: I wanted to follow
up something you said in answer to Mr Jack. I think it is totally
unrealistic to place the emphasis on consumers to invigilate conditions
in restaurants. That is barmy. That is your job. When I go to
a restaurant I do not want to inspect the kitchen—if I get
food poisoning I will sue—but it is not my responsibility
to inspect the safety of conditions, it is your responsibility,
and I think it is unreasonable to try and shift it on to consumers.
That is just by way of an observation. The point is you said you
were having some kind of certifying scheme from January 2006,
I think you said. I was just interested in how that works, because
you indicated it would be a hazard assessment thing done by the
proprietor. They are going to lie, are they not? They are going
to fill in a form and say "Mine is the best possible kitchen".
If you are going to have that you have got to have an inspection
system to make sure they are telling the truth and you have got
to have some system of certification that you can put up above
the door "This has been certified as good, clean, nutritious—whatever
it is—by the Food Standards Agency".
Mr Martinson: Just to pick up
on that, I do not think I said consumers had a role in terms of
inspecting or invigilation. What I said was that about 2% of consumers
who say they had food poisoning in restaurants actually make a
complaint about it. My point was that that would actually assist
in terms of trying to find out where the problems are. There are
something like 350,000 catering establishments in the UK. In relation
to your suggestion, that is being piloted at the moment in Northern
Ireland and in Wales by the FSA with local authorities. Local
authorities are responsible for the inspection of premises rather
than the Agency, and one of the issues that we are looking into
is whether it is going to be feasible when the new regulations
come in to introduce precisely the kind of proposals that you
have just suggested. There are a number of difficulties with it,
partly in relation to how often a premises may be inspected because,
clearly, once you have got it up on the wall you have got no guarantees
about what happens between that and the next inspection, necessarily.
I think the other thing to say is that for most people in catering,
clearly, they do not want to poison their customers; it is not
good for their business. So we hope that is a good incentive.
Q624 Mr Mitchell: That is inspection
by Environmental Health, presumably. At the end of the day, if
they pass the inspection it is not just testified to by the fact
that the restaurant remains in existence and not closed, it needs
something to display on the doorway.
Mr Martinson: We certainly are
looking actively into greater transparency for consumers in relation
to standards in restaurants.
Chairman: Thank you. We had intended
to ask some questions about the Farm Assurance Schemes, but in
view of pressures of time, if my colleagues agree, I will pursue
that in writing with the Agency and conclude the questions at
this stage. Thank you very much indeed for coming along to give
us evidence this afternoon. Thank you.
| 
