Conclusions and recommendations
Tests and traceability
1. The horsemeat contamination
has been a result of fraud and other criminal activity across
the EU. While overall contamination of beef products has been
small, it has been widespread across EU Member States, and caused
much public concern. We agree with the Government that consumers
must be able to purchase products confident that the product is
what it says on the label. We note that there has been an increase
in sales of fresh meat from butchers, coupled with a significant
reduction in consumer confidence in the frozen burger and beef
ready meal sectors in the UK. We recommend that the Government
hold talks with those affected—including farmers, food business
operators and retailers—to develop a plan for restoring
confidence to this sector before the end of the year. (Paragraph
20)
2. We request that
the Government update us on the results of work streams on trace
contamination in meat products in its response to this Report.
(Paragraph 22)
3. The system for
food traceability, including the requirement that at every stage
in the supply chain operators must keep records of the source
of each product and its next destination, has been breached. Retailers
and meat processors should have been more vigilant against the
risk of deliberate adulteration. Trust is not a sufficient guarantee
in a system where meat is traded many times before reaching its
final destination. We are concerned about the length of supply
chains for processed and frozen beef products and welcome efforts
by some retailers to shorten these where possible. (Paragraph
29)
4. The evidence we
received from retailers and food processors in the UK and Ireland
suggests a complex, highly organised network of companies trading
in and mislabelling frozen and processed meat or meat products
in a way that fails to meet specifications and that is fraudulent
and illegal. We are concerned at the failure of authorities in
both the UK and Ireland to acknowledge the extent of this and
to bring prosecutions. We are dismayed at the slow pace of investigations
and would like assurance that prosecutions will be mounted where
there is evidence of fraud or other illegal activity. (Paragraph
33)
Horse passport systems
5. We are surprised
at the number of positive test results for the presence of phenylbutazone
in horsemeat originating in the UK in the EU-mandated tests. We
welcome the Commission's proposal to make mandatory the recording
of horse passports in a central national database and to reduce
the number of passport-issuing organisations. The evidence we
received suggests there are many loopholes in the present system
which have allowed horses treated with bute to enter the food
system. The positive release system for horses presented for slaughter
is welcome and should continue with the cost shared between the
Government and industry. Given the uncertainty over the origin
of horsemeat in beef products, we would like some assurance that
the movement of horses within the UK and between the UK and Republic
of Ireland is being properly tracked by relevant authorities.
(Paragraph 41)
Responses
6. As already noted,
retailers have a clear responsibility to ensure the products they
sell are accurately labelled. While some retailers may have been
misled, those serving large sectors of the market need to 'up
their game' and verify with greater accuracy the assurances of
their suppliers. There must be regular, detailed tests on all
meat or meat-based ingredients which form part of a processed
meat product. We welcome the commitment of some supermarkets to
carry out DNA tests on meat products. We recommend that this be
made compulsory for large food retailers, with appropriate penalties
imposed for those who fail to do so. A summary of these test results
should be published on the retailer's website. The cost of this
testing must be borne by the relevant companies as part of their
due diligence and should not be passed on to the consumer. (Paragraph
46)
7. The EU proposals
set out in their five-point plan are welcome, although still at
an early stage and not likely to be discussed until the July Agriculture
Council meeting. The proposals should ensure improved sharing
of information between Member States which will make the identification
of food fraud in complex supply chains easier. We particularly
welcome the proposal that penalties for those seeking to defraud
consumers should be higher than the economic gain expected from
the fraud. However, legislation will not deter fraudsters unless
all Member States are prepared to use proportionate enforcement
powers to back it up. (Paragraph 48)
8. We reiterate our
previous conclusion that, while Ministers are properly responsible
for policy, there was a lack of clarity as a result of the machinery
of government changes about where responsibility lay for the response
to the horsemeat discovery. This initial confusion in the early
days of the discovery was unhelpful and there should be better
communication about the FSA's role. Greater clarity about the
role of the FSA in major incidents is also needed. The Government
should consider whether this might be achieved by reverting to
the pre-2010 position enabling the FSA to be one step removed
from the Government departments it reports to. This would enable
a swifter response by the FSA when a major incident occurs. (Paragraph
58)
9. Within its current
mandate, the FSA must become a more efficient and effective regulator
of industry. The FSA must be independent of industry: it must
not be, or be seen to be, beholden to industry. The FSA must serve
primarily the interest of consumers in having safe and accurately
labelled food products. This also means the FSA must be more innovative
and vigilant about its testing regime, and it must build better
working relationships, where information is shared earlier, with
relevant partners in the UK and Europe. (Paragraph 59)
10. If the FSA is
to become a more effective regulator of the food industry, it
must be given greater powers in relation to this large and growing
sector. It should be given the powers to compel retailers to carry
out spot checks and tests where necessary—on both the label
and the physical content of the meat—and all test results,
whether mandated by the FSA or industry itself, should be reported
back to the FSA. In this way the FSA can have a better picture
and greater oversight of the industry it is watching over. We
do not believe this objective can be met by voluntary agreement
alone. (Paragraph 62)
Capacity and food supply networks
11. Local authorities
have a duty to carry out appropriate food testing and must ensure
that they do so. We appreciate that each local authority has many
objectives and claims on its budget. The Government should be
mindful of, and keep an eye on, the likely impact of recent local
authority budget cuts on food sampling rates. While we do not
recommend setting a statutory minimum sampling level, it is not
acceptable that three local authorities have carried out no food
sampling at all in the last year. The FSA should more actively
oversee the food sampling levels in local authorities and should
have the power to compel local authorities to carry out some sampling
each year. (Paragraph 72)
12. 80% of food is
sold through five supermarkets chains whose food is sourced locally,
nationally and internationally. Local authorities must reflect
this sourcing pattern in their sampling programme. We recommend
a more targeted approach to food sampling, focusing on foods which
are likely to be adulterated, even when there is no tip-off about
it. (Paragraph 73)
13. We are concerned
about the declining number of public analysts and of public laboratories
for carrying out food testing. If they fall much further, food
samples will have to be sent abroad for testing. This is likely
to result in increased costs and fewer samples being submitted.
The Government must keep this under review and ensure there are
sufficient, properly trained, public analysts in the UK. (Paragraph
76)
14. Food supply and
production chains are now ever more varied and complex. Those
with responsibility for overseeing these systems must adapt their
approaches accordingly. The FSA must ensure information is shared
with its counterparts in the EU and with the devolved Administrations
in the UK. The level of testing which has been undertaken in the
last six months is unprecedented and cannot continue. The FSA
will only be able to promote public confidence in its role as
regulator of the food industry if it builds open communication
channels to share information and intelligence with other bodies
early on. It should not in future consider it acceptable to wait
six weeks for a final confirmation of adulteration from one of
our closest neighbours before acting itself. (Paragraph 79)
15. While our Report
does not focus on labelling regulations, any changes to these
must be considered in the light of the recent horsemeat contamination
incident, respecting the results of public consultation and taking
account of the significant reduction in consumer confidence in
both supply chains and the ability of the food industry to respond
effectively to food scares as a result of the contamination of
beef products. These issues should be considered as part of the
Government's own review of the integrity and assurance of food
supply networks and any decisions on legislation should await
the final report on food supply networks. (Paragraph 82)
| 
