Food Contamination: Government Response to the Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2013-14 - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents


Government response


The Government is grateful to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its Fifth Report of Session 2013-14 into Food Contamination.

Since publication of EFRA's Eighth Report of Session 2012-13 into Contamination of Beef Products, in February 2013, the Secretary of State for Food and Rural Affairs has announced that Professor Chris Elliott will lead an independent review of Britain's food system in light of the recent horsemeat fraud. The review into the 'Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks' will focus on consumer confidence in the authenticity of all food products and any weaknesses in food supply networks which could have implications for food safety and public health. The review will also look at the causes of the systemic failure that enabled the horsemeat fraud, the roles and responsibilities of businesses throughout the food supply chain to consumers and how to support consumer confidence. Findings from the review will be used to form recommendations to Defra and Department of Health (DH), and to food businesses, on how the UK might be able to increase the resilience of its food systems. The review started in early June and will take nine to 12 months to complete. The review into the Food Standards Agency's response to horsemeat fraud published on the 5 July will complement and feed in to this wider UK Government review. Interim findings will be submitted in December and a final report submitted by spring 2014.

The UK Government reacted quickly when it was alerted to the presence of horsemeat in beef products on sale in the UK by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. A UK-wide study of food authenticity was put in place, abattoirs were audited, and retailers and processors were mobilised to investigate their supply chains and report the results back to the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Products testing positive for horse DNA were withdrawn immediately. This was the most comprehensive testing of processed meat products ever undertaken.

The UK was instrumental in action being taken swiftly at a European level once it was evident that horsemeat fraud was not limited to the UK and the Republic of Ireland. As a Europe wide problem the UK is supportive of a coordinated EU-level approach to ensure the integrity of our food supply chain. The UK was the first Member State to present documents to Europol, in support of that organisation's role in facilitating cross-national investigation and co-ordinating the efforts. Investigations continue at a number of sites across the UK and the City of London Police is the co-ordinating Police Force for all of these investigations. The FSA continues to liaise with the City of London police and through them is sharing information on UK investigations with Europol.

We have carefully considered all the recommendations made by the Committee. This document sets out the Government's response to each recommendation.

Response to recommendations and conclusions

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)

At a meeting of the whole food chain on 18 February the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and food businesses agreed that regular meetings with companies and organisations throughout the industry would take place to discuss ways to strengthen the food industry, not only in response to the horsemeat incident but the many other challenges and opportunities that the industry face. The Secretary of State held a roundtable of the food and drink supply chain on 10 July at which an update on action in response to horsemeat fraud was discussed, including the findings of the independent review carried out by Professor Pat Troop of the FSA's response to the incident and an introduction by Professor Chris Elliott to his review of the integrity and assurance of food supply networks.

Government is continuing to work with industry and local authorities to restore consumer confidence in the authenticity of the food that they buy. Following the intensive period of extensive industry testing of beef products in February to early March, industry agreed to report the results of authenticity testing of beef products to FSA on a quarterly basis. On 13 June the FSA published the first quarterly report of industry test results of beef products for horse DNA. Of the 19,050 test results reported around 15,000 were provided by ABP Group, demonstrating the seriousness with which those affected by the incident are taking the need to remain vigilant and to ensure that consumers can be confident that the food they are buying is labelled correctly and is safe to eat. Assurance measures and traceability of produce are key to a sustainable food chain. The industry is taking its own steps to build consumer confidence, some of which are highlighted in your report. These are based on commercial decisions and a diversity of interests. Government should not be closely supervising the industry or limiting its ability to react to market signals and consumer demand.

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)

As noted in written evidence, the increasing sensitivity of DNA tests raises issues about action that should be taken in response to the detection of extremely low levels of DNA from an undeclared species in a meat product, even when processors are adhering to good hygiene, cleaning and manufacturing practices. Whilst the 1% threshold has been supported in the UK and in Europe as a pragmatic reporting level above which gross adulteration is likely to have occurred, there is a need for more information on how best to define and control trace or adventitious contamination.

The research commissioned by Defra and FSA with the Laboratory of the Government Chemist to examine the level of meat species carry over (pork in minced beef) in meat plants according to good manufacturing practice, is on track and is due to report before December 2013. The results will inform discussion at UK and EU level and with industry on the action levels and controls which should be adopted by both industry and regulators in the longer-term for assuring the integrity of meat products.

Practical work on phase 1 of the project, to examine three cleaning regimes to reflect high, medium and low risk cleaning scenarios under controlled conditions (pilot plant), is complete and work has moved on to phase 2 of the project, which will assess levels of carry over in real meat plants. Results will be published in full later this year following peer review. The independent Food Authenticity Expert Methods Working Group is advising on the project to quality assure the research, and the outputs of FSA's consultation with consumers has informed the scenarios being looked at by the project.

The research undertaken with the public indicated that there was not a consensus of views on acceptable levels of contamination. Participants were aware that food safety was not being compromised by this contamination and therefore it was viewed as a secondary issue, food safety being the primary concern. Ensuring the food industry was effectively minimising avoidable contamination was considered an important part of the regulatory process by all participants.

In addition Defra has published two research projects undertaken by Laboratory of the Government Chemist (i) to fully validate limits of detection for methods to detect horsemeat DNA, used by Public Analysts to support accurate interpretation of meat speciation survey results in a standardised way and (ii) to develop a quantitative method for horse DNA and to establish the relationship between the results it generates (as horse DNA) and their equivalent as horsemeat.

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=18740

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18741&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=FA0135&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description

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)

The Government agrees with the need for vigilance by both businesses and regulators to protect the supply chain against the risk of deliberate adulteration. We are aware that businesses and trade bodies are reviewing their supply chains and assurance arrangements, including their testing protocols, in the light of this incident. We will continue to work with relevant trade bodies and local authorities to ensure the necessary guidance and improved assurance controls are in place.

More broadly the Government has been working with industry to consider ways to strengthen the UK food and drink sector. This includes ensuring those producing food and drink in the UK are able to take advantage of the opportunities in the domestic market and tap into consumer demand for domestic produce. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met with representatives from across the industry and the devolved administrations on 10 July to discuss how we can work together to achieve this, and issues raised include whether more could be done to help consumers to identify where their food comes from. Discussions noted the efforts by retailers to shorten supply chains for particular meat products and highlight their actions to consumers.

The review into the 'Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks' will also look at the causes of the systemic failure that enabled the horsemeat fraud, the roles and responsibilities of businesses throughout the food supply chain to consumers and how to support consumer confidence.

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)

The Government recognised very early in the incident that there was likely to be complex international criminal activity involved, which is why the UK Police, SOCA and Europol were contacted at an early stage in the incident and the FSA and the Police have been working jointly since February. This is a criminal investigation and as such details will not appear in the public domain as the investigation proceeds. A lack of information being given out publicly should not be interpreted as meaning the investigation has not proceeded well or as expected. Given the complexities in the food chain; the cross-border elements of the incident and; the need for standards of proof to be at a level that satisfies the criminal burden of proof, the investigations must be allowed to take their course. If the Crown Prosecution Service is content that there is sufficient evidence to take forward prosecutions and that it is in the public interest for a prosecution to take place then of course the Government would expect that to happen. However that decision rightly rests with the prosecuting authorities, not the Government.

In addition, as the FSA Chief Executive indicated in her latest report to the FSA Board meeting on 16 July, the FSA will consider issuing reports to bring to the public's attention any instances where, in relation to these events or others, the FSA concludes that the behaviour of companies or individuals—while not such as to warrant the bringing of prosecutions—has fallen below the standard the public should be entitled to expect of food businesses.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) goes live on 7 October, at which point SOCA will cease to exist. While the Home Office will be the primary department with oversight of the NCA's work, the agency will also need to engage with other Government departments on cross cutting issues such as food fraud. There is a protocol in place to facilitate this and to ensure such incidents as are referred to the NCA are appropriately triaged and either investigated by the NCA itself or devolved to the relevant force or appropriate organisation to lead.

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)

The Government has publicly stated that the horse passport regime needs strengthening and is supportive of the principles of the Commission's proposals to make the legislative changes which will enable Member States to deliver the long term improvement that is needed. In addition to the proposals mentioned by the Committee the Commission is exploring better security features for horse passports and greater control over the issuing of microchips, this is something that the UK Government supports. Defra officials will continue to work with the Commission to ensure that the detail of the proposals enable this to happen.

The number of positive tests reported by the UK to the European Commission for the presence of phenylbutazone in horsemeat reflected the fact that the UK tested many more horses than other countries. The absolute number of positive tests was therefore likely to be high when compared to others. The FSA moved to 100% testing of all horses presented for slaughter at the end of January, moving to a positive release system on 11 February 2013. This means that all horse carcasses must now test negative for phenylbutazone, before they can enter the food chain. Between 11 February and 31 July, only 38 of the 2,231 horses accepted for slaughter have tested positive for phenybutazone (1.70%). None of these horses entered into the food chain.

The FSA is exploring opportunities for industry to organise and bear the cost of testing horses at slaughter in the future. The FSA would maintain the positive release system, which would require food business operators to demonstrate a negative test result for phenylbutazone for each carcass, with testing by an accredited laboratory, and using an agreed methodology, before the carcasses could be released. These proposals will be subject to a full consultation and impact assessment.

We do not track movements of horses within the UK and there are there are no plans to change this or the current arrangements for horses moving between UK and Ireland through discussion taking place with France and Ireland to review the tripartite agreement (TPA). The cost of doing so would be disproportionate and would deliver no benefit in terms of food or protection against the fraudulent or accidental inclusion of horsemeat in beef products. Public health is adequately protected through existing arrangements for checking and testing horses presented for slaughter for human consumption. There is no significant risk of equine disease being spread between Ireland and UK and it would be disproportionate to introduce any new requirement to notify the movement of horses on animal health grounds.

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)

EU food law makes it clear that it is the responsibility of food businesses to ensure the food they sell is safe and is as described. This applies to all food businesses, not just the large food retailers, but also others supplying to the consumer such as catering businesses and all those supplying other businesses along the chain. The Government has made it clear that following the vulnerabilities highlighted by the horsemeat incident all food businesses, including large food retailers, need to review their own systems and test their products to demonstrate to consumers that they are in control of their supply chains. We welcome the continued sharing by industry of information on the testing of processed meat products for horsemeat and DNA with the FSA.

However we are mindful of the costs to industry and the need to apply better regulation principles to ensure the right balance between protecting consumers and burdens on business and enforcement bodies. Government therefore favours working with the food industry to strengthen the verification aspects of their own checks in relation to food authenticity, as opposed to prescriptive requirements that may be burdensome or could impact on fairness and competition by targeting certain types of businesses in the food supply chain. This recommendation from the Committee should be read together with that at paragraph 29. End product testing is not in itself a control, but it provides useful verification of the controls that have applied throughout the food supply chain to that point.

On 4 June the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced the appointment of Professor Chris Elliott, of Queen's University Belfast, to lead an independent review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks. Professor Elliott will report to the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Health on issues which impact upon consumer confidence in the authenticity of food products and any weaknesses in food supply networks which could have implications for food safety and public health. The review will look at the causes of the systemic failure that enabled the horsemeat fraud, the roles and responsibilities of businesses throughout the food supply chain to consumers and how to support consumer confidence. An interim report is expected in December and findings from the review will be used to form recommendations to Defra and the Department of Health, and to food businesses, on how the UK might be able to increase the resilience of its food systems and other improvements to current operations to improve consumer confidence. The final report is due in spring 2014 and the Government will consider carefully and discuss with all interested parties any recommendations for strengthening or prescribing how the industry assures itself of the authenticity of food products which it sells or provides.

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)

The horsemeat incident was a Europe-wide problem and the Government has pressed for and continues to press for, action at an EU-level. It is in this spirit that the Government welcomes the Commission's 5-Point Action Plan. Action at an EU-level however must continue to be proportionate, evidence based and compatible with wider trade agreements. Whilst the Government agrees that penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive it is important that in this context that it is left to Member States to determine what they should be in accordance with the subsidarity principle.

The Government is also supportive of actions to improve and extend intelligence sharing amongst Member States, encouraging the use of existing rapid alert food safety systems for food fraud information and appropriate involvement of Europol when food fraud investigations or incidents cross borders.

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)

The Government is concerned that the Committee may have misunderstood the status and constitution of the FSA. The FSA, as a non-Ministerial government department, does not report to any other department. The FSA is accountable to Parliament and reports to Parliament through Health Ministers. This was the FSA's status before 2010 and this remains the case. The machinery of government changes in 2010 saw policy responsibility for nutrition in England move to Department of Health and responsibility for food labelling and food composition policy in England, other than that relating to food safety, move to Defra. It is perfectly normal for policy responsibility to be with Ministers and responsibility for enforcement to be with a separate delivery body. This is a situation mirrored across Government and the Government does not accept that the current division of responsibilities between Defra and FSA undermined the response to the horsemeat incident.

In response to the independent review carried out by Professor Pat Troop of the FSA's response to the incident and this recommendation by the Committee, Defra and FSA will jointly explore what more can be done to clarify and communicate, both internally and externally, the respective roles of FSA and Defra in this area. The Elliott Review into 'Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks' will also be looking at any changes required in the current regulatory framework and its implementation by the UK government. The Government will consider all recommendations from the Review, including advice to change current frameworks should the Reviewer conclude that such changes are needed.

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)

The FSA is absolutely independent of industry. It has a single statutory objective of protecting consumers, and its Strategic Plan is very clear that it will put the health of the consumer first. The FSA's guiding principles of being evidence based, acting independently and in an open transparent way mean that it continues to put the consumer first in everything that it does. The FSA recognises the need to learn from the recent horsemeat incident which is why it promptly appointed Professor Pat Troop to carry out an independent review of its handling of the incident. The FSA Board has subsequently endorsed an action plan to implement Professor Troop's recommendations. This included specific recommendations about better intelligence sharing with relevant partners.

In paragraphs 54 and 78 of its report, the Committee criticises the FSA for failing to take pre-emptive action in November 2012 when it learnt of testing for horsemeat undertaken by others; this in turn forms part of the evidence on which the Committee bases its conclusion that the FSA must become more effective in its regulation of industry. This criticism is based on a false premise. In late November 2012, senior staff from the FSA office in Belfast held a routine meeting with their counterparts in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) as part of the established communication channels between the two organisations. The FSAI advised that they were developing a methodology for testing for horse DNA which was at an early stage of development. The FSA offered to get involved and agreed a possible joint sampling initiative at some time in the future should the methodology prove robust. It was not suggested by FSAI that testing was already underway nor that they had any concerns about horsemeat having entered the food chain.

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)

The Government remains of the view that the collaborative way in which the FSA, Ministers, the food industry and other agencies worked rapidly to respond to the events in question was successful and is a positive model for future joint-working. The FSA has powers in the Food Standards Act 1999 to obtain information, to conduct observations and, if need be, to authorise individuals to enter premises, take samples and inspect and copy records which enable the FSA itself to conduct a programme of testing. Further, the FSA has committed, as part of its response to the review conducted by Professor Pat Troop, to review its existing powers and the extent to which these could deliver the approaches recommended in the review. Having undertaken this review, the FSA will identify any gaps and make relevant proposals to Ministers and to Professor Chris Elliott's review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks.

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)

The Government agrees it is unacceptable for any local authority to conduct no food sampling. Of the three local authorities identified by the FSA as reporting no food standards sampling, two did report food hygiene sampling, and the other had technical difficulties in reporting its sampling activity. These three local authorities have all been followed up by the FSA and their most recent returns show food sampling was undertaken during 2012-13 and the authorities have also confirmed that they have sampling programmes in place for the current year.

The Framework Agreement on Official Feed and Food Controls by local authorities is the mechanism by which the FSA sets out the standards for local authority food law services, which includes sampling arrangements, and the FSA's monitoring and audit processes. A summary of enforcement activity data at individual local authority level and local authority audit reports with agreed action plans are routinely published on the FSA website.

FSA collects data from local authorities on enforcement activity, including sampling data on an annual basis. Local authority annual returns are followed up with authorities and are used to inform the FSA's programme of audit of the food and animal feed law enforcement services of local authorities.

The FSA's UK Food Surveillance System is able to provide detailed real-time information on the food and feed samples taken by LAs in the UK. The system is already widely used in Scotland and N Ireland, and is currently being rolled out across England and Wales. This will allow more effective co-ordination of food sampling conducted by local authorities across the UK.

The need for additional powers the FSA might require with regards to local authority sampling will be considered in the light of this incident.

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)

The Government agrees that food sampling needs to be targeted effectively.

The FSA's National Co-ordinated Sampling Grants Programme, which provides financial support for local authority sampling, is risk-based (i.e. focuses on foods which are likely to be adulterated) and intelligence-led. When identifying priorities for the programme the FSA takes account of information from a range of sources including Emerging Risks and Food Fraud intelligence, the FSA's UK Food Surveillance System database and the views of the Defra\FSA Authenticity Steering Group. The most appropriate point of sampling for each food or issue of concern is considered in the sampling guidance given to local authorities. The process is being reviewed in the light of this incident.

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)

The Government is aware of this issue and the concerns of analysts. Officials from both FSA and Defra meet regularly with representatives from the Association of Public Analysts and local authorities to ensure sufficient laboratory capacity exists and suitable methods are in place, or developed, to enable effective surveillance to be carried out by local authorities. Defra's Food Authenticity Programme supports the up-skilling of public analysts through knowledge transfer initiatives to ensure that they can access the most up to date methods, such as on DNA testing.

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)

The Government agrees that the FSA should continue to build on its channels for sharing information and intelligence with other bodies, and in particular with industry and other regulators.

The FSA already has an Emerging Risks Programme that scans for novel risks and regularly shares information. It is also part of a wider network involved, for example, in the European Food Safety Authority's Emerging Risks Exchange Network. Building on this process and its governance the FSA is developing an intelligence hub to gather information on food risks more broadly. The hub will take account of the National Intelligence Model used by police and intelligence services. It will analyse data drawn from internal and external data sources, including enhanced liaison with the food industry, in order to determine potential risks and inform action to protect consumers' interests.

The Government agrees that it would not be acceptable for a Government department to wait six weeks for final confirmation where it is apparent that product has been adulterated. Such a time lag did not occur with reference to the horsemeat incident. The FSA was informed that adulteration of product had taken place on 14 January 2013, and responded decisively within hours, initiating investigations into the supply chain and working with colleagues across Government, the devolved administrations, local authorities and with counterparts in Europe.

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)

We note the Committee's recommendation that any changes to labelling regulations must be considered in light of the horsemeat contamination incidents and await the Government's own review and final report on food supply networks. The existing legal framework requires that the labelling, advertising and presentation of food must not mislead consumers as to the characteristics of the food and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties and composition. The recent horsemeat incidents are examples of breaches of the existing legal framework, and do not necessarily indicate that the law is inadequate.

New labelling rules have just been agreed by the European Union and the Government must meet its legal obligations on implementation of these EU labelling regulations. They should deliver significant improvements in labelling standards. Domestic enforcement legislation for the new EU Food Information to Consumers Regulation has been subject to a full public consultation and the Government will take account of the consultation responses whilst being mindful of the recent horsemeat incident. Our aim is always to maintain or improve the current level of consumer information, to ensure clear and consistent labelling to facilitate informed consumer choice. At the same time it is important that we apply better regulation principles to ensure the right balance between protecting consumers and burdens on business and enforcement bodies.

If, as a result of the Government's independent review of the integrity and assurance of food supply networks, there are recommendations on wider legislative changes which might include changes to the labelling regulations, we will consider these carefully and discuss them with all UK interested parties and our European partners as part of the lessons learned exercise.


 
previous page contents


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 11 October 2013