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Products testing positive for horse DNA were withdrawn immediately.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 affectedincluding farmers, food business
operators and retailersto 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 individualswhile
not such as to warrant the bringing of prosecutionshas
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 necessaryon
both the label and the physical content of the meatand
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.
|