The report was published on 29 April 1998. The full report is available on the Internet and can be found at House of Commons Agriculture Committee Reports - Fourth Report. The following is a copy of the page giving the conclusions and recommendations. The original page can be accessed on the Internet at Summary.
The report has no direct impact although it will influence Minister when drafting the new legislation.
Pre-legislative scrutiny
(a) We would welcome any comments, from Members and others, as to how we might best undertake scrutiny of the draft Food Standards Agency bill (paragraph 9).
The FSA's credibility
(b) In our view, the main challenge which the FSA will face is in establishing its credibility with the public, as swiftly as possible. The Agency must not only make our food safer, but be seen to do so. It must also ensure the correct balance between advice and enforcement This will require it to set clear priorities for its actions in its first years of existence. The onus on the Government will be to ensure that the FSA will be properly financed, well managed and effectively led (paragraph 11).
The incidence of food poisoning
(c) We recommend that the Government explore means of devising research projects to provide a fuller understanding of the different rates of food poisoning in the constituent parts of the UK. The absence of clear conclusions on these discrepancies is inexcusable, and must be remedied if the Agency's work is to be underpinned by a real understanding of the incidence and causes of food poisoning in the UK (paragraph 18).
(d) Under-notification by GPs is only one part of the wider jigsaw of under-ascertainment of infectious intestinal disease in the UK, but it is an important part, and the Government must both ensure that GPs are advised of developments in foodborne illnesses and their symptoms, and continue to press GPs to meet their responsibilities in respect of notification. This task will be a crucial one if the Agency's work is to be informed by accurate statistical information and not just by hunches and guesswork (paragraph 19).
(e) Professor Brian Duerden, Deputy Director of the PHLS, argued that "laboratory notifications should become a statutory responsibility". We agree. Such measures are essential in improving public health and food safety policy (paragraph 20).
(f) The publication of the DoH's infectious intestinal disease report should be extremely important in understanding the true prevalence of food poisoning in the UK (paragraph 22).
Microbiological hazards
(g) UK food safety policy must aim, as far as is reasonably achievable, at the elimination of pathogenic bacteria from the food supply chain (paragraph 28).
(h) We would propose that the Government, through the Food Standards Agency when it is established, should effectively apply the HACCP principle to the food-chain in its entirety, identifying the most appropriate points of intervention and control in the context of the methods of production and the characteristics of particular dangerous pathogens. The resources which the Agency allocates in this area should be distributed on the basis of that analysis (paragraph ?).
(i) The Government has proposed the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs to support the work of the Food Standards Agency. We warmly welcome this decision, which should provide the necessary impetus to achieve wholly Salmonella-free feed in the future (paragraph 35).
(j) In its response to this Report, the Government should address the problem of formulating strategies against specific bacteriological hazards, as well as the detailed elements of those strategies which we have proposed (paragraph 35).
(k) The establishment of a rigorous, scientific and statistically reliable national food surveillance system will be an essential component of an effective food safety policy in the future. Ideally these surveys should discriminate between foods produced according to different methods (one example amongst many would be battery and free-range eggs) to provide information which can be used to better effect in influencing policy further down the food chain: they should also discriminate between UK-produced and imported foodstuffs. The results of such surveys must be published regularly (paragraph 36).
Emergent threats
(l) No one can predict when or if new micro-organisms, or new virulent strains of known bacteria, will emerge. A major food poisoning incident, resulting from such an emergent threat, in the early years of the Agency's existence could hardly be blamed on the Agency (paragraph 37).
(m) We consider the evidence of transfer of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms from animals to humans through food to be approaching conclusiveness, and with the consequences of this potentially so serious, we favour a ban on the use of antibiotics in farming as growth promoters, and tighter restrictions on their use for subtherapeutic or prophylactic purposes. Every effortshould be made to develop vaccines as alternatives to antibiotics for therapeutic purposes (paragraph 40).
(n) We see no proof yet of problems in respect of food safety in relation to the practices of disposal of sewage sludge and other organic waste on to agricultural land, but these practices must be kept under close and continuous review in the light of the ACMSF's findings (paragraph 42).
Imported food
(o) We have no evidence to suggest that imported food in general is now, or is likely to become in the future, any less wholesome and safe than UK produce. Multiple retailers, for example, audit and inspect their foreign suppliers on the same basis as their UK suppliers. We do consider, however, that the arrangements for surveillance of food imports, and for ensuring their traceability on an absolutely equal basis with domestically-produced food, will be important issues for the new Food Standards Agency to address, both at the EU level and with local port health authorities. The Agency cannot afford to have domestic producers feeling that the "playing field" is not level. Nor can it rest content with any inspection regimes in other countries which are not as thorough as in the UK (paragraph 44).
Economy products
(p) The British Meat Manufacturers' Association called for greater regulation and enforcement of hygiene at the lower price end of the meat manufacturing industry. We agree with the BMMA, and others who gave evidence to us, that all consumers have a right to expect their food to be safe from contamination, irrespective of price. It will be a major test of the Food Standards Agency to raise the safety standards of lower-priced food, meat and non-meat products alike, to those of more expensive and controlled foodstuffs (paragraph 46).
Pesticides
(q) We consider that public confidence in the safety of food in respect of pesticides and veterinary medicines residues would be enhanced if the surveillance programmes were carried out by the FSA wholly independently of the authorities responsible for product approvals. We further consider that the Agency should actively promote the results of its surveys in the consumer media (paragraph 49).
Genetically-modified organisms
(r) It is our view that consumers have a right to know if foods contain genetically-modified organisms, or if there is a possibility that they may contain them, and we fully support the Government's labelling policy for such foods. GMOs also have potential environmental consequences, but these matters lie outside the scope of this Report. We strongly support Dr Cunningham's call for continued vigilance both on the food safety and environmental consequences of GMOs. These are issues to which we may return in a later inquiry (paragraph 51).
The food chain
(s) The Food Standards Agency will need to secure hygiene improvements throughout the food chain by a variety of methods, including a strategic review of the different sectors in the food chain to identify research priorities with clear targets and objectives to bring about the desired improvements in pathogen reduction and control. At the same time, it must not shrink from re-appraising the hygiene control strategies which are already in place when it begins its operations. The Agency must come to its own judgements about the hierarchy of risk within the food chain and may choose to adapt the existing regulatory framework to reflect that risk, balancing the need for regulation against producers' legal responsibilities to exercise "due diligence", under the Food Safety Act, in ensuring the safety of their produce and consumers' reasonable obligations. The Agency should also commission research on the practicability and desirability of simplifying and shortening the food chain with the aim of reducing risk (paragraph 54).
(t) Full observance of basic and well-established hygiene rules by caterers and domestic consumers would slash the incidence of food poisoning in this country. However, particularly bearing in mind the fact that many food products are eaten raw or purchased already cooked the onus to prevent incidents of food poisoning must not be placed solely upon the consumer. As the Chairman of the ACMSF has said: "ordinary household and small caterer hygiene cannot be expected to deal on all occasions with the unacceptable incidence of food pathogens found in the output of animal production and spread further in slaughter and primary butchery of carcasses" (paragraph 55).
HACCP
(u) The full implementation of HACCP will not, of itself, rid the food chain of microbiological hazards, but it will make a significant contribution to food safety, in conjunction with adequate training of food business managers and food handlers. We also consider that the sixth and seventh stages of HACCP should be made mandatory legal requirements. Nevertheless, the focus of HACCP on the processes adopted by individual businesses does not obviate the need for measurement of levels of microbiological contamination of businesses' raw material inputs and processed outputs, and for a co-ordinated approach to the reduction of pathogens throughout the food chain as a whole (paragraph 59).
Agricultural and farming practice
(v) Definitive information is needed on what the current pathogen levels are in animals destined for food production and the potential for reduction associated with different intervention strategies. This is a task which the Food Standards Agency will need to address urgently (paragraph 60).
(w) We believe that MAFF, together with the Food Standards Agency, will need to review the relationship between modern farming practices and food safety, once the basic research on carriage of pathogens in livestock has been carried out. While we do not consider the licensing of livestock producers to be necessary, we are in favour of the promotion of HACCP principles within the farming industry. It is important to remember that extensive and intensive livestock production methods, in food safety terms, both raise their own specific problems which the FSA and MAFF must address on their merits (paragraph 61).
Slaughter and primary processing
(x) It is essential to have sound objective measurements of the value of the meat hygiene inspection process, so that judgements can be made about the proportionality of the slaughterhouse inspection regime to the food safety risks involved. In the context of this and other inquiries, we are particularly concerned about the poor-quality "tail" of slaughterhouses with low HAS scores which exists in this country. We recommend changes to the licensing system for slaughterhouses to make it far more difficult for slaughterhouses with unsatisfactory hygiene levels to operate, by banning individuals with a record of running unhygienic establishments from gaining or retaining licences. This should punish the guilty without imposing undue regulation on well-run smaller slaughterhouses (paragraph 63).
Processing, distribution, retail and catering
(y) We are concerned that the admirable principles which are espoused by the Joint Hospitality Industry Congress and other industry associations in relation to food hygiene training are not being implemented in practice throughout all food businesses. The withdrawal of mandatory funding of food hygiene courses by the Further Education Funding Council is a retrograde step. The effective implementation of HACCP depends crucially on well-trained managers and employees in food businesses. The FSA should be encouraged to comment publicly on the adequacy of such training (paragraph 65).
(z) All the authorities involved in food hygiene run public information campaigns, although the impact of these initiatives is questionable. As the ACMSF has noted, recipes using raw eggs are routinely presented in cooking magazines and programmes despite the Chief Medical Officer's warnings about the dangers of raw eggs for vulnerable groups. Public informaiton is one area where we believe that the Food Standards Agency must devote sufficient resources, assessing the problems by opinion surveys and using the information to increase public awareness of food hygiene issues, to inform consumers about changes in best practice and bring about a substantial reduction in food poisoning cases. We welcome moves currently under way to raise the profile of the subject of food hygiene in school curricula (paragraph 68).
The consumer
(aa) The Food Standards Agency must have an important role to play in encouraging manufacturers to achieve higher and more uniform standards in domestic kitchen equipment,particularly fridges and microwaves, to assist the public in maintaining the safety of food (paragraph 69).
Traceability and labelling
(bb) We feel that a radical overhaul of the labelling of food on sale in the UK is long overdue. Food imported into the UK must be subject to the same traceability and labelling requirements as domestically-produced food (paragraph 71).
The Government's White Paper
(cc) We welcome the leading role to be played by the FSA in developing an integrated preventative strategy for the control of human zoonoses as described in the Government's White Paper (paragraph 82).
(dd) We are satisfied that the arrangement proposed by the Government, whereby the Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate remain the lead authorities in approving new products whilst the FSA has an effective veto over both the approvals (PSD) and licensing (VMD) processes, represents an effective and workable compromise preserving the administrative efficiency of the existing systems whilst ensuring high standards of food safety. We would however like to see the FSA assuming complete control of the surveillance schemes for pesticides and veterinary medicines, so that approvals and monitoring processes are carried out by different organisations (paragraph 85).
(ee) We believe that the FSA should establish an emergency unit, to develop contingency plans to deal with food safety hazards, and that the proposed mechanisms for coordinating FSA and local authority emergency responses should be clarified as soon as possible and integrated with the food industry's own responsibility to manage food safety emergencies (paragraph 86).
Nutrition
(ff) We favour the inclusion of aspects of nutrition policy within the remit of the FSA, although we are concerned about the lack of clarity within the White Paper about the division of responsibilities between the Agency and the Department of Health. Nutrition is not a second-order issue: poorly-balanced diets cause much greater damage to health than food poisoning, and over the long-term the Agency could achieve significantly more in its nutritional activities than in its food safety role (paragraph 89).
Structure
(gg) While we agree wholeheartedly with the notion of impartial and objective Commissioners, we find it highly unlikely that persons of the calibre required will be found without some 'specific affiliation' - whether it be derived from experience in local government, academic, corporate or other non-Governmental sectors. Indeed, the Commission's utilisation of collective experience gained in these different fields by individual Commissioners should be viewed as a strength rather than a weakness, providing the basis for the informed decisions which must be taken by a truly independent FSA (paragraph 90).
Financing
(hh) We are not in favour of the Government's proposed licensing fee as a mechanism for raising revenue for the Agency. It would, in effect, be a regressive tax as food is proportionately a larger item in the budgets of low-income households, and the costs would be passed on to consumers by industry. We believe that licensing should not be the subject of charges and should be selective, not universal. Where there is a recognized scientific need to control the risk of food contamination in particular retail and catering outlets, such as butchers' premises, licensing should be made obligatory, but other outlets should be exempted from this requirement. In our judgement, individual food businesses should only be charged for specific, identifiable activities or services, such as inspections, carried out by the FSA or local authority officers on the public's behalf. All other operating costs accruing to the Agency should be borne by the Government, as should the Agency's start-up costs. Food safety is a matter of public responsibility and should, therefore, be publicly-financed. Our approach has significant advantages over the Government's proposals, not least in ensuring tighter overall control of the FSA's expenditure, and more exacting supervision of the public service it offers, consequent on the Treasury's interest in accounting for public finances. There is a danger that any charging regime will discriminate against domestically produced foods and in favour of imports, damaging the competitiveness of the UK industry. Consideration should be given, consistent with EU legislation, to charging importers of food for the actual cost of food safety checks carried out at ports of entry (paragraph 93).
The FSA's communication techniques
(ii) It is essential that the FSA should utilize modern communication and information techniques. It should also survey public opinion regularly to ensure its messages on food hygiene are getting across. Merely relying on low-key public information techniques, however well-informed and well-intentioned, will not be sufficient (paragraph 99).
International comparisons
(jj) Collecting comparative international data on food safety issues will be an essential component of the Food Standards Agency's work in constructing and furthering best practice in this country (paragraph 100).
Risk assessment
(kk) Dr Cunningham told us that the Agency will proceed on the basis of the precautionary principle. If so, we believe it should be explicitly stated in the Agency's guiding principles, which is not the case in the White Paper (paragraph 103).
(ll) One of the first tasks for the Food Standards Agency will be to draw up and publish the risk assessment criteria under which it will operate. We recommend that it consults widely on these criteria before they are adopted. A clear definition of the respective responsibilities of the Government, the food industry and the individual consumer in addressing risk is also required (paragraph 104).
Priorities
(mm) In order to prevent inundating the Agency with enforcement and policy responsibilities at a very early stage, we consider some form of prioritisation of Agency duties to be not only helpful, but essential. The Agency will need to draw up a clear work programme, prioritising its various areas of responsibility, in response to particular public concerns, scientific priorities, risk assessments, and its capacity actually to effect improvements in food safety, standards and nutrition (paragraph 105).
Targets
(nn) Failure to meet targets on the part of the Agency should not necessarily be met by an increase in financial resources available to it. Indeed, we are concerned to make sure that the creation of the Agency does not lead to a large increase in public expenditure, and would on the contrary hope that the Agency would be able to generate efficiency savings in existing programmes over time (paragraph 106).
(oo) Some of the FSA's initial targets must relate to improving the reporting of foodborne pathogen outbreaks and reducing levels of microbiological contamination of foodstuffs. Once the full extent of the national food poisoning problem is known, the FSA can than initiate concerted action, with other Government Departments as appropriate, to monitor and reduce the levels of incidence of human food poisoning across the UK, but it would be wrong to judge the success or failure of the Agency by trends in reported foodborne illnesses, during its first three years. Targets relating to nutrition and health will inevitably be more long-term and imprecise, given the range of other factors, apart from food, affecting public health, the lack of clear causal links between diet and health in many instances, and the policy responsibilities of other bodies apart from the FSA, including the Department of Health itself, in these matters (paragraph 108).
(pp) The FSA should verify its success in achieving 'soft' targets, such as increasing public awareness of and confidence in food hygiene, through regular surveying and monitoring of public attitudes. Such surveys could also be used to assess the public's opinion of the administration and delivery of the FSA's new food hygiene policies (paragraph 109).
Political accountability
(qq) We agree with the proposals in the White Paper that the Agency should be accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Health, and that it should "produce an Annual Report, Corporate Plan and Business Plan" and "be subject to an annual accountability review and a more fundamental quinquennial review" (paragraph 112).
(rr) We consider Professor James' proposal of joint meetings of existing select committees to take evidence from the Agency on its activities to be more appropriate than the creation of a new Food Select Committee. The Agency would then also be accountable to individual select committees, principally ourselves and the Health Committee (paragraph 112).
(ss) We recommend that a full day's debate should take place each year on the floor of the House on a motion to take note of the Agency's Report and Accounts, and any related reports by departmental select committees and the Committee of Public Accounts. Taking evidence from the Chairperson of the Commission on his or her appointment is also something which we would wish to consider seriously, in consultation with our colleagues on the Health Committee (paragraph 112).
Enforcement and inspection powers
(tt) We recommend that the Government explore the possibility of the Agency having contracts with local agencies for the delivery of food hygiene enforcement functions. These contracts would include detailed specifications and targets for work to encourage standardisation of enforcement across the country and to ensure that there were adequate resources for the work. They would normally be placed with local authorities, for delivery through their Environmental Health Departments. However, in some instances, the contracts might be placed with other agencies. Whilst the FSA headquarters would be responsible for drawing up and awarding the contracts, it is possible that the monitoring of the contracts would be better done at local or regional level to achieve the level of co-operation and partnership needed to both deliver the service and drive up standards. With this in mind we recommend that at least one member of the FSA's Commission should have extensive knowledge of local authority enforcement of food legislation; and that a specialist division be set up within the FSA's Executive to oversee the contractual process, staffed by personnel with extensive knowledge of local authority food safety functions and procedures. This division should also ensure that the FSA has the capacity, in cases of emergency, to assume direct control over enforcement acitivities (paragraph 116).
The dangers of over-regulation
(uu) We believe the Government, and subsequently the Agency, should give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of introducing derogations from certain legislative requirements for specific types of small producers and retailers offering exemplary levels of food safety, but whose business livelihoods may be threatened by increased administrative costs consequent on greater regulation (paragraph 117).
Leadership
(vv) Public advertisement of key posts in the Agency is essential, and the Chairperson of the Commission and the Chief Executive must be able to command the confidence of consumers without alienating producers. They will both need to be outstanding communicators. In particular, they will need to demonstrate considerable experience of serving and working for consumers; a rigorous target-driven approach to the solution of complex problems; and experience of managing a high-profile national organisation. These "paragons of virtue", in Dr Cunningham's phrase, will also need to carry authority within the scientific community (though they would not need to be scientists themselves). If it is not possible to identify individuals of sufficient calibre, the formal launch of this Agency should be delayed. A poorly-led Agency would be worse than no Agency at all (paragraph 118).
Crisis management
(ww) The Agency must clearly demonstrate that it is more effective at dealing with crises than MAFF has been in the past (paragraph 119).
Openness
(xx) The activities of the Agency and its advisory committees must take place in the open sunshine of public scrutiny and accountability. We look to the Agency to reach its decisions by open processes and to develop imaginative ways of ensuring its accountability and openness to the general public at both national and local level (paragraph 120).
Consumer representation and imput
(yy) We recommend that a Consumer's Committee, representative of the broad range of consumer interests, be established to advise the FSA's Executive and Commission on general issues; that a specialist Consumer Commissioner be appointed to the FSA to represent the consumer's interests directly in a similar way to the three Territorial Commissioners representing Northern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh interests; and that local or regional consumer panels, run by local authorities, should be established to provide a consumer viewpoint on local and regional issues relating to food safety and standards. We consider that the FSA should itself finance this consumer role to allow consumer panels to conduct their own research on the effectiveness of the Agency and its staff (paragraph 121).