FSA News Item, 29 September 2008

ADMINISTRATION - Agency response to GM rice review recommendations

In 2006, US long grain rice was found to be contaminated with an unauthorised genetically modified (GM) rice known as LLRICE601. On 23 June 2008 the Food Standards Agency (FSA) Emergencies Group met to discuss the review of the incident.

The points outlined below summarise the comments made during the review meeting or in written representations, and the FSA response to these recommendations, identifying where changes in practice are required to improve the handling of incidents.

Scoping group meetings

Recommendations:

• the FSA should ensure that scoping meetings are open to all stakeholders (including LACORS or local authority representatives), and attendees should be listed on the FSA website
• conference calls should be used where face to face meetings are not feasible
• key FSA decision makers should be present at the scoping meetings (and later stakeholder meetings)

FSA response:

Scoping groups are a useful mechanism for gathering information in complex incidents, and have now been used by the FSA on a number of occasions. Drawing on the FSA's experience to date, the remit of scoping groups will be reviewed with the FSA Task Force on Incidents, alongside amendments to the Principles for Preventing and Responding to Food Incidents guidance, taking into account the recommendations from this incident review. Guidelines on scoping groups will then be developed.

The FSA does not support decision makers being present at scoping group or stakeholder meetings. The process adopted by the FSA ensures that the Incident Manager reports back from these scoping/stakeholder meetings to internal FSA ‘silver' and ‘gold' meetings where strategic decisions are then made. The FSA recognises the importance of managing stakeholder expectations as to when decisions will be made following silver and gold meetings, and it is for the FSA Incident Manager to convey this information to stakeholders.

Incident prevention

Recommendations:

• contingency planning is needed by the FSA to understand the details of all food supply chains to allow the FSA to act quickly in the event of an incident

FSA response:

The FSA considers that this recommendation is disproportionate in terms of the FSA understanding all food supply chains, recognising that these are global and not static. However, the FSA is looking at contingency planning as part of its incident prevention strategy, recognising the importance of ensuring a co-ordinated approach to intelligence gathering and horizon scanning in relation to food supply chains.

Incident handling

Recommendations:

• The FSA Incidents Protocol must be followed.
• The FSA should ensure that information is cascaded down the supply chain as quickly as possible regarding the action to be taken by those involved. All businesses (including wholesalers) and sectors involved in the incident should be identified.
• Decisions made by the FSA should be underpinned by the Precautionary Principle.
• The FSA ad hoc incident group should take responsibility for tracking the incident and reviewing the need for change as the incident progresses.
• An FSA contact point for the incident will be established.

FSA response:

The FSA agrees that the Incident Protocol must be followed. The tracking of incidents is part of the core process outlined in the Incidents Protocol.

One of the functions of the scoping group is to identify key stakeholders and ensure that their cascade mechanisms are used for rapid information flow concerning the incident. The FSA agrees that information should be cascaded as quickly as possible.

In making decisions the FSA acts in accordance with the EC General Food Law Regulation 178/2002, of which article 7 takes into account the use of the Precautionary Principle.

The FSA Incidents Branch is the key contact for all incidents. An Incident Manager and Deputy within the relevant policy division will be identified as the day to day contact point.

Risk management

Recommendations:

• the legality of products and proportionality should be taken into account in the FSA's risk management decisions
• timeliness is required in establishing FSA policy on risk management

FSA response:

Legality will always be a consideration in FSA risk management decisions, and these decisions will reflect the relevant legislation. The need for the FSA to act proportionately in its risk management decisions is reflected in the Principles for Preventing and Responding to Food Incidents guidance.

The FSA agrees that stakeholders should be informed when decisions will be taken, and these must be taken in a timely manner. This responsibility falls to the incident manager.

Local authorities

Recommendations:

• The FSA should clarify the role of enforcement authorities in an incident recognising their other statutory responsibilities and the need to prioritise their resources. It is also important to be clear who is taking the lead within the local authority (either trading standards or environmental health).
• Where applicable, clear advice is needed from the FSA to local authorities and public analyst labs on the availability of sampling and testing methods.

FSA response:

The FSA agrees with this recommendation. The legal basis for action by local authorities will be defined by the FSA Ad Hoc Incidents Group. At the outset of the incident the Group will establish whether the lead within a local authority will be environmental health or trading standards officers, having regard to local level agreements that are already in place. The scoping group meeting and any subsequent stakeholder meetings will address the issue of sampling and testing methods, where applicable, and the subsequent advice to local authorities and public analysts.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Commission

Recommendations:

• expectations of the Commission need to be understood by Member States to ensure consistency in the approach taken in responding to the incident across the EU
• actions across Member States needs to be better co-ordinated by the Commission
• timely safety advice is needed from EFSA

FSA response:

The FSA supports the aim of ensuring consistency where an incident involves other Member States. A modus operandi has been developed by DG SANCO for the management of food safety incidents. This specifically applies where a Member State having managed the initial incident identifies other products in the supply chain that also contain the substance in question. The objective is to avoid, if possible, the escalation of an incident into a crisis and provides a common approach for managing such incidents. The decision tree outlined in the modus operandi could be applied to managing future incidents that apply to all Member States. A bilateral meeting was held between the FSA and the Commission in September 2008 to reflect on pan-EU incidents, issues which have arisen and mechanisms that need to be put in place to improve handling across Member States. The Commission stressed the importance of rapid risk assessments from EFSA and is increasingly calling Member States together to agree a consistent approach to incidents.

Taking into account the lessons learnt from this incident, the FSA will also be developing specific guidance for Incident Managers on handling negotiations with the Commission and Member States where an incident involves action across the EU. The FSA agrees that it is important to clarify points with the Commission on action that is required by Member States at the start of the incident, and necessary to urge the Commission to undertake co-ordination during the course of the incident, and this will be reflected in the guidance.

The FSA agrees that EFSA needs to provide timely safety advice, and this has been raised with the Executive Director of EFSA and at the EFSA Advisory Forum. Where necessary, the FSA will develop its own safety advice in order to be able to take risk management decisions.

Communication

Recommendations:

• consistent messages will be given in FSA press releases and verbally at meetings
• timely decisions should be taken being clear on when stakeholders will be informed
• food Alerts should be issued to inform local authorities, businesses and consumers in all situations involving illegal products

FSA response:

The FSA agrees that consistent messages should be given, and responsibility for this falls to the Incident Manager. The FSA will incorporate this into the Incident Managers training and awareness.

The FSA does not agree that Food Alerts should be issued as a matter of course. The purpose of a Food Alert is to alert local authorities to a food safety issue and provide instructions as to what action to take regarding products on sale to consumers. Other methods of communication may be more appropriate where there has been a breach of the regulations and there is not a food safety risk. The FSA is currently reviewing the use of Food Alerts.