To go to main Food Law Index page, click here.
The following is a copy of the MAFF page http://www.maff.gov.uk/food/fsa/fsacosum.htm
Introduction
1. Over 1000 interested organisations and individuals responded to the Food Standards Agency White Paper. In general, the Government's proposals received a broad welcome across the full range of stakeholders. The overall aims and core objectives proposed for the Agency were widely supported, although several respondents suggested some extension or adjustment of the Guiding Principles. There was strong support for the Agency's proposed functions. However, there was widespread opposition to the proposal to recover a proportion of food safety costs from the food industry, and views differed strongly on whether the Agency should have a role in relation to nutrition.
Guiding Principles
2. The requirements reflected in the Agency's Guiding Principles were welcomed by respondents from all backgrounds. Their incorporation in legislation was widely seen as an appropriate method of determining the Agency's approach. Several commentators welcomed the proposal that Health Ministers would only be able to issue directions to the Agency if it departed from its Guiding Principles. Others however felt that any Ministerial power of intervention detracted from the proposed independence of the Agency.
3. The commitments to openness, consultation, proportionality and the use of the best available science were welcomed across the board. Consumer groups however expressed some concern that weighing costs and benefits might be used as a pretext to justify inaction. Food manufacturing and producer interests stressed the value of proportionality to avoid damaging the competitiveness of UK industry. They suggested that any action taken where scientific information was either incomplete or contradictory should be limited to cases involving immediate danger to food safety. Some suggested that all such assessments should be decided by Ministers.
4. Several organisations suggested additions to the Guiding Principles. Many consumer interests proposed that the precautionary principle should be incorporated. Some respondents suggested that the Agency should be required to address dietary inequalities and the particular needs of certain social groups. A small number argued for a greater role for the Agency in environmental matters. Others requested that there should be a stated commitment to securing the confidence of stakeholder groups; a clear definition of accountability and a statement on the need to respect the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information.
5. Many respondents, including the major consumer groups, medical and other academic bodies and local government interests, suggested changing the first Guiding Principle to make the essential aim of the Agency the "promotion" as well as the "protection" of public health. Production, manufacturing and retail interests did not comment on this Guiding Principle, but elsewhere expressed reservations about extending the Agency's remit beyond food safety.
6. Several respondents referred to the significance of the EU single market in much of the Agency's work and believed that the Agency should have the formal objective of seeking to secure a level playing field across Europe.
Publication of advice to Ministers
7. The proposal that the Agency should be able to publish its advice to Ministers was seen as an important guarantee of its independence. Local government and consumer groups hoped that there would be a presumption towards routine publication. Some pointed out that the commitment to avoid unjustified alarm should not become a cloak to smother publication. Several, however, preferred that information only be released in the public interest and with Ministerial consent.
Funding the Agency
8. There was general opposition to the principle of passing a greater proportion of the costs of food safety work onto the food industry, and many insisted that any concrete proposals for charges should be clearly linked to specific food-related activities.
9. Primary production, food manufacturing and retail interests were uniformly opposed to the White Paper proposals, which many argued would be passed to consumers as an indirect tax on food, falling disproportionately on the poorer sectors of society. Primary producers were also concerned that a share of any charges would be passed back to them. Consumer groups generally opposed obtaining any of the Agency's funds from the industry, arguing in parallel with food manufacturers and retailers that this could compromise the Agency's independence. Food safety, like all central government functions, should in their view be funded from the public purse.
10. Many also commented on the practicalities of the proposal. Food manufacturers suggested that charges should only be imposed at the point of sale in order to ensure that all products, both domestic and imported, were covered equally. The principle of charging on a flat-rate basis was widely opposed on the grounds that it would discriminate unfairly against certain types of business. Graduated charges were generally felt to be a fairer method of distributing the burden, with small business representatives suggesting that these be linked to business size and some larger concerns advocating charges calculated on the basis of a business's risk classification. Others suggested that any charges should cover no more than the costs of carrying out inspections.
11. Local government groups in general supported the principle of a locally operated licensing scheme but were opposed to any charging scheme in which local authorities had to collect money and forward some or all of it to the Agency. Many interests however were against introducing licensing simply to raise funds, rather than as a mechanism intended to drive up standards, and noted the increased resources that would be needed to operate a licence scheme effectively. Some local authority groups proposed using the Non-Domestic Rate as a vehicle for recovering food safety costs. Several respondents suggested that any new scheme should absorb or replace the existing registration of food premises.
12. All interests were agreed that ease and economy of collection and the avoidance of unnecessary bureaucracy should be key considerations in drawing up a charging scheme.
Food law enforcement
13. The commitment to keep day-to-day enforcement at local level was firmly supported by local government interests. Others however, including some major retailers and food manufacturers, sought a more fundamental review of enforcement, including consideration of a unified and centralised inspection service. It was generally felt that if enforcement remained with local authorities, then auditing by the Agency was a useful means of ensuring that standards were maintained, provided targets were realistic and proper resources available to meet them. Some concern was expressed about the proposed reserve powers of the Agency, and it was suggested that an appeals process should be included. Many commented on the important role played by LACOTS but pointed out a possible duplication with any co-ordinating work undertaken by the Agency. Some suggested that LACOTS' food role should be transferred to the Agency, although many felt that this work was best done under the present arrangements.
14. The Home Authority principle was generally felt to be effective, although some commentators recognised it as having weaknesses. Opinion differed on the proposal to make it mandatory. Some local authorities pointed out that the system relied on proper resourcing, and that a small authority required to act as Home Authority for a major chain could face serious difficulties. A few retail and manufacturing representatives advocated making the Agency itself the Home Authority for large, multi-site operations as part of a centralisation of enforcement.
Nutrition
15. The great majority of commentators from the food industry were strongly opposed to the Agency taking any responsibilities in relation to nutritional policy, although some conceded that it would be appropriate for it to have a limited role in providing factual information on the composition of foods. The main arguments put forward in support of the industry's position was that nutrition would take the Agency's work into issues of lifestyle and personal choice which were felt to be an unsuitable subject for regulation. The industry argued moreover that extending the Agency's remit to nutrition would weaken its focus on core tasks relating to food safety.
16. Consumer organisations, supported by a range of academic and medical groups, argued vigorously for the Agency to have an extensive remit on nutrition. Food safety, standards and nutrition were seen as indivisible topics, and it was felt to be essential that the Agency be created as the single authoritative body on all food policy issues relating to public health. This would prevent any public scepticism which could arise if relevant issues were seen to have been excluded from its remit. Some respondents went further, suggesting that the Agency have a role in relation to food marketing, advertising and sponsorship to complement its role on labelling, and that it be able to regulate to ensure that high nutritional standards were met in staple foods.
17. Local and health authorities generally supported the proposals in the White Paper, or suggested increasing the Agency's role to cover all aspects of nutrition. Several commentators (from all sectors) emphasised that the boundary between the Agency and Health Departments should be clearly defined and any areas of joint responsibility managed transparently. Many private individuals commented on this aspect of the proposals, but no clear consensus emerged. Some noted that the Agency should have responsibility for all food issues, others expressed concern that the Agency might restrict consumers' freedom of choice.
18. The role of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) in providing authoritative advice and guidance was widely acknowledged. Few commented on the responsibility for the committee secretariat, although those that did generally supported a joint Agency/Health Departments responsibility or suggested transferring all the work to the Agency.
Information/education
19. The Agency role in this area was welcomed and seen by both consumer and food industry groups as a key part of its remit. Local government organisations emphasised that this work should complement that already done by local authorities. Several groups cautioned against the Agency becoming a "leaflet factory". Others noted that the Agency's governing body should have direct access to expertise in publicity and communication to ensure that its information and advice were clear, readily available and usable. It was also suggested that the Agency should examine public perceptions of risk as part of its communication strategy and treat risk assessment, management and communication as integral to all of its work. Some respondents suggested that the Agency should promote the teaching of food hygiene in schools and encourage its inclusion in the National Curriculum.
The Agency 'on-farm'
20. There was considerable support for the proposal that animal health and welfare issues should be left with Agriculture Departments but reserve powers given to the Agency to take action if necessary in the interests of public health. Some respondents, however, in particular consumer groups and medical bodies, believed that the Agency should take over active responsibility for these areas. Several respondents commented on the need to maintain a clear division of the responsibility between the Agency and Agriculture Departments. Some bodies commented that in addition to its "plough to plate" remit the Agency would need to give consideration to "sea to shop" issues to play its part in ensuring that the sea is and remains a healthy environment for food production.
Veterinary medicines and pesticides
21. Farming interests and some trade organisations supported the proposals in the White Paper to keep overall responsibility for pesticides and veterinary medicines in the Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD) and Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). Consumer groups however believed that the safety aspects of these functions should be transferred to the Agency. The proposal to give the Agency an effective power of veto over product authorisations received support from some health and trade organisations but others considered that it should be strictly limited to cases where there was a proven risk to food safety. It was also suggested that there should be a mechanism of appeal against the veto. Several suggested that, if responsibility for safety evaluation remained with PSD and VMD, then the existing surveillance programmes covering pesticide and veterinary medicine residues should transfer to the Agency, and that the Agency should also take over surveillance for human suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines.
Research & surveillance
22. Support for the proposal that the Agency should co-ordinate food safety research came from local government, retailers and food manufacturers. The greatest issue of concern was the budget that would be made available to the Agency. Others were concerned that the transfer of money from MAFF would significantly reduce funding for non food safety related agricultural research.
23. A comprehensive, co-ordinated programme of surveillance was supported. Local authorities noted that the Agency's work should complement rather than duplicate their own work in this area. The proposals to review the Public Analyst Service in England and Wales and the Scientific Services in Scotland and the appropriate laboratory services in Northern Ireland were generally welcomed.
Food hygiene
24. Several comments were received on the need for food hygiene training . both at the level of the National Curriculum and in the workplace. Some felt that there should be a statutory provision for staff employed by food businesses to receive training.
Food borne illness
25. The proposal to retain local management of local outbreaks was widely supported. Many stressed that local surveillance programmes should also be preserved. The review of the communicable disease legislation was welcomed, with many remarking that the prompt, mandatory reporting of notifiable diseases by all laboratories would ensure that the information necessary for effective action was available. It was felt that the review would clarify the precise roles and responsibilities of all groups working in this area, including the co-ordinating role and default powers of the Agency. Some health authorities, however, saw no need for default powers, or indeed any involvement, on the part of the Agency.
Imported food
26. Producers and manufacturers emphasised that the Agency's actions should not reduce the competitiveness of the UK food industry or otherwise disadvantage UK businesses. Similar standards should be applied to imports and UK production alike.
Structure and accountability of the Agency
27. Consumer groups welcomed the proposed independence of the Agency. Food industry interests felt that the requirement to report to Ministers and the reserve powers of direction proposed for the latter were crucial. It was agreed by many respondents that although situated within the overall structure of Government the Agency should operate, and be seen to operate, independently of other departments as well as of day-to-day Ministerial control.
28. Membership of the Commission to lead the Agency drew substantial comment. It was generally felt that the Chairman (as well as the Chief Executive) would need to command the respect of consumers and industry if the Agency were to succeed. While no respondents argued that Commissioners should act as sectoral representatives, many interests felt strongly that its membership should include first-hand knowledge of their area. The need for Commissioners to be truly independent was widely supported, as was the importance of selecting them for their balanced approach to their particular areas of expertise.
29. There was some concern that the Commission would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy between Ministers and operational staff. Some argued moreover that there was a risk that the UK's negotiating position in Brussels would be undermined if Ministers determined a policy line at odds with the Agency's published advice.
30. Civil Servant status for the Agency's officials was generally felt to be acceptable, although there was concern that the transfer of existing civil servants might not produce the required culture change. Others believed that civil service status was only appropriate if it was clear that staff could be drawn from any source, including through open competition. Secondments from the private sector were also suggested.
Arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
31. The White Paper proposals were generally felt to represent a sensible balance between the need to maintain consistency and the need to respect the principles of devolution. A number of organisations noted the importance of not adding unnecessary complexity to food safety and standards work. Farming and trade organisations argued for a consistent approach to the implementation of food legislation across the UK. There was some support for the proposals among Northern Ireland respondents, although a significant number repeated their preference for a separate Northern Ireland Agency.
This page was provided by MAFF and last updated on 28 May 1998