print pageclose window

Legislation

Food Safety Bulletins

The Food Standards Agency News replaces the Food Safety Information Bulletin Food Standards Agency News is published by the Food Standards Agency, Communications Division, Hannibal House, PO Box 30080, Elephant and Castle, London SE1 6YA Editor Liz Niman Tel 020 7972 2484. Fax: 020 7972 2340. E-mail liz.niman@foodstandardfs.gsi.gov.uk FSA Web site www.foodstandards.gov.uk Excerpts this document are reproduced with permission from Food Standards Agency Food labels ‘must improve to protect consumers’ The Food standards Agency will press for far reaching changes in European food labelling rules. The Agency wants food labels to provide clearer information for consumers, tighter controls on claims about genetically modified (GM) ingredients and better information for people with allergies The action plan, agreed by the Food Standards Agency Board at its meeting in Belfast on 20 September, follows nine months of consultation and consumer research. The main points of the plan are: Preventing allergic reactions: The Agency is calling for the compulsory listing in the EU of all ingredients in food that could cause allergic reactions, and wants to extend the listing to include alcoholic drinks. Code on promotion to children: There is concern that the promotion to children of foods high in fat, sugar or salt is contributing to childhood obesity and long-term health problems. The Agency plans to work with consumers and industry to develop and implement a new code of practice on promoting food to children. Confusing health claims: To help end consumer confusion caused by misleading health claims such as low-fat, fat-free, and 80% fat-free, the Agency will be pressing for legally binding EU standards on nutrition claims and clear nutrition labelling. Labelling GM food: Recent surveys by the Agency have found that GM is still an important issue for consumers with nearly a third of shoppers saying that they wanted to know if there are GM ingredients when buying food. The Agency wants to extend EU rules to require labelling of GM animal feed, and clearer regulations on GM-free labelling. Country of origin: This is important for many consumers, particularly when they are choosing meat and dairy products. The Agency is to press for clear EU rules on the use of terms like produce of and extend the rules to a wider range of foods. Recent examples of confusing labelling include bacon made from imported pig meat that was labelled as British or produced in the UK. The Agency calls on the food industry to adopt clear and transparent criteria for the use of potentially misleading terms like fresh, pure, traditional, and country-style. The Agency is also proposing the abolition of a rule that exempts ingredients from being listed if they are part of a compound ingredient that makes up less than 25% of the food. Food Standards Agency Deputy Chair, Suzi Leather, said: "Consumers have said that too many labels are confusing, misleading or simply do not provide enough information for them to make sensible choices. "We know that up to 8% of infants and young children suffer from adverse reactions to particular foods and ingredients and we want to put in place measures which help protect them. "This is a balanced programme that seeks European wide legal safeguards and voluntary action that responds to consumer needs," added Ms Leather. Consumer surveys have unearthed several areas of concern around labels and information, including the need for better information when eating out. In a January survey carried out by MORI: 91 % agreed that people have a right to know the country of origin on food. 63% said country of origin labelling on dairy produce was important. 56% of people said they were 'bothered' about country of origin labels 79% of people surveyed said meat was the most important food that should have a country of origin label. 32% said drinks should have a country of origin label. In February, another MORI poll showed that food labels could mislead shoppers about the origin of British foods. Agency plans action on milk bug - Mycobacterium paratuberculosis (MAP) can survive pasteurisation The Food Standards Agency is to hold a conference of science and industry experts to look at ways to stop a bacterium in milk, which could be linked to Crohn's Disease, from entering the human food chain. Recent research commissioned by the Agency has shown that Mycobacterium paratuberculosis (MAP) can survive pasteurisation. Some scientists believe there is a possible, but so far unproven, link between MAP in the food chain and Crohn's Disease in humans. Having examined the evidence, the Agency's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) do not recommend that there should be any change in the Government's advice on milk consumption. But they are concerned that there might be a link between MAP and Crohn's Disease. They have therefore recommended that the Agency sets up a group to look at ways to prevent the bacterium from entering the food chain, taking into account consumer concerns such as the risk of exposure in children. The findings were part of a national survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency to look at the microbiological quality of milk. The research started in March 1999 and finished in August 2000. The research into MAP in milk was carried out at the Queen's University, Belfast. The findings of this research were presented to the ACMSF at its quarterly meeting on 19 September. Further results from the survey looking at other aspects of the microbiological quality of milk will be presented to the Committee when testing and analysis are complete. The latest research findings are on the Food Standards Agency website: www.foodstandards.gov.uk Preliminary results from the surrey found MAP present in 1.9% of raw milk samples and 2.1 % of pasteurised milk samples. A variety of pasteurisation times and temperatures, including extended times up to 25 seconds, were used. The legal minimum requirement for pasteurisation is treatment for 15 seconds at a temperature of 72°C. The ten samples of pasteurised milk found to contain the bacterium came from eight different dairies situated throughout the UK and ranging in size from small to very large. All the participating dairies took part on a voluntary basis. MAP is the cause of Johne's Disease in cud chewing animals. The Food Standards Agency wants to look at possibilities for controlling Johne's Disease to prevent MAP from entering the human food chain in light of the scientific evidence that it can survive pasteurisation. Your views on openness and risk - Response to Agency consultation The Food Standards Agency is holding a public consultation on two documents which lay down two central working principles: a draft code of practice on openness and a draft statement on the Agency's approach to risk. Anybody interested in commenting on either of these documents needs to get comments to the Agency by 17 November 2000. The proposed Code of Practice on openness will make public disclosure of the Agency's advice and information the norm. The statement on risk explains how the Agency intends to deal with risks, from first becoming aware of them to the enforcement stage. The consultation web pages also carry message boards for exchanging ideas. Further information The consultation package is on our website www.foodstandards.gov.uk/consultations.htm Paper copies are available on request from Keith Butler, Food Standards Agency, Room 5/21 Hannibal House, PO Box 30080, London SE1 6YA, Tel: 020 7972 2428. Email: keith.butler@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk Codes of practice - New deal for working with local authorities Food safety enforcement officials take on new responsibilities under revised codes of practice submitted to health ministers by the Food Standards Agency. Three of the 20 codes of practice for local authorities under the Food Safety Act 1990 are being revised after consultation earlier this year, while others are still under review. The changed codes are Code of Practice No 7: Sampling - This puts new requirements for local authorities to amend and publish their food sampling programmes and general policy Code of Practice No 9: Food Hygiene Inspections - After the inquiry into the E.coli 0157 outbreak in Lanarkshire, amendments deal with guidance to inspectors, record keeping and information given to proprietors of food businesses being inspected. Code of Practice No 19: Qualifications This code gives guidance on the level of qualifications needed by enforcement officers to enforce food law. The new codes will be sent to all local authorities and will be available to food businesses on request. They will also be placed on the Agency's website at www.foodstandards.gov.uk Butchers licences to improve safety - New licensing rules for butchers in Scotland and England Safety in the food chain will be strengthened from 1 November - when butchers, grocers, supermarkets, delis and other shops in England that sell open raw meat and ready-to-eat food will all need to carry a butchers' licence. Trading without a licence after 1 November will be a criminal offence. Similar shops in Scotland have been legally required to have butchers' licences since 2 October. The new licensing scheme is being introduced following the 1996 E.coli outbreak in Central Scotland in 1996 which caused the deaths of 17 people and made 500 more people ill. Licensing of butchers was a central recommendation of the Pennington report into that outbreak. The Regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 April 2000 and require butchers, grocers, supermarkets and similar food outlets in England to be licensed if they sell open raw meat and ready-to-eat products from the same premises. The Regulations only cover premises handling both raw meat and ready-to-eat food, because of the higher risks of cross contamination. Butchers' licences are issued by local Environmental Health Departments. Licensing is subject to enhanced hygiene conditions being in place, including Compliance with existing food hygiene legislation The operation of documented HACCP food safety management controls Enhanced staff hygiene training requirements. Most pesticide level within safety limits - Agency chairman calls for more work on 'cocktail' effect The latest report on pesticide levels showed very low rates of contamination in foods. But the Chairman of the Food Standards Agency Sir John Krebs called for more research on the 'cocktail' effects of mixtures of pesticides. The 1999 Report of the Working Party on Pesticide Residues (now known as the Pesticide Residues Committee) was published on 21 September. It showed that two of the 2,500 food samples tested during the 1999 programme presented possible public health risks. These were unacceptable levels of chlormequat in a pear sample, and methamidophos in a sweet pepper. Quick and appropriate action was taken to deal with those incidents. Overall, 1.6% of samples exceeded legal limits - although they were well within safety margins. Sir John commented that "There should be no doubt that the overall picture is one that shows that food safety standards are being maintained, but we will continue to review pesticide levels." He also said that consumers are concerned about different combinations of pesticide residues that are in food -although there is no current evidence that they present any health risks. The Agency is taking action to deal with consumer concerns on the so-called 'cocktail' effect, said Sir John, and it is seeking expert advice from a working group of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products, and the Environment (COT). Scottish food safety policy boost - Bigger budget to support Scottish initiatives A budget increase for the Food Standards Agency Scotland will boost the Agency's programme to ensure that Scottish consumers get safer, more nutritious food. Under Scottish Executive spending plans, the budget for the Agency in Scotland will rise from £3.7 million to £5.4 million over the next three years. Food Standards Agency Scotland said that the money will help with plans to: Improve consumer choice through better information Cut food poisoning levels by 20% by 2006, and in particular reduce Salmonella in retail chicken by 50% over five years Run major campaigns to improve diet and nutrition in Scotland Improve partnership working with local authorities to ensure food hygiene failures are acted upon swiftly and effectively Continue research into the causes of shellfish toxins. A major programme to cut food poisoning in Scotland had already been announced before the news of the budget increase. This followed an outbreak of Salmonella poisoning in Scotland over the summer, and the release of figures showing that almost a quarter of Scottish shops, restaurants and other food establishments had breached hygiene and safety regulations in 1999 -although most breaches were minor. Dr George Paterson, Director of the Food Standards Agency Scotland, said of the Agency's programme: "More research, better public information and less food poisoning are areas which are vital to achieving our primary objective of protecting the public and ensuring people can make an informed choice. The real winners will be Scottish consumers". Further information Visit the web site at www.foodstandards.gov.uk/scotland.htm UK Food Standards - In force from April 2001 The first UK-wide standard for local food law enforcement to ensure high standards of food safety and consumer protection has been published by the Food Standards Agency. From 1 April 2001, the 499 UK local authorities, responsible for ensuring the safety of more than 600,000 food establishments, will have to work to a common standard. The changes are designed to bring local enforcement of food hygiene, food standards and feeding stuffs legislation up to the level of the best performing local enforcers. The new national standard will mean increased public accountability. Consumers will be able to find out how well their local council is doing through: Published local authority service plans setting out food enforcement priorities Publication of the Agency's annual audit programme and reports on individual local authority performance Quarterly reports to the Agency, which will be published, on enforcement activity carried out by local authorities An annual report on local food enforcement activity and the performance of all UK local authorities. This will lead to more effective and consistent enforcement of national food law across the UK and improve consumer protection. This will include the checks carried out on food imported into the UK. The Agency will draw together all information on local authority enforcement activity and performance and publish a 'state of the nation's food controls' report annually. The first report will be published in July 2002. Launching the agreement, Sir John Krebs, Food Standards Agency Chairman said: "Now, for the first time, consumers will be able to find out how well their local council is doing to make food safe in their area. Through this important new partnership, the Food Standards Agency and local authorities will protect people's health and the interests of consumers in relation to food by ensuring effective enforcement and monitoring of food safety and standards at a local level. "This historic new agreement will strengthen protection for everyone covering every type of food - from baby food to ice-cream, from frozen sausages to the sauces you put on your plate. It covers all producers and retailers, from farm to fork, helping to ensure food is safe for us to eat. It is a key part of our campaign to reduce foodborne illness by 20% over the next five years." The arrangements to increase the accountability of local authority enforcement are set out in the Local Authority Enforcement Framework Agreement. The framework agreement, prepared in partnership with local authorities, industry and consumer groups, is a key step to improve food safety and was a commitment announced at the Agency's launch in April. The BSE review: caution still needed The Food Standards Agency is consulting the public as well as interested stakeholders on the draft report of the Agency's review of current BSE controls. The full report is available from www.bsereview.org.uk where you can also make your contribution. Sir John Krebs, Chairman of the Food Standards Agency said when introducing the draft report, "The protection of the public has been the guiding principle of this review. The evidence is that the current controls, which are based on a precautionary approach, are working. But, because of the high level of uncertainty, the review suggests the current approach be retained in the immediate future subject to emerging scientific knowledge." Main points The current controls are based on a precautionary principle because BSE, perhaps more than any other area of food safety, is subject to scientific uncertainty. Therefore the controls have to be based on risk reduction in the light of current knowledge, rather than total elimination of risk. No changes are proposed to the ban on feeding ruminant animal proteins back to ruminant animals, nor to the definition of specified risk materials. Nor are immediate changes proposed to the thirty months rule, which currently stops cattle over 30 months from entering the food chain. Current effectiveness There have been no cases of BSE diagnosed since 1997 in cattle aged 30 months or under. Beef from cattle over 30 months at slaughter is banned from sale for human consumption in the UK. The Over Thirty Month Scheme (OTMS) is removing from the food chain at least 99.9% of cattle in danger of developing BSE. But checks on farms show that there are passport discrepancies in about 10% of cattle inspected, including documentation and poor record keeping. The draft review report proposes no relaxation or phasing out of the OTMS until The BSE epidemic is declining as forecast The number of BSE cases in cattle born after August 1 1996 confirms that the feed ban is effective There is evidence of comprehensive and reliable cattle identification procedures, covering all animals, that are robustly enforced and subject to independent evaluation. Effectiveness review next year The draft report recommends a review in August 2001 of the incidence of BSE and of the effectiveness of tightened feed controls introduced in August 1996. Subject to that review, the draft report suggests that the earliest date on which a decision to announce the year of birth of animals that need not enter OTMS could be taken would be January 2002 (this could not apply to animals born before August 1996). Specified Risk Material Controls on specified risk material (SRM) are designed to prevent the parts of slaughtered animals most likely to contain the BSE agent from entering the human food chain and the animal feed chain. The draft review makes no proposals for changing the current rules on specified risk material. The review accepted the views of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) on a relaxation being implemented by the European Union in respect of intestine and thymus of cattle of six months old or under, and heads of sheep and goats (but not skull, brain or eyes of sheep) over 12 months old. This was because the review accepts that the benefit to UK citizens of introducing controls on SRM across the European Union outweighs any slight increase in risk that may arise from changes to the UK's existing controls. Controls on cattle For cattle, any future changes in SRM controls will depend on the achievement of low BSE status for the UK under international rules. The UK currently falls into the highest risk category of BSE, with an incidence of more than 100 confirmed cases per million within the cattle population over 24 months of age. Controls on sheep and goats BSE has never been found in the UK national flock. It has been transmitted experimentally to sheep. If BSE were shown to be in the national flock, current SRM-type controls would not be enough. Contingency planning to deal with such an eventuality is under way and is fully supported by the draft report. A selective breeding programme using genetically resistant rams has been proposed to eliminate scrapie from the national sheep flock. This is a MAFF proposal which is fully supported by the review. For sheep, future changes in SRM controls will be affected by: Findings of BSE in the national sheep flock if any were found case controls would have to be tightened Scrapie resistance being bred into sheep, which could enable selectively applied controls to be introduced. Feed ban The aim of the feed ban is to keep potentially infectious material out of feed for farmed livestock and so remove exposure to BSE. The draft review sees no likelihood, or scope, for relaxing the ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminants. The review also says that there is no public health reason for banning what are called 'downstream products' of rendering. These products include tallow when it is treated and then used in the production of car tyres, paint and plastics. However, this would require agreement in Brussels. Mechanically recovered meat (MRM) MRM is a product obtained by recovering raw meat from bones under high pressure after boning is completed and was previously used in the production of cheaper burgers, sausages, pies and mince. Since vCJD in humans may have been caused by consumption of BSE-infected cheaper beef products containing MRM, the review panel sees no scope for any relaxation in the rules which currently prevent MRM from being used in food. Imports need attention The draft review suggests that the problems of cross-contamination of animal feed formerly found in the UK may be occurring in other countries, possibly with similar results. The European Commission is urged to take action on problems of cross-contamination, especially in countries with a known risk of BSE. EU-wide SRM regulations are welcomed by the draft report, as is the European requirement for third countries to comply with the rules from April 2001. Research programme The draft review report says that more research is needed to: Urgently provide diagnostic tests for: Establishing that herds and flocks are free from infection Screening live animals before slaughter Rapid screening of carcasses in abattoirs The rapid differentiation of BSE and scrapie strains. Confirm that the enhanced feeding ban has been effective by undertaking proactive surveillance for BSE in cattle born after the ban was introduced in 1996. Provide better methods for screening concentrate feed for mammalian protein, and for differentiating species of protein to enable more effective policing of the ban. Public consultation The BSE review, called for by the Prime Minister at a farm summit in March this year, is now being taken to a series of consultation meetings until the beginning of November. Two meetings of the BSE Stakeholder Group considered the issues before the draft report was published in September. The report was sent to a specially convened group of stakeholders - representatives from consumer, farming, meat industry, medical and scientific organisations as well as Government departments in mid-September. It will also be considered at a public meeting to be held in York on 9 October. People without access to the Internet can ring 0845 757 3012 and ask for a printed copy of the draft report and/or put their names down for the consultation meetings. The draft will be further considered by the Stakeholder Group in London on 2 November before going to a final meeting of the FSA Board on 9 November. The review will then be presented to Government Ministers and published simultaneously. Sir John Krebs said, "In the light of the serious consequences of BSE for the human population, it is right that this review is subject to extensive consultation and scrutiny before we reach our final recommendations." Further information Visit the BSE Review web site at www.bsereview.org.uk Or call the Agency helpline on 0845 757 3012 and ask for a copy of the printed report or put your name down for a consultation meeting in York (9 October). The human and financial cost By September 2000 there were 82 definite and probable cases of vCJD of which 8 were still alive and 5 awaited confirmation. The most recent published estimate of the likely size of the vCJD epidemic suggests that the final number of people affected might lie between a few hundred and well over a hundred thousand. However, the draft review cautions against a specific number because of the uncertainties surrounding the disease. The direct financial costs are: In excess of £140 million in research costs since 1986 Since 1996 - 4.5 million cattle slaughtered and £1.4 billion paid in compensation Cost of disposal of carcasses - £575 million in total since 1996 The costs of the controls are now running at £454 million annually. BSE dates 1986 November: BSE officially recognised for the first time by Government vets 1987 June: Ministers first informed of disease. Still not known if disease can be transmitted December: First trials suggest that ruminant meat and bone meal (MBM) most likely cause 1988 May: Government Committee set up to study danger of BSE entering human food chain June: BSE made a notifiable disease; records I began to be kept July: First ban on ruminant MBM feed brought in August: First BSE slaughter and compensation scheme brought in 1989 November: Ban on specified bovine offal products for human consumption brought in December: Ruminant feed ban extended 1990 May: France and Austria ban British beef June: Germany, Italy and Switzerland join ban October Farmers ordered to keep strict breeding records 1991 February France reports first case of BSE 1992 BSE epidemic reaches peak hitting 0.03 per cent of entire UK herd 1993 BSE begins to decline July: 100,000 case of BSE announced 1995 May: First victim of vCJD dies, one of three deaths that year December: Ban on use of bovine vertebral column in mechanically recovered meat 1996 March: Probable link between BSE and vCJD established; European Commission bans export of British beef. Ban on sale of any mammalian MBM for feeding to any farm animals April Government orders all cattle over 30 months old to be slaughtered and destroyed 1997 September New research identifies link between BSE and vCJD which has killed 21 December. Sale of beef on the bone banned; 1998 July: First exports of British beef resume 1999 April: New regulations banning use of specified risk materials from cattle and sheep introduced 2000 April: Food Standards Agency begins operating and starts review of BSE controls October: Report of Phillips enquiry into BSE published A-Z of Agency contacts This is a list by subject of the names and telephone numbers of people in the Food Standards Agency who can help if you have a query. It's not designed to be a comprehensive directory, and the contacts listed may not be able to answer every question and may have to put you in touch with someone else who can. We will publish similar updated lists from time to time. Advisory Committee on Animal Feed (Secretariat): Karen Dell 020 7238 6723 Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (Secretariat): Liz Stretton 020 7238 6101 Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (Secretariat): Adam Hardgrave 020 7238 6379 Additives: Sweeteners, flavourings and enzymes: John Caseley 020 7238 6267 Other additives: Andrew Spencer 020 7238 6262 Alcoholic drinks (Regulation/compositional/ technical standards): Gerald Goldwin 020 7238 5989 Allergies (Food and food intolerance): Elizabeth O'Sullivan 020 7972 5053 Animal Feed: Allyson Allman 020 7238 6344 Bottled waters (Regulation/compositional/ technical standards): Karen Barnes 020 7238 5726 BSE: Controls Review: Simon Petty 020 7238 6231 Public Health Aspects: Martin Roberts 020 7238 6489 Butchers' licensing (Legislation): Mike O'Neill 020 7972 5064 Codex Alimentarius (International food Standards): Joanna Campbell 020 7238 6480 Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (Secretariat): Akosua Adjei 020 72972 5023 Datemarking: Janet McKenzie 020 7238 6463 Dioxins (Organic contaminants): Alison Gleadle 020 7238 6227 Eggs (Hygiene legislation): Mike Talbot 020 7238 6419 Emergencies: 24 hour contact 020 7270 8960 Endocrine disrupters: Caroline Tahourdin 020 7972 1755 Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals: Alison Redfern 020 7238 5344 Fats and oils (Compositional aspects): Catriona Stewart 020 7238 6182 Food Advisory Committee (Secretariat): John Caseley 020 7238 6267 Foodborne diseases: Tansy Feltis 020 7972 5049 Food hazard management team: Sinead Gallagher 020 7972 5055 Food irradiation: Adam Hardgrave 020 7238 6379 Food law policy (EU and UK): Michael Wight 020 7238 6457 Fruit juices (Regulation/composition/technical standards): Gerald Goldwin 020 7238 5989 Genetic modification: Labelling legislation: Mark Browne 020 7238 6224 Safety: Adam Hardgrave 020 7238 6379 Health Marks: Dairy products: Ifzal Khan 020 7238 6368 Egg products: Mike Talbot 020 7238 6419 Fish & shellfish: Mandy Jumnoodoo 020 7238 5883 Meat products: Rosalind Glover 020 7972 5301 Helpline: 0845 7573012 Hygiene (Legislation): Consolidation and simplification of food hygiene Directives: Robert Moody 020 7238 6425 Consolidation and simplification of food hygiene Directives (meat issues): Joanna Fullick 020 7238 5763 Dairy products: Ifzal Khan 020 7238 6368 Fish & shellfish: Mandy Jumnoodoo 020 7238 5883 General food hygiene & temperature control: Mike O'Neill 020 7972 5064 Meat products: Rosalind Glover 020 7972 5301 Imported food regulations (not of animal origin): Mary Heaton 020 7972 5070 Incident response team: Chemical/nuclear contamination: Zonia Brown 020 7238 6106 Inorganic contaminants (Heavy metals): Patrick Miller 020 7238 5751 Labelling (Legislation): Food: Janet McKenzie 020 7238 6463 Nutrition: Julie Attewill 020 7238 6260 Local Authority: Enforcement (Policy issues): Mark Davis 020 7972 5232 Official Control of Foodstuffs statistics: Imrana lqbal 020 7972 5676 Meat (Hygiene legislation) Poultry meat, rabbit meat, farmed game bird meat and wild game: Mercy Adebisi 020 7238 5578 Red meat: John Furzer 020 7238 6493 Meat Hygiene Appeals Tribunal: David Walker 020 7238 6328 Meat Hygiene Service: 01904 45 5501 Meat imports (Policy): Mercy Adebisi 020 7238 5578 Milk and milk products (Compositional aspects): Pendi Najran 020 7238 6182 Mycotoxins (e.g. aflatoxins): Bryan Jones 020 7238 6218 Novel foods (Policy): Adam Hardgrave 020 7238 6379 Nutrition: Claims: Julie Attewill 020 7238 6260 Dietary Surveys (Food/nutrient intake): Jamie Blackshaw 020 7238 5646 Food Composition (Nutrients): Judith Holden 020 7238 5766 Policy & Advice: Mark Ainsbury 020 7238 5722 Research: Yemi Fagun 020 7238 6309 Organic food: Microbiological safety: Jonathan Back 020 7238 6019 Nutritional content: Victoria Grace 020 7238 5500 Packaging (Food): Candice Olsen 020 7238 6528 Pesticides (Public health aspects): Mark Smith 020 7972 1704 Phytoestrogen research: Tom Barlow 020 7238 5759 Press Office (Office manager): Jenni Hiscock 020 7972 2373 Radioactivity in food: Advice: Nick Wood 020 7238 6291 Irradiation: Carl Blackburn 020 7238 6205 Research (Agency's portfolio): Paul Homer 020 7972 6539 Risk Assessment (Research): Caroline Tahourdin 020 7972 1755 Salmonella (Eggs/poultry): Jonathan Back 020 7238 6019 Sweeteners: John Caseley 020 7238 6267 Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition: Yemi Fagun 020 7238 6309 Toxicity of chemicals in food: Andrew Wadge 020 7972 5124 Toxicology (Research): Caroline Tahourdin 020 7972 1755 Veterinary medicines (Public health aspects): Mark Smith 020 7972 1704 Veterinary Public Health Unit: Robert Peters 020 7238 5720 Working Party on Food Authenticity: Andrew Chandiramani 020 7238 5580 World Trade Organisation - Agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade: Noel Griffin 020 7238 5334 Chicken fails water tests Consumers could be losing out when buying fresh or frozen chickens or chicken parts and products because of unclear labelling and conflicting views on the best way to monitor added water, a Food Standards Agency survey has revealed. The survey, carried out as part of the Agency's ongoing food surveillance programme, showed that nearly a third (30%) of frozen whole chickens analysed had more than the European limit for added water (seven per cent), but none had been labelled as such. It also found that 17% of chicken parts analysed had water levels from 2% to 37%. Of approximately 160 chicken parts with added water, about 135 were breast portions and about 25 were thigh portions. Most of the chicken parts (about 105) were frozen. In 17 cases, the added water was neither declared nor listed anywhere on the product packaging. In the case of non-pre-packaged samples, many obtained from butchers shops, some had added water levels of more than 30%. But they are only regulated generally by the Food Safety Act and Food Labelling Regulations and may not be breaking any current legislation. In some of the non-pre-packaged samples, the bulk batches were correctly labelled by the wholesaler but the relevant information was not then displayed or made available to the consumer in the individual shops at the point of retail sale. Even when labelled correctly, the survey has shown that chicken products with declarations about added water can be confusing because different wording is required depending on which regulation applies. In addition, not all types of chicken products are covered by legislation which requires a declaration of added water or meat content. A certain percentage of added water is permitted by EU legislation because it is an unavoidable consequence of the chilling process. These limits vary from two to seven per cent, depending on the chilling method. The problem appears to arise from the chilling and freezing process in some plants in the UK and continental Europe. There are two permitted methods used to measure the amount of added water and these do not appear to correlate. There are also three different methods of 'chilling' chickens, which result in different levels of legally accepted unavoidable added water. The three different chilling methods accepted in the EU are: Air chilling in which the carcasses are chilled in cold air Air-spray chilling in which the carcass is chilled in cold air interspersed with a water haze or fine water spray Immersion chilling, in which poultry carcasses are chilled in tanks of cold water or ice and water. This method, used prior to freezing the poultry, is sometimes called spin chilling. The two legally accepted methods of analysing the level of water in chicken are the drip test and the chemical test. The latter was used by the Food Standards Agency because it needed to use a method which could be applied to pieces and chicken products. The former method can only be used for frozen whole chickens. The chemical method is also thought to be more reliable. The survey was carried out in response to consumer concerns raised with the Food Standards Agency Working Party on Food Authenticity. All the suppliers involved in the survey whose products were found to contain added water have been informed of the results. Some have already taken action to investigate the situation further. The Agency now intends to look further at the methods of water level measurement and push for better and more transparent labelling so that consumers have a clearer idea of what they are paying for. A total of 532 whole chickens (287 frozen) and more than 1000 chicken parts were collected between December 1999 and January 2000 in 30 different regions of the UK. They were bought from a range of commercial outlets including supermarkets, cash and carrys, local butcher shops and other retailers. The survey coincides with a recent report that water levels as high as 40% had been found in imported chicken meat. The purpose of the survey was to find out the levels of added water in chicken and inform consumers. Food Standards Agency Deputy Chair, Suzi Leather, said "Some of the levels of water found in chickens and chicken pieces are completely unacceptable. The main problem seems to be with whole frozen chickens, frozen chicken breasts and some chicken products. There are no food safety issues here, but this goes right to the heart of consumer choice and value for money." Consultations European Commission proposals to consolidate and simplify EU food hygiene legislation (England) - available from Bob Moody, Food Standards Agency, Room 404, PO Box 31037, London SW1 P 3WG. Tel. 020 7238 6425. Responses due by 20 October. Consultation on COMAS report on folic acid and the prevention of disease (joint Food Standards Agency and four Health Departments consultation) -available from Bob Collins, Department of Health, Room 631 b, Skipton House, London SE1 6LH. Tel. 020 7972 5056. Responses due by 31 October. European Commission proposals to consolidate and simplify EU food hygiene legislation (Scotland) -Marie Kelly, Food Standards Agency (Scotland), St Magnus House, 6th Floor, 25 Guild Street, Aberdeen AB11 6NJ. Tel. 01224 285137. Responses due by 3 November. Proposals for a meat hygiene policy forum available from Caroline Tuck, Food Standards Agency, Room 516, P O Box 31037, London SW1 P 3WG. Tel. 020 7972 6435. Responses due by 6 November. Task Force on Regulatory Burdens available from Steve Catling, Food Standards Agency, Room 606, P O Box 31037, London SW1 P 3WG. Tel. 020 7238 5696. Responses due by 7 November. Codex Committee on nutrition and foods for special dietary uses - available from Sean Collins, Food Standards Agency, Room 325d, P O Box 31037, London SW1 P 3WG. Tel. 020 7238 6502. Responses due by 31 December. Consultation responses available The following consultation has ended and the responses are now available for inspection at the Library, Whitehall Place (West Block), London SW1A 2HH. Tel. 0645 335577 (local UK call rates. For those outside the UK please telephone 020 7270 8961). Enhanced Enforcement Powers and (2) Controls on Meat from Disease restricted areas, in Meat Hygiene Regulations - 28 responses. Food Advisory Committee for Wales There will be meetings of the Food Advisory Committee for Wales on 9 and 10 October. Further information Contact Hilary Neathey 0292 O67 8999 E-mail: wales@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk A hidden pool of dissatisfaction New survey work for the Food Standards agency has shown that although consumers want to know more about what they are being served in restaurants and take aways, they don't like asking about what they are eating. As part of the Agency's consumer research programme, two new surveys have shown that most people eating restaurant meals or take-aways want better information. Discussion groups and a MORI poll of 1,026 adults built a picture of people who were dissatisfied with the information they were given, but reluctant to ask for information in case they were thought of as fussy. One respondent summed things up: "We're just not programmed to ask for this information are we? It's like when you get a bad meal, you don't complain. Everyone says 'don't say anything, we just won't eat here again'." Nevertheless, 31 % had asked staff about food ingredients, and eight out of ten of those people were satisfied with the response. Satisfaction with the accuracy of information on menus is falling, however. Eight years ago, a similar survey found that almost half of those questioned (49%) had never found menu descriptions misleading or lacking in information. This year the proportion was just over a third (36%). The survey report suggests that this may be due to things actually getting worse, or simply to people becoming more critical. Don't rely on the menu Consumers find menus unreliable - 62% of those surveyed said they had found food descriptions either to be misleading or lacking in information. Highest consumer priorities are details such as the size of the portions (36% of restaurant diners); the basic ingredients (35%); whether the food is fresh, frozen or preserved in another way (36%). Also in their top five were whether food contains genetically modified (GM) ingredients (29%) and method of cooking (30%). People with allergies need to know whether the produce contains ingredients that will make them ill, and this too came high on the list of information wanted about restaurant foods (24%). Slightly fewer people were interested in nutritional content of the food, whether the ingredients are organic, and animal welfare. A matter of life and death Allergy sufferers surveyed by MORI wanted access to more information and said they resented constantly having to make their conditions public. "Maybe if they have a sign, 'Vegetarians and Allergy People Welcome', you're comfortable about asking because you know you're welcome and you're not going to be treated like a fussy old cow," said one allergy sufferer in the MORI research. Most of the allergy sufferers questioned said they bite the bullet and ask restaurant staff about ingredients when they eat out, but they weren't always confident that waiting staff would be properly informed. The suggestion that restaurants could provide a separate information sheet was fairly popular, particularly for those who wanted more information about animal welfare and the nutritional content of foods. "It would be nice to have the choice (of having an information sheet) and then it wouldn't be such a stigma to say, `would you give me a little bit more information about this' - they would have it there ready," said one woman. But the menu was the favoured place for information. Some don't want information There was a significant minority of people (about one in five) who didn't want any more information when they were eating out, in case it spoiled their enjoyment. "I don't want to be eating genetically modified food, but I don't want to be confronted with it when I pick up a menu and think of what I want to eat," said one woman. The Agency will use the survey's findings, along with responses to the Better Food Labelling Initiative and other information, to help develop new food labelling policies "This survey has shown that when most people eat out they don't want to know everything about the food on offer, but they do want accurate descriptions. At the moment they do not always get this information," said Suzi Leather, Deputy Chair of the Agency. Further information Contact: Janet McKenzie, Room 325d, Food Standards Agency, PO Box 31037, London, SW I P 3WG, Tel. 020 7238 6463. E-mail: Janet.mckenzie@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk