Standards for food safety - Interview with the Minister of State

Jeff Rooker, Minister with responsibility for pesticides, is in the process of making profound changes to food policy enforcement. He discusses with David Buffin the priorities for action to maintain food safety and develop sustainable agriculture.

What are the latest developments concerning the proposed Food Standards Agency (FSA)-in relation to pesticides?  
The White Paper on the FSA will be published at the turn of the year. It is a substantial change in the machinery of government, there is no question about that. Although it is a White Paper, the process will be very open, we will have a specific consultation process of about eight weeks in which comments will be invited. So it is not simply a question of a White Paper being handed down.
    We have had an interesting internal debate, following the James report (that originally proposed the FSA-see PN36 p.14 for more details), and we had many separate consultations on this report, 630 in all.

How will the changes affect the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD)?  
So far as the VMD and PSD are concerned, there were some inaccurate press stories a couple of months ago about MAFF fighting over the FSA being able to 'go across the farm gate'. They were totally untrue. We put forward drafts to colleagues around Whitehall and we have had no problem whatsoever.
    The White Paper will show the FSA will be given all the powers it needs.  Where something is wrong, at any point in the food chain, the FSA will be able to make sure action is taken. What we will not have is Agency inspectors 'leaping over the farm gate' when there are people from other agencies already doing that under legal authority.
    So, the FSA will have an important role, but nevertheless there are aspects of veterinary medicines, for example, which are concern for animal health and welfare rather than the food part, although they can end up as residues in food. They have all got to be looked at, and this is why there is a discussion about whether these organisations should be split into food and non-food responsibilities.

Do the FSA proposals adequately cover agricultural production, as opposed to food production, and what is MAFF doing to implement sustainable agriculture?  
The agricultural production side will essentially remain a MAFF function. In this ministry, we look at the interests of the industry, pushing the line for sustainable development, making sure we have good codes of practice, and financing environmental research and development. We are currently spending £15-16 million per year on environmental research, and are developing indicators of impacts of agriculture on the environment-nitrates and phosphate losses to water, greenhouse gases in the air, and pesticide use. So there is much work that MAFF is doing in this area, which it will continue to do. Sometimes we may work in conjunction with the FSA-but it will be MAFF led. It is not an issue where we  have had a 'turf war'. It is quite clear, we at MAFF will no longer take the lead, and that is that.

Does the Department of Health (DoH) have more responsibilities? 
We are not simply transferring MAFF functions to the DoH, they will transfer straight to the FSA. Because the FSA is going to be publicly funded, it has got to be answerable to Parliament, and this will be through Health Ministers. So if there are parliamentary questions about the FSA, parliamentary debates about the FSA, it will be by and large Health Ministers who answer the questions.
    By far the biggest part of the FSA will cover MAFF rather than DoH functions. MAFF has about 250 working on food standards/food safety, and the Department of Health has about 50.
    So it is not a question of once the functions have transferred to the FSA that the Health Ministers have the same executive powers as Jack Cunningham (Agriculture Minister) and I will have-they will not because they will be with the FSA. The Agency will have these powers, answering for their 'pay and rations' and the way they perform against their targets and guidelines, which are important as set out in the White Paper. The DoH will monitor of all this, but it will not perform functions currently carried out by MAFF. The FSA will be doing that. It is a very powerful body from this point of view, and it will publish its advice, including educational advice to ministers. The FSA will be open and transparent.

The UK takes on the Presidency of the EU in the New Year, what will be your priorities in terms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)?
Our key aim is to take forward the reform of CAP. We know that the chances of finishing anything we start in January by the end of June are very remote, it does not work like that. Reform will take more than one Presidency.
    We are mustard keen on pursuing reform. But not everybody else in Europe thinks the same way. We need to start a reform process, so that it has a chance of being taken forward by our successors. Therefore we need  something that gets the approval of the Commission and the Council of Ministers, so that the process does not stop when we cease to have the Presidency in June.
    We need to make sure the reform process on CAP is driven forward so that we can become more market orientated in terms of reducing the subsidy and getting nearer to world prices. This will enable our food industry to compete in world markets, which it is not able to do at the moment. It would be silly to say there is a majority for reform-there is not. It is well known that the Germans are not very keen on reform, and some of the small countries are.
    We have a manifesto commitment on this issue, and of all the things that Jack Cunningham and I will list as a priority, taking forward reform of CAP is clearly going to be number one.

The European Commission will produce European pesticide evaluations under the Pesticides Registration Directive 91/414. Will they be made public, as they are in the UK?
Actually this is one of the things we want to take a lead on in Europe-being open and transparent. Our policy in this Ministry is basically, unless stated otherwise, publish it  (except for internal working documents). This is a simple way of making it clear that there is new management here. We also believe in it. The history of suspicion of MAFF, and the history of suspicion in government, has led to all kinds of problems. A lot of inaccurate stories and statements about food and agriculture have occurred. This is why we have gone for publishing as much as we can.

Will you publish information on pesticide residues in food by brand name?
Generally the answer is yes, but pesticides and veterinary medicines are a bit more difficult. We are still thinking about this at the moment, because it is not quite so easy.
    In terms of looking at water in pork and water in whisky, they were quite clear, we will publish the brand names.
    With pesticides, the lettuce issue is a good example I often quote. We have had three recent prosecutions where people were using pesticides they should not use. We are being very vigorous on this I might add, but it is very difficult to list a brand of lettuce, and other commodity foods for that matter.
    It was put to me this way, I could publish some brand names, but obviously there is a cost involved, and we would have ended up taking far fewer samples than we take now. I was not prepared to cut the number of samples taken for pesticide residue analysis. Where we can target in on brands we will, but it is much more difficult.
    However we are going to double the samples we take for pesticide surveillance.
    Farmers need to be warned, if people are using pesticides they should not be using, and/or are using them in greater quantities than they should be, then we're after them! I would like to make that absolutely clear.

Public opinion suggests people are rejecting genetically modified (GM) foods. How is MAFF responding to these fears? 
I was at the Science Museum on 20 November with Tessa Jowell, the Health Minister, where we opened an exhibition on genetically engineered foods that MAFF part-sponsored. It will last until March next year, and then it will go around the country for a year to five different sites. So it is a big operation. The  idea is to give information and education, not propaganda.
    You say there is evidence of the public turning against GM foods, but there are not that many on sale. There is a GM tomato paste (that is GM food-labelled) that Sainsbury's and Safeway's are selling. I understand that it sells more than the ordinary product, and that it tastes better because the tomato is on the vine longer. Also, the process for converting it and making the puree takes out the two gene sites. So you have ended up with a product that has been assisted by science to be a better product with a longer shelf life, that tastes better.
    But we are very conscious of public suspicion. Everything goes through the Novel Foods Committee, of independent scientists,  who also look at the ethics of it.

What about labelling of GM foods?  
We are in favour of labelling. This position changed dramatically after the general election in May, as indeed the British Retail Consortium found out. They came to see me, banged my table and said how did this happen? I said: "Well, there has been a change of government!"
    Without crop separation, you do not know whether food is GM food or not, particularly the soya. (Maize is not a problem as the genes come out during processing.) Therefore the government view is that the label should say: 'This food may contain genetically modified soya.' This is the successful view we are pushing in Brussels. That is different from the previous regime-they were 14 to one against.
    We have labelling with irradiated food, which is why virtually nobody buys any. The same will happen with GM foods, because they will be required to label.
    We are giving consumers more information. Pesticide products are used for the best of reasons-better yields etc.-but at the same time people are entitled to know what is in their food.

Will the Ministry review the use of organophosphates (OPs), especially when used in sheep dip preparations?  
OPs are under constant review. This is a matter on which all four agriculture ministers agree-we take a concerned sceptical view of these chemicals. We regularly ask questions, challenge advice because there are just too many complaints. We have put together an official group, cross-government, because there is more than one department involved (Michael Meacher, the Environment Minister, and I were at a meeting with officials recently, and this is something we want to take forward).
    There are plenty of alternatives to OPs, such as synthetic pyrethroids. But they are killing aquatic life in nearby rivers as the Environment Agency has recently warned. But, this only happens because farmers let the dip end up in the rivers during disposal.
    With OPs, they are licensed because they work, but being practical people, we know that farmers do not follow instructions. Boots, goggles, face masks, extra clothing are difficult to wear, especially in the middle of the summer, and farmers tend to cut corners.
    We recently took some amateur garden products off the market (see page 18), and did not let others back on the grounds that the user would be required to put goggles on, because in my view they will not wear them. Therefore we said no to approval.
    Now we say why are farmers different? Well they are professionals using pesticides all the time. But they are not are they? Therefore I want to look at the issue from a safe working environment, the product can be safe in use with the instructions followed. The question is, is the working environment a safe environment for the farmers and contractors? If chemicals cannot be used in such circumstances, then why are they using them? We should be looking at alternatives. We have to live in the real world.
    The chemicals may be safe but, if you cannot dispose of them safely and cannot use them in a practical way, this is not good for the health and safety of the workers using them. So, should we be using them at all?
    There are alternatives, some of which are more practical than others, injections for example.  
    I was at PSD recently, and I raised the issue about the certification of farmers (for spraying pesticides). There is a very low take up of those who have gone through the training programme, and I am having a look at what I can do to improve the situation. The level is worryingly low and I have asked what I can do, without causing massive problems, to get the percentage raised (above the current level of about 30%). I want to come forward with some proposals very quickly on this issue.

Do you think consumers should be paying for pesticides to be removed from drinking water. Can't we pay farmers to go organic and not use them in the first place? 
We have just introduced a programme of buffer zones, as we want to do something that is more effective than was the case previously. But in terms of policing the system, yes it makes sense.
    First of all we want farmers to use the minimum possible pesticides. We do not want them used in such a way that they go into the water courses and into the streams. So, things like the lie of the land, the shape of the field and the location of hedgerows have to be considered.
    Secondly we want to have a system where  created buffer zones are regularly checked by  MAFF officials.
    Because we do not want pesticides in the water, the idea is to keep them out. I cannot think of any greater waste of money, than paying water companies to take pesticides out of water, particularly if you can do something to stop it in the first place.
    Farmers are part of the food chain. They have got to have traceability for the supermarkets and their suppliers and they are required to have good environmental practices. There is a lot of pressure on farmers to run a good environmental farm, otherwise they are not going to be able to sell their crop.

Finally, what do you personally feel are important priorities in terms of pesticides use in the UK?  
I would like to say that in a year from now, I no longer want to have the same level of concerns about OPs, I want progress on OPs.
    I would also like to ensure that we have tightened up on our residue checking to such an extent that no one will think about cutting corners. People have got to know that our policing system works.

Jeff Rooker is Minister of State at MAFF with responsibilities that include food safety, animal health (such as BSE) and pesticides safety.  

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 38, December 1997, pages 10-11]