Food Standards Agency proposed

On 14 January the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and the Department of Health launched a government White Paper, The Food Standards Agency: a force for change, that would create an over-arching independent body-the Food Standards Agency (FSA)-to protect consumer interests in every area of food safety.

The White Paper says the FSA will:

• monitor the safety and standards of all food for human consumption

• commission scientific research and develop new policies

• co-ordinate and monitor the standard of food law enforcement 

• advise the public, ministers and food industry.

The Paper was launched by the Agriculture Minister Dr Jack Cunningham in the House of Commons. He said: "We have proposed fundamental changes for food safety in this country. The new Agency will always place protection of public health at the top of its priorities, and will be free to make its advice and findings public."

Government position on pesticides
The White Paper was based on a report by Professor James called The Food Standards Agency (see PN36 p.14). It recommended that responsibility of the food safety evaluation of pesticides and veterinary medicines should transfer to the new Agency. The government now says that there are too many practical obstacles in the way of implementing these proposals. Food safety evaluation of pesticides and veterinary medicines is part of an integrated process which is designed not only to protect the consumer, but to safeguard the users of the products, any bystanders, the environment, and (for veterinary medicines) the target animal. The government considers that an approach which dismantled these arrangements risked weakening the evaluation  process, possibly affecting safety.
    The Agency will therefore:

• provide assessors/advisors to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) and the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) and their subcommittees. These assessor's duty to 'sign off' authorisations for pesticides would give them an effective veto. There will be similar but less formal powers in relation to veterinary medicines. As an additional safeguard for veterinary medicines, the Health Ministers, as members of the Licensing Authority, could block an application if they considered, on the basis of advice from the Agency, that the product posed an unacceptable risk.

• nominate a member to the independent ACP and VPC, which formulate advice to Ministers on individual authorisations

• be consulted on membership of the ACP and VCP as a whole

• provide a scientific liaison officer to the ACP and VPC, who would have a scientific input to papers, help set the agenda for meetings and be involved in the briefing process

• have access to information on human Suspected Adverse Reactions (SARs) to veterinary medicines through its representation on the VPC, against the possibility that SARs to residues in food becomes an issue in future

• provide a member of the ownership boards for PSD and VMD to ensure that it is fully represented when advice for ministers is prepared

• work closely with PSD and VMD on drawing up their surveillance programmes; provide a member of the Working Part on Pesticide Residues and of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues and be consulted on the appointment of the chairpersons to these committees

• have powers under the Food Safety Act to carry out its own surveillance for residues of pesticides and veterinary medicines in food, should it consider it necessary to supplement the PSD/VMD programmes

• provide advice on EU and other international discussions.

Consumer response

Overall, the National Food Alliance (NFA) [of which the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] is a member] welcomed the White Paper that proposed the new FSA. It will have far-reaching powers that should help to achieve better food safety.
    Specifically in relation to pesticides however, there are concerns that food safety evaluation has not been removed from MAFF's responsibility, as recommended in the James report. This was a fundamental principle. At a meeting in January, the NFA acknowledged the practical difficulties, of splitting efficacy evaluation from safety evaluation. The NFA therefore suggested that the long-term aim of the FSA should still be to take over pesticides and veterinary medicine safety evaluation.
    Whilst giving evidence to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee, Pete Riley of Friends of the Earth agreed with the NFA that MAFF should lose control of pesticide safety analysis. He suggested that PSD and VMD should become an executive agency of the Department of Health.
    The NFA also expressed concern that if the food industry funded the FSA it may compromise the Agency's independence, and raise food prices, hitting poor consumers hardest. It would be more equitable to rely on taxation (however unpopular) to finance the agency, the Alliance recommended. (DB)

The Food Standards Agency: a force for change, The Stationery Office, Fax (0)181 831 8200, £10.50, 81pp.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 39, March 1998, page 17 ]