Update to FSA Board on horse meat incident

I last updated the Board on the horse meat incident in open session on 22 January. At that point we were taking a robust approach to a single incident of gross contamination of a Tesco burger and a number of related cases of trace contamination of beef products with horse and pork DNA.

Since then the scale of the incident and our response has changed dramatically.

In this update I shall briefly describe the most significant developments in the incident and our response to it. And I'll offer thoughts on implications, lessons learned and next steps for the FSA.

Update on Developments

As you will remember, the day after FSA Ireland published their results, the Prime Minister asked us to investigate urgently. On the same day we issued a four point plan to address the incident and met with industry.

We also commissioned our own surveillance sampling programme to be carried out by Local Authorities. This aimed to give us a robust indication of the scale of the incident, as well as being reliable in the courts should enforcement action be found to be appropriate.

The next significant development was on the 31st January, when the prison service informed us that their testing had identified pork DNA in 4 samples of halal product.

On 4th February we met with industry to discuss their testing. We knew that they were doing an increased amount of testing to identify the scale of this problem, and we told them that they should share the results of that testing with us and consumers. Industry agreed to do this.

On 7th February Findus recalled their beef lasagne which tests had shown to include over 60% horse meat. The Findus supply chain was quite different from that associated
with the original Tesco burger.

At this point we took the decision that it was proportionate to require industry to carry out and share the results of full testing of all comminuted beef products. Over the last three weeks they have submitted 5430 results of which 20 products contained horse DNA at or above 1%. We will be agreeing quarterly reporting arrangements with industry so that consumers can be
kept informed on what industry is doing to secure the food chain.

So moving on to our response, since the last Board meeting the scale of the incident we have been dealing with has changed.

In particular, the level of public and European interest has meant that Ministers across the UK have become closely involved with our response to the incident, and with engagement with the public and food businesses. The Secretary of State, Owen Paterson has also taken a leading role in raising the profile of the problem at EU level.

Throughout recent weeks we have worked very closely and successfully with Defra, the Department of Health and with their counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

During this intense period we have remained focused on our
core objective, That has been to protect consumers. To be vigilant to any potential threat to public health, but also to give consumers confidence in the food they buy.

The wording of the four-point action plan no longer
reflects the breadth of the incident. But it still provides a good structure for
consideration of the issues. The four-point plan proposed actions on:

gross contamination
trace contamination
enforcement action
and our own independent local authority survey of beef
products

Let me describe where we are on each part of the plan.

1. Gross contamination

We have identified 20 products affected by what we have described as gross contamination with horse, where the level of horse DNA detected exceeds 1%.

We think that such levels of horse DNA indicate either gross negligence or deliberate substitution of one meat for another. Where horse is detected at or above 1% we require the business to withdraw the product from sale and institute a product recall. We also require the sample to be tested for the presence of bute, as that presents a potential food safety risk, albeit a very low risk. So far all bute testing results have been negative.

We then use information from the company and traceability records to identify the supply chain for the product. In some cases that is a straightforward process. In others, more complex and requires action from our counterparts in other member states. That work is demanding and labour intensive, but is progressing well.

The progress of the investigations into gross contamination is also relevant to the question of enforcement action. So let me cover that point of the plan next.

We have taken a rigorous approach to our investigations. In some cases activity has been triggered by supply chain investigation following cases of gross contamination. In other cases we have obtained and followed up specific intelligence. You will have seen that in recent weeks there have been a number of premises entered and arrests made. This means that we are limited in what we can now say about this part of our investigation.

All I can add is that we are continuing to gather information. We remain committed to taking enforcement action, or supporting the police to do so, where the evidence allows.

We have also played a central role in pushing for a joined-up approach across Europe. We provided the first full briefing to Europol of any Member State to help ensure effective co-ordination of investigations across member states.

2. Trace contamination

In addition to the cases of gross contamination there have been cases of trace contamination. This is where very low levels of other species, including pork and horse, have been found in beef products. It is recognised that this may occur where a processing or cutting plant is dealing
with more than one species. Even with thorough cleaning and good hygiene practice, traces of DNA of one species can carry-over to other products.

At present we are using a 1% threshold as a pragmatic level to determine the difference between gross and trace contamination. The question that we want to explore is what levels are achievable, detectable and acceptable.

We therefore have three pieces of work underway to explore this issue, on which we are working closely with Defra.

First we have commissioned the Laboratory of the Government Chemist to look at what is achievable. What levels of cross-over occur in a well-run and hygienic plant, processing more than one species?

A second piece of work is looking at testing methodologies so that there is a clearer understanding of the levels that are detectable, and robust tests that deliver consistent results all over the country.

Finally there is a question of consumer acceptability. We need to have a better understanding of how consumers view trace contamination. Is it acceptable at certain low levels? If not what are the trade offs between costs and trace? We are undertaking a series of citizens forums to explore these issues with consumers.

Separately Defra are working in conjunction with DCLG to explore the implications for faith groups, acknowledging that for certain groups any level of trace contamination, however low, is unacceptable.

Finally a brief progress report on survey work. We indicated in our plan that we would undertake our own independent local authority delivered surveillance programme to assess the scale of the contamination problem. The first results will be available later this week.

This programme has also been supplemented by the European Commission surveillance initiative involving all member states. We have also considered imports into Europe and have this week for completeness begun a programme of testing a sample of beef imports into the UK at Border Inspection Posts. These are imports from outside the European Union.

In addition, industry testing is continuing. The figures we published last Friday showed that the very large majority of products have now been baseline tested, although more test results will continue to come in to complete the baseline and to take forward new and enhanced programmes of ongoing checks.

Those activities are ongoing but we now have a clear grasp of the scale of the problem. Our independent sampling programme will provide an excellent validation of the results which industry has provided. Once we have completed that programme and produced a complete report on that work I hope that we will be in a position to bring to an end to this phase of the incident.

I expect we will reach that point before the end of April and so our aim at that time would also be to provide our report to the Prime Minister on the incident.

So now is a good opportunity to reflect on lessons learned so far and begin thinking about the long term implications of this incident. I'd like to set out initial thoughts on some key themes, and will be interested to hear the Board's views on these.

Incident response

First some reflections on the scale of the incident response. Faced with this challenge to the integrity of the food chain we have instituted a review of food supply systems, and authenticity testing, on a colossal scale.
Over 6,000 tests completed in six weeks, with more to come. The reverberations of this activity will be felt throughout the supply chain for many months to
come.

We have also seen investigations and actions on the ground in many parts of the country. This level of activity dwarfs the response in other European countries.

It is a reflection of a lot of focused hard work by people in central and local government, the food industry and laboratories.

And so I must thank all of those who have been involved in
that effort. And particularly I would like to thank colleagues throughout the FSA and their families who have put in long hours and faced considerable disruption over the last few weeks. This has been helped by a strong level of collaboration between the FSA and colleagues in other government departments in all four nations.

One of the things we will think about in the lessons learned process is the question of whether we should have spotted this.

We have been irritated by suggestions that in some way we were asleep on the job. Suggestions that come from those who speak with the advantage of hindsight. I have yet to see any evidence of someone highlighting, whether in
public or private, that this was likely to happen. And this criticism ignores the fact that if we missed something, so did our counterparts in every European
member state, and every food business in the UK and in Europe.

But if we are irritated by the criticism we also have to
reflect on whether we could have been more alert to this risk. We must consider the mechanisms we have to use our analysis of risks to identify specific threats. As part of this we have for some time acknowledged the risk of fraud in the food chain. In the future we need to work better with industry to share information and ideas and potential hazards and problems in the supply chain. My initial conversations with business in recent weeks suggest there is a willingness to consider this now in a more open way than previously.

But there are also questions that need to be asked about the Regulatory implications.

Over the last few weeks we have undertaken a huge amount of
work, with and through industry, with police forces and Local Authorities all over the UK, and with organisations around Europe. Overall our interactions have been overwhelmingly positive. People and organisations have come together to root out this problem, and have been willing to do things to contribute to that objective that we have no powers to require them to do. We and others will need to reflect on whether our powers are adequate – or whether had a company, for example, refused to comply with our requests for information or action, the consumer might justifiably have felt let down. I propose to bring a short paper on possible changes to the FSA's powers to the next Board meeting for a discussion.

There are also important questions about how we work with
international sister organisations, particularly our relationship with the Republic of Ireland, the only Member State with whom we share a land border. The evidence that my counterpart there gave to the Irish Parliament recently made it clear that they were aware of the possibility of horse meat having made its way into products, several weeks before they shared that intelligence with us. As
part of our lessons learned we will be exploring with them what we can do to improve mechanisms for information exchange, strongly in the interests of both parties.

Finally some thoughts on the implications of all this for
consumers. There remains no evidence to suggest that any of the incidents we have found have constituted any risk to the consumer's health.

But it clearly has had, and will continue to have, a
significant effect on consumer attitudes. We conducted an online consumer survey as part of our preparations for the citizens forums. About half of the consumers we surveyed say they will purchase less processed meat or ready meals. The main reason for this was stated as a general lack of trust. 67% of people gave that as the reason; much more than the 35% who said that they don't want to eat horsemeat. And those general concerns have also now been reflected in sales figures.

So there is a real challenge for us and for the food industry to address consumer confidence in the coming months and make sure consumers can have well founded confidence in the food they eat.

I hope that has given the Board an oversight of the incident and some thoughts about the issues we face.

Soon it will be time for us to review the learning from this incident and the lessons we can draw from how we have handled it, working with others. We will also need to provide inputs to whatever review processes will be
established by industry and by governments around the UK.

I anticipate that the chairman and I will be discussing in the coming weeks with Ministers how these questions might best be addressed in a joined-up way across the UK, while respecting the independence both of the Agency and of the different governments with whom we work.

One learning that several key industry players have reiterated to me in recent weeks is the importance of a strong independent regulator in whom consumers can have confidence when the food chain is called into question.
I know the Board will be keen to take up the challenge of ensuring that we play that role in the most effective possible way to protect the consumer and support and challenge industry to rebuild confidence in the food supply chain.