House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Food Contamination Fifth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/efracom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 July 2013 HC 141 [Incorporating HC 1035-i-ii, Session 2012-13] Published on 16 July 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies. Current membership Miss Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) (Chair) Richard Drax, (Conservative, South Dorset) George Eustice (Conservative, Camborne and Redruth) Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North) Mrs Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside) Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Side) Iain McKenzie (Labour, Inverclyde) Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Ms Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down) Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) was a member of the Committee during this inquiry. Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/efracom Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are David Weir (Clerk), Anna Dickson (Second Clerk), Sarah Coe (Committee Specialist—Environment), Phil Jones (Committee Specialist—Agriculture), Clare Genis (Senior Committee Assistant), Owen James (Committee Assistant), Yago Zayed (Committee Support Assistant), and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5774; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Hannah Pearce on 020 7219 8430. Food Contamination 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Our inquiry 5 2 Tests and traceability 6 The testing regime 6 Test results and consequences for the processed beef sector 7 Trace contamination 9 Traceability 10 Prosecutions 12 3 Horse passport systems 14 Tests for bute 14 Towards a new passport system 15 4 Responses 17 The role of industry 17 EU proposals for supply chains 18 The role of the FSA 19 Remit of the FSA 19 Powers in relation to industry 21 5 Capacity and food supply networks 23 Local Government capacity 23 Implications of reduced funding 23 Public Analysts 26 Lessons to be learnt 26 Conclusions and recommendations 29 Formal Minutes 32 Witnesses 33 List of printed written evidence 34 List of additional written evidence 34 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 35 Food Contamination 3 Summary Extensive testing of processed and frozen beef products sold in the UK since January has revealed that the horse meat contamination was limited to a relatively small number of products with more than 99% of those tested found free of horse DNA. Tests across EU Member States found 4.66% of products tested contained over 1% horse DNA. Consumer confidence in the frozen and processed meat sector has fallen, and the Government should work with industry and farmers to rectify this. The evidence suggests that the contamination was a result of fraud by elements of the food industry seeking to make a profit and able to do so despite food traceability requirements. It is disappointing, six months on, that no prosecutions have been brought in either the UK or in Ireland, where the horse meat contamination was first identified. We support an EU proposal that penalties imposed for food fraud should be higher than the expected gains from this. In separate EU-mandated tests for the presence of phenylbutazone (bute) in horses slaughtered for human consumption, the UK had the largest number of positive results. This is a cause for concern. There are too many loopholes in the present system of issuing horse passports. The Government must work with the EU to ensure the speedy introduction of a single national database for the issuing of horse passports in every Member State. We recommend that the recently introduced system for testing for the presence of bute before the horse carcass is released into the food chain be continued, with government and industry sharing the cost. Retailers should have been more vigilant against the risks of adulteration, especially where meat products are traded many times. Consumer confidence would be boosted by shorter supply chains. Large retailers, who sell much of the food we eat, should carry out regular DNA tests on meat and meat-based ingredients which form part of processed of frozen meat products. The results should be reported to the Food Standards Agency and a summary should be published on the retailer’s website. The additional cost of this testing should be borne by retailers and not passed on to consumers. There has been a lack of clarity about the responsibility of the FSA in this incident. This must be rectified. The Government should consider whether this might be achieved by reversing the machinery of government changes made in 2010 and allowing the FSA to be one step removed from the two government departments it reports to. This would enable a swifter response when major incidents occur. There should also be better communication about the role of the FSA. The FSA should ensure it is an effective regulator, serving the interests of consumers in ensuring safe and accurately labelled food. It should not be, or be seen to be, beholden to industry. To this end it must be given powers to compel industry to carry out food testing when needed. 4 Food Contamination The FSA should also create improved communication channels with the devolved administrations and within the EU with those Member States—for example Ireland—who are significant trading partners. It must be more innovative in its testing and vigilant in ensuring all local councils carry out food sampling regularly. Local authorities are responsible for food sampling and should a adopt a more targeted approach, testing food products which are likely to be contaminated, even if there is no intelligence to suggest it. There is significant variation in food sampling levels across local authorities. It is not acceptable for any local authority to have carried out no food sampling for more than a year. The Government should be mindful of the impact of local authority budget cuts and seek to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on food sampling. We are also concerned about the decline in the number of public analysts who carry out tests and of the public laboratories in which they work. The Government should keep this under review and ensure there are sufficient numbers of properly trained public analysts in the UK. We welcome the Government’s decision to carry out a review of the integrity and assurance of food supply networks. Food Contamination 5 1 Introduction Our inquiry 1. In February 2013 we published our Report into Contamination of Beef Products.1 This focused on the discovery of horse and pig DNA in a number of frozen and processed beef products on sale in the UK market and the Government’s response to these findings. Our Report also made a number of recommendations in respect of the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Since then, further testing has revealed more incidents of contamination in the UK as well as in other EU Member States. 2. In its reply to that Report in April the Government said its response had been swift and effective in putting in place a testing regime for industry and local government. It had also informed the EU authorities promptly and recommended a European response. The Government said it would consider a number of our recommendations about the FSA and that it was committed to “learning the lessons from the incident, and to make any changes that are needed to reinforce the integrity of the food chain.”2 3. We decided to produce a second Report, once UK and EU testing programmes were complete and the full extent of the contamination was known, with the intention of exploring the capacity of the relevant UK authorities to respond to major incidents such as these. This Report focuses on developments since April 2013 including the interim findings of the independent review of the FSA’s response to the crisis3 and the forthcoming review of food supply networks announced by the Government on 4 June.4 4. We held five additional evidence sessions with Local Government Association, British Meat Producers Association (BMPA), ABP Food Group, Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), Association of Public Analysts (APA), FSA, Freeza Meats, European Commission and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, David Heath, MP. We are grateful to all who have contributed to our inquiry. 1 Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2012-13, Contamination of Beef Products, HC 946. 2 Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Seventh Special Report of Session 2012-13, Contamination of Beef Products: Government Response to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2012-13, HC 1085 3 http://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2013/jun/horsereview 4 Hansard, 4 June 2013, 92WS 6 Food Contamination 2 Tests and traceability 5.