SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE FSA

On the 1st March, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced that they were launching an industry wide review into meat processing plants across the UK. Please see the link below, which also contains additional links to their terms of reference for this review, their report into the 2 Sisters plant in West Bromwich, and their reply to the Parliamentary Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommendations, into the breaches of meat hygiene at this plant. https://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2018/16956/industry-wide-review-launched-into-meat-processing-plants-across-the-uk It is a real shame that they failed to take the opportunity to extend this to slaughterhouses, as this would have given what the FSA used to call a ‘holistic approach’. However, this may have been embarrassing for the FSA, as they plan in 2017/18, to save £4.7 Million from official controls and £800,000 from local authority support. This is while they are reducing their income from such services, down from £29.4 million in 2016/17 to £29 million in 2017/18. Given the previous meat hygiene scares in 2017 at slaughterhouses reported in the media, is this budget cut sensible? In their report into the 2 Sisters Meat plant in West Bromwich, the FSA’s main course of action appears to have been giving advice, leaving an FSA inspector full time on the premises, as well as re-training of staff, despite the video in the Guardian link below clearly showing clear breaches of food hygiene legislation. The FSA report states they only found poor practices but no widespread systematic failures. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/02/2-sisters-guilty-of-poor-hygiene-at-poultry-plants-fsa-finds The FSA mention Regulations in their report, but fail to state clearly what regulations may not have been adhered too. For example, in relation to training Regulation EC 852/2004 of the hygiene regulations states in CHAPTER XII TRAINING “Food business operators are to ensure: 1. That food handlers are supervised and instructed and/or trained in food hygiene matters commensurate with their work activity”. Therefore, one would assume that before being approved, they would have to demonstrate this, particularly as the plant had been running several years and these regulations have been a legal requirement since 2006. In relation to the plant, the FSA was responsible for hygiene whilst the local authority, Sandwell Metropolitan District Council, was responsible for labelling issues. Their last council inspection was carried out on 7th March 2017 (six months prior to the FSA investigation) and before that on the 18th March 2015. They were therefore checking labelling on a two year basis, as stated in the food law codes of practice for a company, who they considered in March 2015 as “upper medium”. If kill by dates were altered as shown in the video by the Guardian, then that could have impacted on the use by date for consumers, which is a legal requirement under regulation EU 1169/2011. If this were the case it would be fraud. It also appears from Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee risk assessments, in their response to their first report of 2nd March, that there is a recommendation that Sandwell Metropolitan District Council, require an additional Food Officer capacity to increase inspection frequency of high and upper medium risk premises to 
3 monthly. This exceeds the code of practice, to provide the opportunity to identify issues and improve. The problem with this type of risk based approach, favoured by the FSA, is the presumption that larger businesses are less of a risk. Risk is normally defined as likelihood and severity. Whilst larger type businesses possibly have less likelihood, their severity can be far worse due to the amount of consumers they supply. In this case, 2 Sisters supply approximately 1/3 of all the poultry consumed in the UK. 2 Sisters annual reported profit in 2016 was £90.5 million (profit as large as the FSA annual budget for a year). Whilst we welcome the use of CCTV cameras in slaughterhouses for animal welfare, it is currently only legally allowed for that purpose, and could not be imposed on a food business for use in observing hygiene practices. This would require further legislation if food business operators were to say it could not be used. In fairness to 2 Sisters, they did let the FSA use their CCTV footage. However, in the FSA report it states “CCTV footage showed only cleaners picking up products from the floor, but it was unclear where the product is then placed”. Whilst CCTV would be beneficial to help ensure hygiene regulations in slaughterhouses and cutting plants etc. it would have to be positioned well, it would need to be recorded onto hard drives (not tapes), and would require additional independent inspectors to review it at all inspections (including unannounced inspections and audits). The FSA are currently working on a new way forward called “Regulating our future”. This appears to be more about deregulating independent inspections and leaving the food industry mark their own work. The 2 Sisters plant had Red Tractor and British Retail Consortium (BRC) accreditation, who were also auditing the plant. Their inspection results were given to the FSA for their inquiry into the plant. This raises the question as to if or what they found, and if the FSA, accredited bodies or concerned supermarkets are going to publish these reports. You may recall in our supermarket responses from Aldi, Lidl, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s & Tesco (all of whom were supplied by 2 sisters), that some mentioned such issues, as their suppliers had to comply with global resourcing principles, quality assurance and third party certification by BRC etc. It is up to you to decide if the FSA is protecting the food industry or the consumer. Please keep on using Twitter or Facebook, to promote this petition. Thank you all so much for your continued comments & support, which are very much appreciated.