The report, Food safety and authenticity in the processed meat supply chain, published today (October 10) claims the confusion in roles between bodies made handling the scandal harder.
And consumer group Which? has called for the responsibility for labelling and standards to pass back to the Food Standards Agency (FSA).
“We support the NAO’s recommendation that the split of responsibilities needs to be re-considered and that intelligence gathering needs to improve so that consumers can have greater assurance over what they are buying.
“The scandal exposed a web of confusion, which is why we have been calling for the government to move responsibilities for labelling and standards back to the FSA.”
Supply chain potentially more vulnerable
The split in responsibilities had weakened the sharing of information on issues relating to food fraud and therefore left the supply chain potentially more vulnerable to it, the NAO claimed.
It warned cases of food fraud in 2012 had risen by two thirds on 2009 figures, to 1,380 cases.
In addition, it said one in six products failed tests for the presence of species other than horse in 2012.
“While most would object strongly to the possibility they were eating horse, in the UK’s multicultural society some people will have much stronger religious and ethical views about eating other species. In the UK, pig DNA has also been found in beef products.”
In 2010, the government transferred responsibilities for food authenticity and composition policy (where not related to food safety), and for nutritional labelling from the FSA to the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department of Health (DH) respectively.
Enforcement responsibilities remained with local authorities, while food safety, composition and nutritional issues often intertwined, stated the NAO.
“An Agency review found that some of their staff and local authorities were confused, during the early stages of the response, about which department was taking the lead, suggesting that the reasons for this could have been better communicated.
‘Unclear on whom to contact’
“Local authorities said they continue to be unclear on whom to contact, or get information from, in certain areas of food policy. They find that each department has a different approach and way of working which requires duplication of effort on their part.”
However, the government and the FSA recognised there was a weakness in intelligence handling and the FSA was addressing this, according to the NAO. National intelligence on food safety and fraud incidents is held on 12 separate types of database and the FSA planned to simplify matters, it said.
Other areas that needed addressing included the fall in numbers of public analysts in England since 2010, from 40 to 29, and the FSA’s incomplete picture of public and private testing activities.
Recommendations
The report recommends the government should:
- consider the split of responsibilities between the FSA, DEFRA and the DH
- keep strengthening its intelligence gathering and understanding of food fraud incentives and opportunities
- better understand the impact of the reduction in sampling activity
- better target testing and monitoring
And it urged the FSA to improve its understanding of the costs of local authority food control work with a view to encouraging best practice.
Responding to the report, a government spokeswoman said closer work between local authorities and industry was vital.
“DEFRA and the FSA have already identified and begun work on the issues raised by the NAO,” she said. “We are improving intelligence sharing and identifying parts of the food chain which need the closest monitoring.”
For the full report, click here.