Horsemeat: Which? calls for tougher penalties
Sue Davies, chief policy adviser at Which?, set out a series of actions she claimed were needed to protect Britain against a repeat of the horsemeat crisis.
Speaking at the British Meat Processors Association conference yesterday (May 21), Davies said: “Food law enforcement should be much tougher and given greater priority.
“Tougher penalties were needed for non-compliance and should fit the financial gain from the violation – as suggested in the Official Control proposals.”
She further recommended scrapping proposals to decriminalise food labelling legislation, which had been set out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA).
More controls on slaughterhouses
The forthcoming review of EU hygiene legislation – which included rules on meat inspection and more controls on slaughterhouses – should result in adequate independent oversight, said Davies.
The consumer watchdog wanted to see traceability requirements backed up by regular food industry testing. “Food fraud surveillance needs to be proactive and better co-ordinated,” she said.
Intelligence-led and speculative testing should be targeted at areas where there was an incentive for fraud.
Davies called for better co-ordination between the FSA and DEFRA and improved sharing of information at EU level. This should feature a rapid alert system for food standards and fraud.
Also, the FSA should have the powers to require testing, disclosure of results and the power to enter food premises as well as resume responsibility for food labelling policy.
“It’s all quite messy at the moment,” said Davies, commenting on the way responsibility for different aspects of food policy was divided between different organisations. “The FSA should once again have responsibility for food labelling, standards and nutrition as well as safety in England.”
Abandon plans to scrap national rules
Consumers needed clearer information about what is in food and where it comes from. Country of origin labelling needs to be extended to cover meat in meat products and the EU should abandon plans to scrap national rules requiring clear labelling of meat products sold loose.
Which? also called for adequate resources for the development of analytical testing methods.
Neil Griffiths, chief executive of consultancy group SVA, told the conference that current DNA testing methods were not sufficiently precise to detect very low levels of cross-contamination between meat samples.
Griffiths advised extreme caution in the analysis of DNA tests. “Techniques that determine the level of DNA of a specific meat species do not in themselves – if found positive for a particular species of DNA – enable the assumption to be drawn that meat is present or the quantity of meat,” he said.
“Unless skeletal muscle DNA can be identified and naturally included or adherent tissue – such as fat and rind – the presence of meat, as defined, cannot be assumed or quantified.”
But new DNA testing methods currently under development – such as isotope analysis – should provide much more information about the country of origin, production system and variety of products, he added.
“These will confirm, or otherwise, the claims made on labels, such as British, free-range, Aberdeen Angus, etcetera,” said Griffiths.
Meanwhile, you can still listen to Food Manufacture’s horsemeat lessons learnt webinar – featuring the Food Standards Agency, Mintel, Leatherhead Food Research and business law firm and event sponsor DWF – here.
