FdAC/MIN/00/4

November 2000

FOOD ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FAC Secretariat
Room 239, Ergon House
PO Box 31037
LONDON SW1P 3WG
Tel: 020 7238 6267
Fax: 020 7238 6263

Present:
Professor Sir Colin Campbell (Chairman)
Mr Neville Craddock
Mrs Dorothy Craig
Dr Maureen Edmondson
Professor Catherine Geissler
Dr Catherine Humphries
Dr Chris Llewelyn
Dr Charles McDonald
Professor Alan Malcolm
Mr Roger Manley
Mr Tom Miller
Professor Christopher Ritson
Mr Philip Strachan
Professor Susan Shaw
Assessor Dr Andrew Wadge (Food Standards Agency)
Secretary Dr Sandy Lawrie
Secretariat Dr Rhodri Evans
Mr John Caseley
Miss Rachel Peregrine

Officials
Dr David Atkins (Food Standards Agency, Item 3)
Mr Colin Penny (MAFF, Item 3)
Mr David Lewsey (Veterinary Medicines Directorate, Item 3)
Mrs Rosemary Hignett (Food Standards Agency, Items 4/5)
Dr Wendy Matthews (Food Standards Agency, Item 6)
Dr George Kowalcyzk (Dept of Health, Item 6)
Dr Jon Bell (Food Standards Agency)

Members are required to declare any direct interest in matters under discussion. Where members have a particularly close association with any item, the Chairman will limit their involvement in the discussion. In cases where an item is to be discussed in their absence, a member may make a statement before leaving.

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs Matti Alderson, and Professor Frank Woods. The Chairman welcomed a new member of the Secretariat, Dr Rhodri Evans.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 May 2000 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

At its May meeting the Committee had considered advice from the Committee on Toxicity (COT) on the enzyme preparation Newlase and agreed that the temporary clearance for it could be extended by two years, subject to conditions set down by COT. The Committee was informed that the Secretariat had written to the company concerned in June with the outcome of the FAC’s assessment.

At its May meeting the Committee discussed the COT report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients. It noted the COT’s recommendations and made some suggestions on how the recommendations could be taken forward by the Food Standards Agency, and how research recommendations might be prioritised. The Committee was informed that the report had been published in July.In August the Secretariat had written to the Committee about P45s being issued to members earlier that month. At the time it was explained that these had been sent out by Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food to reflect the fact that responsibility for paying their fees, allowances had moved to the Food Standards Agency with effect from 1 April. In the letter the Secretariat promised to investigate the implications, if any, of these being issued. The Committee were informed at this meeting that these documents had been sent out for information only.

Malachite green (MG) is a synthetic dye that is used in aquaculture throughout the world for the treatment of parasitic and fungal infections in fish and shellfish. In the UK, the trout industry has used it for many years as a general disinfectant, to treat trout eggs and hatchlings. There is also evidence of its use in salmon hatcheries. MAFF’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate has regularly surveyed the retail fish market and has found that MG residues can be present at low levels in some trout. In 1995 the British Trout Association issued advice to its members stressing the need to ensure that fish placed on the market did not contain residues of MG, following which there has been a decrease in the proportion of fish sampled which contain residues of MG and its metabolite, leucomalachite green (LMG). The Committee on Mutagenicity has advised that both MG and its metabolite may be mutagens and long-term carcinogenicity tests are currently underway in the USA. The Food Standards Agency therefore asked the Committee to advise on the various options available to ensure that public health remains fully protected.

The Committee was informed that none of the samples containing detectable residues of MG or LMG came from the major producers who supply the vast majority of farmed trout through their supermarket customers. However, it appears that some small producers do not follow the BTA guidelines, which could lead to local pockets of exposure.

The Committee expressed its concern over the continued presence of residues of MG and LMG in a small percentage of farmed fish and concluded that further action is required. The CommitteeIt advised that Industry should be encouraged to extend the implementation of good production practices, and that officials should explore the possibility of setting low limits for residues in fish flesh. The Committee also recommended that the situation be reviewed once further toxicological data became available and suggested that more research was needed on possible alternatives to MG and on sources of MG and LMG contamination. For example, LMG may persist in sediment, leading to contamination of trout where the sediment is disturbed. The Committee also called for more research into finding alternatives to MG.

At its March meeting the Committee considered the conclusions that could be drawn from the discussions at its Open Forums on Food Labelling held in November 1999 and February 2000. At that meeting the Committee decided to set up a sub group chaired by Roger Manley to review the 1990 Report on Food Labelling and Advertising and report back to the Committee.

The draft report was welcomed by the Committee who were broadly in agreement with its recommendations. It was agreed that the Committee’s discussions should focus on draft recommendations 18 and 20 in the report where agreement had not been reached by the sub-group. Other, more general points should be communicated to the Secretariat. Opinion was divided on recommendation 18, about the introduction of a statutory labeling box on food labels. Some felt that inclusion of all legally required information in one box would be impractical, as the resulting text would be too small to be read by consumers. Others felt that the statutory box was what consumers wanted, as the majority of consumers do not currently find information on labels easily accessible.

On recommendation 20, two possible alternatives were discussed. The first said that a full declaration of ingredients was required while the other suggested adopting a cut off point of 5% before ingredients were required to be declared. On the latter there was some agreement for a cut off figure although one member suggested that the figure should be 1%, in line with GM rules. It was agreed that the sub group should meet again to discuss points raised by members. In preparation for the sub group meeting, Members were asked to submit their comments to the Secretariat by 7 November 2000. Once finalised, the report will be sent to the Food Standards Agency, and will feed into its current Food Labelling Review.

The draft report was well received by the Committee and the majority felt that it was sensible guidance. Members were asked to submit their comments on this paper to the Secretariat by 7 November, in preparation for a further sub group meeting. One member suggested that guidance should ultimately come from the European Commission, otherwise imported products may continue to say one thing and home produced products another.

The Committee has considered 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD), one of a group of chemical contaminants known as chloropropanols, on a number of previous occasions. The Committee was asked to review its advice on 3-MCPD following the assessment by the Committee on Mutagenicity (COM) of two new toxicological studies on the contaminant. Members also considered two recently completed surveys of the levels of 3-MCPD in food and food ingredients.

In the light of the results of the two toxicological studies, the COM’s advice was that 3-MCPD, though still classified as a carcinogen, has no significant genotoxic potential in vivo. The COM’s advice was expected to be reviewed by the Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC) in November, and afterwards by international committees. It was further envisaged that a tolerable daily intake (TDI) would be set by June 2001. Until these considerations have been completed the Committee advises industry that they should continue to take all steps necessary to reduce concentrations of 3-MCPD in foods and food ingredients to the lowest technologically achievable"

On the surveys on 3-MCPD in foods and food ingredients Members agreed to wait for the outcome of the COC discussion before considering its final responses to these. It is understood that both surveys will be published early next year.

The Committee was informed that concerns had been expressed about the safety of the sweetener aspartame, and that it currently generated more interest than any other food additive. It seemed that most of these concerns stemmed from articles appearing on the Internet. The Committee was also informed that a large number of papers on aspartame had been published in the scientific literature since the latest reviews by the COT and the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF).

A letter had been received by the Secretariat on this issue from Felicity Mawson. Ms Mawson works closely with the Additives Survivors Network (UK) which campaigns on food additive issues. Her letter contained amongst other things a series of proposals for additional labelling of foods containing aspartame. The Committee was asked whether the SCF should be asked to consider new data and whether the current labelling rules were sufficient on aspartame.

On the first question, members agreed that if the new data on aspartame warranted detailed investigation then the SCF should be asked to carry out a full review. This would be for Food Standards Agency officials to take forward. On the second point, members felt that existing labelling requirements on aspartame were fully sufficient to enable consumers to make an informed choice when purchasing products containing sweeteners such as aspartame, and saw no reason why aspartame should be singled out from other additives for further labelling. Members also expressed their disagreement with critics who were sceptical of Industry funded research on aspartame and pointed out that the key issue was whether work was peer reviewed rather than who funded the research.

The role of the FAC needs to change primarily because the FSA Board has now taken over responsibility for a number of the issues previously handled by the Committee. This issue was discussed by the Agency Board in September and draft terms of reference were drawn up. The Committee was informed that the Agency intends to review the work of all the advisory committees, including the FAC, at the end of 2001.

It was envisaged that in future the Committee will have a key role advising on strategic issues. Whilst these issues could would be referred to the Committee by the Board it was explained that the process would not be one way and that the Board would be happy to look at issues suggested by the Committee. The Committee generally agreed with the proposals, but felt that the terms of reference should be changed modified to reflect the two way flow on strategic issues. It was proposed that the Committee’s remit will be implemented as soon as possible for a period of 12 months and members’ terms of appointments will roll forward for a corresponding length of time. It was likely that the Committee would meet on three occasions over the next 12 months; the first meeting taking place after the Agency Board’s strategic meeting in January 2001, when it was expected to consider the Agency’s strategic plan and to identify issues to be referred to the FAC..

It was explained that as there was no other committee set up at present to provide advice on aspects of chemical safety then there was no reason why advice on this shouldn’t come from the Committee during this interim period. In response to a question about the future handling of food research and surveillance, it was explained that these issues were the subject of an ongoing review.

It was expected that revised terms of reference will be finalised by the Agency Board in the near future, taking into consideration points raised by FAC members during the discussion.

The following papers were presented for information:

1. EC Developments (FdAC/EC/71). An update to paragraph 9 of this paper was tabled at the meeting.
2. Hemicellulase from Aspergillus niger (Amano 90) (FdAC/Enzymes/44)
3. Trehalose (FdAC/Novel Foods/10)

The Committee were told that the Report of the BSE Inquiry, chaired by Lord Philips, was being published that day. Dr Bell summarised for the Committee the main points of the report and promised to make his summary available to members after the meeting.

A date for the Committee’s next meeting is yet to be set. It was agreed that a this together with provisional dates for all of next year’s meetings should be arranged as soon as possible.