UK Food Controls – Regulating Our FutureJohn Barnes, Former Head of Local Delivery Food Standards AgencyStrategic Advisor: Shield Safety Group

Current approach to UK food safety control

• Farm to Fork Controls

• Precautionary principle dealing with scientific uncertainty

• Risk based programme official controls – mostly routine inspections and surveillance

• Inspection frequency prescribed and takes (some) account of management systems and oversight

• Most UK food safety legislation is EU derived and harmonised………for the moment !

• FSA is exploring a radical change to UK regulatory control model

UK Food Control Stats 2015/16

Most day to day enforcement done by UK LAs

• 633,638 premises 1%

• 404,551 Food hygiene interventions 0.5%

• 117,877 food standards interventions 8.9%

• 191,719 enforcement actions 5.4%

• 361 prosecutions

• 68,471 samples taken 1.9%

• 2,164 Full Time Equivalent LA staff 6%

RoF programme - not a response to LA failings !

Issues impacting on control systems• Food safety law increasingly weighed against compliance costs and

administrative burdens– Food & drink of massive economic and social importance– Resources for regulatory official controls diminishing

• Controls need to consider:– Globalisation – Consumer priorities ..…provenance, authenticity, fraud, claims– changing supply chain risks – Increasing use of accredited private food assurance schemes – trade requirements (and now Brexit)– Sustainability of controls

System need to be agile, flexible and sustainable !

This is the strategic aim of RoF

Shaping the UK Food Control Strategy

Expenditure makes up 0.08% of Food Sector Turnover

Staff make up 0.12% of people working in the Food Sector

5

RoF – Agreed Guiding Principles

• Businesses are responsible for food safety and should demonstrate they are serving safe food

• Businesses should meet the cost of regulation• More effective system of penalties and rewards• A segmented approach………tailored to businesses’

willingness\ability to provide information• All available information should be taken into account

FSA Board (and LAs and industry?) currently want more detail on what this could look like and roles.

RoF - Emerging key features

• FSA sets the standards as the CCA

• Supports start-ups getting compliance right first time– eg Permit To Trade…….now Enhanced Registration

• More effective interventions where businesses not meeting standards– Greater focus on repeat offenders \ Primary Authority NIS

• Opportunities to use business own data to monitor compliance

• Opportunities for 3rd parties to provide accredited assurance– eg Regulated private -assurance – Certified Regulatory Auditor

• Co-design new model with industry and stakeholders– eg advisory panels, regional meetings, feasibility & pathfinder pilots

Heather Hancock FSA Chair - Use of 3rd party data

“Data is the natural resource of the 21st Century” - Imperial College Royal School of Mines

“…..many businesses have robust auditing and sampling regimes in place to ensure the food they supply to consumers is safe and what it says it is”

“……we are proposing a model that continues to use inspections and visits alongside the information we can gain from business’s data and accredited 3rd party audits to ensure food safety and authenticity are top of mind every day – not just inspection day”

“……we are relying too much on visual inspection when critical food risks can’t be seen by the naked eye. It is resource intensive and it will be unsustainable before too long”

FSA use of 3rd party assurance data• Earned Recognition already adopted in Primary Production, Feed

and on-farm Dairy controls – 10-25% verification inspections of businesses in recognised Assured

schemes (reduced FSA\LA inspections \ richer intel \ targeting)

• Work on-going with BRC for manufacturing sector – Report likely July 2017

FSA use of 3rd party assurance data

• Current focus on catering \ retail sectors(>450K premises)– Industry (M&B \ Tesco) feasibility pilots late 2016

• Results showed industry data could:– Inform scope, nature and frequency of Official Controls– Provide FHRS ratings……could address concerns about rating frequencies

• Currently no robust (Recognised) assurance scheme across catering sector but FHRS and CRA could underpin a BHA scheme

• Potential for commercial inspections & delivery of FHRS alongside LA delivery of controls.

• BIG Issue – keeping FHRS credible (LA rating frequencies, use of assurance, PA inspection plans, greater targeting)

Not just UK changing model

• EU Official Feed & Food approach reviewed:– Much more dissuasive penalties for intentional

infringements (fraud) and use of L– new opportunities for charging, increasing transparency of

standards and greater (risk based) targeting

• European Heads of Agencies developing guidance on use of private assurance schemes

• US modernisation programme - greater emphasis (and cost) on importers\exporters to use recognised 3rd party data to streamline regulatory controls

• Recent Codex Import \ Committee (CCFICs) agreed to prepare new guidance on the use of 3rd party Private Certification Schemes in Food Safety National Control Plans

Future is collaborative, outcome based regulation

• Cabinet Office Regulator’s Review Jan 17

• Proposes a shift toward ‘Regulated Self-Assurance \ Earned Recognition

• NOT self-regulation - reward industry ‘doing the right thing’

• Where RSA\ER feasible regulators should be able to charge those regulated

• Also seeking more co-ordinated approach and maximising intelligence \ data sharing

Future trend is ..regulated self-assurance underpinned by full-cost recovery

Future Food Controls Likely to Build on…..

• Greater focus on tackling provenance, authenticity, food crime and wider food supply risks• International dimension, Interpol’s Operation Epson, Crime Units,

TACCP• Increased focus on intelligence and data sharing to target, prevent

and better still, predict risks• National risk assessments, real time data mining to target

surveillance (norovirus social media initiative) • Greater transparency for consumers on standards & issues to

better understand risks and help change FBO behaviour• FHRS, Campaigns, risky foods (raw milk \ rare burgers)

• Reducing regulatory burdens (inspections\costs) - more focus on surveillance, verification, co-regulation – targeted interventions• Official recognition of 3rd party assurance audits, Primary Authority

NIS• Deterrence and more persuasive penalties

• Sentencing Guidelines, reputational sanctions, Such As…………..

National Food Crime Unit

• emphasis on intelligence gathering and sharing

• Improving FSA horizon scanning, ID of emerging risks, intelligence, capability and response

• Food Crime Confidential Report-line:• Call 0207 276 8787 or email foodcrime@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk

• Unit will increasingly:

– Share strategic \ tactical intelligence, provide threat assessments

– Develop guidance for regulators \ industry

– Disrupt, prosecute and deter

Need to better develop the EHP \ industry role

Shield Safety Group Ltd. – Strictly Private and Confidential 16

Vulnerability Assessments

Threat Analysis Critical Control Point -TACCP

“Systematic management of risk through the evaluation of threats, identification of vulnerabilities, and implementation of controls to materials and products, purchasing, processes, premises, distribution networks and business systems by a trusted team with the authority to implement changes to procedures”Source - PAS 96:2014

• Food defence - threats could include:– safety– malicious tampering \ economic extortion, – quality fade \ substitution– Terrorism

Industry Standards - BRC version 7

Considers food safety threats and facilities, processes and checks needed to ensure a safe, quality product – also now requires:“A documented vulnerability assessment shall be carried out of all raw materials to assess the potential risk of adulteration or substitution.

This shall take into account:

• Historical evidence of substitution or adulteration• Economic factors• Ease of access to raw materials through the supply chain• Sophistication of routine testing to identify adulterants• Nature of the raw material”

Transparency & Consumer EngagementSignificantly improves complianceMandation in England - proposals post 2020

Transparency & ConsumerEngagement

• Social media significantly improved reach and amplifies messages

• Combined reach of Campylobacter campaign 60 million (for <£100K)

• More messaging for (much) less

– 96% tweets positive \ neutral– Message retained

Retail

So………………………………….• Are you aware of and contributing to RoF thinking and FSA Campaigns

– Regulating is about changing behaviour \ outcomes – local inspection one approach.

– RoF “what is the most effective, sustainable 21st Century approach” ?

• The future – transformational change?– more opportunity to commercialise regulatory services eg Primary Authority,

commercial inspections alongside official controls and RCAs – More formal recognition and use of industry assurance schemes

• to reduce and better target Official Controls and enforcement. • Verification and oversight by FSA \ LAs still important for

international and consumer confidence

RoF is about delivery model weaknesses not LA failings

The current local inspection based regulatory model is neither sustainable nor the best to protect consumers in today’s global marketplace !