MPs may have blasted the FSA, but what does the industry think? Siân Harrington reports
The Food Standards Agency this week held an open board meeting and broadcast a live webcam to enable the public to see how it operates and makes its decisions. While it has held such meetings since its formation three years ago, the timing of the latest one could not be more apposite, coming hot on the heels of damning criticism that it has not yet convincingly demonstrated it is an authoritative and trusted voice and that it remains largely unknown to the public.
The criticism comes from parliament’s watchdog the Public Accounts Committee, which published a report two weeks ago into the FSA’s performance since it was established in April 2000 with the brief to protect public health and consumers’ interests in relation to food. The report says that less than half the nation believes food safety has improved over the previous 12 months. About one third does not know where to find information about food standards and safety and only 13% are aware of the agency as a source of such information. In addition, less than one third considers that the agency provides independent and unbiased information. Nearly 30% thinks it reflects the views of government and 23% that it reflects the views of the food industry.
“It is disturbing that the agency has not yet demonstrated convincingly that it is able to lead on issues of food safety and standards,” says Tory MP Edward Leigh, who chairs the committee.
Clearly, the committee was unimpressed with the FSA’s performance but what does the food industry think? Has the FSA been a waste of time and money - as the MPs claim? Or is it a force for good?
As our comments show, many leading trade bodies are highly supportive of the FSA’s efforts, particularly the way in which it tries to engage with industry. Even the agency’s old foe, the Soil Association, grudgingly praises its openness. However, the FDF’s deputy director general Martin Paterson and Clare Cheney, director general of the PTF, do highlight one area of concern - a lack of clarity in areas outside food safety.
Privately, there are plenty of others within the industry who are far more scathing about what they see as the FSA’s meddling in issues that should not concern a safety agency. Their frustration has grown in recent months as the debates about labelling, salt, nutrition, obesity and kids’ marketing have intensified.
But Leigh and his colleagues are urging the FSA to get more involved in such matters and they say the agency should use its independent status to position itself firmly as the consumers’ champion. Leigh adds: “The agency needs to monitor the extent to which its advice and information is used and develop a long term strategy to boost its profile.”
Yet any further developments on the PR front would only make the industry uneasy. There is already some concern at what is seen as the agency’s efforts to generate cheap headlines. The FSA’s naming and shaming policy is a case in point - a policy that backfired spectacularly in June this year with that now infamous ‘horse meat in salami’ scare.
Nevertheless, even those in the trade who are critical of certain aspects of the FSA’s work do support the notion of an independent agency and are keen to maintain a constructive dialogue with it. As one leading industry figure says: “It’s a case of better the devil you know - particularly if that devil was no longer Sir John Krebs but Dame Sheila McKechnie.”
Perhaps those on Leigh’s committee would prefer to have someone like McKechnie, the fiery head of the Consumers’ Association, running the FSA? Whatever, the MPs clearly need convincing that the FSA is an effective organisation. But at least the consensus from the industry is that the agency is doing a good job.
The Food Standards Agency this week held an open board meeting and broadcast a live webcam to enable the public to see how it operates and makes its decisions. While it has held such meetings since its formation three years ago, the timing of the latest one could not be more apposite, coming hot on the heels of damning criticism that it has not yet convincingly demonstrated it is an authoritative and trusted voice and that it remains largely unknown to the public.
The criticism comes from parliament’s watchdog the Public Accounts Committee, which published a report two weeks ago into the FSA’s performance since it was established in April 2000 with the brief to protect public health and consumers’ interests in relation to food. The report says that less than half the nation believes food safety has improved over the previous 12 months. About one third does not know where to find information about food standards and safety and only 13% are aware of the agency as a source of such information. In addition, less than one third considers that the agency provides independent and unbiased information. Nearly 30% thinks it reflects the views of government and 23% that it reflects the views of the food industry.
“It is disturbing that the agency has not yet demonstrated convincingly that it is able to lead on issues of food safety and standards,” says Tory MP Edward Leigh, who chairs the committee.
Clearly, the committee was unimpressed with the FSA’s performance but what does the food industry think? Has the FSA been a waste of time and money - as the MPs claim? Or is it a force for good?
As our comments show, many leading trade bodies are highly supportive of the FSA’s efforts, particularly the way in which it tries to engage with industry. Even the agency’s old foe, the Soil Association, grudgingly praises its openness. However, the FDF’s deputy director general Martin Paterson and Clare Cheney, director general of the PTF, do highlight one area of concern - a lack of clarity in areas outside food safety.
Privately, there are plenty of others within the industry who are far more scathing about what they see as the FSA’s meddling in issues that should not concern a safety agency. Their frustration has grown in recent months as the debates about labelling, salt, nutrition, obesity and kids’ marketing have intensified.
But Leigh and his colleagues are urging the FSA to get more involved in such matters and they say the agency should use its independent status to position itself firmly as the consumers’ champion. Leigh adds: “The agency needs to monitor the extent to which its advice and information is used and develop a long term strategy to boost its profile.”
Yet any further developments on the PR front would only make the industry uneasy. There is already some concern at what is seen as the agency’s efforts to generate cheap headlines. The FSA’s naming and shaming policy is a case in point - a policy that backfired spectacularly in June this year with that now infamous ‘horse meat in salami’ scare.
Nevertheless, even those in the trade who are critical of certain aspects of the FSA’s work do support the notion of an independent agency and are keen to maintain a constructive dialogue with it. As one leading industry figure says: “It’s a case of better the devil you know - particularly if that devil was no longer Sir John Krebs but Dame Sheila McKechnie.”
Perhaps those on Leigh’s committee would prefer to have someone like McKechnie, the fiery head of the Consumers’ Association, running the FSA? Whatever, the MPs clearly need convincing that the FSA is an effective organisation. But at least the consensus from the industry is that the agency is doing a good job.
No comments yet