Official Report 798KB pdf
Welcome back. The next item on our agenda is an evidence session with representatives of Food Standards Scotland. I welcome to the committee Heather Kelman, the chair of FSS; Ian McWatt, its deputy chief executive; and Dr Gillian Purdon, the head of healthy diet and nutrition. We will move straight to questions.
Good morning. I declare an interest as a practising NHS GP.
I am concerned about the biosecurity of our food, given that only 5 per cent of live animal imports are subject to checks although the target is 100 per cent. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Animal and Plant Health Agency are ill-equipped to handle high-impact diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and African swine fever. What tools does Food Standards Scotland have with which to improve our biosecurity, and do you agree that food biosecurity matters?
I assure you that we take biosecurity seriously and work closely with our chief veterinarian and others on that front. Yesterday, I participated in a four-nations meeting with the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, looking at the issue of the border controls on the west coast, and we have offered to do some intelligence-led gathering to get some evidence on the quantity of risk, not just the theoretical risk. We are looking to do some additional work on that this year.
For more information, I will hand over to Ian McWatt, because he heads our operations division.
I will take your last question first. We absolutely agree that food biosecurity matters. Food Standards Scotland is what we call the central competent authority for food in Scotland. We are the largest employer of official veterinarians and we deploy those staff into approved slaughterhouses. Since European Union exit, we have repeatedly flagged concerns about the number of available qualified veterinary personnel who would ultimately carry out a lot of those checks, as well as food enforcement personnel in local government.
In the past few years, we have changed to having a fully employed veterinary delivery model, which gives us better control over the recruitment, competency and training of those personnel. However, it is a fact that Food Standards Scotland has only two UK official veterinarians in our employ; the vast majority come from the EU. Thanks to our fully employed model, which is more attractive than the contracted model that is used elsewhere in the UK, we continue to attract staff.
In one sense, we have mitigated some of the elements of the required biosecurity controls. However, we must consider that a lot of the food law delivery sits within local government. We are just about to embark on our Scottish authority food enforcement re-build—SAFER—programme, which is about the rebuilding and reform of the food law delivery landscape in Scotland. We have repeatedly flagged multiple concerns about the fragility of the system and the fact that some elements of the system are not functioning particularly well at the moment. There are risks, but we are mitigating them, working with partners across the UK, and we are looking to embark on a journey of reform over the next three to four years.
My final question is about food security. Given the ever-changing landscape in geopolitics, it is important that we secure our own food and resources in Scotland and across the wider UK. However, I have just finished watching “Clarkson’s Farm”, which demonstrated the precarious position of farmers and farming.
What has happened to our farmers in the 10 years of Food Standards Scotland’s existence? Do you feel that they are under increasing threat now, and is there anything that you can do to try to protect them?
10:45
My first point is that farmers are outwith our function—we deal with the food end. However, that does not prevent us from meeting regularly with NFU Scotland to talk about areas of common interest, one of which is the guaranteed supply of as much fresh and local food as possible in Scotland. I believe that, next week, we will meet some of its policy leads to consider the food chain and the interaction between our two organisations in relation to areas in which we share a common agenda. However, in the main, the work around farmers sits with the farming and rural directorate and the agriculture and environment directorate.
I do not know whether that is quite the answer that you were looking for. Is there anything specific that you would like me to talk about?
I accept that you deal with the food end, but, obviously, food comes from somewhere—that is, from farms. That is what I had in mind. I was thinking about the entire supply chain.
That is why we will meet NFU Scotland’s newly appointed head of policy on the supply chain next week to talk through that issue. We take over at the farm gate on the animal welfare side, and we work closely with Scottish Government officials on food security and food sustainability. Geoff Ogle sits on the short-life food security and supply task force to make sure that we have input into that. Looking at the quantity and quality of food that is available is vitally important from a nutritional point of view, because, obviously, we want as much as possible of the quantity of fruit and vegetables that we consume to be grown in Scotland. However, our role in food production is less on the farming side than on the food manufacturing side.
The complexity of our food supply chain has crystallised, particularly since Brexit and Covid. I am sure that committee members will be aware that a number of on-going incidents have impacted that supply chain, mainly concerning cybersecurity elements, some challenges around which are currently being investigated. There is a principle intersect between Food Standards Scotland and our Scottish Government colleagues in that regard. A lot of our time and investment will go into engaging with providers, retailers and wholesalers to ensure that some sense of priority is given to the supply of food and food security in general.
The most recent incident, which was widely publicised, has meant that a lot of the focus has been on ensuring supply to lifeline stores, particularly in remote areas that do not have much choice about where they procure their food supply. As I said, it is an increasingly complex landscape.
I would just highlight that the forthcoming good food nation plan will give us an opportunity to consider the food system as a whole and to develop more of a co-ordinating role in that space.
One more thing—our food crime and incidents unit will provide information to farmers on crime that might affect the food chain and how to protect themselves against it. We try to give support around food crime and the bad players side of things, too.
Good morning. I have a quick question. Did Brexit make sanitary and phytosanitary checks more complicated—worse, basically—for companies that export food from this country?
I will let Ian take that question, as he is the expert on that area.
It is a good question. Heather mentioned our food crime unit. We do not have any direct evidence that things have definitely got worse from a food fraud perspective. However, there has been a challenge in relation to the number of qualified, competent and skilled people who have been available to undertake the checks that are required. There has also been a bit of a moveable feast in relation to the deadlines for certain border controls to come into place, which were continually shifted.
Of course, there was little time to prepare for the introduction of certification requirements and little opportunity to ensure that we had sufficient people on the ground to certify and do the checks that were required. If you were to look at it through that lens, you could come to the conclusion that there was increased risk, but we do not have any clear evidence that that has materialised in the incident space.
I invite our witnesses to reflect on where they would like Food Standards Scotland to be in 2035, when it will celebrate its 20th anniversary.
I believe that we have had a very good first 10 years and that, as an organisation, we have matured well. As part of the work on our next strategy, we want to benchmark ourselves against world standards and look at how we could improve our performance against the measures in the “WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022-2030”. We are doing a lot of work to look at what is being done internationally to get a benchmark for how we could improve.
We want to have a system of food law enforcement that is based on digital evidence and information and is intelligence based. We want to be world leading by having an efficient system that enables and supports businesses to provide safe, nutritious and healthy food.
All of us here would love food and dietary health prevention to be far more on the front line when it comes to how we feed our nation. We want to have a very strong food environment that ensures that everyone, regardless of their income or their background, can access affordable food, so we need to look very closely at the food environment that we operate in Scotland.
Looking ahead, we want to see improvements in access to healthy, nutritious food and in digitalisation, to enable businesses to work proficiently and efficiently in providing good, high-quality food and meeting safety standards. We also want to ensure that our activity is strongly evidence based. Sadly, some of our budget restrictions have meant that we have had to reduce the amount of research that we do, and we would like to build that back up in some areas. Another wish for the board is that we will be able to rebuild our gathering of evidence and production of reports for the Government.
Does anyone else have any other thoughts?
We are straying into the questions that David Torrance is about to ask.
I apologise.
Good morning. How would you assess the performance of Food Standards Scotland to date in relation to each of the five priority outcomes that were set in the strategy for 2021 to 2026?
I will be the first to admit that it has been a difficult few years in that we had Brexit and Covid in that five-year period. We have tried to stay very focused on our main function.
When we have done a review of the priorities that we can achieve, we have gone back to our original functions as a regulator, a public health body and a representative of consumer interest, and I believe that we have done very well in most of those areas. For example, our food crime unit is becoming an internationally recognised expert in the area of food crime and intelligence gathering on food crime.
We are about to launch our SAFER—Scottish authority food enforcement re-build—programme, which will involve looking at digitalisation and an evidence-based approach. That will involve modernising the system to ensure that, in the future, we can protect the public with high-quality standards by enabling local authorities to carry out fewer in-person inspections but to gather more intelligence on which to base their visits and enforce food law. We have done a lot of preparatory work for that.
Gillian, would you like to talk about some of the achievements on the nutrition side?
Yes, I would be happy to do that. A key thing for us is that our surveillance capability has improved significantly over that time. I can give you a couple of examples of what we have managed to achieve. For a long time, we have supported the use of digital tools to collect dietary information. We are unique in the UK in having integrated the Intake24 system within the health survey. We can use that tool to look at diet and to link that with information about health outcomes that are collected as part of that survey. It is the same tool that is used in the national diet and nutrition survey. That allows us to compare across the nations. That is unique.
We have commissioned our own bespoke surveys in areas where we have had data evidence gaps, such as a survey of children’s diets. It was well over 10 years since we had had a dietary survey of children, but we now have evidence to assess nutrition across the organisation. We have also developed consumer-facing tools to support the “Eatwell Guide”, which demonstrates what a healthy diet looks like. To help consumers to make changes to their lifestyles and their diets, we have a tool called “Eat Well, Your Way”, which is available on our website. That is another key aspect.
In addition, we have tools for teachers and teaching resources available on our website. There is a link-up there. Because all those things have been developed over the past 10 years, there are many different ways in which we can help the population to have a healthier diet.
To add to the commentary on how well you think that we have done, with the resource that we have been provided with, we are punching above our weight. We are a small organisation that is now recognised internationally. We have gained a lot of attention, and many visitors come here to see how we do things.
However, we could certainly do better. We are one of the few organisations to have had a flat-line budget since we were vested in 2015, which is a real-terms cut of in excess of 20 per cent. You will no longer see Food Standards Scotland actively campaigning in the way that we used to, and there are plenty of messages that we would like to amplify, but until our budget allows us to do that again, we will need to seek new and novel ways of getting our message across that do not cost any money, such as by using social media and so on.
There is a sense of us punching above our weight. You need only look at examples such as the recently publicised tea fraud case in Scotland, in which a successful conviction was secured. We have a small team of four investigators who find something under every stone that they turn over. However, we are now having to actively throttle back, because we do not have the resource to turn over the stones that we think could be turned over.
Looking to the future, what changes will be made in the strategy for 2026 to 2031? What consultation will take place with stakeholders to inform those changes?
That is a very timely question, because we will discuss that issue at next week’s board meeting. The public consultation for our new strategy will take place from August to September. As I said earlier, the chief executive and I did an assessment of the “WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022-2030”, and we have identified the areas in which we feel that we must improve, some of which I have a note of. We have been looking very closely at consumer protection again. We want to up our science and evidence base; to evolve and reform the regulatory landscape; to provide an effective public service for the people of Scotland; and to ensure that we deliver effective, efficient, inclusive and consulted-on services.
In addition, in our next strategy, we will include more on sustainability and climate change so that we have more of a strategic commitment to the requirements to improve the sustainable environment. If anybody is interested, I would be happy to share that analysis of how we compare in relation to the work that is being undertaken worldwide.
As I said, the public consultation will run from 1 August until 12 September. Stakeholders will be emailed with a link that will enable them to complete the consultation, and a reminder will be sent halfway through the consultation period. We will share the consultation directly with local authorities through our monthly enforcement report, to allow them to comment, and we will put a live link to the consultation on social media.
In our regular meetings with stakeholders—we have many such meetings with the Food and Drink Federation Scotland, Scotland Food & Drink and other bodies such as Quality Meat Scotland—we will advise them that the consultation is live and will invite them to comment. We will also share the consultation with MSPs and Scottish MPs at Westminster. Throughout the period for which the consultation is live, we will monitor the completion rate and the type of organisations that complete it, and we will target areas that we feel are underrepresented in the process so that we can have confidence in the robustness of our consultation.
Thank you. I have no further questions.
11:00
Good morning to the witnesses. Heather Kelman was just talking about the issues that will be included in the consultation on the development of the new strategy, and I was very pleased to hear the commitment that there will be greater emphasis on climate and sustainability. Those issues were mentioned a bit in the previous strategy, but not at a very specific level. How much autonomy does Food Standards Scotland have to set a direction of travel on that?
You will be aware that the Climate Change Committee—the independent advisory body to both Governments on climate—has recently set out its advice on how to meet carbon budgets for the rest of the journey to net zero. There are specific conclusions for agriculture—clearly, there has to be a link between food production and the consumption of food. There is a huge overlap between more sustainable food and healthier food, yet that advice is already getting some reactionary pushback.
The Scottish Government’s climate plan will not be produced in time for you to consult on your strategy for 2026 to 2031. The scrutiny in Parliament of the draft climate plan is likely to run right up until the end of this parliamentary session; it may not even be completed until after next year’s election, in the new parliamentary session. How do you intend to give effect to the very clear conclusions of the Climate Change Committee report about food in the absence of a Scottish Government climate change plan having been published and adopted?
Thank you, that is a good question. In relation to the work that the board has looked at, there is little impact we could have internally within FSS, as we are a very small organisation and we have a proportionately small carbon footprint. However, we can influence—rather than direct—the whole environment of food production and the food environment. Our role is to advise Scottish ministers on policies to improve diet and health. Although our competence lies within Scotland, we also take that advice beyond Scotland, to the UK Government, to make sure that our interests are represented UK wide.
Gillian can comment on some of the work that we have looked at, in terms of the advice that we have given to the Climate Change Committee and the research that we have done, which looks into some of the recommendations and the impact that they might have on population health. There is a direct correlation between some of the recommendations and the state of our nation’s health, and one of our priorities is to protect public health.
Evidence has shown that reliance on voluntary approaches is insufficient to address the scale of the challenge. More debate on appropriate mandatory actions is necessary, and we will continue to call for that. We have recommended that the UK Government prioritise several actions within its reserved competence, which might help us with further fiscal measures.
We know that following the “Eatwell Guide” would significantly reduce the carbon footprint associated with diet and health in this country. To achieve that, we need support from the UK Government on things such as advertising and market restrictions on a high-fat, high-salt and high-sugar diet, mandatory reporting on food and drink sales data so that we know what areas need to improve—if we know what is being sold, we can influence it—and further fiscal measures such as the sugar tax, but going into other areas where we want to see improvement in terms of achieving what is in the “Eatwell Guide”. Given that we know that following the “Eatwell Guide” would contribute to a significant reduction in the emissions that are associated with what we eat in this country, it would be a good place to start, rather than looking to change the dietary advice, which might then affect the health of the population.
There are a couple of points to highlight. We are undergoing a review of the Scottish dietary goals, and part of the review is about looking at the data supporting health improvement. The goals are set with that predominantly in mind but also considering sustainability. The results of that review will be published towards the end of this year. That is one way in which we are addressing these issues.
We have also looked at the adherence of the Scottish population to the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. We have done an analysis of adults’ dietary intakes, and we have also recently done an analysis of children’s dietary intakes. We are passing on that advice to the minister very soon.
If we were to adhere to existing recommendations for adults on red and red processed meat—for example, if high consumers reduced their consumption to recommended maximums—that would achieve a 16 per cent reduction in the eating of meat and it would go a long way to achieving some of those recommendations, or certainly the first stage of them.
However, we need to be really careful. Analysis has shown that, at a population level, our diet is really poor. Approximately 1 per cent of the population—or even less—meet the “Eatwell Guide” recommendations or the Scottish dietary goals recommendations.
If we start to change things by reducing meat consumption, for example, that can have a negative impact in terms of micronutrient status. It is possible to reduce meat consumption, with good replacements, and still have a healthy diet. However, because our diets are currently so poor, there is a risk in doing so. Therefore, we need to look at the totality of the diet and improve it and move to achieving more of those goals and recommendations.
I appreciate that but, in short, will the consultation on the 2026 to 2031 strategy consider how to implement the recommendations from the CCC?
That will certainly be part of the considerations.
Yes, that will be part of the considerations. We have a bit more evidence to gather. We know that the recommendations on red meat could be implemented and nutritional competence could be maintained, but the problem is that it would require more complex menu planning and eating patterns for our population and it might affect people’s ability to afford to eat a healthy diet. We need to understand that aspect better before we do that, because we do not want to compromise public health over emissions. We are hoping that, by following the “Eatwell Guide” as a whole, there is a compromise whereby we can reduce emissions that are associated with more discretionary foods and products—the high-fat, high-salt and high-sugar diet. If we, as a nation, could reduce our commitment to eating discretionary foods, we would be able to reduce the carbon emissions associated with food production and food consumption in Scotland.
It is a difficult balance. We are totally on board—we are all absolutely committed to looking at sustainability—but we are in a difficult situation, as there is evidence that there may be adverse dietary implications for our population, particularly for our children and young people, which would not be good for the economy or for public health. We need to balance that with looking at where dietary advice has real traction to make improvements in carbon emissions without affecting people’s health and wellbeing. That was included in our evidence to the Climate Change Committee, which we submitted a year ago.
Another thing to highlight is that the Climate Change Committee recommendations are for a reduction in meat and dairy, but dairy has a lot of protective elements to it. We have to be careful, from a dietary perspective, about what we agree to and where we should be more cautious. I think that that is why the Government has partially accepted those Climate Change Committee recommendations. It is for the Government to do the risk management and to link actions to that. This goes right across the food chain, and the food system needs to be looked at. It is quite challenging and difficult. We have found that, even in reviewing the Scottish dietary goals, the number of different parts of Government that we need to liaise with as part of that process means that it can be quite complicated. It is not something that we should shy away from. but there are a lot of complexities and different things to balance while doing so.
I can feel the convener’s impatience with me even through Zoom, so I will resist the temptation to carry on with this topic. However, it clearly needs further consideration in the future.
Thank you, Mr Harvie.
I will continue it, if you like, Mr Harvie. [Laughter.] In your response to his question to you, Gillian Purdon, you highlighted a concern of mine, which is with the blanket message that we eat too much red meat. If we continue with that message, I would be concerned that those who do not eat enough red meat might reduce their meat intake even further. I agree that eating too much red meat is bad for you, but it is equally true that not eating enough of it is bad for you.
I would say that you can have a healthy diet that contains no meat. However, because we, as a population, do not have that diet, more people would be at risk if they were to reduce meat from current levels, shall we say.
As you say, a lot of people eat too much meat and it would be better for their health and their colorectal cancer risk if they were to reduce that amount. What you say is kind of correct, but we can have a healthy diet with no meat in it at all, although we currently do not.
We have seen an overall trend of meat consumption declining over time, and it seems to be reducing further. We are not sure what the reason for that is, but it seems to relate more to cost than it necessarily relates to health factors or messaging. We are not entirely sure why that trend is going in that direction, but that seems to be the direction of travel. We are alive to that, and we must keep monitoring the situation.
The situation is even more apparent when we look at children’s diets, particularly the contribution of dairy, because almost all children have some dairy in their diet. If their dairy and meat consumption were to reduce, the impact would be even more accentuated. It is important that we continue to look at that and monitor it.
The reality is that Scotland heads the charts on too many of the bad areas. We are the unhealthiest nation in Europe, the most obese nation in Europe, and we have many poor health indicators. Obviously, nutrition plays a big part in that.
We talk about food security, but nutrition security is an issue, too. What role does Food Standards Scotland have in looking at the nutrition of meals that are provided by public services? Let us consider that from a climate change angle. Too much food that is provided by schools and hospitals is imported, and too much of it is made elsewhere and shipped in. What part does the FSS play in monitoring not just the levels of food security, but the levels of nutrition in those meals?
Our role sits at the nutrition level. We are involved in setting the regulations for foods that are provided in schools. Such food must meet specific nutrition requirements. Those are aligned with the Scottish dietary goals. Our role is to provide the technical expertise in setting those amounts. It is then up to the local authorities and the schools to procure and provide food that meets those recommendations that support a healthy diet.
We do not have a lot of information or data on that. There may be good opportunities within the good food nation plan to look at that in a bit more detail and to try to shorten some of the food chains and improve procurement. We have been working closely with Government colleagues and Public Health Scotland on the “Eating Out, Eating Well” framework. That is predominantly focused on the public sector, but it will be rolled out more widely. Within that, we can look at some of those elements that you mentioned, such as sustainability and procurement, in terms of where food comes from. However, at the moment, our main role has been in setting the technical specifications rather than being able to answer some of those questions.
Do the specific dietary requirements in the public sector framework cover negative elements such as low fat, low sugar and low salt, or does it cover the nutrients that should be part of a diet, such as iodine and magnesium? Do we get into that or is it all about the negative elements?
I would not say that it is negative. There are recommendations in “Eating Out, Eating Well.” That is a new pilot, and that is where we are at the moment. That includes recommendations such as maximum calories to adhere to. That gives more scope, as long as you are achieving them. There are also principles, which include increasing fibre. That is a positive nutrient. “Eating Out, Eating Well” is perhaps more pragmatic and is designed to be something that can be more applicable across a broader range of different types of businesses. That is where we are with that at the moment.
Yes, there will be recommendations for things such as low fat, because that helps to reduce the calories that are provided. We know that, particularly with some of the home-type foods, the portions are large and the calories tend to be much higher than foods that you would typically eat at home.
That is the approach, which is being piloted. The next stage is to roll that out, and we are waiting for the Government to do that.
11:15
Would you agree that schools specifically, but also hospitals, are good battlegrounds, if you like, for developing a better diet? However, more than half of hospital food is thrown out, a high proportion of school food is thrown out and a high proportion of kids do not take up free school meals, so we are failing in that element.
We are going in the right direction, though. Portions of fruit and veg must be offered to children. If we look at dietary intakes, particularly among primary school children, their diets are pretty good. The issue is when children get a bit older—it is when they are in secondary school and in their adolescence that things change. They have more agency and are influenced by the wider food environment, which can encourage them to purchase what is available. That tends to contain high amounts of fat, salt and sugar, and such products are ubiquitous.
We see that happen, and we need to look at that broader environment. In school settings, we are doing a pretty good job. I am less close to the position in hospitals. However, there is a working group on that, and a member of our team sits on it to ensure that the technical elements are nutritionally correct.
Obviously, we welcome the good food nation work. Dennis Overton and I have met and will meet quarterly to look at the Scottish food commission’s role in ensuring that good food nation plans by local authorities and health boards reflect the standards and guidelines. Between us—the FSS on the technical nutrition side and the commission on the planning side—we would hope to see some real improvements.
On hospitals specifically, we have to look at how long patients are in hospital for and why they are there. There is not quite the same opportunity in our acute hospitals to influence people’s intake. We can do that with NHS staff, and there are a lot of them, so that is worth while. However, in schools, you are right: we must use the opportunities that school meals provide to encourage a broader range of healthy foods to be tried, tested and consumed.
I have to say that it is very patchy with schools. In relation to hospitals, if you produce the food in Wales and then drive it up the M6, there is a lower likelihood of it being decent.
Finally, what is your assessment of the likelihood of the Scottish Government hitting its target of halving childhood obesity by 2030?
It is a challenge. The statistics show that, although there was a bit of a blip around the Covid pandemic, we have seen body weights come back down. It is encouraging that we are not seeing quite such a trajectory in the wrong direction. However, it will be a very big challenge to reverse that. It can be done and it has been done in some places. The Netherlands has had good results in that regard. The issue is that the timeframe is relatively short now, and such things take time, so it will be a challenge. We will have to see. I do not have a crystal ball.
Look at what Japan did.
There are good examples, as you say, internationally, but there needs to be quite a lot of intervention and lots of levers all being used at the same time.
There is a definite challenge, and it is only through positive action that we will have any impact; it will not happen by default. The challenge is too big; it needs everybody to focus on the food environment that children are exposed to and make changes.
I will leave it there, convener.
Good morning. It will not be a surprise to you to hear that I am interested in ultra-processed foods. I know that there is a difference between processed foods and UPFs. I have been following the work of Henry Dimbleby, Dr Chris van Tulleken and Carlos Monteiro in Brazil. Henry Dimbleby spoke at Dynamic Earth in April 2024—I was privileged to be in the audience and it was really interesting to hear him speak.
I want to be clear about what we are talking about. Ultra-processed foods are created using food tech and food science purely for profit. There are issues in this commerciogenic environment where low-cost ingredients are created from fractioning and then recombining, and chemicals are added that are essentially cosmetic to enhance colours and flavours.
Does Food Standards Scotland have a different view now compared with what was outlined in March 2024 on the topic of processed and ultra-processed foods? We are a year on and more research has been done and presented. I would be interested in hearing about that.
You are absolutely right. We are keeping a watching brief on the evidence base because it is emerging all the time. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition published an updated position statement a few months back, which we can send to you. It is not recommending a change at this time, but we are aware that the evidence base could shift, so we are keeping an eye on it.
There is a very large cross-over between ultra-processed foods and foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar. We are not entirely sure of the percentage, but 80 to 90 per cent of ultra-processed foods could be high in fat, salt and sugar. There is a large body of evidence on that. We continue to focus our efforts on reducing foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, many of which are ultra-processed, as I said.
This may come up later, but food fortification is an example of a means by which industry can enhance foods, which will then almost always be termed ultra-processed. An example is alternatives to milk. A plant-based alternative to milk will be very poor in terms of nutritional composition compared with cow’s milk unless it is fortified, which is when things such as iodine and calcium are put into the product. Those alternatives to milk tend to be consumed in similar ways to cow’s milk. For that reason, not all ultra-processing is bad.
You mentioned some of the aspects of ultra-processing. We have to say that ultra-processed foods are all safe. These products have gone through all the safety checks that need to be done and they meet the regulations. However, there is quite a big disparity in relation to inequalities. If we took a very hard line on ultra-processed foods, it could mean that people in more deprived areas would find it more difficult to eat healthily. Things such as wholemeal bread that is bought in a supermarket would be deemed ultra-processed, yet we would deem it a healthy food. Tinned baked beans are a similar example. There are many areas where we need to be careful and look not just at the processing but at the nutritional composition as well.
I am not suggesting a reformulation tax or anything like that, because I know about the challenges for people in areas that are ranked higher in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, for example. We have heard that kids in the UK are shorter because of the impact of 14 years of imposed austerity, poverty and the challenges with access to healthy, nutritious diets.
I know about fortification, such as the addition of vitamin B12, but my concerns are about emulsifiers, stabilisers, colourings and other additives. I am concerned about all the chemicals such as guar gum, xanthan gum, mango oil and whey powder. Whey was used as a fertiliser for fields, but it is now a product that is used to build the protein that is required in some products.
What can be done to help? Is it a matter of educating people? Is it a matter of restricting what can be displayed at the end of aisles or in front of checkouts? What needs to be done to help to support people to make good choices?
You touched on something that would be really helpful. We have recommended that the promotion of foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar be looked at, and we await an announcement from the Government soon on its position on legislating on that. That would go a long way towards tackling the issues because of the intersection that I mentioned between ultra-processed foods and foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar. They are often the same products. That would help to steer consumers away from them.
I always go back to the “Eatwell Guide”, which shows the balance of foods that we want people to eat. If people were able to adhere to that, it would result in them eating fewer processed foods. It would be very difficult to meet those recommendations while eating a lot of processed foods, because many of them contain a lot of salt, let alone the other things that you have highlighted. We could do a lot just by achieving those existing dietary goals.
Ultra-processing is a consideration that is to the fore in the review of the Scottish dietary goals. We are looking at discretionary foods and sustainability, as I mentioned, but we are also looking at ultra-processing to see whether it would be sensible to cover that in the dietary goals. We have considered that in the discussions.
Should we continue to watch out for the evidence that is coming out from specialists such as Carlos Monteiro in Brazil regarding ultra-processed foods, the chemicals that are added and the enteric substances?
Yes. We will continue to have a watching brief on that. The review of the dietary goals, which will be published at the end of the year, will show how we have looked at the evidence base in relation to achieving the goals.
On the food science, there is a lot of evidence that ultra-processed foods simply make us eat more. If we take Pringles as an example, we can consider the noise that the can makes, and food is now a lot softer than it used to be. There is an initial crunch and then it disappears. Surely that is something that we need to tackle.
You make a very good point. A lot of ultra-processed foods are palatable, which means that people consume more calories more quickly. However, it is difficult to disentangle that from the other characteristics of those foods, such as the fact that they are high in fat, salt and sugar. We are unable to show a specific link, so it is difficult to change the advice on that basis. However, you are right that a lot of ultra-processed foods are designed to be palatable. We just have to keep an eye on the evidence base.
The science has to be robust for us to change dietary guidelines or recommendations. The last time that we did that was back in 2016, when we covered upping fibre and reducing sugar in the recommendations because the evidence base could dictate that. We look at the consensus evidence, which is why we go to the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and its assessment of risk, but we are also keeping a watching brief as more evidence is published, and we will revisit that. You make a good point.
To what extent has FSS been involved in the development of the draft national good food nation plan? In the evidence that you provided to the committee in 2024, you expressed some concerns about some of the linkages between the actions and the intended outcomes. Are you satisfied that those concerns have been addressed or do some concerns remain?
We have linked up very closely with the Scottish Government in the development of those outcomes and indicators, particularly given that, as you may be aware, the dietary goals are part of that suite of indicators. It is about looking at how that is being developed and then baselining the information and reviewing it.
On the diet side, we have had a lot of liaison on what will be in the national plan. That has been tightened up. I am reassured that the Government responded to the feedback that came from the consultation, which included some questions on the robustness of the indicators. I think that we will see that being addressed when the new plan is published.
It is really good to hear that you have been able to feed in your concerns and that the linkages are robust in relation to what you expect the draft plan to say.
There was also a bit of worry about where your role stopped and the Scottish Food Commission’s role started and how that was going to be managed. Do you feel that there is now a clear division of responsibilities there?
11:30
I have had one direct meeting with Dennis Overton and we are waiting for the commissioners to be appointed. We hope that we will then have a joint seminar with the commissioners and our board to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. We have been given support to take action where we can without it costing us extra resources, because we are working tightly on what we can deliver. We are very positive about the ambition to work alongside each other and meet where we need to, but to have clear delineation and not replicate things or have gaps. I am very positive about how we will go forward together.
We have heard several times this morning that the resourcing is very tight. Are you satisfied that no extra workload will be added for you, given the resourcing that you have? You described it as being about working in parallel without extra pressure being added.
My hope is that we will develop a memorandum of understanding that will explain what access the commission will have to the work that we are already doing, such as the tracking that Gillian Purdon’s team does on nutritional standards. There is no reason why that cannot be shared. It would not cost us more to share it. The commission will have open access to our evidence.
The bottom line is that, if the commission required us to take on additional work, we would look to it to fund that. The board does not have any space within the budget to reprioritise work. We have reprioritised what we do and we have cut our evidence-gathering and research budget as much as we can. We hope that what we currently do will help the commission, but if it has any specific need for us to do more tracking, we would need to look to it to fund that.
That is very helpful. We have heard this morning about your wonderful food crime unit and how effective it is. We would not want anything to take away from your ability to do that work. Thank you.
I will go back to food fortification—Dr Purdon, you mentioned it in response to Emma Harper’s question earlier. I am specifically looking to hear about mandatory fortification. We have had food fortification in a few products in place for a while. Just last year, the mandatory fortification of non-wholemeal wheat with folic acid was introduced. We know that the evidence for that is really strong in reducing incidences of foetal neural tube defects, so it was good that we managed to do that. It took longer than the evidence suggested that it should have taken, but it is good that that was taken forward.
Are there any other areas where we need a mandatory approach? In answering, could you refer to the “Dietary Intake in Scotland’s CHildren”—or DISH—report, which found a number of groups, particularly in the 11 to 15-year-old age group, lacking in micronutrients? Do we need a mandatory approach, or is there another way to make sure that young people get the nutrients we know they need?
That is a very good question. I will go back to the folic acid example, first, to highlight that it was modelling done by the FSS that was fundamental in pushing that forward. In Scotland, we looked to do it on a single-country basis, but, because of the way that flour milling and so on works, it was not possible to do that, so it is wonderful that it will be mandatory from the end of next year.
There are breads, flours and eggs that are fortified with, I think, iron, calcium and B vitamins. There is a question of whether we should be mandatorily fortifying other things, and it is a difficult question. When we look at diets, we find that there are deficiencies in various different micronutrients, so the decision would be which micronutrient to fortify and how. Many things—such as breakfast cereals, which children eat a lot of—are voluntarily fortified, and there are limits to what manufacturers can add in, so a lot is done already.
The only other mandation in other countries across the world is iodine, but that does not tend to be a big problem in the UK, so I do not know whether we would want to take it forward in Scotland. Overall, there is probably already enough voluntary fortification in place.
I see a potential risk in the drive away from ultra-processing and towards things like organic. That would mean that we could not fortify food. Therefore, for example, breakfast cereals would become less nutritious, to some extent, because they would not have the additions. We need to be careful: it is not one answer or another, and we need to look at the situation in totality. That is a concern for us and something we will keep an eye on.
Do you have any thoughts on why the DISH report showed the specific problem around 11 to 15-year-olds? Is it just because, at that age, kids stop eating cereal and do not get their—
There are a few aspects. Partly it is a question of agency. For children of primary school age, there is more parental control over what they are eating: parents and schools will be providing the food. However, in the teenage years—I have two teenagers myself—young people have a lot more agency and ability to forage in the larger food environment, which tends to be flooded with unhealthy items that are attractive, marketed and predominant. That is when we see a difference—as the children get older.
There is also a pronounced difference between the affluent and the deprived areas, particularly among older children. Consumption of sugary soft drinks, for example, is much higher among children living in the more deprived areas. We need to focus on inequalities, as well.
That is useful. Thanks very much.
I will ask about the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I know that you have commented on it before, but, to help us understand, what do you think the overall impact of the act will be on food standards and consumer protection in Scotland? Have you had any discussion with or made representation to the UK Government, and how has that gone?
That is a good question. Food Standards Scotland has already written to the convener for the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee on the issue and made it very clear that we are of the view that the internal market act disincentivises genuine consensus building and creates a degree of regulatory uncertainty.
As evidence for that, we have a situation where, for example, the Scottish ministers can decide on policies that the UK secretary of state can, in effect, give a thumbs up or thumbs down to. We have concerns around accountability to the Scottish Parliament, particularly if there is a decision contrary to the Scottish Parliament. There is no mechanism to hold the UK Government to account—there is no override in that respect. We have made our feelings known on that.
On the impact on food safety, there are several key areas where we have seen that there is a potential locus for the internal market act, particularly around issues like single-use plastics, the deposit return scheme, high fat, salt and sugar food and drink restrictions, and the new developments in precision breeding. That narrative goes on. We are seeing—picking up on Gillian Purdon’s example of folic acid—that, where there is an opportunity for adherence to good policy making, the requirement for internal market act is nullified to a degree. We do not see the added value or any need for the act because good policy making would provide all the necessary checks and balances—and avoid the situation in which there is added complexity for industry. We have twin streams of communication where business has to engage in duplication with UK Government and the devolved nations.
There is also an issue with having clear guidance on how enforcement takes place. We are very unclear about what to advise enforcement officers in the event of divergence. For example, there may be a divergent element to the approach taken to a food introduced by one country in Great Britain, and at the moment the guidance on enforcement in another country is very unclear.
That is very helpful, because I was going to ask how the act works. Perhaps we need to look at the issue and follow up. Thank you.
I will quickly add that work being done on sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—measures gives us an opportunity to look at the issues. It is timely for the Scottish Government to raise the need to look at the act, especially on food. Other industries might not be so keen to revise, but, with the SPS agreement, we can look at the internal market act again.
I know that Food Standards Scotland has had a flat-cash budget settlement from financial year 2022-23 through to the current financial year of £22.7 million. Real-terms erosion will have an effect. What funding challenges is FSS facing, and what measures are you taking to mitigate them?
We have worked very closely with the Scottish Government to look at our current costs. The flat budget goes back to 2015, with the exception of the £7 million that we got for Brexit consequences. It has been a very long 10 years on the same funding. Three years ago, we undertook a prioritisation exercise and cut back on everything that we felt was not core to our purpose. Two years ago, we had a look at business as usual and took steps to make that as efficient as we could. This year, we have not had anywhere to go. We have raised that with Scottish Government health finance and we have shared our books. It has looked at our modelling and our costs, and it recognises that we are looking at a £2.5 million budgetary deficit. The agreement is that we will continue to look at that in year and work to try to find a solution. We are already starting to talk about our budget requirements for next year, so that that is done before the budget statement is provided. We just cannot carry on as we are. Does that answer your question?
Could you develop that a bit further and say what practical action you are taking with the Scottish Government to address that deficit? You mentioned that you are working together. What does that look like in practice?
We are meeting monthly with the finance team to review our costs as we go, month by month. Wherever we can, we have committed, like every other Government public body, to look at being as efficient and as effective as we can be. We are committed to finding savings, but where we cannot find them, we will raise that as an overspending issue on an underfunded budget, rather than as an overspend as a result of spending beyond what is absolutely essential.
I have also contacted the minister to talk about our functions and getting a closer match between the functions that we are required to deliver and the money that we have available to spend, so that we can go through that together. That will allow us to be clear that, while we are in this situation of being significantly under pressure for budget, we are focused on the things that the Government requires us to do and that we are not straying into areas of things that we wish to do rather than things that are essential. I am hoping that there will be some common ground where there is a recognition that our costs have gone up substantially this year. Like everybody else, we have struggled this year with rising costs for employers, and I hope that that will be recognised by some in-year resolution to that shortfall.
What you have said is reflected in the external audit that was published in December. Given what you have said about a potential planned overspend, are you confident that the FSS will achieve financial balance in the current financial year?
I believe that our staff are very committed to doing what they can to keep our costs as low as possible, and that they have raised the issue as clearly as possible with Government that there are some areas on which we just cannot reduce spend without introducing risk to the food safety system in Scotland. It is therefore really important that, between us, we jointly find funding to meet that gap. I stress that it is a genuine gap. I worked at the NHS for 34 years and I am used to finding efficiency savings and doing prioritisation and reprioritisation exercises, and I genuinely have run out of ideas and suggestions.
Ian Watt has something to add.
11:45
In terms of practical examples, Food Standards Scotland has reduced our whole-time equivalent staff numbers by 25 in the past year. The 35-hour working week had an impact, with a reduction in 16 full-time equivalent staff, so there has been an 8.8 per cent decline in a one-year period. Taking the totality of the conversation so far, we have already mentioned that we are a relatively small organisation, but one that has an extremely broad remit, and our food system is under more scrutiny than ever before. This year alone, we are hosting missions from 12 countries to look at our system of food controls, and we have to support that. EU exit has meant that the EU is coming in to look at dairy and at the control system for shellfish. Essentially, we have to prioritise. Heather Kelman mentioned the prioritisation exercise that we undertook a couple of years ago. We are prioritising weekly—almost daily—through the lens of what is affordable and, equally, what presents trading risk and risk to public health. There is absolutely no doubt that the duress that Food Standards Scotland is under is real.
I appreciate your candour. Thank you very much.
I will take us back a step to our discussion on the internal market act. In your written evidence to the committee, you raised the potential prospect of precision-bred food and feed products being authorised in England but not elsewhere in GB. Those products would, nonetheless, be placed on the market by virtue of the act. Can you share with the committee some of your concerns about that?
It is as simple as the override point: ministers here could consider that proposals for precision-bred products do not meet ministerial expectations here, but the internal market act says that if a product was considered acceptable for laying on the market elsewhere in the UK, that would override Scottish ministers’ considerations. For example, despite ministers here being presented with sound evidence to the contrary, with the decision making following that, if an alternative route is taken elsewhere, a very firm thumbs up, thumbs down approach can be taken that would trump any other approach. Before the internal market act, there would have been sound policy discussions at official level that would seek consensus and inform any development of regulation. That approach has now been overridden by the IMA process.
You gave the specific example of precision-bred food. Could there be an impact on things such as genetically modified products that the Scottish Government did not want to have for sale in Scotland or food products that we in the Scottish Parliament decided that we did not want to be introduced into the food chain?
There are some exemptions in the act that could offer some protection. The general principle is that if a policy has been assessed in line with good policy-making practice, the outcome should be respected as our view. However, if an alternative view is taken by ministers elsewhere and a product is produced or imported and accepted as meeting the standards of a devolved country, it could appear on the market here.
I want to stay with the internal market act. I want to be very clear that I was opposed to the introduction of the internal market act, as were the majority of MSPs. The majority of MSPs support its repeal and I would like to see that, but I am realistic enough to know that the current UK Government does not intend to consider repealing it. We therefore have to make the case for some changes in the review of the IMA that are short of repeal but which respect the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament.
What changes would allay the concerns that you have expressed? For example, the process of IMA exemptions is completely undefined—it is at the discretion of UK ministers. Would the addition of specific exemption criteria address that concern? That is similar to the way that the comparable EU legislation used to work when we were an EU member. Let me give an example. A policy that was intended to achieve a public health outcome could be granted an exemption by virtue of satisfying the criteria, rather than our being left with the current lack of clarity in a system where such issues are simply a matter for the minister of the day to make an individual decision about.
That is a good question. In our discussions, the board has said that if we had a preference, we would like the UK frameworks to be the policy method that was used to change food standards or food law in the UK on a four-nations basis, which would make it far easier not just to regulate but to enforce any failures. That would be one change. On exemptions, we would be aiming to see at least what we had under the EU—a written exemption that says that we would be able to protect for public health reasons.
We work very closely with the Food Standards Agency. For example, while not compromising our position that precision breeding is not being taken forward in Scotland, we have tried to influence the FSA through joint working on what is required in secondary legislation and so on, to try to make sure that we are protected as much as possible. We use our policy and science people to try to influence the work that goes on down in London, where that work influences Scottish food. We have been doing that for the past couple of years to try to make sure that we are mitigating as much as possible the steps that are being taken forward in England.
However, we are still left with the problem of products being on the shelves through English law. We cannot enforce English law; we can only enforce Scottish law. Therefore, there is still a gap, which I think is wrong and needs to be addressed through the forthcoming discussions on a SPS agreement. If we are going for dynamic alignment with the EU, we have an opportunity to look at how the internal market act would prevent that from working well and to put in place a new process that would allow us to align more efficiently and effectively on a four-nations basis, where all views and all interests would be considered at one point, and we could then move forward.
Therefore, IMA exemption criteria would be helpful. You were asked earlier whether you have reached out as an agency to the UK Government to set out your position on the IMA. I would frame that question the other way around. The UK Government, in considering the future of the IMA, ought to be reaching out proactively to all public bodies that have a responsibility to look after the public interest, including public health. Has there been proactive engagement, even at official level, with you from the UK Government?
Yes, we are engaging well with UK officials, but that still has resulted in the current situation where Scottish law can be disapplied by virtue of the IMA.
It goes back to your previous question. We think that the application of the market access principles should be suspended for goods and that the frameworks approach should be allowed to run its course. As we have been saying, that would ultimately provide the UK Government with an evidence base, which would allow it to legislate accordingly if that was considered necessary. We are engaging at official level, but you can see where we are at the moment.
Dr Purdon, do you agree that one of the simplest things that we could do to tackle this country’s significant health and nutrition issues, as well as climate change issues, would be to promote a home-grown, locally produced diet?
I do not see any reason why that could not be promoted, but the difficulty with that is how achievable following such a diet would be for the entire population. That is not to say that we would not want to promote such a diet, because a situation in which people are following a home-grown diet would be ideal. However, we need to look at the totality of what is produced. A lot of the food that we eat in this country is imported. Why is that? It is partly because some things cannot grow here, but it is also partly because of what the public want to eat.
There are many complexities around the issue and, in anything that we do, we need to be mindful of inequalities, which is where some of the difficulties are. For example, people living in areas of social deprivation would not find it as easy to adopt such a diet as people in other areas would.
Although I do not have an issue with the suggestion, we have to be careful to make sure that we look at the population as a whole and take measures that improve everybody’s diet. We need to take upstream, systemic measures in relation to the food environment to ensure that the food that is produced is more affordable and is available to everybody.
I would add that we also export a lot of our food.
That is the other side of the coin, and we need to be mindful of that, too.
Food crime was mentioned earlier. Is it a big problem? What do we need to tell people in Scotland to be aware of? I know there was an issue with fake vodka in Coatbridge last September. How do we help people to identify whether, for example, fake vodka is out there?
Happily, the vast majority of the food that we eat is what it says it is and is of a high quality. However, food fraud is prevalent—I mentioned earlier that, sadly, whenever we turn over a stone, based on intelligence leads, we find something. There is no system of control globally that would guarantee that you could prevent criminal actors from subverting the level of control that is in place. Therefore, we have to be active in our development of surveillance, intelligence and sampling. That is the bit that is under stress at the moment, and we are doing much less than we used to.
We are enjoying some success around the development of the theme of food crime. Before the horse meat scandal, you would never have heard of or thought of food crime, so it is a new issue in that sense. However, we are actively investigating, promoting and developing tools to help us with the issue, such as our food crime risk profiling tool and our food crime hotline. We are doing all that we can, through the channels that we can afford, to promote engagement with those tools. We have been actively engaging with food businesses to allow them to assess what risks they might face and what actions they can take accordingly. I would very much like to be in a position to do more, but we are taking very clear decisions on intelligence leads with regard to what will give us the biggest bang for our buck.
Investigations in this space tend to be complex and involve multiple agencies. With regard to the on-going vodka case, which potentially involves serious and organised crime, we have to be sure that we are taking the appropriate action. That case, and others like it, might not end up being prosecuted under food law—common law can have a much greater sanction, penalty or tariff attached.
We are doing a lot to boost the concept of food crime. We are a thought leader, and our team is currently chairing the global alliance on food crime, and it looks like we have been successful in getting the European Commission’s agrifood fraud network to become part of something that we created.
The concern is that we are throttling what we do simply because we do not have the resources to do more. Scottish produce is a world brand, and, as we have seen from the horse meat scandal, in particular, it can be in a very precarious position, as it can be undermined by food fraud and fraudulent actors.
We actively encourage whistleblowing, and we used to advertise our Crimestoppers approach that enabled the public or employees in any food business to make a report. We strongly encourage people to do that. It would be good to be able to promote that a bit more again.
We have created tools for businesses to assess their food supply chain for the risk of food crime or fraud. We try to do things to enable businesses to take more responsibility with regard to their food chains.
As Ian McWatt said, we have been surprised by how much food crime we have uncovered. The intelligence team that we employ is incredibly astute and our enforcement team is excellent. We do our best with a small but effective team.
Thank you all for your evidence today. We will now continue with our work in public. If you wish to leave, you are free to do so.
Previous
Care Inspectorate