Official Report 138KB pdf
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning)<br />(West Coast) (No 15) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/511)
Item 2 is consideration of an emergency affirmative instrument, for which Mary Mulligan, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, is with us. The Subordinate Legislation Committee had nothing to report on the order and the only comments that we have received from members were from Mary Scanlon, who has some questions for the minister.
I have several questions, which follow on from the Rural Development Committee's recommendations on amnesic shellfish poisoning. Why did the Food Standards Agency Scotland not involve the scallop industry in designing the proposed testing regime before putting it out to consultation?
It is my understanding that the FSAS involved the industry in that process. I ask Lydia Wilkie to outline how her organisation did that.
We have had a large number of meetings with all sectors of the scallop industry. We used the Scottish Scallop Advisory Committee, which is a joint committee, in the process that led to the development of the proposals. Members of the FSAS also went round the main centres, so that we could arrange meetings directly for the scallop fishermen rather than just for their organisations.
That is interesting, given that the convener of the Rural Development Committee wrote to Mary Mulligan stating:
At the meetings that have been held so far, we have been anxious to ask for suggestions about how to develop the testing regime. Any suggestions that relate to quality assurance need to be considered in the round. The agency is still considering further options.
That issue is still open for discussion with the industry.
Yes. I ask Lydia Wilkie to explain where we are in that regard.
Our main interest in the quality assurance schemes relates to the traceability element, which will be crucial to the enforcement regime. To date, we have visited two software design companies that have traceability systems that could be used specifically by the scallop industry. The industry put us in touch with those companies. Earlier this week, some colleagues visited Macduff Shellfish (Scotland) Ltd, which has a good traceability system. Our work in that area is advancing.
Are we still talking about end-product testing rather than out-of-the-water testing? That issue re-emerges constantly. The last time that I asked, I think that you were comparing our process with the one that is used in Ireland. Have you made any progress on that?
End-product testing is a current requirement for the industry as part of due diligence. Under the tiered regime, we are discussing the level of end-product testing. Because the relevant European Commission decision is highly precautionary in relation to front-end testing, our view is that the end-product testing regime need not be a horrendous burden on top of that. We are exploring that issue with the industry. I stress that end-product testing is supposed to be in place at the moment.
Is our testing more diligent than that of other countries, such as Ireland?
No. My understanding is that although we are testing according to European Commission directive 91/492/EEC, we still need to amend the way in which we test to comply with the directive fully. We have had discussions with Ireland and have been assured that the Irish are doing whole-product testing, which the directive requires.
Why was the portion size for scallops based on mussels? I understand that the basis for that was the fact that the only recorded case of amnesic shellfish poisoning, which happened in Canada, related to mussels rather than to scallops. I understand that scallop testing is based on the premise of an individual eating 12 scallops in one sitting, which would be quite difficult to do.
There is some debate about that point.
Are we gold-plating the regulations?
I am aware that the testing is based on mussels and that the proposals resulted from a poisoning outbreak in Canada. We have submitted our concerns about that to the Commission and have asked for specific research to be done into scallops. As Mary Scanlon said, the assumed portion size is 12, which is at the upper end for most people. We acknowledge that it might be harsh to base the testing on that level of consumption. As a result, we have asked Europe to provide further guidance and to conduct further research on the matter. That said, it will take time to do such research, and meanwhile we have to continue to work towards full compliance with the directive.
But you are pursuing that issue.
Yes.
I understand that, once the testing regime is in place, 60 per cent of the FSAS budget will be spent on looking for a poison that has never affected anyone in Scotland. Will your budget be directed more towards that objective than towards other food safety problems?
One of the FSAS's aims—and one of our first concerns—is the monitoring of food safety. That is why we have erred on the side of caution in scallop testing. I accept your comment that there have been no incidents as yet of such poisoning. However, as the consequences can be severe, we do not want such an incident to arise. We are therefore cautious as far as testing is concerned.
I repeat my point that 60 per cent of the FSAS's budget is being spent on looking for a poison that has never existed. Does that mean that you will neglect other areas of concern in Scotland?
I am sorry, but you cannot claim that the poison does not exist. All that we can say is that we have never had an outbreak of poisoning. I hope that that is down to the rigorous testing that we have carried out. If we had a more appropriate testing regime, we would hope to reduce that burden. However, I assure the committee that there is no way that we will put at risk the FSAS's other work obligations.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Community Care Committee, in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No 15) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/511), recommends that the instrument be approved.—[Mrs Mary Mulligan.]
Motion agreed to.
Previous
Item in PrivateNext
Petitions