%PDF-1.6
%
4 0 obj
<>stream
2022-10-04T12:14:23+01:00
2022-10-04T11:47:25+01:00
2022-10-04T12:14:23+01:00
Acrobat PDFMaker 22 for Word
uuid:d62c18dc-bce3-4d8b-8511-bcc6f342870e
uuid:45f80423-515d-4224-a055-b5c385887a1c
4
application/pdf
FHRS Consultation response form
Food Standards Agency
Adobe PDF Library 22.2.244
0x01010090F7BFB898A2B04E9D109BB15E381B8F
1
1.1
endstream
endobj
7 0 obj
<>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<56653816A18D894DB70A4327E8E00197>]/Info 80 0 R /Length 70/Root 82 0 R /Size 81/Type/XRef/W[ 1 3 1]>>stream
hbb &FFL,A$-^"WH>ɔT#IO"heH Ð
endstream
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
19 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>
endobj
21 0 obj
<>
endobj
22 0 obj
<>
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
<>
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
[ 49 0 R 50 0 R 51 0 R 52 0 R 53 0 R 54 0 R 55 0 R 56 0 R 57 0 R 58 0 R 59 0 R 60 0 R 61 0 R 62 0 R 63 0 R 64 0 R 65 0 R 66 0 R 67 0 R 68 0 R 69 0 R 70 0 R null 71 0 R null 72 0 R null 73 0 R 74 0 R 75 0 R 76 0 R null]
endobj
31 0 obj
<>/P 27 0 R /S/Form/T()>>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>/P 27 0 R /S/Form/T()>>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>/P 27 0 R /S/Form/T()>>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>/P 27 0 R /S/Form/T()>>
endobj
35 0 obj
<>/P 27 0 R /S/Form/T()>>
endobj
36 0 obj
<>/P 27 0 R /S/Form/T()>>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>/P 27 0 R /S/Form/T()>>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>/P 27 0 R /S/Form/T()>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<>/P 27 0 R /S/Form/T()>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>/DA(/Helv 12 Tf 0 g)/F 4/FT/Tx/Ff 4096/MK<<>>/P 83 0 R /Rect[ 33.5971 21.3751 551.936 76.1527]/StructParent 19/Subtype/Widget/T(Do you foresee any impacts from the implementation of the main proposals detailed byeond the ones we have identified? Please explain your views)/TU(Enter your answer to question 6 about any other imapcts of the implementation of these changes to the code. )/Type/Annot/V(No comments.)>>
endobj
41 0 obj
<>/DA(/Helv 12 Tf 0 g)/F 4/FT/Tx/Ff 4096/MK<<>>/P 83 0 R /Rect[ 34.4165 162.729 562.179 208.083]/StructParent 17/Subtype/Widget/T(Do you agree with our assessment of the impacts on LAs? If not, why not?)/TU(Enter your answer to question 5 about whether you agree with the FSA assessment of the impact on LAs.)/Type/Annot/V(No comments.)>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<>/DA(/Helv 12 Tf 0 g)/F 4/FT/Tx/Ff 4096/MK<<>>/P 83 0 R /Rect[ 35.6457 245.902 561.769 287.978]/StructParent 16/Subtype/Widget/T(Do you foresee any problems with the proposals? If yes, please outline problems and solutions)/TU(Enter your answer to question 4 about whether you foresee any problems with proposals. )/Type/Annot/V(The risk matrix could be too rigid in certain circumstances, and it could be improved if mitigating or compounding factors could be overlaid to adjust the risk ratings. \r\n\r\nFor example, high-risk food businesses with adequate compliance might be classified under low-frequency inspection depending on several factors. Yet, the likelihood of errors \(human or system\) in those high-risk FBOs can not be negated and, if they occur, they significantly impact food safety. These considerations may challenge the ultimate purpose of the new revisions unless covered in the compliance assessment scores by taking into account the compliance history of the FBOs, and the trend of foodborne illnesses attributed to the food they produce.\r\n\r\nIt would be helpful if reference were made to past reviews concerning implementation and assessment of food law, including that of Hampton \(2005\) \(to avoid that a business should not be asked to provide the same information twice\), McCrory \(2006\), Rogers \(2006\) and Davidson \(2007\).\r\n)>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<>/DA(/Helv 12 Tf 0 g)/F 4/FT/Tx/Ff 4096/MK<<>>/P 83 0 R /Rect[ 36.0554 331.533 560.54 370.332]/StructParent 15/Subtype/Widget/T(Do you agree that proposed frequencies for official controls are appropriate based on business need?)/TU(Enter your answer to question 3 and note whether you agree or disagree with the proposed frequencies for offical controls.)/Type/Annot/V(We do not have a concern with the time frame per se, however should a business be scored as high risk, low level of compliance or mix thereof, then they should be afforded a short time frame to be voluntarily reassessed.)>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<>/DA(/Helv 12 Tf 0 g)/F 4/FT/Tx/Ff 4096/MK<<>>/P 83 0 R /Rect[ 35.6457 443.387 562.588 487.102]/StructParent 14/Subtype/Widget/T(Do you agree that changes will allow Local authorities to deploy resources more effectively by improving the way in which the levels of risk and compliance associated with a business are assessed?)/TU(Enter your answer to question 2 whether or not you agree with the proposed changes.)/Type/Annot/V(The proposed revisions to the risk rating and the priority intervention concept provide a practical approach to prioritising resources and affording targeted interventions based on the actual risk food businesses pose. \r\n\r\nAs discussed above the system of mandatory or voluntary notification \(applicable under article 10 of 2002/46\) could significantly reduce the time taken to assess a food business if such information was done in a digital manner. During COVID business via online sales continued whilst inspections all but stopped for certain high-risk categories according to the code \(e.g., food supplements\). The online notification could address such issues. Business may complain over such mandatory notification but many ship internationally across the EU so are already using such systems and all information required for such a system is on pack in a model label \(pdf\) and any COAs from manufacturers. There could be a fee \(e.g. Belgium FoodSup system\) or free \(FSAI system\). \r\n)>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<>/DA(/Helv 12 Tf 0 g)/F 4/FT/Tx/Ff 4096/MK<<>>/P 83 0 R /Rect[ 35.6457 571.63 568.734 613.296]/StructParent 13/Subtype/Widget/T(Is the layout of the revised code easy to read? If not, how could it be improved?)/TU(Enter your answer to question 1 about the layout of the code)/Type/Annot/V(\(1\) The risk assessment framework aims to ensure consistency in interpreting the interventions through reference to descriptors for assigning scores. Yet, a proper judgment or opinion should be based on a thorough knowledge of the criteria, which is not detailed in the consultation.\r\n\r\nIn order to aid consistency of application, it would be useful for FSA to consider how local TSO will be trained to judge individual cases in a standardised manner; this may need to be considered within the cost of roll-out. \r\n\r\nAs an example, a TSO on the guidance of the FSA will request a food business to voluntarily remove products from the market based on a RASSF notification without a full understanding of the scientific of legal basis of the notification. The result is that business may be viewed as having a serious level of non-compliance. However, where the FSA have not \(perhaps due to lack of staff or access to expertise\) assessed the case in detail the company may be in the future be considered a serious hazard even if the case is successfully defended \(example see pg. 91 of draft code of practice guidance\). It is not clear how this will be addressed in terms of amending scoring e.g., are scores issued based on non-compliance complaints removed from the system if defended? \(Table 2 suggests all complaints are recorded even if not justified or found to be correct in nature\). \r\n\r\nTraining of enforcement officers is critical to success of application. For example, understanding issues such as the on-hold list of claims, novel foods etc. The risk could be that TSOs refer issues to a Public Analyst \(PA\) \(who are chemists not food law professionals\) or to a competent authority which inform their risk scores. The result is guidance to a food company based on the information from such external sources e.g. the FSAs standard published response to a novel foods question is may be novel. This is of no use to the officer as in the novel foods case they would see this as meaning doubt and as such potential non-compliance or forcing the business to apply for a novel foods assessment \(Article 4 of that regulation\). Effective training and guidance on sources that could be used by trading standards to assess such foods are required. Prior to BREXIT business and TSOs were directed to BELFRIT, Germany botanicals list, Italian lists and now this is not available on the competent authority site.\r\n\r\nIn mass retail most products are checked by in-house compliance teams before listing \(so this would represent a low hazard\), however SMEs may not have this level of assessment knowledge or access to an experienced TSO via primary authority. Hence the hazard level can be influenced by multiple factors which may or may not be assessed by the TSO. Similarly, the number of units of a product in question that are held by a company may influence the possible level of harm to consumers. \r\n\r\nSome more guidance on the criteria or the metrics provided for other factors in table 2 would better facilitate consistent application, e.g., for the inherent risk factor current compliance level, what is the basis for a decision as to whether it should be classified as good or satisfactory? or for verifying thorough versus satisfactory understanding with respect to allergen information? \r\n\r\n\(2\) It would be helpful for FSA to consider how communication between themselves, and TSO can support implementation of the proposed framework. \r\n\r\nFor example, it is not clear at what point the final score would be calculated if there is an ongoing compliance issue? If registered as an issue of non-compliance before the case is fully resolved and/or not removed, based on the code this FBO could be given a score of 1. Should a concern of non-compliance only be used in scoring once the issue has a legal conclusion?\r\n\r\n\r\n\(3\) There are areas where the clarity of the information contained within the table could be clarified. \r\n\r\nFor example, a food supplement that may or not be a hazard \(example hemp product\). However, if you put in place significant levels of compliance \(company has primary authority, products on FSA list of validated CBD products, label signed off by legal profession etc\) then the risk is very low. \r\n\r\n\(4\) In table 2, an example of good compliance is provided as staff can demonstrate a good awareness of relevant food law and controls. It may be useful to link or guide FBOs to training provided by competent providers \(e.g. FSA, law firms, regulatory professionals / consultants\). An option here could be a Trading Standards Institute \(TSI\) or ACTSO approved training course. A minimum standard for providers could be put in place such as degree / masters in law \(ideally food law\) and experience of over 5 years plus part of co-ordinated partnership.\r\n\r\n\r\n\(5\) Other opportunities for improvement would include:\r\n- Should unit number of x products in stock in relation to risk assessment be a consideration \(more stock greater hazard\)? \r\n- Is there an option as with the FSAI and certain member states to pre-notify higher hazard products such as food supplements? This would permit certain information that could feed into a scoring system to be tracked. An example could include what was level of improvement notices issued against x category of food supplement \(Hemp based, sports nutrition etc. The notification could be free as with FSAI of at a fee such as in Belgium. While the system maybe voluntary, in certain countries retailers will not list products without a notification number so in essence business places the incentives to voluntary register.\r\n )>>
endobj
46 0 obj
<>/DA(/Helv 12 Tf 0 g)/F 4/FT/Tx/MK<<>>/P 83 0 R /Rect[ 74.1594 681.435 336.832 698.518]/StructParent 12/Subtype/Widget/T(Email address)/TU(Enter your email address)/Type/Annot/V(s.french@ifst.org)>>
endobj
47 0 obj
<>/DA(/Helv 12 Tf 0 g)/F 4/FT/Tx/Ff 2/MK<<>>/P 83 0 R /Rect[ 114.722 703.56 337.652 721.053]/StructParent 11/Subtype/Widget/T(Name of Organisation)/TU(Enter the name of your organisation)/Type/Annot/V(Institute of Food Science and Technology)>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<>/DA(/Helv 12 Tf 0 g)/F 4/FT/Tx/Ff 2/MK<<>>/P 83 0 R /Rect[ 75.7983 728.143 295.451 745.226]/StructParent 10/Subtype/Widget/T(Full name)/TU(Enter your full name)/Type/Annot/V(Stephen French)>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>
endobj
51 0 obj
<>
endobj
52 0 obj
<>
endobj
53 0 obj
<>
endobj
54 0 obj
<>
endobj
55 0 obj
<>
endobj
56 0 obj
<>
endobj
57 0 obj
<>
endobj
58 0 obj
<>
endobj
59 0 obj
<>
endobj
60 0 obj
<>
endobj
61 0 obj
<>
endobj
62 0 obj
<>
endobj
63 0 obj
<>
endobj
64 0 obj
<>
endobj
65 0 obj
<>
endobj
66 0 obj
<>
endobj
67 0 obj
<>
endobj
68 0 obj
<>
endobj
69 0 obj
<>
endobj
70 0 obj
<>
endobj
71 0 obj
<