Official Report 835KB pdf
Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025 [Draft]
Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in 2025. Unfortunately, the convener is unable to attend today’s meeting in person and will be joining us online. As deputy convener, I will convene the meeting in her absence. I have received no apologies for the meeting.
Our first agenda item is on United Kingdom subordinate legislation. We will take evidence on a consent notification on the Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025. This is a UK statutory instrument on which the UK Government is seeking the Scottish Government’s consent to legislate in areas of devolved competence. The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making the regulations within devolved competence and in the manner that the UK Government has indicated to the Scottish Government.
At our previous meeting, we considered the notification and agreed to invite the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to give evidence today. We have until tomorrow, 22 January, to respond to the Scottish Government’s notification, which we will do immediately after this morning’s evidence session. I therefore invite members to debate and decide how they wish to respond in a letter to the Scottish Government.
I welcome to the committee Jenni Minto, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health; Georgina Finch, who is a senior policy adviser at Food Standards Scotland; Neel Mojee, who is a lawyer for the Scottish Government; and Greig Walker, who is project lead on constitution and UK relations at the Scottish Government. I thank you for joining us.
Before we move on to questions, minister, I believe that you would like to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you. I am pleased to join the committee to consider the notification on the UK Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025.
The proposed reforms that would be delivered by the UK statutory instrument have been co-developed under the provisional food and feed safety and hygiene common framework. The instrument proposes two Great-Britain-wide reforms for regulated products. The first is to remove requirements for periodic renewal of authorisations for three regulated products regimes. The second is to allow authorisations to come into effect following a ministerial decision, which would be published in an official register rather than being prescribed by statutory instrument.
We need to modernise the regulated products service. Food Standards Scotland and the Food Standards Agency assess applications for those products and provide advice to the respective ministers who decide whether the products can be sold. The instrument would implement a more proportionate approach to reviewing products that are already authorised for sale by focusing on evidence-based safety concerns as they arise, instead of review being driven by fixed renewal points every 10 years. The majority of products have years of safe use. Removing set renewal periods will allow a more targeted approach to regulation, in which FSS and the FSA use powers to review authorisations as new evidence emerges around the safety of a product that is on the market.
The second of the reforms will allow authorisations to come into force following a ministerial decision. Authorisations would be published in an official public register, rather than being prescribed in a statutory instrument. Such authorisations will reduce the timescales for products to reach the market and will not impose the use of valuable parliamentary time. That approach would align with authorisation processes that are used by other regulators in the UK for similarly regulated products.
FSS and the FSA provide technical and scientific scrutiny through skilled and experienced staff and expert independent scientific advisory committees. They assess individual applications and provide a safety assessment from which risk management advice and recommendations are formed for subsequent ministerial decision. The proposed process squarely aligns with internationally recognised principles and maintains transparency.
Overall, this is an opportunity to deliver reforms that prioritise efficiency in the authorisation of regulated products and focuses resources on new products that require more input when access to the market is being sought for them.
FSS and the FSA have earned the trust of the public through their rigorous approach to risk analysis. In the proposed reforms, food safety will continue to be the priority. The reforms will also result in improvements in efficiency and the maintenance of robust safety standards.
I ask the committee to agree that the Scottish ministers should consent to the reforms in the GB SI. I am happy to take any questions.
We have a complex piece of work in front of us minister, so I have a number of questions. Does the status of FSS as a non-ministerial office create any challenges for the proposal?
I do not believe so. There is strength in the fact that Food Standards Scotland, which was set up under the Food (Scotland) Act 2015 to protect the public from risks to health that may arise in connection with food consumption, is independent of Government and that it has the option and opportunities to take advice from independent scientists, as it regularly does. I believe that that is the best way to protect consumers’ interests regarding food and feed safety.
What resources are in place to enable Food Standards Scotland to deliver that?
Every year, in common with every other body that is funded by the Scottish Government, FSS sets a budget to allocate its resources to the various areas that it has to cover. Those areas include the food standards regulation regimes that we are here to talk about today, along with providing the public and Government with advice on the food that people consume and improving the extent to which the Scottish public, and people more widely, have diets that are conducive to good health. There is a budget process every year, along with an audit process that looks at Food Standards Scotland’s budget and its outcomes. It is a key organisation within Scotland.
How can accountability mechanisms be strengthened to ensure that businesses and regulators remain fully responsible for any safety lapses, especially in light of the loss of parliamentary oversight?
One key reason for the change is to allow Food Standards Scotland to ensure that it has the capacity to look ahead and do horizon scanning, looking at risk rather than timespans. I have been having conversations for almost the past two years with Geoff Ogle, the chief executive of Food Standards Scotland. We meet fortnightly to understand areas of concern or risk in Scotland’s entire food landscape.
I have a final question. How can a balance be struck between supporting innovation in the food and feed industries and ensuring sufficient consumer protection, particularly in the context of a faster approval process for new products?
The process that has been worked on collaboratively by Food Standards Scotland and the Food Standards Agency allows for what you have just set out. Food safety is key. Because so many new products are coming on to the market, we must ensure that we can give consumers, and the businesses that use those standards, the right scientific evidence and data to know that products are safe. I am pleased that the work, which has been going on for a number of years, has been a true collaboration approach between the two food standards agencies in GB. They worked consistently through the different options and took ideas to their boards at the same time. It was a truly collaborative way of working and one that I was really pleased to see.
Good morning, minister. I am interested in the science of food additives and have been following the work of Professor Tim Spector, Chris van Tulleken and Carlos Monteiro in São Paulo in Brazil on the chemicals that are added to ultraprocessed foods.
I agree with the minister that the public trust Food Standards Scotland and the Food Standards Agency because of their work, which includes work on food crime. Yesterday, I met the head of food crime at Food Standards Scotland, and it was pretty eye watering to hear about all the work that is being done on that.
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition looks at the evidence on new products that will potentially come on to the market, which will take up its time. Do you have enough assurance that that committee will keep you informed about all the products that are coming on to the market, especially as new evidence emerges, based on the work of Tim Spector and Chris van Tulleken?
I recognise the work that Emma Harper has been doing on food safety. As I have outlined, I have regular meetings with the chief executive of Food Standards Scotland. It was set up to have the mechanisms to ensure that it remains the competent authority for food and feed in Scotland and that it has official controls. It is important to recognise that it does internal audits on its science and that external audits are carried out by independent scientists.
Emma Harper made a point about the ability to horizon scan and see what is new and what is coming on to the market, which will be a key aspect of the changes that are being proposed. Currently, just under a quarter of Food Standards Scotland’s time is spent on ensuring that we match the 10-year standards, whereas the proposed changes will mean that important resources can be freed up to ensure that we can look to the future to see what potential new additives could be coming on to the market in Scotland.
Georgie, do you want to add anything to that?
You have covered everything that we have spoken about. Food Standards Scotland is continually horizon scanning. We are aware of developments in appropriate areas around us and consider them as they happen. Where necessary, we seek input from the appropriate scientific advisory committees. Food Standards Scotland engages with the minister and is also directly answerable to the committee.
You mentioned feed. Food Standards Scotland looks not only at products that are for human consumption but at products for animals. We know that some products are added to the food of ruminants for emissions reduction. One of those products was mentioned in the chamber last week, because there seems to be a perception—perhaps because of fake news on the internet—that some products are not safe. However, they are rigorously tested before the products are even added to feed for our dairy cows, beef cattle or sheep.
I seek reassurance that my understanding is correct—that the products are rigorously tested and safe and that, therefore, people should not believe what they read on the internet.
You are absolutely correct. Both Food Standards Scotland and the FSA concluded in their safety assessments that there are no safety concerns when Bovaer is used at the approved dose. As you have said, all feed additives are rigorously tested with safety assessments, which ensures that the products are safe. Businesses must demonstrate that the additive is safe for the animal, consumers, workers and the environment.
Thank you.
09:15
Good morning, minister. The statutory instrument summary indicates that both FSS and the FSA have the ability to review authorisations and take action if new evidence raises safety concerns. However, do those agencies currently have the resources to proactively and continuously review emerging evidence, ensure that businesses meet their obligations and enforce compliance effectively? Given that the Scottish Government’s budget outlines a 1.6 per cent cut to FSS funding, how can the Scottish Government guarantee that those critical public health responsibilities will not be compromised?
This area is a returning agenda point in my conversations with Geoff Ogle. As I mentioned, about 22 per cent of the regulated products service’s time is spent on 10-year renewals. That reduces FSS’s capacity to deal with new product authorisation in a reasonable timeline. We are expecting more than 300 products to come back over the next two years. The reforms are going some way to steady the state of things, to ensure that we have the right resource to put into the new horizon-scanning areas.
It is important to recognise that the change allows us to bring regulation of those products in line with that for other food and feed products that we regulate, and that Food Standards Scotland maintains the power to consider any product authorisation that is needed at any time. That has been part of the work that Food Standards Scotland and the FSA have been doing together to direct the right resource to the right areas, to ensure that we have robust population health and safety through food standards.
Accepting the statutory instrument would create further divergence from European Union food regulation at a time when the EU is maintaining rigorous standards. How does the Scottish Government justify that move, particularly given its stated ambition of one day rejoining the EU and the need to align with its food safety framework to do so?
It is fair to say that all the products that would be affected by the changes that we are talking about were rigorously reviewed for safety through the EU. We have worked with the FSA, but we still horizon scan to ensure that we are matching the EU’s standards as well.
Greig, can you add a wee bit about the work that is being done with the EU?
Certainly. The Scottish Government has an alignment policy, which is a consideration even if the advice on a particular proposal comes from one of the non-ministerial departments. The notification in this instance sets out where the proposal would sit with regard to EU law as it stands. Of course, EU law evolves, and the alignment policy requires consideration of that, as the minister has said.
I am not a food policy official—I am a core Scottish Government official—but what is interesting about this particular context is that there is an applicable provisional common framework. As part of the reset of relations between the new UK Government and devolved Governments, and with the EU at the same time, common frameworks potentially have a really important role. The framework is a good illustration of that co-development, collaboration, joint consultation and action. Because it is a UK framework, there has been four-nations development, although we have a three-nations SI including GB, because Northern Ireland is directly subject to EU law. There will always be visibility of the EU law position, because of the framework and what is happening in Northern Ireland.
As the minister said, there will be the horizon scanning, which will involve looking at the scientific evidence as well as the legal position.
Given that products will no longer be subject to a 10-year reauthorisation process, how will the proposed change make the food environment safer? At the moment, I am hearing that what is proposed will simply speed up another side of the process. It sounds as though resources are simply being moved from renewing authorisations every 10 years to looking at the massive number of new feed additives and so on that will require to be researched. How, overall, will the proposed change make the food environment any safer? Will it not simply shift resource from one side to the other and potentially miss things as a result of continually reviewing evidence rather than having a 10-year regulated framework?
The key thing is to recognise that FSS and the FSA are moving towards a risk-based way of looking at food standards and additives. That is consistent with what is happening in other areas. It is important to recognise that, when there is a finite resource, it is necessary to make decisions about where best to put that. If you are set up to check something every 10 years, you might miss a risk assessment that has come through, because you might think, “Well, I don’t have to look at that one till later.”
However, we are now putting in the resource to ensure that FSS captures all risk assessments on different products to ensure that, as new evidence emerges on a specific product that could result in authorisation being modified, suspended or stopped, that process will be maintained. FSS has a very clear and transparent risk framework, which it monitors regularly. It will pick up any risks in relation to products to ensure that they are properly checked and that the evidence, data and science on them are captured.
Thank you.
Good morning, minister. The standard of the food that is allowed to be consumed is an area that interests me greatly. If my reading is correct, under the current system, products are reviewed every 10 years, which prompts the question, “Are they not always continually assessed?” Conversely, if the requirement to review products every 10 years is taken away, my concern is that there will be no need to continually look at products.
At the end of the day, the issue comes down to resource. My concern is that the system that you are proposing to move to, if it is operated properly, will be more resource heavy, yet the resource that is provided to FSS is reducing. If we were to consent to the SI, which would take away ministerial responsibility, how could we guarantee that FSS would continually review products, when new evidence is always emerging?
As I have said in previous answers, the work that Food Standards Scotland does is a continuum. It is always horizon scanning and checking where new risks may arise. The proposed change will allow the resource that went on a 10-year process to be allocated as needed as new products come in.
Another thing that it is important to recognise is the fact that there will be transparency. Although there will not be a statutory instrument on this, there will be a register of items, so it will be fully transparent which products have been checked. That is important to recognise. I will bring in Georgina Finch.
I understand Brian Whittle’s point, but looking at the 10-year renewals takes resource from Food Standards Scotland and the Food Standards Agency. We expect 300-plus renewal applications over the next two years, as well as 22 per cent of our current case load being renewals. In the majority of cases, there are no risks identified with those applications and there is not necessarily any new evidence that has come to light. However, they have to be looked at and put through the risk analysis process, which takes up considerable resource.
Only three regimes have the 10-year renewal process; the other nine do not. We propose that we do not look at products on an arbitrary 10-year renewal timeline but, instead, focus our resources into our current work of horizon scanning and understanding new risks that come out regarding any products. We look across different countries and see what they are doing. We see what scientific publications are coming out. We use all that information to inform our priorities for looking at particular areas and considering when it is necessary to put them through the full risk analysis process. We have examples of that on our website, where you can see areas that we are considering under risk analysis that do not have 10-year renewals, but we are looking at them anyway because we have identified risk.
The important point is that what we are asking to deliver will focus resource where it is needed.
Thank you. My concern is that, under the current system, the products are reviewed every 10 years. You say that it is resource intensive to do that, which indicates to me that, over the 10-year period, the products are not being continually reviewed. If they had been, the process at the end of 10 years would not be so arduous. You are now suggesting that we move to a system where the products are continually reviewed, which would be intensive. If that is the case, I go back to my concern around the resource for FSS.
Those risk-horizon scanning activities already happen. If a risk arises on any application that has not reached its 10-year renewal period, we will consider it and look at whether it is necessary to put it through the full risk analysis process. If any risk is identified in relation to that product, we do not wait for the 10-year renewal, and we will consider it appropriately.
If we are doing that anyway, why do we need to change the policy?
That is because we have the addition of the 10-year renewal, which is not necessary just because the product has been on the market for 10 years. We are asking to remove the arbitrary 10-year renewal. We are not asking to do anything different, but that will enable us to focus more resources on our continual horizon scanning and reassessment, as appropriate.
Thank you, minister, for coming to the meeting; this is quite a technical document and the stuff around it is quite difficult to understand, so it is helpful to hear from you directly.
My questions are on an area where it would be good to allay some fears. Going back to the point that Sandesh Gulhane made about wider food and feed landscapes, we know that in Scotland, across the UK and across Europe there are really high food and feed standards. However, that is not the case across the rest of the world.
We know that the new President of the United States of America is very keen on his country’s products, many of which would not meet our food and feed safety standards and therefore would not get into our markets. I want to give you the opportunity to allay any fears by saying that the proposal does not provide an easier route to market for products such as chlorinated chicken and so on.
09:30
When I have been discussing the issue with Food Standards Scotland, which has been happening over the past couple of years, the spotlight has always been on the future—that is, on what could happen. In my discussions, it has always been clear that what we need to do with the resource is ensure that we can carry out horizon scanning, and that we can work with international scientists and gather data and evidence from countries around the world to make sure that we have the best and the highest food standards in Scotland.
I am pleased that Food Standards Scotland’s work is, as Ms Harper noted, well respected. It is also transparent, which is key. People are able to access Food Standards Scotland’s website to see the work that has been taking place. The proposed change does nothing to change any of that—it just enforces what we are doing.
I want to highlight the case of a diet pill that was sold in America and then came to Britain. It has now been relabelled as a poison. That is down to the work that the Food Standards Agency is doing. The diet pill 2,4-dinitrophenol—DNP—is a poison, and it was reclassified in legislation. That is part of the work that you do to highlight certain products, which you might then act to ban or to reclassify, which is what happened in that case. Is that correct?
I have not worked on that, but I understand that considerable work has been put into dealing with DNP. I imagine that, when you met the head of the food crime unit, he had considerable amounts to say on DNP, which, as I understand it, is a dangerous chemical and has been touted for a number of different uses. Those are absolutely the sorts of areas that we concentrate on.
I will pick up on Joe FitzPatrick’s point about the impact of the new US President on products that will be marketed in or brought to this country. The US Food and Drug Administration has the “Food Defect Levels Handbook”, which sets out acceptable levels of defects in food. That allows certain levels of insect parts, mould, mites, dust and even—dare I say it?—rat poo.
We do not have anything like that in Europe or in the UK. I am assuming that the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland will be horizon scanning for products that might be brought to the market from the USA for instance. I have concerns about the acceptable level of defects in the products that are coming from America.
I think that it is fair to say that, as has been noted on a number of occasions just in this past half hour, Food Standards Scotland is robust and has people’s respect. I again underline that any authorisation decisions are underpinned by robust evidence that is based on scientific and technical scrutiny through both Food Standards Scotland and the FSA. That is open and transparent, and risk assessments are published and publicly available. That is very important when we are talking about food standards and safety.
Thank you, minister, for attending. We will now move on to agenda item 2. You are, of course, welcome to leave at this point or you can stay to watch the rest of the proceedings.
Under this agenda item we will formally consider, in the light of the evidence that we have just heard, the type 1 consent notification sent by the Scottish Government relating to the Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025.
If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. If that is the agreed approach, we will have the opportunity in the letter to raise any related questions or concerns or to ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments. However, if members of the committee are not content with the proposal, the committee may choose to make one of the three recommendations that are outlined in paragraph 13 of the clerk’s note.
I invite comments from members of the committee in the light of the evidence that we have just heard.
We should not be consenting to the SI for a number of reasons. The divergence from alignment with the EU, as I outlined in my questions to the minister, is a big concern. As Brian Whittle said in his questioning, the only piece that we seem to be removing from the puzzle is the 10-year re-authorisation. At the moment, those come to the Parliament as SSIs. Removing that process would remove parliamentary scrutiny of whether we want those chemicals to have another round of 10-year authorisation and whether we want them in our food environment. Taking that power away from the Parliament would be regrettable. We would also, potentially, not see the authorisations for new feeds coming to the Parliament. On that basis, we should not be consenting to the SI.
In general, I do not see the advantage of removing ourselves from the process of double-checking the FSA and the FSS. As I have tried to say, probably clumsily, if we are consistently reviewing foodstuffs, renewing authorisations after 10 years is almost a rubber stamp, because there is not a huge amount of work to do at the end of the 10 years. Removing the 10-year review would mean that there was no need to consistently review products. I am not suggesting that that is what is happening, but if the resource given to the FSS is consistently reduced, it will be less and less able to review. That concerns me.
Having seen the issue come up several times in this committee over the past 10 years, I have always said that our food standards are extremely high, even in relation to the EU, so that is not what concerns me; my concern is whether the FSS has the ability to continually review at a level that we would accept. I am minded to accept the SI, but I would appreciate it if we could put those concerns in the letter to the Government.
I am sure that we can incorporate those comments. As there are no further comments from members, the committee has the following options. It can write to the Scottish Government approving its proposal to consent to the statutory instrument and highlighting any related comments or concerns, or it can write to the Scottish Government rejecting the proposal. Am I right to conclude from what I have heard that Gillian Mackay’s position is that the provision should not be made at all?
Yes.
In that case, it seems that there is dissent in the committee and I understand that you wish to press that to a division, Gillian. I will put the question and members can indicate verbally whether they are content.
The question is, that members are content for the committee to write to the Scottish Government indicating approval of its proposal to consent to the proposed UK statutory instrument. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Sandesh Gulhane (Glasgow) (Con)
Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)
Clare Haughey (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Carol Mochan (South Scotland) (Lab)
Paul Sweeney (Glasgow) (Lab)
David Torrance (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Elena Whitham (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Brian Whittle (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Gillian Mackay (Central Scotland) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
We will write to the Scottish Government approving the statutory instrument with the caveats that were outlined by members.
I briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a change of panel members.
09:40 Meeting suspended.Air ais
Attendance