Comments on the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for the Agency’s guidance on Managing Manures for Food Safety

Response from IFR (December 18th 2007)

Details of the FSA guidance can be found at: www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2007/sep/manureguid

The first question posed in the Consultation was:

“Are the conclusions of the partial RIA valid and do you agree that the Agency should publish the guidance?”

Our response is: The conclusions of the partial RIA are not all valid. Some aspects of the RIA should be re-considered. Some alterations should be made to the Guidance, which should then be published.

Detailed comments are given below.

We have three preliminary comments in relation to the Guidance itself.

1. Page 3 of the Guidance states “Reduce the risks of airborne contamination, by choosing fields that are not adjacent to livestock buildings”.

The draft produced in 2002 stated “Minimise the risks of airborne contamination, by choosing fields that are not adjacent to livestock units”.

Comment: There is a risk of contamination from any livestock unit, the risk is not confined to livestock buildings. The guidance in the 2005 document should state: “Reduce the risks of airborne contamination by choosing fields that are not adjacent to livestock units”

2. Page 4 of the Guidance gives a Table summarizing Farm Manure Guidance for Ready to Eat crops.

In the case of livestock grazing, the Table states that this should be “Not within 12 months of harvest and also at least 6 months before drilling/planting”.

The  footnote to the Table states “Where livestock grazing is an essential part of the farming system (e.g. in some organic systems where risks may be lower) there should be a minimum 6 months gap between livestock grazing and harvest. Although to further minimise risk, the guidance in the table above should be followed where practically possible”

Comment: we know of no evidence that the risks may be lower in some organic systems than in conventional systems.  It is difficult to justify guidance that supports a lower degree of microbiological safety for ready-to-eat crops produced by organic systems than for those produced by conventional systems. Sheep and cattle are liable to excrete pathogenic microorganisms, particularly Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157 and related strains, and Cryptosporidium parvum in their faeces.

3. Page 5 of the Guidance states (in relation to ready to eat crops) “Ask the public to keep dogs on leads where footpaths run through cropped areas”.

Comment: it is of some concern that dogs are liable to be on footpaths through ready to eat crops, and that we depend on a request to the public to keep dogs on leads. A dog on a lead is still liable to foul the area.

Comments on Regulatory Impact Assessment

Page 5 paragraph 20 states“For some smaller conventional producers and organic producers, the guidance may require changes to their methods of production and some additional costs. As adoption of the guidance would be voluntary, it is anticipated that a proportion of these producers may not make changes to comply with the advice in the guidance”.

Comment: This paragraph condones failure by smaller conventional producers and organic producers to adopt the guidance. As these are the very producers who need to adopt this guidance, this paragraph does not seem helpful in improving food safety.

Page 10-11, paragraph 42 states “The fact that the guidance is non-regulatory (voluntary) means that the small businesses which would have greatest difficulty and cost in following the11 recommendations can choose not to do so. A small business exemption is not appropriate since almost all ready to eat produce is grown by small businesses.

Comment: The first sentence of this paragraph again condones failure by small businesses to follow this guidance, and is not helpful.

The second sentence of this paragraph contradicts the earlier paragraph 10, which stated that the producers of most ready to eat crops supply major retailers and are members of produce assurance schemes

[see Page 3 para 10.The producers of most ready to eat crops in Great Britain are thought to comply with the guidance because they supply major retailers and are members of produce assurance schemes, principally the Assured Produce scheme. Those who currently may not follow the advice in the guidelines are more common among organic producers and small conventional producers selling mainly to wholesale markets, or direct to small greengrocers, farm shops, farmers’ markets or through box schemes. The growing influence of major retailers and produce assurance schemes means that the proportion of ready to eat crops that are grown in compliance with the advice in the guidance is gradually increasing.]

Page 11 paragraph 45 states “The Agency considers that there will be no additional administrative burdens to industry as a result of this guidance, as following the guidance will be voluntary”.

Comment: This statement  that there will be no additional costs because producers who do not at present follow a scheme that meets this guidance will not adopt the guidance, and hence will face no additional costs. This situation is not satisfactory, as it envisages publishing guidance that the Agency does not expect will be taken up by the producers who most need to do so.

Pages 12-13 paragraph 51,  states: “It would be appropriate to monitor the influence of the guidance to check that continuing publication is worthwhile”.

Comment:  The major indication of the value of the guidance will be the extent to which those producers who do not at present meet the recommendations in the guidance change practice and follow the guidance. The practices of these producers will, therefore, need to be ascertained.

Page 5 para 19 states that most of the producers who supply major retailers, and some produce assurance schemes, already meet or exceed the Agency’s guidance.

Para 28. distinguishes three groups of producers:
• Those that currently meet the recommendations in the guidance,
• Those that currently do not meet the recommendations in the guidance but would change practice if it was published.
• Those that currently do not meet the recommendations in the guidance and would not change practice if it was published”.

Pages 26-27 under “The grouping of ready to eat crops for the Cost Benefit Analysis”
Table 1 states that consideration of Protected crops grown conventionally is not applicable because:

“Growing of crops in protected structures (tunnels and glasshouses) raises different issues from growing outside. For conventional production, hydroponics is almost universally used so the Guidance is not relevant. For organic protected crop production, soil is the common growing medium and FYM the main source of plant nutrients”.

Comment. In fact, our advice from an authoritative source is that the above statement is not correct, as hydroponics are NOT “almost universally used” for conventional production of Protected Crops.

Page 30. The Impact of Food Hygiene Regulation 852/2004.

Under this heading it is stated that: “EU Regulation 852/2004 came into force on 1st January 2006 and enforcement by Trading Standards Officers began on 1 December 2006. They are only planning to visit once every 3 to 5 years so very few growers will have experienced a visit.

Comment: The fact that enforcement will not be effective is not acceptable.

Institute of Food Research
Norwich
18th December 2007