opinion ASSURED BY ASSURANCE


It is more than twenty years ago that the feed industry was confronted with the first of two events that have significantly affected its subsequent development and the way that it looks upon the outside world. Edwina Currie’s assertion, that most British eggs were


contaminated by salmonella, was not only wrong but caused huge damage to and greater outrage in the British egg industry. For the first time, consumer confidence in the way that their food was produced was severely eroded. Mrs Currie paid for her remarks with her political career, eventually being reduced to competing in Strictly Come Dancing and, lately, appearing on Five Live. The affair did, however, initiate a debate within the food and feed industry and in government about how food safety, once taken very much for granted, could be put on a more robust basis. The salmonella crisis broke against the background of continuing


concern over the emergence of a ‘new’ disease that affected cattle in a particularly distressing manner and for which there was no immediate explanation. Eventually, the disease was identified as one associated with spongiform encephalopathies and the question was inevitably raised as to whether the disease could be transmitted to humans as the result of eating beef. In March 1996, a government statement suggested that there was evidence that this might be the case – the disease being a new manifestation of a rare but well-documented disease in humans – Creutzfeld Jacobs Disease or nvCJD. This was, to put it mildly, horrifying news to a nation whose young


people appeared to have been substantially raised on a diet of beef burgers. Amidst dire predictions, that the number potentially affected by the disease could run into the thousands, the food and, in particular, the feed industry was subjected to public scrutiny as never before. Government, in its search for answers to the challenges posed by


salmonella in, especially, poultry production had early recognised, at the urging of the industries concerned, that detailed legislation regulating the industry was both disproportionate and impractical. New developments and techniques would have made for frequent and onerous updating of the regulations. This made the Code of Practice approach an attractive way forward. It constituted a flexible means whereby changes in good practice could be speedily recognised in official circles. This is not to say that legislation was entirely abandoned; following the General Election of 1997, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had become DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency was created as a non- ministerial government department. In recognition of the part played by the feed industry in the food chain, the Advisory Committee on Animal Feed was set up to advise on the safety and use of animal feeds and feeding practices, with particular reference to protecting human health and the assessment of new technical developments, feed materials and products; this implemented the principal recommendation of the


PAGE 2 MARCH 2012 FEED COMPOUNDER


Expert Group on Animal Feedingstuffs, chaired by Professor Lamming, and published in July 1992. As far as the Code of Practices were concerned, it was clearly


necessary to provide them with ‘teeth’, otherwise, cynics would have regarded their existence with contempt. UKASTA, AIC’s predecessor, thus determined that what was to become the UKASTA Feed Assurance Scheme (UFAS) should be based on HACCP, an internationally recognised logical framework for the recognition and prevention of ‘hazards’. The decision was also made to subject certification under UFAS to independent auditors, in this case, SAI Global, themselves certified under the internationally recognised standard EN45011; the latter requires that the certification body itself be independently re- assessed each year in order to ensure that UFAS is being implemented and administered independently and fairly. Since UFAS’ original introduction, it has been supplemented by


further schemes covering feed materials and combinable crops. All the schemes have wisely been dovetailed with the UK Little Red Tractor livestock assurance schemes which the major supermarkets make a requirement for the domestically produced livestock products they buy. An additional benefit to the companies involved is that certification under the scheme means that compliance with existing legislation is assured. Assurance schemes have become widespread in the food industry


and beyond in recent years. There are two points that need making with particular emphasis. The first is that assurance schemes have proved their adaptability


and their worth in maintaining and improving standards in the industry without all the disadvantages of oppressive legislation. As circumstances have changed, the schemes have been updated and amended to reflect new conditions. The provisions of the scheme ensure that the measures prescribed relate to the feed industry as it actually is rather than to the hazy impression of legislators unconnected with the industry. The second point is that the widespread acceptance of assurance schemes must never lead to complacency. Much of their current acceptance depends upon legislative and


public trust in the integrity of the scheme managers and the independent auditors. Membership of whichever assurance scheme has become a sine qua non for participation in the feed industry; participation must never be allowed to become a matter of routine. It is impossible to say whether, had the schemes existed twenty


or more years ago, the salmonella crisis or, still more, BSE would have been avoided. The most that can be said is that the chances of history repeating itself have been substantially reduced, to the great benefit of the feed industry, its customers and the final consumer.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52