Review of the six Scientific Advisory
Committees (SACs) for which FSA is sole or
lead sponsor
Call for Evidence
Title: Review of the Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs) for which FSA is sole or lead
sponsor – Call for Evidence
Author: Jesús Alvarez-Piñera
Document Purpose: Consultation
Publication date: 25 September 2015
Target audience: Individuals, government departments including the devolved administrations
in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, government bodies, scientific communities, food and
health and safety communities, and other food and health institutions with an interest in the
SACs.
Contact details:
SACs Review Team,
Room 1C,
Food Standards Agency,
Aviation House,
125 Kingsway
London
WC2B 6NH
e-mail: SACs-Review@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk
You may re-use the text of this document (not including logos) free of charge in any format or
medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
© Crown copyright
2
Overview
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is a non-Ministerial government Department responsible for
food safety and hygiene and for protecting consumers’ other interests in relation to food, in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The FSA has additional responsibility for nutrition and healthier eating in Northern Ireland, for
safety-related food labelling, including allergen labelling, in England and for non-safety-related
food labelling in Northern Ireland and Wales.
The FSA is committed to developing, applying and openly communicating a robust evidence
base in its work to protect consumers’ interests, as a critical underpinning to all its activity. As
part of this, is draws on expert scientific advice including from a number of independent
Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs) to ensure that all of its work is informed by robust
understanding and analysis of the scientific evidence. These SACs are advisory NonDepartmental Bodies
Cabinet Office requires Reviews of all Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) as part of
good governance and control of these bodies by their sponsoring Departments. As part of its
assurance function, FSA is undertaking a Review in 2015 of the six SACs for which it is sole or
lead sponsor.
FSA has decided to review all six of the SACs as a cluster, in line with CO guidance that, when
appropriate, reviews of similar bodies should be combined or clustered to ensure the maximum
benefit in terms of streamlining the review process, identifying synergies across departments
and NDPBs, and considering efficiency.
Reviewing the SACs together will also allow the FSA to consider its needs for the type of
function provided by the SACs in the round, and to identify any gaps and overlaps in their
delivery by the SACs.
The Review will consider the work of the SACs in advising other parts of government in the UK,
where relevant, as well as their work in advising the FSA.
Purpose of the review
The review will have two main stages:

The first stage provides a robust challenge of the continuing need for the SACs both in
terms of the functions they perform and the way in which these are delivered, with
reference to the needs of the FSA and other parts of government (where relevant) for
these types of function.

If it is agreed that any or all of the SACs should retain their current function and delivery
model, the second stage of the review will then consider their performance, governance
arrangements and opportunities for efficiencies.
This Call for Evidence seeks views from respondents to assist the review’s consideration of
both of the above stages. The evidence is being gathered simultaneously for stage one and
stage two in the interests of timeliness and value for money only, and is not an expression of
pre-judgement as to the outcome of stage one of the review.
3
About the Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs)
The FSA is sole or lead sponsor of six SACs, which provide independent expert advice on risk
assessment and other scientific issues that inform risk management decisions in FSA’s work.
These Committees are:
(i).
the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF)
(ii).
the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF)
(iii).
the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP)
(iv).
the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the
Environment (COT)
(v).
the General Advisory Committee on Science (GACS).
(vi).
the Social Science Research Committee (SSRC)
ACAF was established in 1999 to advise the Food Standards Agency, the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ministers of the Scottish Government, the National
Assembly for Wales, and the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland
on the safety and use of animal feeds and feeding practices, with particular emphasis on
protecting human health and with reference to new technical developments. ACAF is sponsored
by FSA (lead) and by Defra. Other interested government bodies included the Agriculture
Departments in devolved administrations and the Food Standards Scotland.
ACMSF is an ANDPB sponsored by the FSA and established in 1990 in order to assess the risk
to humans of microorganisms which are used, or occur, in or on food, and to advise the Food
Standards Agency on any matters relating to the microbiological safety of food. Interested
government bodies are Public Health England and the Food Standards Scotland.
ACNFP is sponsored by FSA to advise the central authorities responsible, in England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland respectively on any matters relating to novel foods (including
genetically modified foods) and novel food processes, including food irradiation, having regard
where appropriate to the views of relevant expert bodies.
COT was established in 1978 to assess and advise on the toxic risk to man of substances
which are food additives, household goods, or drugs, to advise on important general principles
or new scientific discoveries in connection with toxic risks, to co-ordinate with other bodies
concerned with the assessment of toxic risks and to present recommendations for toxicity
testing. COT is sponsored by FSA (lead) and by the Department of Health (DH).
GACS was established in 2007 by the FSA to support the Agency’s Chief Scientific Adviser by
providing independent challenge and advice to the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Agency
Board on the Agency’s governance and use of science. GACS provides advice on general and
strategic science and research issues and helps FSA to develop good practice and fit-forpurpose science processes.
SSRC was established in 2008 to support the Agency develop its social science capacity by
advising how social science can best contribute to meeting the Agency’s Strategic Plans, to
assess how the Agency gathers and uses social science evidence and advice and to keep the
Agency in touch with relevant social science activity both in the UK and internationally.
4
Relationships with other SACs
COT is closely associated with two further SACs: The Committee on Carcinogenicity of
Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COC) and The Committee on
Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COM). COM’s
Review will be undertaken by DH (the lead sponsoring body). In the interests of efficiency FSA’s
Review will be closely coordinated with DH’s Review of COM. COC is an internal DH expert
advisory committee and is therefore not subject to the Review process (FSA is also part of
COC’s Secretariat). However, due to the close interaction between COC, COT and COM, it is
likely that COC will feature in both reviews where appropriate, such as when looking at
interactions between the three committees.
Several of the SACs covered by FSA’s Review also work with other SACs, for example the
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), which is an expert committee of DH. This
Review will not consider the need for and operation of these other SACs, but it will consider how
the FSA’s SACs interact with them, where relevant.
Useful links
ACAF Website
ACMSF Website
ACNFP Website
COT Website
GACS Website
SSRC Website
COM Website
COC Website
Cabinet Office Review guidance
5
Responding to the Call for Evidence
In order to conduct the review in a transparent manner and ensure findings are rigorous and
evidence-based, the review team is seeking the views of a wide range of stakeholders. We are
interested in the views of individuals and organisations that engage with any or all of the SACs
or have a wider interest in their operations.
The call for evidence is running from 25 September to 5 November 2015. Responses can
be provided by:
i.
Completing the online questionnaire at www.surveymonkey.com/r/sac-review
ii.
Completing the questionnaire in this document and emailing it to the review team at:
SACs-Review@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk
iii.
Printing the form and posting to:
SACs Review Team
Room 1C
Food Standards Agency
Aviation House
125 Kingsway
London, WC2B 6NH
Where options ii. or iii. are used, the review team will accept responses or material in different
forms provided it is relevant to the terms of reference and key lines of enquiry that are set out in
the online questionnaire. The review team is unable to respond to individual cases or consider
complaints other than as part of the evidence for the review where it falls within the terms of
reference.
Workshop
Interested external stakeholders are also invited to attend a workshop from 10:00 – 13:00 on 29
October 2015 to share their views. The workshop will consider all six SACs. The workshop will
be held at Aviation House, London, WC2B 6NH. You can book a place (places are limited and
allocated on a first-come first-served basis) by emailing the Review Team at:
SACs-Review@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk
6
Call for Evidence Questions
Confidentiality
All information contained in your response, including personal information such as your full
name, may be subject to publication or disclosure if requested under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. If you do not want your personal data to be released, please let us know
or complete and return the Publication of Personal Data Form
http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/dataprotection.pdf.
If you want the information in your response to be kept confidential, you should explain why as
part of your response, although we cannot guarantee to do this in all circumstances.
About you
Name:
Organisation:
Email:
Would you categorise your response as from:





Individual
Public sector organisation
Charitable/voluntary sector healthcare organisation
Private sector
None of the above. Please state:……………………………..
If your response is from an umbrella organisation representing a wider membership, please
indicate the number of members consulted and the number of responses received:
7
Questions
There is no need to answer all 9 questions unless you wish to do so. For those which you do
answer please provide evidence to support your answers wherever possible. If you wish to send
us supporting documentation please email as an attachment to:
SACs-Review@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk.
Information where relevance is not demonstrable will not be accepted as evidence. The review
team is unable to respond to individual cases or consider complaints other than as part of the
evidence for the review where it falls within the terms of reference.
The six Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs) for which FSA is sole or lead sponsor perform a
number of functions. Please refer to Annex 1 for a list of the Committees’ Terms of Reference.
Please indicate the Committee(s) for which you are providing evidence:
☐ACAF
☐COT
☐ACMSF
☐GACS
☐ACNFP
☐SSRC
Please indicate what relationship you have with the Committee(s), if applicable:
1. Is there a continuing need for the functions provided by the Committee(s) to the Food
Standards Agency (or to other parts of government including the devolved administrations in
Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland)?

Yes

No

Don’t know
o What would the implications be of stopping the Committee(s)’ functions?
o Is providing the functions a justifiable use of public money including the relevance,
quality and fitness-for-purpose of their outputs for FSA and for others who may
commission or use the Committee(s)’ advice?
o Are there any functions that could be stopped or undertaken differently?
Please explain:………………….
8
2. How well is the Committee(s) currently performing and delivering their functions?

Very well

Well

Average

Poorly

Very poorly
o How effectively are issues identified, prioritised and solved?
Please explain:………………….
3. The Committees are currently an advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies of the Food
Standards Agency. Do you think an alternative organisational structure would improve or be
detrimental to delivery of the functions you feel are necessary? Which of the following
organisational forms would you support:

Become a departmental expert committee of the Agency: could a function be more
efficiently delivered if the Committee(s) moved into the FSA as departmental expert
committees? If you have had experience of interacting with an expert committee of
another Department, has its status affected your perception/interaction with that
committee?

Merge with other Committee(s): could a function be better delivered by the
Committee(s) if it were merged with other Committee(s)? In this scenario, should the
merged body be in the form of an ANDPB or as a departmental expert committee?

Continued delivery as an ANDPB: do its activities need to be seen to be delivered with
absolute political impartiality? Does the Committee(s) need to act independently of
Ministers to establish facts and/or figures with integrity?

Other1:

Don’t know
Please explain……
1
For a full checklist of delivery options, please refer to Annex A of the Guidance on Review of Non-Departmental Public Bodies
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332147/_Reviews_Guidance.pdf).
9
4. How well do you think the Committee(s) interact and collaborate with the other SACs in this
Review?





Very well
Well
Average
Poorly
Very poorly
Do you have any comments on the relationship between the six committees?
Are there any overlaps or important gaps between the Committee(s)’ functions?
Please explain:…………………..
5. How well do you think that the Committee(s) interacts with other organisations across the
food and public health sectors, wider government, and elsewhere (including with other SACs
outside this review)?

Very well

Well

Average

Poorly

Very poorly
o Should the Committee(s) be working more closely with other organisations?
o Are potential users of the Committee(s)’ services aware of their existence and
responsibilities? How effective is the Committee(s) at communications and
engagement with those commissioning and using its advice and with other
stakeholders?
Please explain:………………….
6. Do you think the Committee(s)’ expertise is utilised effectively? Do you feel that appropriate
work is given priority when resources are limited?

Yes

No

Don’t know
Please explain:………………….
10
7. Do you consider the Committee(s)’ governance appropriate (membership and structure,
recruitment, appointment, development, and retention of members processes, secretarial
support, etc.) to best support their functions?
 Very appropriate
 Appropriate
 Average
 Poorly
 Very poorly
You may wish to consider the following points in responding to this question, but please do
not feel constrained to these points. ………………….
o Do the Committee(s) comply with the following guidance sets:

Code of Practice for SACs (CoPSAC) and Principles of Scientific Advice to
Government, and the FSA Good Practice Guidelines for SACs2.

FOI 20003? And the Public Records Act 19584 and 19675?

The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 20116?
Please explain:
8. Do you think the Committee(s) operates in an open, transparent, accountable and
responsive way?

Yes

No

Don’t know
Please explain:………………….
2
These documents provide guidance on some of the specific issues covered in the subsequent lines of enquiry;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-committees-code-of-practice
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advice-to-government-principles
https://www.food.gov.uk/science/sci-gov/commswork/goodpracticeguidelinessacs
3
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents
4
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/6-7/51
5
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/44
6
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/2260/contents/made
11
9. Are there other organisations either nationally or internationally which could be used to
benchmark the Committee(s)’ performance and outputs? Which benchmarks are most
relevant and why?
If you have any other comments on the Committee(s)’ functions, organisational structure,
performance, efficiency or governance that you would like to submit as part of this Call for
Evidence, please do so here (stating what aspects it relates to).
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this Call for Evidence.
12
Annex A – SACs Terms of Reference
Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF)
Terms of Reference: To advise the Food Standards Agency, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, Ministers of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, and the Minister for Agriculture and Rural
Development in Northern Ireland on the safety and use of animal feeds and feeding practices, with particular
emphasis on protecting human health and with reference to new technical developments. In carrying out its functions,
the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs will liaise with other relevant advisory committees as appropriate.
Sponsors: FSA (lead), Defra
Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF)
Terms of Reference: To assess the risk to humans of microorganisms which are used, or occur, in or on food, and to
advise the Food Standards Agency on any matters relating to the microbiological safety of food.
Sponsor: FSA
Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP)
Terms of Reference: To advise the central authorities responsible, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
respectively on any matters relating to novel foods (including genetically modified foods) and novel food processes,
including food irradiation, having regard where appropriate to the views of relevant expert bodies.
Sponsor: FSA
Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the
Environment (COT)
Terms of Reference: To assess and advise on the toxic risk to man of substances which are:
a. used or proposed to be used as food additives, or used in such a way that they might contaminate food through
their use or natural occurrence in agriculture, including horticulture and veterinary practice or in the distribution,
storage, preparation, processing or packaging of food;
b. used or proposed to be used or manufactured or produced in industry, agriculture, food storage or any other
workplace;
c. used or proposed to be used as household goods or toilet goods and preparations;
d. used or proposed to be used as drugs, when advice is requested by the Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulatory Agency;
e. used or proposed to be used or disposed of in such a way as to result in pollution of the environment.
To advise on important general principles or new scientific discoveries in connection with toxic risks, to co-ordinate
with other bodies concerned with the assessment of toxic risks and to present recommendations for toxicity testing.
Sponsors: FSA (lead), Department of Health
13
General Advisory Committee on Science (GACS)
Terms of Reference: The overall purpose of the GACS is to support the Agency’s Chief Scientific Adviser by
providing independent challenge and advice to the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Agency Board on the Agency’s
governance and use of science. It will carry out the following tasks:
Providing independent challenge and advice

on how the Agency obtains and uses independent scientific advice including through the Scientific Advisory
Committees that advise the Agency1

on the Agency’s science governance processes

on the Agency’s Science Strategy and its implementation and periodic review
Advising on general and strategic science and research issues

Undertaking strategic horizon scanning, coordinating and building on the work already carried out by the
individual SACs

Advising on whether the Agency’s science and research is aligned with the Agency’s overall scientific and
strategic aims, including advice on science prioritisation

Providing a forum to discuss issues which cut across the remit of more than one committee and hence formalise
interactions between the SACs

Advising on issues that are not covered by an existing SAC or which relate to general principles

Advising on any other matters relating to research, surveys or science policy remitted to the Committee by the
Agency’s Board or Chief Scientific Adviser.
Developing good practice and fit-for-purpose science processes

Identifying and developing good practice for all of the SACs and encouraging and monitoring its application 1

Building links with others working on the use and governance of science, to identify, develop and share good
practice
The Committee may also suggest relevant issues for discussion.
Sponsor: FSA
The GACS does not have a role in approving the work of the other SACs. It will consider whether the SACs are
1
adhering to the Good Practice Guidelines and other elements of good practice and governance in carrying out their
work
Social Science Research Committee (SSRC)
Terms of Reference: The terms of reference for the Social Science Research Committee are:
• To support the Agency develop its social science capacity by advising how social science can best contribute to
meeting the Agency’s Strategic Plans
• To advise and critically assess how the Agency gathers and uses social science evidence and advice
• To draw on wider expertise as appropriate to provide independent critique on social science based evidence
• To keep the Agency in touch with relevant social science activity both in the UK and internationally
Sponsor: FSA
14