Trace DNA in processed meat
Consumer views about acceptability
TNS BMRB
© TNS 19.06.2013
JN260117089
Executive Summary
TNS BMRB was commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to conduct a nationwide
series of ‘Citizens Forums’, with the goal of establishing an ongoing dialogue with the public on
food standards and safety. This summary outlines findings from a Citizens Forum, conducted
between February and June 2013, on the acceptability of trace DNA of unlabelled animal
species in processed meat.
At the start of 2013, DNA testing of processed meat in Northern Ireland detected unlabelled
horsemeat in processed meats. This prompted a Europe-wide investigation, which revealed
widespread fraud across the food chain. In addition, testing highlighted the presence of ‘trace’
amounts of DNA of other animal species in products due to inadvertent carryover during meat
processing.
FSA commissioned this research to explore consumers' views about the acceptability of trace
DNA carryover and what the FSA’s role should be in relation to this issue. This forum
comprised twelve workshops, conducted in six locations around the UK and reconvened over
two waves. A third wave took place in London, involving a single three-hour event attended by
50 participants who had taken part in the previous waves, as well as experts from industry,
government scientists and the FSA.
Impact of horsemeat incident on attitudes to processed foods
Thinking about food production processes can be a struggle for consumers. These processes
are essentially invisible to consumers, and therefore they cannot be confident that it meets the
quality and ethical standards they expect. Previous forums have shown that consumers prefer
not to think too deeply about food production because they find it off-putting and do not want
to spend too much time thinking about their food choices. Therefore, they make assumptions
about food safety, in particular that rigorous oversight is in place, which ensures food safety
but also protects consumer values; for example, in relation to quality, ethics and religious
beliefs.
The horsemeat incident indicated to participants that fraud was endemic within the food
industry, which significantly undermined the credibility of regulatory oversight. It reinforced
consumers’ concerns that food manufacturers were primarily motivated by profit at the
expense of consumer interests, but also challenged the assumption that an independent body
was monitoring industry in order to maintain acceptable standards.
Consequently, consumers felt they were left with a stark choice; either a) continue to eat
processed meats and 'try not to think about it’ or b) stop eating processed meats. There were
multiple benefits to eating processed meats (convenience, preference, price) and therefore
consumers wanted to feel comfortable doing so. In the aftermath of the horsemeat incident
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
2
consumers said they wanted reassurance from government / regulators that rigorous oversight
was in place to ensure that processed foods met expected standards.
Initial views about the acceptability of carryover
When the concept of carryover of trace DNA was introduced, as might be expected,
consumers' initial reactions were strongly influenced by the horsemeat incident. Consumers
questioned whether trace DNA was indicative of poor cleanliness or fraud, and raised concerns
about food safety implications. They also queried the vagueness of the term ‘trace’, feeling
that it could be used to cover up the use of large quantities of cheap meats as filler.
Uninformed responses to trace DNA were largely negative, which has important implications
for communicating this issue to consumers in the future. Without a clear understanding of how
carryover occurs, alongside reassurances about safety impacts, learning about trace DNA may
reignite concerns consumers have about the food industry.
Impact of information on views about acceptability of carryover
Learning about the complexity of current food production processes initially caused
concern, as consumers believed this increased the opportunity for fraud or error. However,
they were also able to envisage how carryover could occur through normal processing
practices; in particular, learning that it is normal for manufacturers to process more than one
species and that some products sold in the UK were produced in European factories that also
process horsemeat. This reassured consumers that detecting trace DNA, even from species
which were not normally consumed in the UK, such as horse, was not necessarily indicative of
fraud but rather a potentially unavoidable aspect of meat processing.
Consumers were also informed about how trace carryover was defined and tested. Some
found the initial definition of less than 1% reassuring, providing an upper limit to prevent
manufacturers from treating large quantities of meat as carryover. However, 1% seemed quite
high, particularly when scaled up to industrial production quantities. There was also a risk that
an upper limit could discourage practices to minimise carryover and therefore it was
considered vital that regulators work with industry to determine accurate levels of carryover
that could be expected when operating under current good practice.
In the final wave, consumers discussed the scope and impact of minimising levels of
carryover. Initial results from testing of food production practices revealed that carryover
could essentially be reduced to zero when manufacturers undertake a deep (or chemical) clean
between species. However, this was not a requirement of current practice and may incur
additional costs. Whether consumers were willing to pay more for zero carryover was largely
dependent on whether they considered trace carryover to be acceptable or not.
Following the three waves, consumers largely accepted that carryover was unavoidable when
employing current manufacturing practices, but differed with regards to whether they
considered this acceptable. People fluctuated in their views throughout the discussions, but
three broad groups were identified:
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
3
•
•
•
Unacceptable – These consumers found the idea of carryover in food production
unappealing, particularly that they might not know what was in their food. Their only
recourse under current practices was to stop eating processed meats.
Acceptable (but tell me what it is) – This group accepted that carryover occurs, but
found certain species unappealing and wanted to know what they might be eating.
Acceptable – The most pragmatic group, these consumers thought it was likely that
carryover had been happening for years, and as it was evidently not a safety issue,
these consumers were not overly worried.
Views about informing consumers
Initially consumers felt strongly that the public should be informed about all carryover, as they
had a right to know what was in their food. However, as consumers recognised that trace
carryover may in fact be unavoidable, their views about labelling also shifted as some
questioned its impact and effectiveness. Three broad positions emerged in relation to labelling:
• Label all carryover – This group were concerned about being deceived by the food
industry or about eating a type of meat which they considered unappealing.
• Label carryover above 1% - These consumers considered current guidelines to be
acceptable and were not overly concerned with labelling carryover.
• Label carryover that could be considered avoidable – This group wanted labelling of
carryover that was less than 1% but which exceeded the amount that was deemed
‘unavoidable’ (an undefined amount at this stage of discussions). This would drive up
standards, as food manufacturers would not want to label avoidable trace, as well as
indicate to consumers where sub-optimal cleaning practices were in place.
Consumers debated the extent to which labelling would impact behaviour. There was
recognition that many consumers do not read food labels. However, they believed that
labelling carryover would drive up standards in any case as food manufacturers would not want
to risk losing business.
Terminology used in any labelling was considered important. Vague or technical terms would
undermine use as consumers would be confused or put off. 'Trace DNA' was not considered
suitable – 'trace' was too vague because it was not quantified, and potentially open to abuse
by industry, whereas DNA sounded unappealing.
Following the third wave, consumers’ understanding of carryover polarised further. This was
driven by the realisation that it would be possible to minimise carryover if food production
processes were adapted, although this could increase the cost to consumers. This raised a
fourth option in terms of labelling trace:
• Label products where trace has been minimised – Consumers suggested a label similar
to a kite mark to designate production processes that minimised the risk of carryover.
This would provide more choice for consumers who found carryover unappealing, as
they could pay more for foods produced to these standards.
Despite mixed views about labelling, there was overall consensus that transparency about food
manufacturing was required for several reasons: to encourage the industry to adopt practices
that were more palatable to consumers; to avoid misconceptions about the carryover issue
and; to re-establish trust in industry and oversight.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
4
Changes to regulation, guidance and oversight
Consumers expected and agreed that regulation should prioritise safety. However, they also
wanted food production processes to reflect their values; for example, by meeting their
expectations in terms of cleanliness and quality. Consequently, there were certain practices
consumers wanted to see changed:
• Manufacturers should be required to carry out at least an interim (or water) wash
between red meat species. Although consumers were reassured this was not a safety
issue, they considered washing between meats to be basic cleanliness standards and
something they would follow in their own home.
• Testing and oversight should be more frequent, particularly as current testing regimes
were perceived to be inadequate in the aftermath of the horsemeat incident.
Conclusions
Views about acceptability of trace carryover varied considerably between consumers, some
found it so off-putting they would no longer eat processed foods whilst others thought it was a
normal part of food production and of little concern. Regardless of their attitude towards
acceptability, consumers wanted reassurance that trace carryover would be minimised now the
issue was recognised. This has a number of implications for the FSA:
• Informing the public – Consumers wanted greater transparency of the issue, either via
labelling or public awareness, as this would help to drive standards in the industry;
• Regulation, guidance and oversight – There was an expectation that oversight, testing
regimes and intelligence gathering should improve, both to prevent food scares like
horsemeat and to develop and enforce practices that minimise carryover, such as
conducting interim washes between red meats.
Finally, consumers indicated that the FSA had been slow to respond to the horsemeat incident
and this too was instrumental in undermining consumer confidence. In the future, consumers
expected the FSA to respond more quickly to food incidents, and provide a balanced view in
response to the media, which was felt to sensationalise incidents. This would prevent media
coverage from causing undue anxiety amongst consumers.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
5
Contents
Executive Summary
2
Contents
6
1.
Introduction
7
2.
Context to people’s views about carryover
10
3.
Acceptability of carryover
13
4.
What should happen next?
19
5.
Conclusions
24
6.
Appendices
27
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
6
1. Introduction
In December 2005, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) Board agreed to develop more creative
and experimental ways of engaging directly with individual consumers and to construct a new
model for consumer engagement. 1 Central to this aim was the establishment of a nationwide
series of Citizens Forums to enable the FSA to launch an ongoing dialogue with the public on
food standards.
The Forums provide the opportunity for the FSA to consider the ways it makes decisions to
protect public health and consumer interests in relation to food safety. In particular, the
Forums help to frame issues the FSA focuses on, and ultimately the advice its gives, from a
consumer perspective.
Specifically, the Forums aim to:
 understand the ‘top of mind’ concerns of UK consumers;
 develop deeper understanding about particular concerns that consumers have in
relation to food;
 test FSA policy and ensure that the views of consumers are taken into account at all
stages of the policy making process.
This report outlines findings from a Citizens’ Forum on the acceptability of trace DNA of
unlabelled animal species in processed meat.
1.1
Background to the research
In January this year the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) carried out DNA tests on
processed meat products which identified DNA of animal species that should not have been
present and had not been identified on the product labels. Subsequent investigations across
Europe revealed that this was a widespread incident, involving fraud within the food supply
chain.
In addition to identifying large quantities of unlabelled meat in products, testing highlighted
the presence of ‘trace’ amounts of DNA of other animal species in products. Yet rather than
suggesting fraud, these trace amounts may relate to the complexity of current meat
processing systems – whereby several species may be processed in one plant – resulting in
inadvertent ‘carryover’ between species.
While it is an offence to sell products containing a meat type that is not declared on the label,
if a business can demonstrate that they followed Good Manufacturing Practice and took all
reasonable precautions to reduce contamination, this is an acceptable defence. In light of this,
1
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa111105.pdf
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
7
FSA sought robust information on the levels of trace carryover that might be unavoidable even
when businesses are following Good Manufacturing Practices. To this end, the FSA
commissioned Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC) to undertake tests in this area.
Early results from these tests were explored as part of this research, although the experiments
are ongoing at the time of reporting.
1.2
Aims of the research
This research sought to understand what impact recent developments in testing meat products
have had on consumers’ views about meat processing and regulation of the food industry.
Specifically, the research aimed to:
• Determine if consumer trust in the food chain is undermined by the results of recent
tests;
• Establish consumer acceptability of trace DNA in processed foods;
• Understand expectations of the FSA as a regulator.
It is important to note that this research did not seek to explore any religious or cultural issues
that have arisen in light of the recent testing results about carryover (or indeed, fraudulent
contamination); for example, pork in Halal products. This issue is being explored separately.
1.3
Approach
As with previous Citizens Forums, this research was deliberative in nature, comprising three
waves of reconvened meetings. The first wave was designed to gather people’s views in light
of only minimal background information on the topic; allowing space for participants to frame
the issues themselves, and identify any information needs in order to discuss issues in greater
depth. Subsequent waves were used to respond to these information needs by providing
additional contextual and in-depth information. This approach allows participants to digest
often complex and technical information in bite-sized chunks, and highlights how specific
elements of information have an impact on participants’ views and understanding.
Twelve workshops were conducted, each re-convened over two waves in the first instance –
held in Glasgow, Bridgend, Belfast, Leeds, Nottingham and Greenwich (two groups per
location). These two waves took place between February and March 2013. Each workshop
comprised a group of approximately 10 participants, and discussions in each wave lasted 90
minutes. Locations were selected to include a geographical spread across England and the
devolved nations, and to ensure we were able to recruit participants from locations that had
the widest possible shopping options. This latter consideration was to avoid areas where there
were only one or two supermarket retailers nearby as we did not want to include participants
who only had access to outlets where horsemeat had (or had not) been detected.
The sample profile of each group sought to reflect the local population in each location,
including a spread of gender, age, and ethnicity (see sample breakdown in appendix 6.1).
They also included a split in terms of how frequently participants consumed processed meat
products. As noted above, this research did not seek to explore any religious or cultural issues
relating to contaminated meat products. With this in mind, the sample excluded people who
followed dietary rules linked to their religious or cultural beliefs.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
8
Following the first two waves of discussions, a final wave was convened in London and
comprised a single event with 50 participants selected from those who had taken part in the
previous waves. Once again, the sample was mixed to include a broad spread of all variables
(see appendix 6.1). In wave three, initial test results of scientific testing of carryover following
industrial cleaning processes were presented. At the time of the workshop, tests results were
only available for full chemical wash (highest level) and consumers received no information
about the effectiveness of interim water only washes.
All discussions were moderated by independent facilitators, and representatives from the FSA
were on hand to answer questions and help clarify any areas of uncertainty. Stimulus materials
and expert presentations from the FSA, industry representatives, and LGC were used to
encourage discussion and provoke debate. The findings were subject to full analysis, which
forms the basis for this report. A full methodology (including discussion guides and stimulus)
can be found in the appendix.
1.4
Report Outline
Following this introduction, section two considers the context affecting people’s views about
carryover between meat species. Section three explores views about acceptability of
carryover, including how people react to various layers of information and the impact this has
on their views and stated behaviour. Section four outlines what people think should happen
in light of carryover; specifically around informing consumers and suggestions for regulation
and guidance to industry. Finally, section five provides an overview of the findings and
considers any implications for the FSA.
All findings represent the views of the participants who attended the workshops, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the FSA or seek to emulate FSA policy.
All quotations are verbatim, drawn from audio recordings of the group discussions.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
9
2. Context to people’s views about carryover
In this section, we consider consumer attitudes to buying processed meats and how this was
influenced by press coverage of the horsemeat incident. This context is critical as responses to
the horsemeat incident in turn shaped consumers’ views about carryover of DNA from other
species in processed meats, which is discussed in the following section.
2.1
Attitudes to processed foods
Previous Citizens' Forums have shown that consumers want to make food choices quickly and
with minimal thought. 2 However, food choices can be fairly complex if consumers take into
account all factors which are important to them; for example, cost, convenience, healthiness,
safety, quality and ethical standards. When choosing processed foods, it is particularly difficult
for consumers to determine whether quality and ethical standards are maintained throughout
the production process, because food production processes (the ‘farm to fork’ journey) are
typically invisible to consumers. Therefore consumers must make assumptions about food
standards (for example, using price as an indicator of quality) or, which is more likely, they
simply ‘do not think about it’.
"Well I am sure all of us have got some form of cold meat in the fridge to make
sandwiches. When you have got children you will be doing them a packed box, and until
now not even giving it a moment’s thought." (Female participant, Leeds)
Many consumers who took part in this Forum, particularly those who regularly ate processed
meats, admitted that they did not like to think about food production – in fact they find it offputting to think about where their food comes from. Indeed, many suspected that they would
stop eating processed meats if they learnt more about food production. Thinking too deeply
about food production raises several questions which were fundamental to consumers’ values
in relation to the food they buy and eat:
•
•
•
•
Are the ingredients good quality and something I would choose to eat?
What additives / chemicals are used and what is known about their long term effects?
Would the standards of cleanliness meet my expectations?
Was the food prepared in a ‘normal way’ (i.e. as I would at home, but on a larger
scale)?
Although participants said they largely expected processed meat products to be of a poorer
quality than home-prepared food, there were a wide range of acknowledged benefits.
Processed foods were convenient and tasty; in some cases an indulgent treat. Parents of ‘fussy
eaters’ said their children would often not eat other foods. There was also a perception that
2
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/citizens-forum-report-2012
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
10
buying processed meat products was more affordable, or at least that consumers could budget
more easily because they had a better understanding of how many meals they could make
from the food bought and ensure that nothing was wasted; particularly as processed foods
were often available frozen.
“At the weekend you want to relax so you get something out of the freezer and chuck it
in the oven" (Male participant, Greenwich)
"A lot of like burgers and chicken products, it is just easy to put it in the oven,
especially when you are working late and you just have to come home and put it in the
oven." (Male participant, Leeds)
This created a conflict for consumers when choosing processed foods – on the one hand, they
felt unable to judge whether processed foods fit within their personal values (regarding quality,
origin and ethics) but on the other, they did not always want to cook from scratch. In order to
by-pass this conflict, consumers typically make assumptions about the levels of oversight and
governance in place to protect consumer interests. They assume that someone (i.e. the
government, trading standards, environmental health) was regularly checking how food was
processed, both to ensure that food sold to the public was safe to eat (as a minimum) and that
they were sourced and prepared in such a way as to meet consumer expectations.
Coverage of the horsemeat incident highlighted that food production happens in a ‘black box’
and forced consumers to reconsider how they make habitual food choices and in particular
whether they could rely on an external body to protect their interests.
2.2
Reactions to the horsemeat incident
The first wave of fieldwork took place shortly after coverage of the horsemeat incident began
in the press. The horsemeat incident highlighted the complexities of food production and
forced consumers to think about how they make food choices. As a result, there was high
awareness of the incident, which raised serious concerns amongst participants. There were
several aspects of the story which consumers found particularly shocking and which
significantly undermined their trust in food production and regulation:
•
•
•
•
Levels of horsemeat were extremely high, some foods were predominately or entirely
(100%) horsemeat.
The prevalence of horsemeat indicated that fraudulent use of horsemeat was endemic
within the food industry; horsemeat was not only found in very cheap products but also
in supermarkets and product lines that were more expensive and therefore assumed to
be better quality.
Products containing horsemeat were found in hospitals and schools, which highlighted
that government and/or local authorities, as well as the food industry, were not
showing due diligence with regards to quality and origin when buying produce.
Some meat which had entered the food chain may not have been intended for human
consumption and therefore may not have been safe to eat.
Few consumers were aware of seeing a 'government' response to the horsemeat incident.
However, there was a sense that the response had been slow and confused; in particular, a
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
11
perception that government representatives had tried to pass the blame on to other bodies. As
such, consumers felt that they had to rely on media coverage, which was considered
unbalanced and sensationalised.
On the whole, consumers believed that the horsemeat incident was primarily caused by the
food industry’s motivation to increase profits. Very few participants acknowledged that cost
cutting may be driven by pressure from consumers to keep prices low and, in any case, there
was still an expectation that the food industry would not mislead consumers about what they
were buying. The fact that fraud was so widespread, indicated to consumers that at best food
manufacturers were lax when checking the quality of meat products in order to source cheap
produce, and at worse that fraudulent activity was widely accepted within the food industry as
a way to make more money.
“It makes you wonder how much you're being lied to." (Male participant, Glasgow)
Whilst people said they expected the food industry to be motivated primarily by profits, they
also believed that an independent body was monitoring practices to ensure that consumer
interests were protected and standards of production and quality were maintained. This
confidence was significantly undermined by the horsemeat incident, which consumers believed
showed that regulators had ‘no idea’ what was in the foods being sold to the public. This initial
reaction was underpinned by a lack of understanding of how the testing processes work and in
particular that food hygiene inspectors may carry out a raft of tests, but without intelligence
indicating that horsemeat might be present, specific tests for horse would not be carried out.
However, the horsemeat incident did raise a wider concern – consumers have no control over
what enters the food chain and must trust the food industry (who they believe to be motivated
primarily by making money) and regulators (whose credibility they believed had been
undermined by food scares such as horsemeat).
"I would have thought that the Food Agency [sic] were monitoring our foods... That's
why we had all the regulators on the packaging telling us how much salt and
everything, because they were monitoring. So how did horsemeat sneak in... if they're
monitoring what comes onto our dinner tables?" (Female participant, Glasgow)
In the aftermath of the horsemeat incident, some consumers said that they had tried to avoid
certain processed foods and in other cases consumers knew of people who had become
vegetarian or only bought fresh meat as a result of the incident. However, this was a minority
view and participants typically said they would continue to eat processed meats and try not to
think about how it was processed. This highlights the perception that consumers had a stark
choice to make, either a) accept that they could not be certain what they were eating when
buying processed foods, or b) stop eating processed foods altogether.
"I have been thinking – is it not minced beef or is it? What’s been going on? And I have
actually stopped buying it now. I have started buying Quorn to make spaghetti with,
because I can’t trust it." (Female participant, Leeds)
As discussed in the next section, this perception that consumers had little control or choice
with regards to processed foods was a cause of concern and consumers looked to government
and food regulators to protect their interests.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
12
3. Acceptability of carryover
In this section, we discuss consumers' views about the acceptability of trace amounts of DNA
from other species being present in processed foods (‘carryover’) and how views changed in
response to information provided across the three wave deliberative process.
3.1
Initial response to trace DNA
Consumers initially struggled to disentangle the concept of trace DNA carryover from the
fraudulent use of horsemeat in processed meat products. Therefore early discussions provoked
a strong negative reaction among participants; in particular, consumers questioned whether
trace DNA of other species was indicative of poor hygiene practices or the use of cheaper
meats to bulk out produce.
"I think trace means there's a mistake there, that something's gone wrong, something's
entered and they don't know where." (Female participant, Greenwich)
Trace DNA was introduced in the first wave following discussion of the horsemeat incident. By
discussing horsemeat first, participants had the opportunity to air and park their concerns
about fraudulent activity before moving on to discuss the acceptability of carryover from other
meat species. Yet despite repeated clarification, consumers struggled to separate the two
issues.
It is important to consider the context in which this research and particularly the first wave of
discussions took place. Awareness of the horsemeat incident was high and intensive media
coverage continued throughout the fieldwork period. Consequently trust in the food industry
was low and consumers were particularly aware of practices used to bulk up products; for
example, using 'filler' or cheaper types of meat. They were therefore predisposed to think
about carryover in this light and to question whether this was indicative of practices that were
motivated by profit rather than consumer interests.
Consumers were initially asked to brainstorm what they thought the term ‘trace DNA’ meant.
The mind map below illustrates the complexity of the thoughts and associations people held in
relation to the term; specifically, that it evoked a range of associations. In part, the complexity
of people’s interpretation was linked to their confusion and concern about the horsemeat
incident, and also reflected the fact that they did not fully understand the term.
In some ways ‘trace DNA’ was reassuring as it indicated that only very small amounts of other
meats were present. ‘Trace’ implied miniscule or negligible amounts, therefore some
consumers questioned whether they should care about trace amounts of DNA. However, the
terminology was also vague and many associations (cross-contamination, blood, cells,
allergens) were off-putting and raised food safety concerns.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
13
Trace should be
defined
A part / a
millionth?
Misleading
Should we
care?
Negligible
Vague
Small
Microscopic
Trace DNA?
Allergens
Unsafe
Traces of nuts
Scientific
Produced in the
same factory
Blood / cells /
bones
Residue / touch
Sounds
disgusting
Difficult to
understand
Cross
contamination
Discussion of ‘trace DNA’ raised a number of concerns which reflected participants’ underlying
suspicions about the food industry. For example, consumers discussed the following issues:
•
Manipulating 'trace' to disguise large amounts of other meats – Consumers felt it was
critical that 'trace' was clearly defined, otherwise they were concerned that the term
might be used to disguise large amounts of filler;
•
Food safety – The term 'trace' is also used to describe allergens, such as nuts, and
therefore raised implicit concerns about food safety;
•
Cleanliness – ‘DNA' had a number of unpalatable associations (for example, blood,
bones, residue, forensic evidence) making the term unsuitable for food labelling and
consumers believed that residue should be removed if proper cleaning processes were
followed;
"[If it is a] a proper operation done correctly [there should be no] contamination at all
because of the processes involved and planning that’s required" (Male participant,
Leeds)
•
Transparency – ‘DNA’ sounds scientific and difficult to understand which may be offputting to some consumers.
"It could be anything, it could be someone else's lashes, the blood, spit, anything, it's
the DNA that's the problem" (Female participant, Nottingham)
Raising the issue of trace DNA with limited supporting information to address these concerns
typically provoked a negative response amongst consumers. Consequently, at this stage
participants tended to say that the presence of trace DNA was unacceptable or that they could
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
14
not make a decision on acceptability until they had more information; for example, what
amount of other species would be considered trace, how trace DNA of other species carries
over to processed meats, and whether the presence of trace indicates poor hygiene practices
or even fraud. In the next section we discuss what information consumers required and how
this affected their views on acceptability of trace DNA in processed meats.
3.2
Impact of information on views about trace DNA carryover
As described in section 1, this research adopted a deliberative approach to inform respondents
about carryover of trace DNA in processed meats. Over the course of three waves, participants
were given information and completed tasks which informed them about the processed food
industry and encouraged them to think more deeply about how carryover may occur, whether
this is acceptable and what industry and government should do in response.
The three waves focused on specific aspects of the food production process, with the aim of
building up information in bite-sized chunks over the course of the research:
•
•
•
Wave 1: Meat production processes
Wave 2: How trace is defined and tested
Wave 3: How carryover can be reduced
Reactions to each of these ‘layers’ of information are discussed in turn below; in particular,
how the information provided impacted participants’ views about acceptability.
Meat production processes
Consumers were informed about typical ‘farm to fork’ processes and in particular that meat
could be sourced and processed in many different countries, involving multiple organisations
and various 'middle men'. Many consumers were initially shocked by the level of complexity.
On the one hand, complex arrangements for sourcing and processing meat caused concern as
consumers believed that this created opportunities for fraud and error and made it more
difficult for this to be traced. In relation to carryover, however, learning more about how meat
is sourced across Europe was reassuring, as consumers could see how carryover may occur
inadvertently, rather than as a result of fraudulent practices. In particular, the realisation that
horsemeat was legitimately processed in other countries helped to explain why traces may be
present in products sold in the UK.
"The more stages, the more chance something is going to break down in that
stage...more points of contamination...one or two stages and you could keep it more
tight" (Male participant, Nottingham)
Having thought more deeply about how meat processing plants operate, particularly that food
manufacturers legitimately process more than one type of meat on a single machine in one
day, participants said that carryover was 'understandable'. People could envisage how this
would happen as part of standard food production processes, without being indicative of poor
practices or fraud, however it was still considered important that this was transparent.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
15
"I can now understand why there was traces of pork in beef meals because obviously the
way the system, so I can see why there would be traces but that is then important for
the consumer to know that there is that possibility." (Female participant, Nottingham)
Participants who were more accepting of carryover believed it was likely to have been
happening for many years and therefore was a 'normal' outcome of food production.
Participants also acknowledged that carryover was likely to occur in your own kitchen or in
butchers, and they were able to make connections between this and what occurs in meat
processing plants. People who were more concerned by the concept of carryover in meat
processing plants felt this was different to other sources of carryover, as consumers can see
what other meats are being handled in a butchers or their own kitchen. This creates a feeling
of greater control, such that people can ensure the carryover is only from species they would
chose to eat themselves.
How trace is defined and tested
Consumers felt reassured when they learned that meat which constitutes more than 1% of a
product has to be listed as an ingredient. Having a defined maximum ensures that
manufacturers cannot legitimately pass off large quantities of other meats in products.
However, some consumers, specifically those who found the thought of carryover particularly
unappealing, believed that 1% sounded quite high. For these people, trace DNA implied
microscopic amounts of other meats, whereas 1% appeared to them to be tangible amounts.
They argued that 1%, when scaled up to industrial processes would be a large amount of meat
which should not enter the manufacturing chain accidentally if acceptable levels of cleaning
were in place.
There was also concern about the impact of having a defined top limit of 1%. Consumers who
were anxious about keeping the levels of carryover as low as possible were concerned that this
might discourage practices to reduce levels. Therefore participants thought it was important
that alongside any agreed maximum, there should be oversight to determine the lowest
possible levels (i.e. what was unavoidable) and ensure that industry met those standards.
"I'd be afraid that it's like giving them a licence...then sort of to go oh it's all right then,
some lamb in this...a bit of horse in that." (Male participant, Belfast)
How carryover can be reduced
In the final workshop, participants were presented with information about the lowest levels of
carryover possible under current food production and cleaning processes. Consumers were
informed about different cleaning processes and initial results from testing for DNA trace
following the most intensive cleaning methods. Test results demonstrated that trace DNA could
essentially be removed with a chemical wash between different species. In addition, people
confirmed that carryover could be completely avoided if different species were prepared on
different days or on different production lines. However, both of these approaches were likely
to incur a cost to consumers and participants recognised that there were likely trade-offs which
could be made dependent on whether consumers were concerned about carry over or not.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
16
"There must be unavoidable thresholds, as they said, depending on how much money
you’re prepared to spend on cleaning and designing machinery that can be cleaned to
that extent and that balance. So at some point you will reach a playoff scenario." (Male
participant, Leeds)
Whether or not consumers were willing to pay more for products that did not contain carryover
largely depended on how acceptable they found the concept (once it had been fully explained).
Inevitably, those who were largely unconcerned about trace DNA said they would not be willing
to pay more. Conversely, consumers who found the concept unappealing said they intended to
avoid processed meats in the future because they were concerned about carryover. It is
interesting to note that during this wave, participants discussed the possibility of creating a
positive choice for consumers by identifying a range of products that were guaranteed to be
free of carryover. This is explored in section 4.
3.3
Views about acceptability of Trace DNA
Across the waves, people’s views about acceptability developed and became increasingly
polarised. However, it is important to note that people’s views changed often, particularly as
consumers found it difficult to articulate why they were worried about trace carryover once
they were aware that it was not a food safety issue nor was it indicative of fraud.
Consequently, consumers attitudes could change and they were often influenced by other
participants or expert opinions. Despite this fluctuation in views, three broad perspectives
emerged:
•
Unacceptable – For these people, the horsemeat incident highlighted that consumers
had no control over what is added to processed meat products. Therefore these
consumers preferred to avoid processed meat products altogether or demand that any
carryover was clearly labelled and identified so they could avoid affected products (see
section 4). (These participants were often low consumers of processed meats in any
case).
•
Acceptable (if I know what it is) – This group accepted that carryover was a normal
part of food production. However, they wanted reassurance that they would not eat
species that were unpalatable to them, for whatever reason – preference, values or
beliefs.
•
Acceptable – These participants were the most pragmatic, believing that people had
been consuming foods with trace carryover for a long time and it clearly was not
harmful to them. Therefore they were happy to continue to eat processed meats with
little thought or concerns about the presence of trace DNA (as long as regulation was in
place to ensure good practice had been followed and any carryover was genuinely
unavoidable). These participants tended to be younger, and this view was more
common amongst male participants.
"If I eat a burger and it's got a bit of horse and another burger doesn't and it doesn't
kill you, I don't see why you wouldn't eat it." (Male participant, Belfast)
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
17
As discussed above, many participants acknowledged that trace carryover was unavoidable
under current manufacturing practices, at least in part because of the sensitivity of modern
DNA testing. On the whole, this meant that people were pragmatic about accepting it as part
of current food manufacturing. However, this did not mean that all consumers believed that
current practices and oversight were acceptable. Indeed, participants raised a number of
provisos or expectations they had with regards to future food production:
•
The food industry and food regulators should work together to ensure that carryover
levels were as low as possible and truly unavoidable using robust (but reasonable)
cleaning practices;
•
Testing regimes should be improved to ensure that manufacturers do list other meats in
the product ingredients where this exceeds 1%;
•
The FSA should ensure that food processing is more transparent; firstly, to ensure the
public is aware of trace DNA carryover, and secondly, to reassure consumers that
carryover does not mean that food is unsafe or manufacturers are ripping off the
public.
These, and other issues, are considered in subsequent sections.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
18
4. What should happen next?
In this section, we outline what people felt should happen in response to carryover in meat
products. This includes a focus on how the public should be informed about this issue, as well
as proposed changes to regulation, guidance and oversight of the food industry.
4.1
Informing consumers
Participants wavered in their views about how the public should be informed about carryover.
Initially, there was a fairly universal response that it was a consumer right to know what went
into products, including any contamination resulting from the production process. This
predominantly took the form of products being fully and clearly labelled, so that consumers
could make informed decisions and/or to provide an incentive for industry to improve
standards.
"To my mind there’s a major crisis in confidence here, and they need to label everything
that’s potentially in a product that you’re consuming." (Male participant, Glasgow)
"I would like to know it’s there, at least. Do you know what I mean? Give me the choice."
(Male participant, Leeds)
However, as more information was presented over the course of the discussions,
participants’ views about labelling developed and diverged. During the second wave of
discussions, where participants were informed about how carryover can occur, three broad
positions emerged in relation to labelling:
1%
0%
POSITION 1:
POSITION 2:
POSITION 3:
Label everything,
it’s a consumer
right
Only avoidable
trace needs to be
labelled, otherwise
labelling becomes
meaningless
Label 1% and over–
anything smaller is
negligible and
labelling it would be
off-putting
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
19
•
Label all carryover – People who wanted all carryover to be labelled, irrespective of
quantity, were either anxious about being otherwise deceived by the food industry or
worried about consuming animal species that they found unappealing. This group
included people who wanted specific amounts of carryover in individual products to be
labelled, despite previously acknowledging that it would be impractical and costly to
test all products. More typically, people wanted labelling to clarify that products
contained generalised quantities of carryover from specified species.
"You want to know exactly what animal you’re eating. Do you know what I mean? If
there’s a squirrel in there, a rat in there, you know? I’m not being funny. You want to
know exactly what animal you’re eating.” (Male participant, Glasgow)
•
Label carryover beyond 1% – At the other extreme were people who were not overly
concerned about labelling carryover, particularly at low levels that were deemed to be
intangible. For this group, a sensible approach was to only label carryover that exceeds
1%, the level at which they had been told needed to be listed as an ingredient under
current guidelines. Any lower quantities of carryover were considered negligible and
informing consumers about this would be unnecessarily off-putting and impractical.
"I don’t disagree with knowing what ingredients are in something but once you start to
get down at a certain level of percentage it is not a fundamental ingredient, it is not
practical." (Male participant, Nottingham)
•
Label any carryover that could be considered avoidable – Finally, a third group
latched on to information that current manufacturing practices meant there was likely
to be an amount of carryover that was ‘unavoidable’ (an undefined amount at this stage
of discussions). For this group, it seemed sensible to only label carryover that exceeded
this amount. This would serve two purposes – to encourage industry to minimise
carryover wherever possible to avoid the need to label products, and to indicate to
consumers where practices were sub-optimal.
"To me it just depends on what’s the unavoidable level... If that’s the unavoidable level,
then that is fine. But anything that’s avoidable should be [labelled]." (Male participant,
Leeds)
At this stage, participants spontaneously raised concerns about the practicalities of
labelling. One area of debate was whether people would actually notice or read labels.
Participants described varied current behaviour, and challenged each other about what they
felt was unrealistic assumptions about the impact labelling would have on consumer behaviour.
To some extent this debate was viewed as irrelevant, as the idea of labelling was considered
sufficiently off-putting for food businesses such that they would improve their practices to
avoid having to label products at all.
Of more concern was how labels would be defined and worded. Nobody wanted technical
or vague language that could be misconstrued and unnecessarily scare consumers. The
vagueness of ‘trace’ was a particular concern, given that it was undefined and could therefore
be open to abuse by industry if not properly regulated. It was considered crucial that an upper
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
20
limit for trace was defined by an external regulator and that this should be based on the lowest
levels achievable whilst adhering to good cleanliness standards.
"When you’ve got something that’s regulated it will keep the manufacturers at bay. If
it’s not regulated and it is not recorded or reported then little by little that ‘trace’ can
grow so that percentage can be 1%, can become 2%, can become 3% but I think the
monitoring and the quality assurance helps us to be confident about what we are
getting." (Male participant, Greenwich)
In contrast, and as mentioned previously, ‘DNA’ was clear and generally understood, but had
unappealing connotations that were not associated with food, such as forensic evidence.
Participants spontaneously suggested phrases that were familiar from other products, such as
those containing nuts and other allergens. One example suggested by participants – ‘Produced
in a factory that handles other meats’ – was felt to make meat processing more transparent,
calling to mind acceptable carryover, and therefore allowing consumers to make a commonsense judgement about whether they are willing to accept this.
"It comes back to it being more of a warning, rather than a specific this is in it. Like
‘this may contain nuts’" (Male participant, Leeds)
However, these labels were also associated with industry simply ‘covering their back’, rather
than being upfront about what their products contained. This was an ongoing concern for
participants, pushing some to call for specific amounts of trace being labelled, and others to
move away from labelling altogether.
"I wouldn’t do anything. Do you know why? Two things. I genuinely don't think that if
you start to demand labels coming in, I think everybody then turns to, you know, the
fear factor kicks in. Companies put it on as a blanket just to cover their backsides, and
it puts up the cost of it" (Male participant, Glasgow)
During the final wave, where participants were given more detailed information about industry
practices and cleaning processes, people’s views polarised further. One subset of
participants suggested that having a better understanding of the production process meant
they were even less concerned about knowing how this affected individual products. The
reasons for carryover were now understood and, to some extent, considered reasonable – ‘this
can happen in butcher shops and in my own kitchen’. This group were largely unconcerned
about carryover, and did not want to be prompted to think about it through labelling –
preferring instead to rely on regulators to ensure that products were safe and contamination
was minimised.
Conversely, another subset of participants maintained (and indeed strengthened) their view
that consumers should be informed about carryover through product labelling. For this group,
seeing more information about how meat was processed confirmed to them that carryover was
unpalatable and constituted a breach of what they considered to be their consumer rights.
Furthermore, information about current cleaning practices highlighted that carryover was not
necessarily ‘unavoidable’; for example, by conducting deep cleaning between species or using
separate production lines. The difference between these two subsets was therefore the extent
to which they accepted carryover and felt that industry could and should adapt to avoid it.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
21
"I think it’s down to trust. I think the consumers lost trust with what’s been put into our
food, so I think it’s come down to the fact that people want to know exactly what’s in
their food." (Male participant, Bridgend)
This concept of adapting industry practices raised the idea of using labelling to differentiate
products that do/do not contain carryover. One suggestion from participants was to
introduce a label or quality mark for products that were guaranteed not to contain carryover –
whether that be through use of separate production lines or undertaking deep cleans between
species. Participants recognised that this would result in higher prices for such products, but
felt this was an acceptable way to provide consumer choice. Introducing choice was
particularly important for those who remained concerned about carryover. For these people,
the presence of carryover highlighted their lack of control over what they were consuming, so
any way to address this was preferable to the current situation.
"If it was labelled and I pick something up and it told me it had blah blah blah in it,
then it’s up to me if I take it home and eat it. If I don’t want to because it’s telling me
truthfully what’s in it then that’s my choice." (Female participant, Glasgow)
“You can put what you like in it as long as you label is clearly as exactly what’s in it,
then I have the choice whether I want to eat it or not." (Female participant, Greenwich)
In contrast, those who were more accepting of carryover saw a kite mark as a positive label,
identifying good rather than bad practice. It would allow those who were sufficiently concerned
to choose to avoid carryover, whilst not unnecessarily scaring those who were not concerned.
What was not discussed in any great detail was whether differentiating products in this way
could be considered unfair for those on lower incomes who may not be able to afford higher
priced products that could guarantee no carryover.
Despite this mixed response to labelling, there was a general consensus that people wanted
greater transparency about processing practices more broadly. This was even true of
those who didn’t want to engage with the information themselves, either because it was offputting or too complex. This need for greater transparency related primarily to people’s
cynicism about the motives and practices of the food industry. As noted above, the horsemeat
incident (and other food scares) had reinforced participants’ mistrust of the food industry;
specifically, that businesses are driven by profit to the detriment of respecting consumer
values and expectations. Greater transparency about how the food industry operates and how
it is regulated would ensure better oversight, encouraging industry to adopt practices that are
palatable for consumers. For those who were more accepting of carryover, greater
transparency would also help to avoid misperceptions about the issue and, if necessary, allow
people to properly engage with labelling. This was particularly important to address any
potential media sensationalism or misrepresentation in light of the test results when they are
released to the public.
“Perhaps if everybody understood the same as we do now, they wouldn’t be so worried
about it." (Female participant, Bridgend)
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
22
"I always think that the education is more important than the labelling" (Female
participant, Greenwich)
4.2
Changes to regulation, guidance and oversight
Participants accepted that regulation should continue to prioritise consumer safety. This was
acknowledged by participants to be their own priority. However, this did not mean that
consumer values and preferences should not also be respected by regulators and the food
industry.
Certain information provided during the discussions particularly jarred with people’s values and
expectations; specifically, that processing plants were not required to clean their machinery
between species of red meat, and that inspection by regulators typically only took place every
six months. The former was felt to be poor practice, despite clarification that this was not
considered a safety concern by either industry or regulators. The reason it felt wrong to
participants was that it jarred with their own behaviour – washing surfaces between species
was something that consumers expected to do in their own homes – and the mental image of
‘dirty’ machinery was unappealing. In light of this, people suggested changes to the way the
food industry operates and is regulated.
In relation to washing between species, participants suggested that good practice guidance
should be changed to ensure that plants were required to at least conduct a water (or
‘interim’) wash between species. Whilst this would not necessarily prevent carryover, it at least
showed an attempt to reduce it and reflected the minimum that consumers would expect to do
themselves. Regulators would then be expected use this guidance to assess how well plants
were performing and therefore how frequently they should be monitored.
Linked to this point, people wanted processing plants to be subject to more frequent
inspections and monitoring. It seemed unbalanced that abattoir regulation appeared to be
significantly more intense than that of meat processing, particularly given that plants
frequently use meat imported from outside the UK, which was perceived to be subject to lower
levels of regulation. Further oversight and inspections carried out by food retailers was not
considered to be equivalent to formal government regulation.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
23
5. Conclusions
In this section, we provide an overview of the findings and consider any implications this may
have for the FSA.
5.1
Conclusions
It was clear from these discussions that people find the subject of processed meat unappealing
and difficult to engage with, even those who regularly consume processed meat products. In
part, this reflects the fact that processing takes place out of sight of consumers – while it is not
necessarily ‘hidden’ (as described by some participants) it is certainly not seen or fully
understood or transparent. To some extent, this is desirable. Indeed, people admitted that
they avoid thinking about meat processing as they are aware it is likely to be off-putting and
unpalatable. However, consumers want to believe that food is produced in a way that they
would consider 'normal' (i.e. similar to how they would make it at home) but because food
production happens in a 'black box' they depend on the government or food regulators to
monitor industry to ensure their practices are acceptable to the public.
This position is challenged when people are forced to think about meat processing; for
example, in light of the horsemeat incident, and when taking part in these discussions about
trace DNA. Reactions to these situations varied considerably – from those who stopped
consuming processed meat, to those who preferred to avoid thinking about it too deeply (once
reassured that it was not a safety concern). These varied reactions were driven by differing
views about how unpalatable the concept of carryover was, and the extent to which people’s
trust in industry and regulators had been undermined by recent events.
Ultimately, the presence of carryover made sense to people when explained. Yet these two
themes (unpalatable carryover; and, trust in industry and regulators) continued to divide
opinions about acceptability of carryover and what should happen next. To some extent, views
became more polarised over the course of the research, as people were exposed to more
information about current processing and cleaning practices.
It is important to note that people contradicted themselves repeatedly throughout the
research; and indeed, acknowledged that they were doing so. They frequently changed their
views about what they were worried about in relation to carryover; for example, health and
safety, fraudulent practices, industry complacency, protecting consumer values. They also
fluctuated in their views about how they wanted to be informed about this issue – such as
through product labelling or information about industry practices – and whether they were
likely to engage with this information. This suggests that people were struggling to deal with
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
24
the subject, either because it became increasingly complex as more information was provided
or simply more unappealing. The fact that people appeared to be swayed by different sources
of information underlines that it is not a straightforward topic for people to debate, and that
we may be asking them to make a decision about acceptability that is simply too difficult to
make.
However, this does not mean that there are no conclusions to be drawn from this research.
Indeed, there was broad consensus about the need for greater scrutiny and transparency of
the food industry – both to minimise carryover, and to ensure practices match consumer
expectations and values. The implications of this research for the FSA are considered in the
following section.
5.2
Implications for FSA role
Potential implications for the FSA from this research are outlined in relation to three areas:
• Informing the public
• Changes to regulation, guidance and oversight
• Responses to future food-related incidents
As noted above, no single approach emerged in relation to informing the public about
carryover. In particular, product labelling was hotly debated – with views differing according to
how unpalatable people found carryover to be, and the extent to which they trusted industry
and regulators. Opinions ranged from ‘label everything’ to people only wanting to be told about
levels of carryover above 1% (the point at which it would have to labelled as an ingredient
under current legislation). This was underpinned by an assumption that labelling influences
behaviour and drives up standards through consumer purchasing power. Positive labelling (e.g.
a kitemark) gave the impression of consumer choice but may not have the same impact on
poor performing manufacturers. If the primary driver for labelling is ensuring high standards,
it may be worth exploring what other levers may be required.
Views were more unified about having greater transparency of the food industry and how
it is regulated. Even for those people who admitted they were unlikely to engage with this
information, any form of transparency was deemed to be beneficial to help drive standards in
industry. Neutral and balanced information about how carryover occurs was also felt to be
important to prevent any sensationalism or misrepresentation by the media. This was a
concern for participants when thinking about how people who had not been exposed to the
same information might react to news about the carryover test results. In particular,
participants were aware that the general public were likely to confuse carryover with
fraudulent activity, as they had done themselves initially. There was a sense, therefore, that
the FSA needed to provide information to balance any possible misconceptions.
People were also more unified in their views about what should happen in relation to
regulation, guidance and oversight. Protecting the public’s health was the primary concern,
and should remain the priority for regulation. Indeed, people wanted closer scrutiny of the food
industry to ensure compliance, comprising more frequent inspections and better intelligence
gathering. However, there was also a disconnect between the regulator’s role to ensure safety
and protect consumer values. People wanted an independent body to protect their values and
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
25
interests and ensure practices better reflect consumer expectations. Therefore people called
for more stringent guidance to industry over how to minimise carryover; specifically, requiring
processing plants to carry out at least interim (or water) washes between red meat species.
Finally, it was clear that people wanted an improved response to future food-related
incidents. This was primarily related to the horsemeat incident, rather than a direct
consequence of carryover; although as noted above, the two issues were closely related in
people’s minds. There was a sense that the horsemeat incident had not been handled
sufficiently by government. As noted previously, the official response was seen as slow and
confused, with spokespeople passing the blame between different bodies. There was a
suspicion that government had ‘turned a blind eye’ to the issue for a long time, had not been
transparent – ‘only telling us what they want us to know’ – and only reacted when it was
picked up by the media. The subsequent media reaction was felt to have been ‘blown up’ and
‘sensationalised’, which made it difficult for people to judge how concerned they should
actually be about the issue. Overwhelmingly, people wanted the FSA to be transparent about
issues like this, providing a timely, balanced response. There was also a sense that the
aftermath of food incidents provided a good opportunity for the FSA to clarify food and
regulation processes and test consumer views, given that people were more likely to engage
with such issues at these points.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
26
6. Appendices
6.1
Method, recruitment and sampling
Twelve workshops were conducted, each re-convened over two waves in the first instance –
held in Glasgow, Bridgend, Belfast, Leeds, Nottingham and Greenwich (two groups per
location). These two waves took place between February and March 2013. Each workshop
comprised a group of approximately 10 participants, and discussions in each wave lasted 90
minutes. Locations were selected to include a geographical spread across England and the
devolved nations, and to ensure we were able to recruit participants from locations that had
the widest possible shopping options. This latter consideration was to avoid areas that were
restricted in terms of retailers that were more or less directly associated with the horsemeat
incident.
The sample profile of each group sought to reflect the local population in each location,
including a spread of gender, age, and ethnicity (see breakdown below). They also included a
split in terms of how frequently participants consumed processed meat products. As noted
above, this research did not seek to explore any religious or cultural issues relating to
contaminated meat products. With this in mind, the sample excluded people who followed
dietary rules linked to their religious or cultural beliefs.
Following the first two waves of discussions, a final wave was convened in London and
comprised a single event with 50 participants selected from those who had taken part in the
previous waves. Once again, the sample was mixed to include a broad spread of all variables
(see breakdown below).
The recruitment was managed by TNS BMRB’s in-house qualitative field team. Field managers
were fully briefed on the project and provided with detailed recruitment instructions and a
screening questionnaire in order for the recruiter to assess participants’ eligibility to take part
in the research. All recruiters are members of IQCS (Interviewers Quality Control Scheme),
adhere to MRS guidelines at all times, and have signed data security agreements in line with
ISO27001 the data accreditation held by TNS BMRB.
Participants were identified using ‘free-find’ techniques, where contacts are identified using ‘on
the street’ recruitment. Following recruitment, all sample details were verified by our internal
team.
All discussions were moderated by independent facilitators, and representatives from the FSA
were on hand to answer questions and help clarify any areas of uncertainty. Stimulus materials
and expert presentations from the FSA, industry representatives, and LGC were used to
encourage discussion and provoke debate. The findings were subject to full analysis, which
forms the basis for this report.
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
27
A full sample breakdown across the three waves is provided below.
Waves 1&2 sample breakdown:
Gp
Area (total)
Gender
Age
SEG
Ethnicity
Frequency of
processed meat
consumption
1
Belfast: 10
Male: 5
Female: 5
18-24: 3
35-54: 2
55+: 5
ABC1: 10
White: 10
Not regularly: 10
Male: 6
Female: 3
18-24: 2
35-54: 4
55+: 3
C2DE: 9
White: 9
Regularly: 9
Male: 5
Female: 5
18-24: 3
35-54: 4
55+: 3
ABC1: 10
White: 10
Regularly: 4
Not regularly: 6
Male: 5
Female: 5
18-24: 3
35-54: 4
55+: 3
C2DE: 10
White: 10
Regularly: 5
Not regularly: 5
Male: 4
Female: 4
18-24: 2
35-54: 3
55+: 3
C2DE: 8
White: 6
Non-white: 2
Regularly: 4
Not regularly: 4
Male: 5
Female: 4
18-24: 3
35-54: 4
55+: 2
ABC1: 9
White: 7
Non-white: 2
Regularly: 5
Not regularly: 4
Male: 5
Female: 5
18-24: 3
35-54: 4
55+: 3
ABC1: 10
White: 8
Non-white: 2
Regularly: 5
Not regularly: 5
Male: 4
Female: 5
18-24: 2
35-54: 3
55+: 4
C2DE: 9
White: 7
Non-white: 2
Regularly: 6
Not regularly: 3
Male: 4
Female: 5
18-24: 3
35-54: 2
55+: 4
ABC1: 9
White: 8
Non-white: 1
Not regularly: 9
Male: 4
Female: 5
18-24: 2
35-54: 4
55+: 3
C2DE: 9
White: 9
Regularly: 9
Male: 5
Female: 4
18-24: 2
35-54: 4
55+: 3
C2DE: 9
White: 8
Non-white: 1
Not regularly: 9
Male: 6
Female: 4
18-24: 4
35-54: 3
55+: 3
ABC1: 10
White: 8
Non-white: 2
Regularly: 10
Male: 58
Female: 54
18-24: 32
35-54: 41
55+: 39
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Belfast: 9
Bridgend: 10
Bridgend: 10
Greenwich: 8
Greenwich: 9
Glasgow: 10
Glasgow: 9
Nottingham: 9
Nottingham: 9
Leeds: 9
Leeds: 10
TOTAL: 112
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
ABC1: 58
C2DE: 54
White: 100
Non-white:
12
Regularly: 57
Not regularly: 55
28
Wave 3 sample breakdown:
Area (total)
Gender
Age
SEG
Ethnicity
Frequency of
processed meat
consumption
Belfast: 6
Male: 3
Female: 3
18-24: 2
35-54: 2
55+: 2
ABC1: 4
C2DE: 2
White: 6
Non-white: 0
Regularly: 2
Not regularly: 4
Bridgend: 8
Male: 5
Female: 3
18-24: 1
35-54: 3
55+: 4
ABC1: 4
C2DE: 4
White: 8
Non-white: 0
Regularly: 4
Not regularly: 4
Glasgow: 7
Male: 2
Female: 5
18-24: 2
35-54: 2
55+: 3
ABC1: 6
C2DE: 1
White: 5
Non-white: 2
Regularly: 1
Not regularly: 6
Leeds: 10
Male: 5
Female: 5
18-24: 4
35-54: 5
55+: 1
ABC1: 7
C2DE: 3
White: 9
Non-white: 1
Regularly: 7
Not regularly: 3
Greenwich:
5
Male: 3
Female: 2
18-24: 2
35-54: 0
55+: 3
ABC1: 3
C2DE: 2
White: 3
Non-white: 2
Regularly: 4
Not regularly: 1
Nottingham:
14
Male: 5
Female: 9
18-24: 4
35-54: 4
55+: 6
ABC1: 5
C2DE: 9
White: 13
Non-white: 1
Regularly: 6
Not regularly: 8
TOTAL: 50
Male: 23
Female: 27
18-24: 15
35-54: 16
55+: 19
ABC1: 29
C2DE: 21
White: 44
Non-white:
6
Regularly: 24
Not regularly: 26
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
29
6.2
Wave 1 topic guide
FSA Citizens Forums: Acceptability of DNA trace
Topic guide (wave 1)
Objectives
The aim of this research is to explore public attitudes to trace amounts of unlabelled animal
species in processed meat products; specifically, to:
• Establish consumer acceptability of DNA trace in processed food
• Determine if consumer trust in the food chain is undermined by the results of recent
tests
• Understand consumer expectations of the FSA as a regulator
The objectives of this first wave of discussions are to:
• Allow people to air their views about the wider horsemeat incident (section 2)
• Provide space for them to frame their own views / information needs about trace DNA
(section 3)
• Understand people’s initial views about acceptability of trace DNA and what these views
are based on (section 4)
• Start people thinking about the complexity of the food industry and testing approach in
preparation for the second wave of discussion (section 4)
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
30
Key Questions
Stimulus/
tasks
Approx
timing
1. Introduction
15 mins
1.1 Introduction
 Introduce research – a study of public views on processed
meat; part of an ongoing dialogue with the public on food
for FSA
 Introduce TNS BMRB – independent research company;
research carried out on behalf of FSA
 Confidentiality – their views will be used, but not
identifiable
 Recording – recordings only available to the research team
 Length of discussion approx. 90mins
5 mins
5 mins
1.2 FSA representative: Introduce FSA; reiterate purpose of the
forums; take points of clarification about research process
5 mins
1.3 Group introductions and icebreaker
 Participants introduce themselves to the group
o Name
o Who they live with – partner; number / age of
children
o What they do – work or hobbies
 Icebreakers:
o What did you have for supper last night? (e.g. shop
bought lasagne, restaurant curry, homemade roast)
o How often do you buy processed meat/ready meals?
15 mins
2. Views / experiences of the recent horsemeat incident
Note to moderator: The aim of this section is to allow space for
participants to express their views about the wider horsemeat
incident
2.1


Awareness of the horsemeat incident
What do you know about the horsemeat incident;
spontaneous views
What do you think is behind the issue; spontaneous, prompt
if necessary:
o Fraud
o Demand for low cost processed food
o Lax regulation
o Profit driven food producers
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
Note words /
phrases on
flipchart
5 mins
31


Where did you hear about the horsemeat incident; what
channels – friends; news; papers
How do you feel the issue has been handled so far
o By the food industry
o By government
Note to researcher: Only explore spontaneous views for
now. This will be explored in greater depth in the next
session.
2.2


Concerns about the horsemeat incident
What concerns, if any, do you have about the horsemeat
incident; spontaneous, prompt if necessary:
o Safety of horsemeat (e.g. Bute)
o Confidence in food production
o Confidence in food labelling
o Confidence in food regulation
What specifically prompted these concerns
Note to researcher: Use STIMULUS A to prompt what
developments in the horsemeat incident sparked people’s
concerns – e.g. quantity of horsemeat found; links to
particular retailers; inclusion of other animal products;
location of the contamination

10 mins
STIMULUS A:
Simplified
timeline of
horsemeat
incident
o Did your views / concerns change over time
What impact, if any, have these concerns had on your
o Confidence in food production (e.g. processed meat
products, provenance of food products)
o Purchasing / consumption behavior
o Views about the food industry
o Views about government / regulators
3. Initial reactions to presence of ‘trace DNA’
Explain that many of the examples discussed so far have been about
high quantities of unlabelled meat from other species. This is NOT
the focus of tonight’s discussion. Rather we would like to explore
people’s views about trace amounts of unlabelled animal species
being found through DNA testing. Before we explain how this is
defined by the FSA, we would like to understand what questions you
might have, and what you would like to know in order to tell FSA
what you would like to happen.
3.1

Initial views about ‘trace amounts of DNA’
What do you understand by the phrase ‘trace amounts of
DNA’
o What is a ‘trace amount’; does this link to a specific
amount / proportion – provide examples
o What do you understand DNA to mean
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
20 mins
`
STIMULUS B:
Card repeating
this
explanation –
may need to
refer back to
this
throughout
discussions
10 mins
Note on
flipchart
32

3.2

Views about trace amounts of DNA from unlabelled animal
species being found in products
o How do you feel about it
 How, if at all, does this differ from cases where
the 60-100% horsemeat was found
o Is it acceptable; why / why not
 Is there a specific amount/proportion that is
ever acceptable (refer back to their definition
of ‘trace amount’)
 Is it more / less acceptable than finding 60100% unlabelled meat in products; in what
way, why
o Does it matter what animal species it is – for example,
is it more / less acceptable to find unlabelled
horsemeat or lamb in a beef burger; in what way, why
o Does it matter who the consumer is – children,
vulnerable people, people with special diets [NB if
necessary, explain that engagement with these groups
is being undertaken; therefore we are not exploring
this issue as part of this study]
Information needs about trace DNA
What information do you want to receive in order to make a
judgment about what is and is not acceptable; spontaneous,
then prompt if necessary:
10 mins
Note to researcher: Reiterate that we will attempt to
respond to these points in the next session, rather than
answering them now
o
o
o
o
o
o
Why would trace amounts of unlabelled animal species
be present (how is meat processed, and how can
horse get into the food supply chain)
What makes it more / less likely for trace DNA to be
present (where is food processed)
Is there a legal amount
What is deemed to be scientifically acceptable and
why (what would FSA expect to find)
Is there a safety issue
What are the consequences of testing (what happens
when something is detected)
Note to researcher: Reiterate that we will explore these
issues as part of the next session.
4. Expectations – meat processing and testing
30 mins
4.1.

5 mins
Knowledge of how meat is processed
What do you know about how meat is processed from farm to
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
33
shelf; spontaneous views
4.2.





4.3.





EXERCISE: ‘Farm to shelf’ food journey
Split people into groups of 2-3
Handout STIMULUS C – blank food journey maps (farm to
shelf) [NB There are two journeys, distribute them evenly –
one wholly UK product; one European product]
Ask people to plot food journey for their product
o There are a number of stages (across the UK/ across a
number of countries for European example) what do
you think these are
o Think of as many as you can and draw out the journey
meat goes on from the farm to the shelf
Feedback – ask groups to present their journeys
o Have you thought about food journeys before
o If so, how does this journey compare to your
expectations
Handout completed food journey for their product
o How does this compare to your food journey; anything
surprising / different
o How did this exercise make you feel about the food
supply chain; is it more / less complicated than you
anticipated
Understanding and expectations of DNA testing
What testing do you think processed meat products are
subject to; prompt if necessary
o Type of testing – DNA, other
o Quantity – what proportion is tested
o Frequency – how often are products tested
How does this differ to unprocessed meat products (e.g.
whole chickens, cuts of meat in the supermarket); if
necessary, refer back to exercise to prompt
For whom is the testing done; spontaneous, then prompt:
o Supplier
o Retailer
o Manufacturer
o Regulator
o Processor
o Trade bodies
What do you think regulators should be testing for and why
o Safety concerns
o Accurate labeling
o Other
Does this raise any more questions for you about what is / is
not acceptable
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
STIMULUS C:
blank (and
completed)
food journeys,
a) UK burger,
b) European
meatballs
20 mins
5 mins
34
10 mins
5. Summary of views / questions

Overall, how do you feel now about the presence of trace
DNA of unlabelled animal species in processed meat products
o Is it acceptable / unacceptable
 If unacceptable, are there any circumstances /
amounts where it is less so (e.g. below a
certain quantity – if so, specify)
o Have your views changed over the course of the
discussion; if so, how / why

What expectations do you have for what should be done
about this; and who should be doing it
o Actions directed at the food industry – testing,
monitoring, enforcement
o Actions directed at consumers – information,
protection
 Anything else you would like to add
Explain to respondents that this will be explored in the wave 2.
TASK BETWEEN WAVES TBC
Handout scrapbook / interview sheet and explain ‘homework’ task
[NB There are two options – use Stimulus D with the first group of
the evening, and Stimulus E with the second group of the
evening]:
• Scrapbook (STIMULUS D) – collate stories from the
media, what did you find interesting / reassuring;
collecting thoughts about whether the discussion today
affected their views about buying / consuming processed
meat products – why / why not; what questions did they
want answered about specific products
• Interview sheet (STIMULUS E) – speak friends and
family about trace amounts of DNA; whether this is any
more acceptable than higher quantities of unlabelled
animal DNA
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
STIMULUS
D
and E:
Scrapbook;
interview sheet
35
6.3
Wave 1 stimulus
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
36
6.4
Wave 2 topic guide
FSA Citizens Forums: Acceptability of DNA trace
Topic guide (wave 2)
Objectives
The aim of this research is to explore public attitudes to trace amounts of unlabelled animal
species in processed meat products; specifically, to:
• Establish consumer acceptability of DNA trace in processed food
• Determine if consumer trust in the food chain is undermined by the results of recent
tests
• Understand consumer expectations of the FSA as a regulator
The objectives of this second wave of discussions are to:
• Collect views on Trace DNA following a period of reflection / deliberation (Section 1)
• Provide information and FSA / consumer watchdog perspective on Trace DNA in
response to consumer queries from W1 (section 2)
• Use deliberative approach to collect views about acceptability of trace, expectations of
regulation, oversight and enforcement pre and post information and discussion.
(sections 2, 3, 4)
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
37
Key Questions
Stimulus/
tasks
Approx
timing
1. Introduction
15 mins
1.1 Introduction
 Remind respondents of focus of research – public views
about the acceptability of Trace DNA of unlabelled species
in processed meat products; part of an ongoing dialogue
with the public on food for FSA
 Introduce TNS BMRB – independent research company;
research carried out on behalf of FSA
 Confidentiality – their views will be used, but not
identifiable
 Recording – recordings only available to the research team
 Length of discussion approx. 90mins
5 mins
Note to researcher – ensure that respondents are reminded
throughout that focus of discussion is on TRACE DNA in
PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS
1.2 FSA representative: Introduce FSA; reiterate purpose of the
forums; take points of clarification about research process
5 mins
1.3 Group introductions and homework task
 Participants re-introduce themselves to the group
o First name and something new / interesting you
thought / heard about Trace DNA since W1
Discussion of homework task:
o Thinking about what you / others have heard /
thought about Trace DNA since the last wave is
there anything that has changed your views since
last time?
Probe on:
• Whether trace DNA is different from large
amounts of horsemeat
• How trace may arise in farm to shelf process
• Regulation / enforcement
• Testing for trace DNA
• Who should be responsible for testing for trace
DNA
Recap of W1 – Hand out and read through the Recap of W1
• Explore whether views have moved on since wave 1
Probe on
• What 'Trace DNA' means
• What should be labelled

DNA Trace © TNS 2012
HANDOUT 1
– Recap of W1
5mins
38
15 mins
2. Unprompted views about acceptability of DNA
Explain that we now want to collect your views about at what point
(i.e. at what percentage) trace amounts of DNA should be labelled.
So if they think all trace DNA should be labelled they put their
crosses at 0 but if they think certain amounts are ok without
appearing on the label then mark this on the scale (providing
specific percentages/amounts)
2.1
Exercise to capture unprompted views about trace
Note to researcher: Handout and read through
HANDOUT 2 - Thinking about the meat in a burger, how
much unlabelled DNA trace of other animal species is
acceptable?
5 mins
HANDOUT 2:
Individual
scale exercise
5 mins
Draw out scale
on Flip chart
Participants to complete individually, then moderator
to go around the group, marking all the points on a
combined scale on flipchart.

2.2
Probe on highest 3, then lowest 3 then middle 3 / 4
o Why is it necessary to label trace amounts of DNA
above this amount
o Should the term 'trace' be used
o What amount can be called ‘trace’ and what needs
to be given a %
o What impact would labelling 'trace' DNA have on what
processed food you bought; what reaction might other
people have
Reminder of question themes
Note to researcher: Explain to respondents that in the
next section we have collected views from the FSA about
Trace DNA in processed meats. We have asked them to
respond to questions raised in 12 groups across 6 locations.
These questions were largely
- What is trace DNA
- How does FSA define trace DNA / what they think is
acceptable
- How trace DNA occurs during meat processing
- Is Trace DNA safe
- What testing / controls / enforcement is in place
- Who carries out tests for DNA from other species
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
5 mins
Note themes
on flip chart
paper and
stick to wall
for reference
during groups
39
3. Definition of trace and how it occurs
Explain that we will now watch a short video where we posed some
of the questions in the previous wave to FSA. We asked them about
how the FSA defines trace, how trace DNA occurs during meat
processing and how they test for trace DNA.
3.1



Response to the video 1: Answers to some of your
questions
What stood out for you from the information discussed
Probe on
• Definition of trace as 1%
• DNA testing can only identify one species at a time
• How trace occurs – via carryover
• Sensitivity of DNA testing
What concerns did the video alleviate
What new concerns did the video raise
Explain that we will now watch a short video where FSA reps explain
their position on the issue of trace, including who should be
responsible for testing, what the FSA’s role is and what they think
should happen now
3.2
Response to video 2: Views about FSA response to
Trace DNA
• How does this compare to their expectations of the FSA's
role
Probe on:
o Industry responsibility for testing
o FSAs role as enforcer
o Need to determine an acceptable level of trace
from consumers perspective
25 mins
`
VIDEO 1
(Film 2 on
DVD) What is
trace, how it
occurs and
testing
regimes
Video 2 –
Film 2 on
DVD FSA
response to
Trace DNA
6 mins
10 mins
4 mins
5 mins
4. Acceptability of Trace
25 mins
4.1 Impact of info / videos on views about acceptability of
trace amounts of DNA from other species
 Is the presence of trace amounts of DNA from other species
more or less acceptable to you now; reasons why / why not
 Have views about labelling of trace amounts of DNA from
other species changed at all
 What does this mean for consumers
Probe on:
• Confidence when buying processed foods
10 mins
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
40

4.2


4.3
• Trust in food industry / regulators
• Trust in testing regime
• What foods consumers buy
What does this mean for regulators
Probe on:
• What they should tell consumers
• How they should monitor / test for trace DNA
• How they label trace DNA
Trade off re no trace
What do you think would be the impact on consumers if the
food industry were to take measures to remove all trace;
explore spontaneously; then probe re cost, quality, more
responsible food industry
Explain that removing all trace is likely to involve an
overhaul of the way meat is processed, and could result in
more expensive products
If it was more expensive, how much more would you / other
consumers by willing to pay for processed foods that do not
contain trace DNA of other animal species
5 mins
Exercise to capture informed views about trace
10mins
Note to researcher: Explain that we would like to repeat
the exercise about how much unlabelled trace DNA is
acceptable in processed meat products.
Handout and read through HANDOUT 3 - Thinking about
the meat in a burger, how much unlabelled DNA trace of
other animal species is acceptable?
HANDOUT 3:
individual
scale exercise
Explain that this time the scale is limited from 0%-1%; this
is to reflect the current FSA position that above 1%
unlabelled DNA trace is unacceptable.
Participants to complete individually, then moderator
to go around the group, marking all the points on a
combined scale on flipchart.

Probe on highest 3, then lowest 3, then middle 3 / 4
o Why is it necessary to label trace amounts of DNA
above this amount
o Should the term 'trace' be used
o What amount can be called ‘trace’ and what needs
to be given a %
o What impact would labelling 'trace' DNA have on what
processed food you bought; what reaction might other
people have
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
41
10 mins
5. Summary of views / questions
5.1 Reflections
• How do you feel now about the presence of trace DNA of
unlabelled animal species in processed meat products
o Is it acceptable / unacceptable
 If unacceptable, are there any circumstances /
amounts where it is less so (e.g. below a
certain quantity – if so, specify)
o Have your views changed over the course of the
discussion; if so, how / why
5.2

What expectations do you have for what should be done
about this; and who should be doing it
o Actions directed at the food industry – testing,
monitoring, enforcement
o Actions directed at consumers – information,
protection

What are the top three things you feel are most important
to be fed back to the Food Standards Agency about this
issue?

Anything else you would like to add
Tell respondents about the next wave of fieldwork
Explain that we are hoping to hold an event in London to explore
these issues further.
The event will take place on the afternoon of Saturday 27th April
A range of stakeholders will be present to discuss what should
happen in the future regarding trace DNA.
We are inviting 50 people from around the UK (so we only need 4 or
5 from each group). All travel and expenses would be covered, and
you would receive a thank you payment of £TBC
If you think you would be interested please ask me for details of
who to contact
THANK AND CLOSE
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
42
6.5
Wave 2 stimulus
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
43
6.6
Wave 3 topic guide
FSA Citizens Forums: Acceptability of DNA trace
Event plan (wave 3)
Objectives
The aim of this research is to explore public attitudes to trace amounts of unlabelled animal
species in processed meat products; specifically, to:
• Establish consumer acceptability of DNA trace in processed food
• Determine if consumer trust in the food chain is undermined by the results of recent
tests
• Understand consumer expectations of the FSA as a regulator
The objectives of this third wave are to:
• Establish whether there is a level of ‘unavoidable other species DNA trace’ in processed
meat that is acceptable to be present without being labelled
• Understand how and why consumers have reached their decisions
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
44
Time
Key Questions
1.30 –
2pm
Arrival and registration
• Name badges and registration
• Table allocation
• Sandwiches, coffee, tea and refreshments in lobby area
2pm
4. Introductions – PLENARY
2.10
Stimulus/
tasks
Approx
timing
10 mins
1.1 Introduction by CHAIR (Stephen Humphreys)
 Background to the event – exploring public views about
the acceptability of Trace DNA of unlabelled species in
processed meat products; part of an ongoing dialogue with
the public on food for FSA
 Purpose of third wave – to provide more precise
information about ‘unavoidable carry-over’ of different
species in processed meat and what can be done to
minimise contamination in practice; explore people’s views
about acceptability in light of this
o Reiterate that this discussion will not cover fraud cases,
where high quantities of unlabelled meat from other
species was found in processed meat products
o Incl. limitations of this research – EU labelling
restrictions; religious diets being considered elsewhere
 Explain role of participants in informing policy
decisions
 Introduce observers / experts – explain who they are
and their roles during the day
Title slide
5 mins
1.2 Introduction by TNS BMRB
 Introduce TNS BMRB – independent research company
 Research carried out on behalf of FSA
 Ground rules for discussions
 Confidentiality – their views will be used, but not
identifiable
 Recording – recordings only available to the research team
 Housekeeping
o Toilets
o Smoking
o Fire exits / security
o Refreshments
 Introduce agenda for the afternoon
Introduction
slides
5 mins
5. Recap on previous discussions – PLENARY TNS
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
5 mins
45
CHAIR / TNS BMRB (TBC) to explain that we are now going to clarify
and review some of the issues covered before, and provide a
summary of the findings from previous discussions
5.1
2.20
Presentation by TNS BMRB providing summary of
W1&2 findings
Summary
slides
6. Change of views since W2 – SMALL GROUPS TNS
5 mins
25 mins
`
6.1

6.2





6.3



2.45
Introductions
Participants introduce themselves – name and where they've
come from today
5 mins
Reflections on W1&2 findings
Handout and read through STIMULUS A (summary of
findings from W1&2)
Reactions – anything missing; any points of agreement /
disagreement
How far do the findings reflect what you feel is most
important about the issue of DNA trace
Have your views changed at all since the previous wave; in
what way
What are your priorities going forward
STIMULUS A:
1 page
summary of
findings
10 mins
Views on the three positions (from W1&2)
Handout and explain STIMULUS B (three positions from
previous discussions – label everything; label avoidable
trace; just tell me once)
Reflections on previous positions; why did you hold this view
Have your views changed at all since the previous wave; in
what way and why – what prompted your views to shift
STIMULUS B:
1 page visual
representation
of positions
10 mins
4. What is unavoidable trace? – PLENARY STEPHEN H
40 mins
CHAIR or TNS BMRB (TBC): Explain that we are now going to hear
more detail about what FSA is doing to better understand
unavoidable carry-over of different species in processed meat
products, and what can be done to minimise carry-over in practice.
This will take the form of three presentations from different parties
and a short film. There will be opportunities to ask questions
throughout. Introduce first presenter (John Barnes, FSA).
4.1
Presentation: FSA context for testing (John Barnes)
Why FSA commissioned testing to establish levels of
unavoidable trace
 Q&A session (clarifications only)
Slides
5 mins

DNA Trace © TNS 2012
46
STEPHEN Explain that we will now watch a short film outlining how
a meat processing plant operates, including the cleaning process
4.2
Film: Meat processing plant
 Processing meat
 Washing machinery
FILM: meat
processing
plant
5 mins
Slides
10 mins
STEPHEN Introduce second presenter (Selvarani Elahi, LGC)
4.3
Presentation: Government Scientist on testing
undertaken to establish unavoidable trace (Selvarani
Elahi, LGC)
 What was tested and why (incl. trace levels after no cleaning,
full clean, interim clean)
 Results of testing
 Accuracy of test results below 0.1% and what this means for
regulation
4.4

Question and answer session – led by TNS BMRB
Clarification questions only
5 mins
STEPHEN Introduce third presenter (Stuart Roberts, APB UK)
4.5
Presentation: Industry representative outlining
implications of test results (Stuart Roberts, APB UK)
 Trade offs required to meet target for unavoidable trace
levels – including: cost to industry / consumers of running
full clean after every processing run; sustainability impacts
(use of cleaning products); any other trade offs (TBC)
 Viability and cost of achieving zero trace – including: issues
about using separate one species processing plants
4.6

4.6
5 mins
Question and answer session – led by TNS BMRB
Clarification questions only
STEPHEN - Implications for FSA
Next steps – forthcoming Board meeting
Implications for FSA work with industry (guidance, best
practice, standards setting)
 Implications for regulation and enforcement
 Implications for consumer communication
 Implications for Defra (labelling of trace DNA)
5 mins


4.7

Title slide only
5 mins
Question and answer session – led by TNS BMRB
Clarification questions only
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
47
3.25
BREAK
15 mins
3.40
5. Acceptability of DNA trace – SMALL GROUPS TNS
60 mins
5.1






5.2





5.3
Reactions to information about testing
Handout and read through STIMULUS C (summary of key
learning from testing exercise)
Whether any of the information / findings was surprising
What are your views about the testing approach – risks,
experiments
What are your views about the level of unavoidable trace (the
results) – does it seem high / low; reasons for views
What are your views about the reliability of testing below
0.1%; how does this affect your views about the use of
testing
Has any of this information about testing had an impact on
your views about acceptability of unlabelled trace DNA; in
what way
o Impact on your views about the three positions – label
everything; label avoidable trace; just tell me once
STIMULUS C:
Summary of
key learning
from testing
exercise
Reactions to information about the food industry point
of view (FILM and INDUSTRY EXPERT)
Reactions to production and processing multiple species on
one line/day
Views about the cleaning regime – how does this compare to
your expectations; how does this make you feel about food
standards in meat processing
Views about trade offs industry would need to make to
achieve lowest possible trace DNA (e.g. full wash between
process runs) – cost to industry / consumers; sustainability
of increased use of cleaning agents
Views about trade offs industry would need to make to
achieve zero trace – cost to industry / consumers; whether
possible / insufficient demand for industry to attempt
Has any of this information about industry processes / trade
offs had an impact on your views about acceptability of
unlabelled trace DNA; in what way
o Impact on your views about the three positions – label
everything; label avoidable trace; just tell me once
o Views on confidence in the food chain
Reactions to information about FSA response to test
results
 Handout and read through STIMULUS E (summary of key
points from presentation)
 Views about implications of test results on FSA role – now
and in the future; what do you think FSA should do; what do
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
10 mins
10 mins
STIMULUS E:
Summary of
key points
from FSA
presentation
10 mins
48


5.4






5.5
4.40
you think about the suggestions outlined today
Views about labelling – anything above 0%; anything above
unavoidable level; have your views about this changed
Has any of this information about FSA response to the testing
had an impact on your views about acceptability of unlabelled
trace DNA; in what way
o Impact on your views about the three positions – label
everything; label avoidable trace; just tell me once
Impact on views about acceptability
Handout and explain STIMULUS F (scale showing
unavoidable <0.1% / avoidable >0.1% / non-compliant
>1%)
EXERCISE: Place stickers on scale to show minimum point at
which point you would expect trace DNA to be labelled
o Explore reasons for decisions
o How does this compare to what level of trace DNA you
would be willing to consume (for example, whether
you would eat a meal that you knew contained that
level of trace DNA)
How would you want quantities of trace DNA above this level
to be labelled
What impact do you think this labelling approach would have
on your food choices
What information do consumers need to make informed
choices about trace DNA (given that participants will have
received a lot of information at this point)
Explore whether views have changed in relation to labelling
since previous discussions – label everything; label what’s
unavoidable; just tell me once
Reflections on final messages
Moderator to take notes to feed back at the next plenary
session
 Decide as a group on what you feel is the key issue for
consumers in relation to trace DNA
 Decision on one key action that needs to happen within the
food industry (this could relate to either food manufacturers
or retailers)
 Decide on one key message for FSA
STIMULUS F:
Scale exercise;
stickers
20 mins
10 mins
6. Reflections and feedback – PLENARY Stephen H
20 mins
6.1
10 mins
Feedback from small groups – moderators to lead
 Key messages for food industry
 Key messages for FSA
 Biggest concerns for consumers
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
49
6.2
Reflections from experts on what they have heard over
the course of the afternoon
 Industry representative – Stuart Roberts, APB UK (5 mins)
 FSA representative – John Barnes / Selvarani Elahi / Liz
Breckenridge (5 min)
6.3


5pm
10 mins
CHAIR – Close event
Thank participants
Explain what will happen next from FSA point of view (i.e.
how the findings from these discussions will be used)
THANK AND CLOSE; hand out incentives
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
50
6.7
Wave 3 stimulus
DNA Trace © TNS 2012
51