Towards safer, local food environments: some thoughts on how to reframe the National Level Regulation debate by putting public health first?  

By Michael Eade[1] (Corresponding author: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) & Rob Couch[2], 14 October 2024

In September the Food Standards Agency (FSA) published their National Level Regulation (NLR) proposals, whereby many food businesses currently regulated by local authorities would instead operate through a form of self-regulation. Initially it is expected that the largest supermarket retailers would move into NLR, with intelligence (data) led oversight by the FSA replacing local authority intervention. In time, the NLR proposals outline expansion into other sectors, though the FSA Board 2024 have since suggested any changes would be gradual. In this brief window of policy opportunity, we offer readers some thoughts on how to reframe this debate and encourage all to get involved.   

How can we better value our current local authority model?    

Does the positioning of NLR as a response to inspection backlogs and workforce shortages provide an opportunity to communicate the many strengths of our current local authority model and its vital role in the wider public health system? Central to our model is the discretion of professionals, many with vast local knowledge, regulating using a wide range of interventions in response to the risks present. Inspections will vary in length; some might gather wider intelligence from businesses and communities that can be shared; some might involve education or persuasion, others more deterrent-based approaches to secure compliance. All this activity enables EHOs to tackle food inequalities and create safer environments. Recent research[3] also shows how local authority food inspection performance has actually been improving over time.

Whilst this core health protection work is largely preventive, the abilities of our local authority model to intervene early in response to complaints and outbreaks of infectious disease also illustrates our value as local public health professionals. Our current model also contributes to health improvements in many ways; for example, the utilisation of local intelligence on food businesses to inform planning policy around schools to create healthier food environments for children and young people. Therefore could the reframing of our local authority model using a public health lens, as Dhesi 2019[4] argues, help to improve our visibility and secure the long term investment we need?

How could we improve our current local authority model?       

The past direction of regulatory policy travel (e.g. the Hampton Report, primary authority (PAS) and the Regulatory Futures Review, Enterprise Level Regulation) suggests that the move towards more centralised, self-regulatory approaches continues. However, our public health defence of the current model co-exists with some key questions about its future improvement:  

How could the FSA play a greater role in coordinating food business intelligence for local authorities?

The NLR proposes that information would be managed by the FSA (as competent authority) who could then use it to segment and filter national level entities. Basic details relating to the remaining businesses would, presumably, continue to be collected and forwarded to local authorities. Several advantages of this intelligent, central system of registration handled include a nominal annual registration fee (with automated reminder) to provide accurate trader information and tackle the problems caused by home caterers, whilst head offices could manage many premises more easily.

However, local authorities would want assurances that the system was not going to undermine the current model of regulation. One argument used is that ‘premises’ are outdated in the context of a centrally controlled national corporation. This might hold some weight when examining certain elements (e.g. training policies, food labelling) but it fails to recognise many variables that will still require local intervention. Another relates to the proposed use of artificial intelligence by the FSA that could bring data efficiencies but result in worse food safety outcomes following the gradual de-humanisation of relationships. Therefore, how can intelligence be used to improve insight and support, rather than replace, professional interactions?

Is this an opportunity to review PAS and third-party assurance schemes?

The NLR Board Paper doesn’t mention these schemes but presents an opportunity to revisit their place in future regulatory models. Forthcoming research (Eade 2024[5]) shows that overall levels of trust and confidence in PAS from EHOs is low, including in those who act as primary authorities.  Concerns include the lack of transparency of the process, that the income generated fails to cover the costs of PAS or can result in local authorities effectively being captured by the business. The use of third-party certification has also been explored by the FSA as an alternative to Enterprise Level Regulation in the catering sectors. In 2023 the CIEH’s Food Advisory Panel expressed its support for such schemes and organisations like Safe-To-Trade are ready to deliver, their governance team including well-connected senior figures. However, one review[6] of third-party certification schemes for the FSA itself identified significant limitations to them as an alternative to local regulation. These included its historical origins in independent verification, not regulation; limited scope for advice beyond basic information; lack of systems to communicate common problems across similar premises; and potential vulnerabilities in data sharing between auditors and regulators. Without further research we therefore question whether PAS or third-party assurance schemes can deliver the levels of local health protection and improvement that our public needs?

Conclusion

We now find ourselves in a context where the wholesale reform of the food safety system is possible. We know the FSA wants intelligence informed regulation and that a fee-for-registration model has been suggested but many uncertainties about resourcing, PAS and third-party assurance schemes remain. Lord Blencathra stated during the recent FSA Board meeting that he did not wish to see solutions based purely on a digital-desktop process and emphasised the need for human input by experienced EHOs on the ground. We hope this briefing outlines a way to prioritise public health and create a system that the FSA, local authorities and EHOs can support. Here is an opportunity to detail our vision for the future as EHOs, to not just engage with the NLR debate but to take a lead on it. Maybe the answer lies in an approach that truly values our current local model, whilst recognising how intelligence could support and enhance, not replace, our front-line work?

[1] Local authority EHO, researcher and Head of the Food Hygiene | Healthy & Safety | Noise & Nuisance | Environmental Health Consultants | Encentre - Environmental Health - Encentre

[2] Local authority EHO, researcher and co-founder of the UK Environmental Health Research Network | Promoting research, publication and evidence-based environmental health (wordpress.com)

[3] Eade, M. (2023) EFFL - European Food and Feed Law Review: Food Hygiene Ratings: Could This Data Influence the Inspection Model for Retail and Catering Operations in England? (lexxion.eu)

[4] Dhesi, S. (2019) Tackling Health Inequalities: Reinventing the Role of Environmental He (routledge.com)

[5] Eade, M. (forthcoming) Public-Private Partnerships and Regulatory Capture: Food Inspectors Attitudes to the Primary Authority System in England 

[6] Wright et al. (2013) Microsoft Word - GSB CR2435 3rd Party Assurance Scheme R2 V8 FCA (food.gov.uk)