Skip to main content

Scientific Committee Meeting - 9 December 2025

Members Present

  • Martin Cormican (Chair) (MC)
  • Alan Kelly (AK)
  • Andrew Flanagan (AF)
  • Ann Marie Part (AMP)
  • Anne Molloy (AM)
  • Dagmar Stengel (DS)
  • Dolores O’Riordan (DOR)
  • Geraldine Duffy (GD)
  • Ita Kinahan (IK)
  • Kevin Cashman (KC)
  • Lois O’Connor (LOC)
  • Mark Fenelon (MF)
  • Montserrat Gutierrez (MG)

FSAI Staff Present

  • Wayne Anderson (WA)
  • Micheál O’Mahony (MOM)
  • Anastasia Georgaki (AG)
  • Mary Flynn (MFl)
  • Niamh Clarke (NC)
  • Sinead O’Mahony (SOM)
  • Judith Giles (JG)

Apologies

  • Séamus Fanning (SF)
  • Karl McDonald (KMcD)
  • Lisa O’Connor (LiOC)
  • Pat O’Mahony (POM)
  • Rob Phillips (RP)

1.    Disclosures of Interest

The Chair welcomed the members to the meeting noting it is a busy time for those working on reports and thanking all those contributing for their work. There were no disclosures of interest.

2.    Agree the Meeting Minutes of 20 November and Matters Arising

The draft minutes were agreed. The report on the Risk Ranking of Microbiological Hazards was adopted on 28 November and the FSAI Board agreed to publish it. The report is with the Communications team for proofreading.

One action, i.e. communication with the CS Subcommittee member, is outstanding. In this context, MC noted that the priority for the Scientific Committee was the quality of its reports and opinions, and that, while the Scientific Committee would continue to work to complete all outstanding work within the life of this term, no member should feel pressured to approve a document to meet that deadline if they have concerns about the quality of the document. It would be better to leave a document for the next Scientific Committee than to approve a document that does not meet the standards of the committee.

Action:

  • MC to reply to the CS Subcommittee member on the dioxins report.

3.    Update from PHN Subcommittee

Scientific Recommendations for FBDG for Adolescents

KC and MFl gave a presentation on the key elements of this work and the findings. Based on previous feedback from the Scientific Committee, the language around definition of adolescence was clarified as 9–18 (9 accommodates early pubertal development and 18 is the limit of data available from the national surveys). Early and late adolescence, and pregnancy and lactation, were the subgroups defined. Macronutrients and micronutrients were identified including those overconsumed and those where shortfalls may occur, and goals were set out. 

The definition of sustainability was discussed. It was agreed to adopt the FAO/WHO definition, with a note in the text relating to the potential for challenges in balancing nutritional requirements and meeting sustainability goals. The macronutrients modelled met or exceeded the goals; most micronutrients met the goals except for Vitamin E. Portion sizes are addressed and a flexible range of servings given in some cases. The following was noted:

  • Minor comments/edits in the report will be addressed by the team after the meeting.
  • The text on body image in the report was discussed. Recognising the importance of the issue and without questioning the content, there were questions as to how well this content was supported by the scientific evidence presented in the report. In that context it was agreed that these important issues might be addressed in the report in terms of the ‘social context’ within which the FBDG recommendations would operate. 
  • Issues of affordability were also discussed as important context in relation to enabling people to follow the guidance and relevant in that context but distinct from the guidance itself.
  • The importance of recommendations under pregnancy and lactation were noted. The specification of policies and services required to support people following the guidance are not within the scope of the FBDG, but it is important to identify that adherence to the guidelines will be dependent on policies and supports.
  • The report could include reference to those who change their activity level needing to adapt their energy – and that people who notice an abrupt change in weight that does not appear to be explained by healthy growth seeking healthcare advice.
  • Recommendations should be framed in ways that recognise the risk managers need to be able to make pragmatic choices about how objectives are achieved.
  • Reference to the microbiome will be included.
  • The approach to be taken to manage the risk of excess fibre was endorsed based on clinical experience of gastrointestinal symptoms related to excess fibre.
  • It was noted that society is multicultural now and that policy and practice related to the implementation of the guidelines will need to consider how the guidelines apply to groups with dietary preferences that may differ from the mainstream.

The Chair thanked the team for the work done. The students were thanked for their contributions. The team will update the report for the next meeting.

Actions:
  • Team to update the report and circulate for the next meeting.

4.    Update from Biological Safety Subcommittee

Report: Hepatitis E in Pigs & Pigmeat

GD noted that several comments were received on the revised report circulated before the meeting which must be addressed. The report was discussed but it was not tabled for adoption at the meeting. The following items were noted:

  • The recommendations in the report were reviewed following the feedback received.
  • The age of slaughter and associated risk were discussed. Seroconversion typically takes place in pigs at 5–6 months. Most pigs are slaughtered at about 6 months. There may be reduced risk of infection with HEV with slaughter at a later age because a higher proportion of animals are likely to have seroconverted. It is not clear that this is a practical solution. 
  • The report could be clearer that raw intestines are high risk but once processed to produce casings the risk is low. 
  • It was emphasised that liver is the highest risk tissue. 
  • It was noted that there are occupational risks for some handlers at slaughter but the focus of the RfA is food products for consumption.
  • The information on vaccination should be reviewed. Some comments have been provided. 
  • Active surveillance was discussed. There is not enough evidence to assess the potential health impact of a surveillance programme. Targeted surveys to address data gaps and to improve attribution could be helpful.
  • The text on thermal treatment needs to be clearer. Thorough cooking will inactivate HEV. 
  • The products listed as ready to eat will be reviewed.
  • HEV is not on the list of zoonoses to be monitored in the Zoonoses Directive, but Annex C allows other hazards to be monitored. Text will be drafted for review on this point.

The Chair proposed that the report be reviewed following the feedback discussed. It was agreed that a final draft will be tabled for adoption in January.

Actions:

  • Team to update the report and circulate for the meeting in January.

5.    Update from Chemical Safety Subcommittee

Mitigation Measures for Dioxins & PCBs in Terrestrial Farm Animals with Access to Outdoor Pastures

AF noted that Karl McDonald is going all through the feedback and updating the report. Any issues that arise will be addressed in the document or brought to the next meeting for discussion if necessary. The aim is to have the final report ready for the meeting in January.

6.    Update from Food Hygiene Rating Systems Subcommittee

Evaluation of food hygiene rating systems and recommendations for Ireland

The report is being worked on, and it is anticipated that a draft will be circulated to the subcommittee for their meeting in January.

7.    Correspondence/AOB

There was no further business discussed.

8.    Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting is on 18 December. The Chair thanked everyone for their contribution.