Present
- Micheál O’Mahony, FSAI, Chair (MOM)
- Darina Allen, Ballymaloe Cookery School (DA)
- Kevin Sheridan, Sheridan’s Cheesemongers, (KS)
- Sean Kent, Poultry Producer, (SK)
- Kevin Brennan (KB)
- Mimi Crawford, (MC)
- Kevin Sheridan (KS)
- Dan Hegarty (DH)
- Aoife Nic Giolla Coda (AGC)
- Dave Lyons (DL)
- Niamh Hegarty (NH)
- Hannah Wise (minute-taker) (HW)
Apologies
- Blathnaid Bergin
- Mary Regan
- Sally Barnes
In attendance
- Caoimhín MacMaoláin (CMM)
- Anastasia Georgaki
- Cristina Fernandez-Bugallo, FSAI (CFB)
1. Welcome and Introductions
MOM welcomed everyone to the meeting and extended a special welcome to Aoife Nic Giolla Coda (AGC), beekeeper, Dan Hegarty (DH), chairperson of CAIS, and Professor Caoimhín MacMaoláin (CMM), legal academic, Trinity College.
2. Geographical Indication & Quality Schemes (TCD)
CMM gave a presentation on Protected Food Names, outlining their origins, purpose, and legal framework where he explained the three categories under Regulation 2024/1143: Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG), each with distinct criteria. The presentation also covered the application process, legal protections, and economic impact of registration. He also noted Ireland amongst the EU MS with comparatively low numbers of registrations listed.
There was a discussion on Grass-fed beef and clarification of the requirements of the scheme including minimum outdoor access and dietary reliance on grass-based forage.
There was a comment on the complicating factor of some Potential PGI/PDI names already registered as trademark of one food company.
There was discussion on the 2024-introduced sustainability aspects of such schemes, with positive commentary by some forum members.
There was discussion on the potential for operators not involved in the original application, to avail of the scheme. This was clarified as acceptable, provided they meet the specification including geographical aspects.
There was a discussion on TSGs how differ from PDOs and PGIs in that they are not geographically restricted. It was clarified that provided the TSG remains on the current EU TSG registered list, it is open to an operator in any EU MS, provided they comply with the specifications. It was also clarified that that producers must still comply with all relevant EU food safety regulations regardless of TSG status
There was a discussion on deregistration, with an example of a PGI but was removed after it was found to negatively affect consumer perception. The European Commission is empowered to make decisions on what is registered and cancelled, in consultation with the Member States.
Action 1: HW to circulate CMM’s slides.
3. Minutes of Previous meeting
Action 2: Comments received at meeting will be reflected in final minute.
On pesticides, there was a request for data on how Ireland is performing in relation to its commitments on pesticide use reduction.
4. Matters arising from previous meeting
Third level curriculum Influence:
FSAI gave an update on its attempt to facilitate discussions between the forum and the academic institution providing undergraduate training in environmental health, on the issue of training about artisan food production. There was a request for the previous discussion on one particular undergraduate course, to be a broader discussion to include training of inspectorates including those employed by Department of Agriculture. MOM clarified that the Department of Agriculture employs various disciplines – including veterinarians and agricultural graduates – trained in Ireland and abroad, and noted this new request added substantially to the scope of the request. Forum members noted the existing challenge of initiating thesis dialogue, and it was agreed that at least in the first instance focus should remain on the EH curriculum.
Poultry welfare/health issues:
The nominate forum member MC provided an update on ongoing work in this area, noting that they and DAFM colleague had met with a Teagasc representative, noting that this is the sole Teagasc contact dealing with poultry. A definitive list of relevant regulations had been requested but although a response was received, it did not fully address the concerns raised – namely, that many producers are being given information and requested to make changes where the legislation might lack specificity. Teagasc rep is now arranging a meeting with officials in DAFM to address these issues, expected to take place in June.
MOM noted that while many of the poultry welfare and inspection issues fall outside the direct remit of the FSAI, it may still be useful to maintain a checkpoint on these matters at the forum, particularly where food safety concerns arise. MC agreed, adding that there are increasing issues related to Salmonella that cross into both veterinary inspection and food safety domains. It was agreed that the group would continue to monitor and address any emerging food safety concerns while progressing with broader welfare issues appropriate. MOM acknowledged the group’s frustration with the pace of progress but encouraged members to stay engaged. Forum members emphasised the detrimental effects of effects already occurring with small producers leaving the industry.
5. Terms of Reference and Membership
The Terms of Reference (ToR), agreed in September 2024, was revisited in this meeting.
MOM noted differing interpretations of the TOR regarding the role of primary nominees and alternates. As outlined in the ToR, alternates are to engage only when the primary nominee is unavailable. MOM emphasised the need for a coherent and consistent forum, with active participation from a defined group to ensure continuity and justify both the voluntary time of members and the public resources involved. Ongoing movement and overlap in the representation – such as multiple primaries in areas like cheese, meat, and poultry- make it difficult to maintain coherence.
Comments received included
There was some support for full review and overhaul of the forum’s membership structure, noting problems such as informal rollover without consistent representation of the producer community. Forum members should endeavour to be representatives of the broader artisan sector. He proposed using this as a starting point of discussion on how to best to achieve that aim.
There was a suggestion of a model with membership cap of 20 people including individuals with a proven track record in the artisan food industry in Ireland, particularly those who have worked to support the sector beyond their own business interests. The remaining members should come from representative bodies. These organisations would formally nominate a representative to attend on their behalf, with a commitment to share information between the forum and their wider membership, ensuring two-way communication and issue representation. Duration of appointment was also discussed, highlighting the benefit of defined terms, with automatic cessation, and with potential for re-appointment if re-nominated by their sector.
Forum members expressed concern at reliance on just the primary representative and requested document circulation to both primary and alternate members.
There was a discussion on overlapping membership roles, including multiple members listed under the same topic areas, and the converse issue of forum members being involved in different sectors despite nomination to represent one sector.
Forum members acknowledge the value of the discussion and the need for strong representation of respective sectors, and obligation for dissemination back to relevant sectors.
FSAI would consider the points raised and return with a proposal. Members were encouraged to reflect on what structure might work better from their perspective and to share their thoughts. A preference was expressed to receive an FSAI proposal by email ahead of the next, with opportunities for all members to contribute through email discussions.
6. Food Hygiene Rating Scheme Consultation
Consultation opens on national food hygiene rating scheme | Food Safety Authority of Ireland
MOM introduced the FHRS, and FSAI initiative originating from the Food Safety Consultative Council. MOM noted the overlap in membership between this forum and Consultative Council, specifically through DL, who agreed to share his perspective. The primary purpose of this agenda item was to make members aware of the public consultation and to encourage dissemination within the groups they represent. MOM emphasised the importance of capturing public views on this topic.
DL explained that the Consultative Council is proposing a FHRS, with the consultation having opened on 26th May 2025 and runs until 23 June 2025. (Note: details of this were also circulated to the Artisan Forum by email.).
7. Honey origin declaration
CFB provided background on the Honey Platform and ongoing national and EU initiatives related to honey authenticity. The forum has been kept informed of work towards addressing concerns around honey adulteration with sugar and mislabelling of origin. This led to the formation of an EU expert group -The Honey Platform- and revision of the Honey Directive, published in June 2024 and coming into effect in June 2026. From that date, honey labelling will require countries of origin to be listed, rather than using general terms like “EU” or “blend of EU and non-EU.”
MOM noted a concern raised in advance of the meeting regarding a company whose marketing strongly suggested their honey was Irish, while the label stated otherwise. MOM clarified that food law covers not just labelling but also marketing materials, and misleading claims even if not on the label fall under FSAI scope. For an individual issue a formal complaint to be submitted via the FSAI advice line, which can also be done anonymously, for direct follow up through FSAI agencies.
AGC noted the importance of input from representative organisations in the beekeeping and honey production sector, highlighting the three main beekeeper associations. AGC suggested she would forward the minutes to representatives from each group to gather input for future meetings. MOM agreed that the aspiration is representation of overall honey sector and asked the minutes are agreed and finalised before forwarding.
8. Environmental Listeria monitoring
KS raised concerns within the cheesemaking community following a recent case involving Listeria monitoring, noting confusion around past test results, notifications, and the implications of privately conducted testing. DH echoed this, highlighting widespread fear among cheesemakers, with some delaying investments due to uncertainty. Both called for greater clarity from the Dept. of Ag. and FSAI on procedures and expectations to support the sector.
MOM clarified that cheesemakers, as producers of ready-to-eat food, must be especially vigilant about listeria, which, while rare, is the leading cause of serious foodborne illness and death in the EU. He explained that microbiological criteria primarily exist to help FBOs validate the effectiveness of their food safety management systems – not just to assess individual batches. In the case of Listeria, environmental monitoring is required along with product testing, as contamination often arises from the processing environment. MOM reassured the group that environmental positives alone rarely lead to recalls but stressed that trends towards non-compliance including recurrent environmental positive results signal deeper issues in the food safety system that must be addressed. MOM informed the group that FSAI has pre-existing guidance on Listeria management and is currently developing specific guidance on monitoring of Listeria in the production environment, with a Working Group including input from a cheese maker.
MOM suggested that if CAIS wishes to have a bilateral meeting with FSAI, this can be arranged to provide an update. KS and DH agreed with this approach.
Action 3: Circulate existing guidance on Listeria
Action 4: DH to contact FSAI in bilateral meeting requested.
9. Food Safety Culture (FSC)
CFB shared slides and gave an overview of the new legal requirement for FSC, introduced through Regulation 2021/382 (amending 852/2004). FSC now requires post-primary food businesses to demonstrate appropriate FSC, including management commitment, employee engagement, awareness, communication, and sufficient resources. It applies to processors, distributors, and retailers – but not to primary producers. A national working group is developing guidance to help businesses comply, and an introductory module is already available on FSAI’s learning portal.
CFB explained that FSC means embedding safe practices into daily routines – doing the right thing even when no one is watching. The guidance will include legal interpretation, best practices, and practical examples. MOM added that while challenges in understanding practical implications are recognised, this is already a legal requirement. A final draft of the guidance is nearly complete and will be shared with the forum once available.
There was a request that the guidance be included on the agenda when published to help assess its implications in real business settings.
10. Regulatory updates
FSAI Update circulated with agenda
MOM noted that regulatory updates were circulated with the agenda in response to a previous request for regular briefings. A summary of changes since the last update in September 2024 was provided, including newly enacted legislation and items now in effect. MOM invited feedback on the format and content – whether it is too much, too little or needs adjusting.
KS found the updates helpful and emphasised the importance of identifying and communicating relevant legislation to the artisan sector. He asked whether there is any opportunity for input before legislation is finalised, especially where it could significantly impact the sector. MOM explained that, in some cases, draft EU legislation is open to public comment via the Commission’s “Have Your Say” platform and encouraged members to subscribe to relevant updates in food law.
KS highlighted the challenge of limited resources to monitor legislative developments and called for early notice from FSAI where impactful changes are identified-particularly in cases where might be available. MOM agreed to flag such items, emphasising the inherent difficulty of judging what might be relevant to the forum across all food law, and invited members to request agenda discussions on specific upcoming or enacted legislative changes.
Action 5: HW to circulate link to Have Your Say website. Have Your Say
Next Meetings
- MOM: Planning four per year with two physical and two virtual. Next physical meeting likely mid-September; one more virtual before year-end.
- Dates to be circulated.
- There was a request for circulating and approving minutes online promptly, rather than waiting for next meeting, to keep decisions timely.
- MOM: Quicker circulation is possible but current rules require approval at the next meeting. Silence after sending minutes could mean agreeing with contents, but a deadline would be needed.
Agreed: Overall agreement amongst group – consider target of two weeks from meeting and two weeks for comments.