Present
- Micheál O’Mahony, FSAI, Chair (MOM)
- Cristina Fernandez-Bugallo, FSAI (CFB)
- Darina Allen, Ballymaloe Cookery School (DA)
- Sally Barnes, Woodcock Smokery (SB)
- Kevin Sheridan, Sheridan’s Cheesemongers, (KS)
- John Kent, Poultry Producer, (JK)
- John Cunninghan, Beekeeper (JC)
- Mary Regan, Regan’s Organic Farm (MR)
- Blathnaid Bergin, Catering Consultant (BB)
- Deirdre Kennedy, Teagasc (for Kevin Brennan)
- Mimi Crawford, (MC)
- Hannah Wise (minute-taker)
Apologies
- Tom Dinneen, CÁIS, (TD)
- Kevin Brennan, Teagasc (KB)
- Dave Lang, ACBI, (DL)
- Eoin Cluskey, Bread 41, (EC)
- Niamh Hegarty
- Libby Carton
In attendance
- Linda Daniels, FSAI (LD)
- Avril Hobson, DAFM (AH)
- Caoimhe McCann, FSAI Student (CM)
- Niamh Clarke, FSAI (NC)
- Mary Flynn, FSAI (MF)
1. Welcome
Micheál O’Mahony welcomed all to the meeting and especially welcomed Deirdre Kennedy, Avril Hobson, Mary Flynn, Anastasia Georgaki, Caoimhe McCann, and Niamh Clarke to their first Artisan Forum meeting.
2. Agree Minutes of Meeting of 5 December 2024
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed without amendment.
2a. Matters Arising
(i). Undergraduate training input
MO’M spoke about the undergraduate training input discussed in the last meeting, informing that the university are interested in engaging with the forum. FSAI also offered a different suggestion, the potential for Artisan forum input to FSAI Food Safety Educator's Forum, meeting twice a year involving universities and various food educators.
Forum members were supportive of both initiatives, as they have the skills that need highlighting to the educators, and MO’M asked for clarity on subgroup members
Action 1: KS, BB, DA, and SB to work as subgroup to meet with TUD and make a list of issues and discussion topics and agree an agenda.
Action 2: MO’M to facilitate a platform for the Artisan Forum in the Educator’s Forum.
(ii). Pesticide labelling
The issue of pesticide labelling arose within the minutes a topic of deep concern amongst the Artisan Forum members.
Forum members reiterated their concern and overall view; that use of pesticides should be marked on labels of food, asking for clarification on how to bring that view to the relevant policy makers either at EU level or nationally.
FSAI clarified that EU legislation requires various aspects of food to be declared on food labels but does not require pesticide usage to be labelled. Instead, the EU regulatory regimen manages pesticide risks by only allowing use of pesticides that are approved based on safety assessment and are subjected to maximum residue limits.
Legal requirements for pesticides and food labelling are set out in EU legislation, and whilst Ireland’s policy input to pesticides is led by Department of Agriculture, Ireland policy input to food labelling is led by the Department of Health
MO’M clarified what had been agreed in previous discussion on Terms of Reference, that if the Artisan Forum want to put advice to the relevant government policy department, FSAI can assist in framing and identifying appropriate recipients, but would maintain absolute clarity that such submission would represent the view of the Forum and not of FSAI.
3. Poultry
Avril Hobson, Senior Superintending Veterinary Inspector, DAFM presented on poultry matters for the forum. The presentation emphasised the broad and variable roles of DAFM around poultry including, amongst others, animal health, animal welfare, food safety, organic standards. For poultry producers engaged in on-farm slaughter of poultry for local supply, the registration and controls done previously by Local Authority (LA) vets are now done by the previous LA vet working for DAFM. Forum members queried some aspects of the changes since 01 January 2025, and it was clarified that the legislation they implement had not changed.
Forum members referred to the complexity for operators who were also organic, therefore subject to a parallel regimen of inspection, DAFM confirmed that those standards were verified by a different division in DAFM through an Organic Control Body. Forum members felt that better alignment of inspectorates and the inspection burden on operators should be possible.
Forum members commented from an Artisan perspective; issues seem to be stemming from the regulations which seem to be written for industrial scale production; with little recognition of artisan small scale being a different operation; if you don’t have big poultry houses – where do you fit?
FSAI reminded members of specific derogation for small poultry producers in the areas such as salmonella monitoring and on-farm slaughter, and forum members clarified that concern was voiced more broadly than food safety requirements, it also included animal welfare requirements. Expectations for mobile houses were a particular concern, and forum members felt that insulation of houses was overemphasised for well-feathered birds with free access to either outdoors or indoors.
DAFM clarified that whilst EU animal welfare regulations were undergoing a major re-write which is not yet completed, there are derogations for small producers within the welfare requirements, differentiating between flocks with more or less than 350 hens. On mobile houses, DAFM acknowledged the comparative novelty, and need for EU legislation to cover these. In the meantime, whilst some mobile houses were purpose-designed and broadly acceptable, other proposals had not given due regard to the welfare of animals and hygiene of production.
Concern was expressed about response to a single house in a multi-house farm becoming positive for Salmonella. DAFM and FSAI clarified that regarding all poultry houses on one farm as one epidemiological unit has advantages in keeping sample costs low and simplifying day-to-day husbandry, but disadvantages when a positive is detected and all birds are regarded as implicated. If a farmer wants individual poultry houses to be treated individually, then they need to be managed and sampled separately from other houses.
DAFM relayed a willingness from Teagasc poultry advisory service to facilitate e.g. information evening sessions for small poultry producers. Whilst welcoming Teagasc input, some forum members expressed a preference for published guidance e.g. code of practice, targeted at non-industrial poultry production. DAFM accepted that written guidance notes would be helpful and noted the breadth of issues was outside of FSAI role.
Action 3: AH and MC to discuss code of practice as it would be something of interest to organise and facilitate and to get the discussion moving with Teagasc.
Action 4: AH to speak with Teagasc poultry advisory service to consider next steps potentially including information sessions and/or written code of practice specifically for small poultry producers.
4. ‘Ultra-processed foods’, FSAI in response to deferred Forum Member Request
Mary Flynn, Chief Specialist of Public Health & Nutrition was introduced to the members. She gave a presentation on ultra-processed foods which considered a particular definition of the term, and outlined scientific recommendations to the Department of Health, highlighting diet modelling, and looking at national nutrition surveys noting food intakes in relation to diseases etc.
The lack of a clear definition of UPF and the potential for a broad definition of UPF, would include e.g. red cheddar containing the natural colorant beta carotene even though it was not chemically synthesised. FSAI fully agreed that UPF is an undefined term which adds to the difficulty in assessing UPF as a food group e.g. investigating association with weight gain or health problems.
Concerns were expressed on marketing and social media profiling of UPF compared to less processed food. FSAI clarified the extent of food marketing regulation e.g. health claims, and other labelling claims.
Guidance on calorie intake was discussed, with reference to calorie-dense UPFs and linkage with weight gain. Concern was expressed about emphasising calories opposed to nutrition, in setting guidance. FSAI clarified that nutritional guidelines depend on activity level and noted that in Europe we have a nutrition label which is mandatory to show per both calories and other nutrients per 100g. If manufacturers want to, they can give info per serving size.
Forum member expressed significant concern around dietary recommendations of reduced fat dairy products, which could be regarded as encouraging consumption of more processed variants of natural products and stated that nutrient absorption depends on amount of fat eaten in a day. FSAI accepted the benefit of dietary fat for nutrient absorption, but pointed out the dietary advice for dairy products considered the total dietary intake of e.g., calcium, as well as fat, and that lower fat variants of dairy products allow the broader nutritional benefit of dairy products while managing the negative effect of dietary fat intake and its contribution to cardiovascular disease.
The analogy of vitamin D being added to breakfast cereals was offered as a form of food modification that is not inherently undesirable.
Overall, the forum members provided a clear view and emphasis on the potential for dietary advice given out by health authorities on low fat foods to push people away from natural foods. FSAI accepted the difference in perspectives but felt that some of this difference was attributable to different perception on what is an UPF and what is not an UPF.
Action 5: HW to circulate MF’s presentation to the Forum Members.
5. Introduction Overview, Teagasc
Deirdre Kennedy introduced herself to the members as a representative for Teagasc, in place of Kevin Brennan, and her role within Teagasc providing technical support for artisan and small food sector.
Agreed 1: DK is happy to take queries; however, she is more on the technical support side of Teagasc but noted that she may be able to refer to someone in Teagasc.
Action 6: DK to circulate link of Teagasc webinar to Forum Members.
6. FSAI Strategy 2025-2029
The Chair introduced the FSAI strategy, noting that it has been published, and appreciating the Artisans input given towards it last year, adding that The Act has not changed since 1998 so the core functions are fixed. He emphasised that the strategy is driven by the national policies such as FoodVision 2030 and noted that input from the members was read and given consideration.
MO’M also went through the 4 goals for the group with his presentation:
He emphasised the organisations effort to evolve with the changing food chain including emerging risk and sustainability initiatives. He also reiterated that the FSAI are advisors on policy, not policy formulators, with a goal of being data driven and having concrete evidence for what they do.
Action 7: Members should consider how referencing the FSAI strategy could support any issues or initiatives that might be brought to the forum.
Action 8: HW to send FSAI strategy link to Forum Members.
7. Honey Authenticity Update, FSAI
(i). Bord Bia Quality Standard& logo
Cristina Fernandez Bugallo gave the Forum Members an update on Honey Authenticity:
She gave a presentation, informing the members about the EU Commission Honey Platform group, which was mentioned in a previous Artisan meeting. Along with industry sector representatives such as beekeeper’s associations, it has one representative from every Member State and the Irish representative is from DAFM. The Platform met last November for the first time and all documents are now available. There were 110 people (80 hybrid and 30 in person).
CFB provided a summary of the meeting with the honey platform:
The group is specifically looking at laboratory analysis to detect honey fraud. Whilst there are some existing fraud indicators such as Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and Diastase activity, these can be influenced by many things such as floral source, ageing, or heating, so unsatisfactory results might at-most indirectly indicate fraud, but do not to directly prove fraud.
Noted: Next meeting for the EU honey platform will be in May.
MO’M and CFB shared that as requested at the previous meeting they have contacted Bord Bia, and they would be happy to facilitate a meeting with representatives from the group with view to discussion the commitment needed to develop a QA standard.
Agreed 2: KS and DA agreed that they should not go to Bord Bia before, without a more coherent commitment form Irish beekeepers.
JC confirmed there are three Irish Beekeeper associations – Federation of Irish Beekeeper’s Association, Irish Beekeepers association, and Irish Bee Foundation. He also noted that many Beekeepers are not associated with any association.
Forum members sought clarity on official sampling of honey.
CFB clarified that DAFM and NEHS are both official samples and to verify compliance with HMF and diastase activity legal requirements in both imported and Irish honey. MO’M and CFB noted that they are not direct indicators of fraud and that many causes contribute to inconclusive results.
DA emphasised that they need to look at prices of honey, with risk of fraud being greatest in cheaper honey.
Action 9: HW to circulate CFB’s presentations to the group.
Action 10: DA, JC, and KS to gather list of beekeepers before FSAI get Bord Bia involved.
8. Shelf-life testing/studies, ACBI/FSAI
This topic was deferred.
9. Next Meeting
Online meeting, 29th May, 10:30 to 13:00.