Weakening UK food law enforcement: a risky tactic in Brexit

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) is beginning to roll out a far-reaching programme of regulatory change called Regulating Our Future (ROF). This Briefing Paper argues that ROF risks: - Making the UK’s food supply less safe by further weakening systems that are already too weak; - Undermining the ability of UK food producers to export to the EU after Brexit; - Creating irreconcilable conflicts of interests, because rather than having public officials inspect food businesses, the food businesses will be able to choose who ‘marks their homework’. Professors Erik Millstone (University of Sussex) and Tim Lang (City, University of London) provide a detailed and powerful critique of the Food Standards Agency’s proposals. They conclude that ROF represents a fundamental and detrimental shift in the role, approach and public responsibilities of the FSA and the local authority officers who are the bedrock of food safety in the UK. They also show why these unwelcome proposals are especially unwise in the context of negotiations over Brexit, when the public needs a strong, vigilant and effective FSA. The authors call for ROF to be halted pending further review by a special Parliamentary Joint Select Committee of the Health and Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Committees

Hormone-treated beef: Should Britain accept it after Brexit?

This Briefing explains why the use of synthetic, industrially-manufactured hormones in beef production, and the threat of importing hormone-produced beef after Brexit, matter for UK consumers. There is robust scientific evidence showing that meat produced using one key hormone (17β-oestradiol) increases the cancer risk to consumers, while for the rest the available evidence is insufficient to show that their use is acceptably safe. The Briefing outlines the basis of the scientific and policy disputes over the use of supplementary hormones in beef cattle production. It shows that, although the USA is most associated with hormone-reared beef, other countries that want to export their beef to the UK, post Brexit, either allow hormones to be used, or are suspected of doing so. The EU has been reasonably vigilant on consumers’ behalf on this issue, and it has robust scientific grounds for its ban on their use. The risk from beef hormones is one of many issues on which UK consumers have benefited from the EU’s measures to protect public and environmental health. Chlorine-washed chicken is another example

Feeding Britain: Food Security after Brexit

This Food Brexit Briefing brings together three interlinked issues that demand policy attention as the clock ticks towards Brexit: 1. The question of whether the Government is paying enough attention to agri-food in the negotiating process, given its central role in both public wellbeing and the national economy. 2. The threat a careless Brexit poses to the UK’s short-term food security – and any long-term attempt to develop a genuinely sustainable food strategy for the whole of the UK. 3. The risk generated to the UK’s status as a potential trading partner of the EU by the Food Standards Agency’s decision to press ahead with major reform of UK food safety regulation, at a time when regulatory stability and clarity have never been more important. The report was written by FRC’s Professor Tim Lang, with Professor Erik Millstone (Sussex), Tony Lewis (Head of Policy at Chartered Institute for Environmental Health) and Professor Terry Marsden (Cardiff). It takes stock of ‘food Brexit’ and argues that a hard Brexit or no-deal Brexit (and retreat to WTO rules) would imperil the sustainability and security of Britain’s food supply. The report recommends that the Government should: - Maintain a clear and explicit focus on the potential adverse effects of Brexit on food security in the UK, while negotiating the UK’s future trading relationships with the EU and other jurisdictions. - Publish Brexit impact studies on the UK’s agricultural and food system for the White Paper and Chequers Statement and any subsequent proposals. - Ensure that high food standards remain at the heart of any future trade deals. - Provide clarity on its proposed migration policy, taking account of the contributions that non-UK citizens of the EU are making to the quantity and quality of the UK’s food supply and services. - Avoid a hard Food Brexit at all costs.The UK must not retreat to a WTO-rules-based regime. The EU would then categorise the UK as a ‘3rd Country’, which could be a recipe for chaos. - Create a new Sustainable Food Security Strategy. This would engage with the complexities of the food system and the multiple criteria by which it should be evaluated; and identify clear priorities and pathways for progress. The report also calls on the Food Standards Agency to: - Address the calls for clarification and evidence posed in the paper in respect of its Regulating Our Future (ROF) Where such clarification or evidence is not available, then the Agency should modify or suspend the introduction of its proposals, at least until after Brexit

Why Local Authorities should prepare Food Brexit Plans

The UK’s food supply will be affected by Brexit whatever the outcome of the Parliamentary vote on the Draft Withdrawal Agreement. As the 29 March 2019 date for leaving the EU approaches, preparations to ensure we maintain a safe, adequate and sustainable food supply need to start urgently. Local Authorities (LAs) have a vital part to play in these preparations. More guidance, paying attention to the food specifics, is felt to be needed. LAs have a key role in the UK’s food system, with responsibilities including the enforcement of food safety and standards regulation, the control of imported food at ports and airports and the certification of foods for export. They also have unique knowledge of relevant local professionals, institutions, businesses and networks. This briefing aims to help Local Authorities prepare for Food Brexit. It shows why LAs should prepare Food Brexit Plans, and outlines five courses of action they could consider. The briefing recommends that Local Authorities: • Create Food Resilience Teams • Anticipate and reduce the impact of Food Brexit, particularly on SMEs • Narrow the information gap and treat the public openly and fairly • Prepare for public engagement • Be a local food voice so that central government knows the local realities

Multiobjective Robust Control with HIFOO 2.0

Multiobjective control design is known to be a difficult problem both in theory and practice. Our approach is to search for locally optimal solutions of a nonsmooth optimization problem that is built to incorporate minimization objectives and constraints for multiple plants. We report on the success of this approach using our public-domain Matlab toolbox HIFOO 2.0, comparing our results with benchmarks in the literature

The application of the hydrocyclone to the separation of gluten and starch in aqueous suspension

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1961 M5