Minutes of 109th meeting

ACM/MIN/109

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE MICROBIOLOGICAL SAFETY OF FOOD (ACMSF) - HYBRID MEETING HELD ON 18^th JUNE 2025 (ONE-HUNDRED AND NINTH MEETING)

Attendees

Chair:	Mr Alec Kyriakides
Members:	Dr Edward Fox Ms Claire Tomaso Dr Nicol Janecko Professor Cath Rees Professor Andrew Page Dr Adri Bester Professor Linda Scobie Dr Jane Gibbens Mr Martin Briggs Dr Dragan Antic Dr Iñaki Deza-Cruz Dr Wayne Anderson Professor Francis Butler Dr Roberto Vivancos Dr Fahad Ahmed Professor Muna Anjum Professor Alasdair Cook
Secretariat:	Dr Anthony Wilson Dr Lauren Adams Dr Elaine Pegg Ms Michelle Hutchison Ms Archana Gadaria
Presenters:	Dr.  Matthew Gilmour Dr. Olivia Osborne Dr. Lauren Adams

1. Welcome

1.1 The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and outlining the procedural arrangements for the session. He reminded participants that questions from observers would be taken only after committee discussions had concluded, and that the chat function was reserved for committee members and the secretariat. Observers and members of the public were informed they would be asked to leave after Agenda Item 8, ahead of the closed session. Committee members attending remotely were reminded to use a separate link for the closed session and were advised to contact the secretariat if they had not received it.

2. Apologies for Absence

2.1 No formal apologies were received at the time of the meeting. Members not present: Mr Andrew MacLeod

3. Declarations of Interest

3,1 Members were invited to declare any interests relevant to the agenda items. The Chair declared two interests: his involvement with the Food Safety Research Network in an industry liaison role, and his contribution to the development of the Food Microbiology Intelligence Network. He also noted his role as a reviewer for the Food Standards Scotland shelf-life guide, which was relevant to Agenda Item 9.

3.2 Committee member Dr Wayne Anderson also declared that he had been a reviewer for the Food Standards Scotland lag phase guide.

3.3 Members were reminded that they could declare additional interests as specific agenda items were discussed.

4. Chair’s Welcome and Introduction of New Members (ACM/1446)

4.1 The Chair formally welcomed new members to the committee and introduced a paper (ACM/1446) outlining his strategic aims for the next three years. To begin he invited new members to introduce themselves:

4.2 Prof. Muna Anjum, from the Animal and Plant Health Agency, leads the bacterial characterisation work group and focuses on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and pathogen surveillance in the food chain. She supports the UK government’s AMR action plan and collaborates with UKHSA and academic institutions.

4.3 Dr. Fahad Ahmed, a veterinarian and lecturer at Ulster University, specialises in zoonotic parasites and AMR, particularly in relation to water and slurry. He supervises postgraduate students working on AMR-related topics.

4.4 Professor Alasdair Cook, formerly of the University of Surrey, has a background in veterinary epidemiology and public health, with a strong interest in digital innovation across the food chain.

4.5 The Chair outlined his vision for the committee, structured around three key themes:

4.6 The first theme focused on reviewing the committee’s structure and ways of working including its Terms of Reference. This included assessing the breadth of expertise on the committee to ensure it aligns with future challenges and considering whether the current subgroup and ad hoc group structures remain fit for purpose. The Chair suggested this was an opportune moment to reflect on the committee’s configuration, given the arrival of new members and a new chair.

4.7 The second theme addressed the need to better identify and prioritise microbiological risk assessment challenges. While the committee’s agenda is largely shaped by FSA requests and horizon scanning, the Chair proposed a broader engagement with stakeholders across the food system, including industry, academia, and trade associations, to identify emerging challenges and associated risk assessment questions. These could then be prioritised for future committee work.

4.8 The third theme focused on improving the committee’s understanding of food production and microbiological risks. The Chair proposed aligning committee meetings with site visits to food production facilities, allowing members to gain first-hand insights into sector-specific risks and controls. This would support more informed risk assessments and recommendations.

4.9 Committee members responded positively to the Chair’s proposals. A member praised the paper’s forward-thinking approach and endorsed the idea of a multi-stakeholder horizon scanning workshop.

4.10 Another member echoed this support and suggested reviewing the committee’s work plan, noting that the last published plan covered 2020–2023. He also raised concerns about limitations on in-person participation for some members, which could affect their ability to join site visits.

4.11 A member voiced their support for disbanding the AMR subgroup due to duplication and suggested creating a register for external experts. The secretariat noted that flexible subgroup structures already exist, AMR work is now handled by the main committee for greater visibility, and external experts can still be brought in when needed. The discussion highlighted the FSA’s register of specialists, an open list of experts with recognised scientific expertise used to support committee work and peer reviews. The register is updated as needed and is essential for processing expert contributions.

4.12 A committee member raised a question about how the committee’s work aligns with broader AI initiatives. They suggested this could be a valuable topic for future discussion, given its complexity. It was noted that the Science Council recently held a workshop on AI in safety assurance, which may offer a useful angle. ACTION: The committee agreed to consider this as a potential future agenda item.

4.13 The committee discussed whether it can self-mandate or must only respond to external requests. While self-mandating is possible, any proposed topics must align with FSA priorities. A structured approach to topic selection was proposed: generate a broad list, prioritize based on relevance, and focus on areas where the FSA is actively developing policy. This ensures the committee’s input is timely and impactful. Given current budget pressures, it was agreed that new initiatives must not add costs. The group suggested using existing resources, partnerships, and creative planning to achieve goals cost-effectively. Also, strengthening industry connections was highlighted as essential for identifying real-world challenges, with suggestions including workshops and business visits.

4.14 The committee supported moving forward with the proposed initiative. ACTION: The Chair will work with the Secretary to develop a plan focusing on how this will shape future discussions and meeting formats.

5. Approval of Minutes from the 108th Meeting (ACM/MIN/108)

5.1 The Chair led a page-by-page review to confirm accuracy and gather amendments:

5.2 Page 1: Correction noted: The name "Raheem" was misspelled and will be corrected.

5.3 Page 3, Section 7.3: Clarification requested regarding the mention of “further leading guidance later this year.” It was confirmed this refers to guidance on botulinum, not new FSA guidance. A cross-government initiative led by the MHRA is underway to align regulation on the use of phage, potentially including food safety. The FSA is involved in this initiative. ACTION: The final version of the minutes will clarify this point.

5.4 Page 6: Clarification requested on a statement regarding virus risk reduction. Wording to be revised to better reflect that certain methods can reduce infectious virus levels.

5.5 Page 9, Section 9.3: Clarification requested on the raw pet food survey. Samples were collected from the pet food market. Salmonella was detected; further details on other bacteria and sample types will be shared post-meeting. ACTION: Full report expected to be published in August will be shared with the members.

5.6 Page 10: Minor editorial suggestion: Rephrase to say “tetracyclines were used” instead of “tetracyclines our common.”

5.7 Additional Points Raised. Firstly, an attendance Note: Wayne Anderson noted he only attended the closed session of the previous meeting due to a diary clash. It was agreed this should be reflected in the attendance record.

5.8 Secondly reserved Business in Public Minutes: Clarification was asked for. It was explained that reserved business items are listed by title in public minutes but redacted in detail when published online. This approach balances transparency with confidentiality for sensitive or draft content.

5.9 Conclusion: Subject to the agreed amendments, the minutes of the 108th meeting were approved. ACTION: The Secretariat will update and publish the final version on the website.

6. Matters Arising (ACM/1447)

6.1 The Secretariat presented paper ACM/1447, which summarised actions taken since the previous meeting. Key updates included:

6.2 The minutes of the 107th meeting had been amended and published.

6.3 The committee had followed up with UKHSA regarding Listeria surveillance data. It was clarified that samples are collected based on local and national risk assessments rather than population size or market share, leading to variability in sampling intensity across regions. This ad hoc approach, often driven by public health concerns and resource availability, introduces bias and limits the representativeness of the data. An example was cited involving past Salmonella surveillance, where increased scrutiny led to a feedback loop of intensified sampling and higher detection rates. The group acknowledged the need for careful interpretation of such data and emphasized the importance of well-designed surveys to establish reliable baselines.

6.4 Discussions were ongoing with the IID3 consortium regarding lessons learned and future activities.  The committee expressed interest in reviewing these insights once available, recognizing their potential value in shaping future research and surveillance strategies. ACTION: An update will be provided once the next steps are clarified. 

7. Food Safety Research Network (FSRN) Update

7.1 Dr.  Matthew Gilmour from the Quadram Institute provided a comprehensive update on the Food Safety Research Network (FSRN), which is funded by BBSRC and the FSA. The network has been renewed through 2028 and has distributed £2 million across more than 40 projects and 11 workshops.

7.2 The FSRN focuses on four priority areas:

• Known pathogens such as Salmonella, Listeria, and Campylobacter.
• Perceived risks associated with novel technologies like vertical farming and insect protein.
• Knowledge translation to ensure research findings are accessible and actionable.
• Food safety at home, including consumer behaviour and domestic food storage

7.3 Dr.  Gilmour highlighted several key initiatives:

• A literature review and best practice development for vertical farming.
• Regulatory engagement on bacteriophage use, including collaboration with MHRA.
• Risk assessment work on low-moisture foods and alternative proteins.
• A workshop on biofilms in food production environments.
• A project on improving domestic fridge design to enhance food safety.
• A workshop series on AI applications in food safety.
• A major initiative on Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), including the development of a toolkit for sampling and testing.
• A pilot project for the Food Microbiology Intelligence Network, which aims to facilitate confidential business-to-business data sharing on microbiological risks.

7.4 Following Dr.  Gilmour’s presentation, committee members engaged in a detailed discussion highlighting the value and impact of the Food Safety Research Network (FSRN).

7.5 Committee members raised concerns about the complexity of STEC testing, particularly the limitations of molecular methods and the lack of rapid confirmatory tests. It was noted that current testing often results in presumptive positives, which are difficult for food businesses to interpret and act upon. There was strong support for FSRN’s initiative to develop a standardised, risk-based testing toolkit. Members emphasised the importance of distinguishing between routine monitoring and outbreak response, and the need for co-development with industry and regulators to ensure practical implementation. FSRN will continue development of the STEC testing toolkit with input from ACMSF members, particularly those with expertise in molecular diagnostics and outbreak investigation. Members were invited to contribute to relevant workstreams.

7.6 Dr.  Gilmour introduced the pilot Food Microbiology Intelligence Network, which enables confidential business-to-business sharing of microbiological data. The committee welcomed the initiative and discussed the potential for broader access to anonymised data in the future, including for researchers and regulators.

7.7 The Chair proposed aligning FSRN’s work with ACMSF’s horizon scanning activities to avoid duplication and enhance strategic impact. Professor Gilmore welcomed this suggestion, noting that FSRN’s future priorities are still being shaped through member feedback and champion input. ACTION: ACMSF Secretariat and FSRN to explore opportunities for collaboration on horizon scanning and priority setting.

7.8 In response to a question, it was clarified that FSRN membership is free and open to all interested parties. Engagement typically begins with an introductory conversation to understand the member’s interests and potential project ideas.

7.9 The Chair noted that this agenda item did not include a specific advisory question for the committee. Members discussed the value of presentations for information versus those seeking advice. ACTION: Secretariat to consider including specific advisory questions in future agenda items where appropriate, while maintaining a balance between information-sharing and decision-making.

8. COT Workshop on Xenobiotics and the Microbiome (ACM/1448)

8.1 Dr. Olivia Osborne from the FSA presented a summary of a recent Committee on Toxicity (COT) workshop on xenobiotics and the microbiome. The workshop explored how foreign chemicals (xenobiotics) interact with the human microbiome and the implications for toxicological risk assessment.

8.2 Key themes included:

• The lack of a clear definition of a “healthy” microbiome and the challenges of establishing a baseline.
• The influence of diet, stress, and other factors on microbiome composition.
• The role of microbial metabolites in gut barrier function and immune response.
• The need for standardised methods and reference populations.
• The potential use of AI to analyse complex microbiome data.

8.3 The workshop also reviewed methodologies such as organoids, multi-omics approaches, and faecal microbiota transplantation. It concluded that interim guidance may be needed while the science continues to evolve.

8.4 A committee member opened the discussion by asking for clarification on the term “xenobiotic,” noting that it was not defined in the report. Dr. Osborne explained that xenobiotics refer to foreign chemicals not naturally found in the body, including food additives, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals.

8.5 Another committee member raised the question of whether all new food additives and preservatives would now be required to consider their impact on the gut microbiome. While Dr. Osborne could not speak on behalf of the committee’s regulatory stance, she encouraged further inquiries to be directed to the COT Secretariat. The member also suggested that the antimicrobial effects of many food additives might warrant renewed consideration of non-chemical interventions such as irradiation, prompting a brief discussion on the implications of such approaches.

8.6 A committee member highlighted the challenge of defining a “healthy” microbiome, noting that microbiome composition varies significantly across individuals and populations due to factors such as diet, geography, and stress. They suggested that it might be more practical to define an “unhealthy” microbiome or focus on adverse health outcomes. Dr. Osborne agreed, noting that the workshop emphasized the need for reference populations and standardized parameters to support risk assessment.

8.7 A member added that population-level studies and longitudinal data could provide valuable insights into microbiome dynamics and their implications for food safety. They emphasized the importance of understanding how microbiomes interact with environmental factors and change over time.

8.8 The committee also discussed the potential role of artificial intelligence in analyzing complex microbiome data. Dr. Osborne noted that AI could help identify trends and correlations in large datasets, supporting more comprehensive risk assessments.

8.9 Finally, the committee inquired whether microplastics were considered in the workshop. Dr. Osborne confirmed that while microplastics were discussed during roundtable sessions, they were not the focus of any specific presentation.

8.10 The committee concluded that the microbiome is a highly complex and evolving area of study. Members appreciated the workshop’s contribution to advancing understanding and supported the development of interim guidance and standardized methodologies to inform future risk assessments.

9. Public Questions

9.1 No questions were raised by members of the public attending the open session.