Transparency data

Minutes of 111th ACMSF meeting

Published 15 October 2026

ACM/MIN/111

Minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) - hybrid meeting held on the 5th of February 2026 (one- hundred and eleven 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

Mr Martin Briggs

Dr Dragan Antic

Dr Iñaki Deza-Cruz

Dr Fahad Ahmed

Professor Alasdair Cook

Dr Roberto Vivancos (open session only)

Representatives:

Professor Peter Borriello (Science Council)

Dr Hannah Charles UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)

Secretariat:

Dr Anthony Wilson

Dr Elaine Pegg

Ms Josephine Walker

Ms Azuka Aghadiuno

Presenters:

Dr Tamsin Dewe Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD)

Dr Elli Amanatidou Food Standards Agency (FSA)

Dr Lauren Adams (FSA).

1. Chair’s welcome

1.1 The Chair, Mr Alec Kyriakides, opened the meeting by welcoming members and guests, including presenters; Dr Tamsin Dewe (VMD), Elli Amanatidou (FSA) and Lauren Adams (FSA).

2. Apologies for absence

2.1 Formal apologies were received from Jane Gibbens and Muna Anjum. Roberto Vivancos attended the open session only.

3. Declaration of interests

3.1 No declarations of interest were raised at this stage.

4. Minutes of last meeting (ACM/MIN/110)

4.1 The minutes from the previous meeting had been circulated early, with comments incorporated in advance.

4.2 One point was raised regarding an unresolved action on antimicrobial claims for chopping boards, which would be revisited under matters arising.

4.3 With no other comments, the minutes were approved as an accurate record and would be published on the website.

5. Matters arising – Dr Anthony Wilson, FSA (ACM/1464)

5.1 Dr Anthony Wilson introduced paper ACM/1464, summarizing progress on previous action items:

• The 109th meeting minutes now published and available on the ACMSF website
• Concerns previously raised about reserved business content appearing during public sessions were addressed, it was explained that this had informed the updated, streamlined approach to minute approval.
• The Committee had agreed to review sectoral expertise as part of the broader committee expertise review conducted by Dr Elaine Pegg. This work had been completed, with an agenda item later in the meeting.
• Slides from the HPRU lead’s presentation at the last meeting had been circulated to all members.
• Progress continued with Food Standards Scotland on establishing a working group to support trend analysis guidance and coordinate ACMSF involvement, although discussions were still ongoing Action ongoing
• Dr Aileen Mill confirmed that enterotoxin testing for Clostridium perfringens was being undertaken and that positive results referred specifically to enterotoxin rather than bacterial presence; further information was included in Annex 2.
• In relation to the Extraordinary Epidemiology of Foodborne Infections Group (EFIG) report, it was explained that while the Committee had requested additional breakdowns, such as age categories, many of the relevant data sets were owned by other government bodies, limiting the FSA’s ability to retrospectively amend them. Instead, the FSA would recommend to partner departments that future data be broken down more appropriately.
• Progress had been made on an action concerning foodborne botulism risk assessment: FSA policy colleagues were interested in commissioning a formal assessment through the approved process, with decisions to be confirmed for the next financial year Action ongoing
• Work was ongoing on a separate concern relating to a company allegedly claiming FSA endorsement; the claim had been made in private correspondence, making the resolution more complex, and the Secretariat continued to engage with the Communications and Legal teams.
• The raw pet food survey report, originally due for publication at 10am that day, had been delayed due to Communications scheduling and would instead be released the following Tuesday. A final copy of the report would be circulated to members then Action
• The Food Safety Research Network remained keen to collaborate on horizon scanning, with planning for the next workshop expected to begin in early March and the event to be held in June. The Committee discussed expanding participation to include broader stakeholders and drawing on cross‑government horizon‑scanning activity.
• Members had previously requested clearer signposting in EFIG reports where unknown sample numbers limit interpretation of trends, as well as where species‑specific Salmonella increases are observed; these changes had been incorporated. It was reiterated, however, that denominator data could not be provided because diagnostic testing occurs across multiple local laboratories operating under inconsistent processes. A committee member updated the committee that the Dog Trust was coordinating a petition to include pet‑ownership questions in the 2031 census, which could help improve denominator data relating to pet‑associated infection risks.
• A response from policy and communications teams regarding public awareness of raw drinking milk and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) was provided in Annex 3.
• An action from the 106th meeting remained open relating to significant delays experienced by the Infectious Intestinal Disease study (IID3) consortium in securing patient‑data approvals. Final research reports were expected by the end of April, and a lessons‑learned exercise would be conducted thereafter to understand causes of the 12‑month delay.
• Discussion then returned to the outstanding issue of antimicrobial claims on chopping boards. It was clarified that two separate concerns had been raised previously: one relating to misleading antibacterial claims for materials with no known antibacterial properties, and another regarding wood versus plastic surface behaviour. It was emphasised that some manufacturers appeared to be equating “non‑stick” surfaces with antibacterial properties, which risked confusing consumers. Dr Mindy Dulai noted that the issue straddled safety and advertising claims, falling partly under the Advertising Standards Authority, and agreed that the Secretariat would raise the matter with Food Contact Materials policy colleagues to explore legislative and communication considerations Action

6. Update from Listeria working group – Dr Anthony Wilson, FSA

6.1 The committee received an update on the Listeria Working Group from Dr Anthony Wilson, delivered in the absence of both the subgroup Chair and secretary.

6.2 The subgroup met on 8th of December 2025 after circulating two documents for review the Food and Agriculture Organization / World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) risk assessment of Listeria Monocytogenes in foods and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) framework for integrating genomic typing into surveillance. Members agreed both were well structured but identified several limitations for UK use, including missing UK datasets for environmental and primary production stages, the World Health Organization (WHO) model’s focus on frozen vegetables rather than ready‑to‑eat foods typical in UK outbreaks, and concerns about virulence classification models suggesting strain‑level differences that may not reflect current evidence. Limited mechanisms for data‑sharing between industry, private labs, and government were also highlighted as a key barrier.

6.3 As a result, the subgroup will produce an evaluation report by June 2026, assessing which elements of the international reports could be adopted immediately, what gaps exist, and what may require further investment or legislative change. Milestones include circulation of meeting minutes and a report skeleton by 16th of February, a first draft by 31st of March, and finalisation by the end of April. A decision will then be made on whether a final subgroup meeting is needed in May before presenting the report at the June meeting.

6.4 Members then discussed testing data availability. A comparison was made to mandatory reporting systems in animal health, questioning whether a similar approach could support UK food‑testing data needs. It was explained that earlier attempts to obtain national testing data through UCAS had failed, as many commercial labs refused to share information and are under no legal obligation to report Listeria results. Industry associations may hold partial datasets, though with limitations. Members also noted previous legal cases regarding Listeria strain virulence and agreed this nuance should be considered when reviewing the international reports.

6.5 Further contributions covered potential voluntary data‑sharing approaches, including drawing on experience from Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance collaborations, and noting relevant initiatives such as the Food Microbiology Intelligence Network. These suggestions will be fed back to the subgroup for consideration in the final report.

6.6 It was confirmed that the subgroup is intended to be time‑limited and will disband upon completing its work.

7. Update on Committee Expertise – Dr Elaine Pegg, FSA (ACM/1465)

7.1 Dr Elaine Pegg presented an overview of ACM/1465. The Chair reminded members of the previous review of committee expertise and the actions agreed: to obtain missing survey responses and examine sectoral representation.

7.2 Dr Pegg reported full survey completion, confirming earlier findings. Minor gaps remain in virology, behavioural science, genomic capacity, and quantitative risk modelling, not as deficiencies but as potential areas to strengthen redundancy.

7.3 Sector analysis showed strong academic representation, coverage from industry, regulators and environmental health, but absence of a lay member, which is required. Members were asked to consider proceeding with recruitment for the three scientific disciplines and the lay role. Recruitment is expected to open in September for an April 2027 start.

7.4 Members agreed virology is essential but noted the need to specify relevance to foodborne viruses without making criteria too narrow. Targeted outreach may improve applicant numbers.

7.5 Some areas (e.g., H5N1 food transmission) may require different virology expertise. Members suggested drawing on groups such as  Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) influenza subgroups or Tuberculosis, Acute Respiratory, Zoonoses, Emerging Infections, and Travel Health (TARZET) as needed.

7.6 Committee member, Linda Scobie, offered to act as a first point of contact for virology issues and to liaise with other committees, noting her expertise is under‑utilised.

7.7 Members questioned whether ACMSF’s work provides sufficient engagement for a behavioural scientist unless focused specifically on food hygiene behaviours. It was proposed that the Advisory Committee on Social Science (ACSS) could provide input instead, via cross‑committee collaboration.  

7.8 Members agreed the role must be clearly defined and should attract a knowledgeable lay person with an appropriate understanding of the committee’s remit.  

7.9 Members strongly supported expanding cross‑committee working to access specialist expertise when required, rather than relying solely on fixed membership. A request was made for Science Council guidance to formalise such arrangements and clarify governance and engagement expectations Action

7.10 A suggestion was noted regarding expertise in food‑packaging materials, particularly for AMR concerns. Members considered this likely to sit within another panel and represent another cross‑committee opportunity.

7.11 The Committee supported progressing recruitment for the identified expertise areas, securing a lay member, and strengthening mechanisms for cross‑committee input. The secretariat will incorporate these points into preparations for the next recruitment round.

8. Overview of VARS report – Dr Tamsin Dewe, VMD

8.1 The committee received an update on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) from Tamsin Dewe of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), who presented key findings from the latest UK‑VARS report. She briefly outlined that the report covers national antibiotic sales, usage across livestock sectors, and surveillance of resistance in bacteria from both healthy animals and clinical samples. Dr Dewe highlighted that UK antibiotic sales have fallen substantially over the past decade, that use of highest‑priority critically important antibiotics (HPCIAs) remains extremely low, and that while long‑term AMR trends are generally encouraging, with declining multidrug resistance, there are emerging concerns in specific areas such as broilers, game birds, and certain Enterococci findings. Her overview emphasised the importance of sustained surveillance and the One Health implications of unexplained resistance patterns.

8.2 Following her presentation, committee members engaged in an in‑depth discussion. Several expressed surprise at the high antibiotic usage in the game bird sector, particularly given its comparatively small scale. They questioned why this had not attracted greater scrutiny and suggested that prescribing by non‑specialist veterinarians may contribute to inconsistent stewardship. Dr Dewe acknowledged this and confirmed increased VMD enforcement activity, noting that some vets in the sector are highly motivated while others appear less aware of AMR expectations. Members highlighted that the sector’s participation in surveillance is positive, as it now exposes areas requiring targeted investigation. One member, declaring their role within Responsible use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance (RUMA), pointed out that game bird producers had voluntarily joined the national target‑setting framework, showing willingness to improve.

8.3 Another member suggested using national compound‑feed manufacturing data to better understand antibiotic inputs into game bird systems. Dr Dewe welcomed collaboration on this and proposed linking the member with VMD colleagues. The discussion then turned to coccidiostat use in poultry and whether ionophores might influence AMR trends. Dr Dewe reported that UK coccidiostat usage data had recently been published and that new research is being commissioned to examine potential co‑selection pressures. Committee members noted that although some international studies claim associations, evidence quality has often been weak and must be interpreted cautiously. Additional comments referenced the role of Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF) and international systems such as Canada’s - Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) in contextualising these issues.

8.4 Members unfamiliar with coccidiostat trends asked whether usage was changing; others with industry expertise explained that their use remains widespread and stable, with most broilers receiving them throughout the production cycle. This underscored the importance of further investigation into any possible links with AMR.

8.5 The committee also reflected more broadly on the value of comprehensive surveillance, noting that the richness of the VMD dataset allows trends to be spotted early, supports accountability across sectors, and strengthens national AMR strategy. The Chair echoed this, emphasising the importance of sustained, transparent monitoring and the need for continuous contextual interpretation across animal, environmental, and human health. The session concluded with thanks to Dr Dewe and an invitation for members to route any follow‑up questions through the Secretariat.

9. Public Q&A

9.1 No questions were raised by members of the public.