www.food.gov.uk
Matthew Davis
<[FOI #16720 email]>
17 August 2009
Reference: DB750
Dear Mr Davis
Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thank you for your email of 11 August 2009 requesting information in relation to a
recent decision notice [FS50130316] issued by the Information Commissioner. I am
dealing with your request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).
You requested the following, in particular:
‘Please could you tell me the name of the US fast food chain that was mentioned in
the recent decision notice by the Information Commissioner [FS50130316] against
your organisation. Could you also provide me with a copy of the presentation slide
that was the subject of the decision notice.’
In relation to your request for the identity of the fast food chain, I may inform you that
McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd approached the Food Standards Agency regarding the
safe cooking of meat. In doing so, they pointed out that their overriding concern was
the safety of customers and that they complied with current guidelines. They also
mentioned that they were not aware of any official review of the advice since the
Chief Medical Officer published his advice in 1998. They wrote to request that
consideration be given to a review of the guidelines.
___________________________________________________
Room 2C, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH
Tel: 020 7276 8000
E-mail: [email address]
As you may be aware, the Agency has the right to appeal to the Information Tribunal
against the Information Commissioner’s decision or, alternatively, to comply with the
requirements of the decision notice and disclose to the complainant the presentation
slide that was the subject of the decision notice.
As the Agency has not yet decided what action it will be taking in response to the
decision notice, we believe that the exemption provided for by Section 31(1)(c) of the
Act applies to your request for a copy of the presentation slide that was the subject
of the decision notice. I wish to advise you that this information is currently being
withheld under this exemption. The reasons for doing so are explained in the annex
attached to this letter.
Should the Agency decide to comply with the decision notice rather than appeal to
the Information Tribunal, we would be happy to forward a copy of the slide to you at
the same time as it is disclosed to the complainant.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to
quote the reference number above in any future communications.
If you are unhappy with the way the Agency has handled your request for
information, you should write within two calendar months of the date of this letter to:
Mr Keith Gregory, FSA Complaints Coordinator, and ask for an internal review.
Keith’s address is Food Standards Agency, Room 2C Aviation House, 125
Kingsway, London, WC2B 6NH (email: [email address]).
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may apply directly
to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a
decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by Agency.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF or through the
website at http://www.ico.gov.uk/
2
Yours sincerely
[Sent by e-mail]
Firth Piracha
3
Annex
Section 31(1)(c) – law enforcement
This is a qualified exemption that relates to information which (if disclosed) would, or
would be likely to, prejudice the administration of justice. The Agency considers that
disclosure of the information requested would be likely to cause such prejudice.
Disclosure of the slide at this time prior to a decision being taken by the Agency as to
what action it will be taking in relation to the decision notice would prejudice the
options being considered and, in so doing, would render the possibility of appealing
against the decision notice to the Information Tribunal pointless.
In applying this exemption, the Agency has carried out a balance of the public
interest test and considered the public interest factors for and against disclosure.
We have recognised the general public interest in openness. On the other hand,
there is a strong public interest in allowing authorities room to deliberate future
actions and to retain information during such deliberations that may constitute
evidence as part of a future appeal. The right to access information should not
cause prejudice to the likelihood of any such possible appeal taking place.
We have concluded therefore that the overall balance of the public interest test
favours non-disclosure at the present time.
4
