Food Chain 2004: Summaries of Session 2

Consumer Perception of an Integrated Food Safety Policy – Harmonising Risk Reduction Measures?

Dr J ∅rgan Schlundt, WHO Safety Department, Switzerland

Food safety is an important part of public health and links health, agriculture and sustainable development. It is a top priority for the World Health Organisation (WHO). Some of the heightened attention to food safety issues is due to a number of food scares that have shaken consumer confidence. However, these scares and scandals are only the tip of the iceberg of food safety problems. Dr J∅rgan Schlundt from the WHO Food Safety Department in Switzerland discussed the issues relating to consumer perceptions of food safety.

The concept of consumer perception of food safety issues was inherently problematic for many food regulators in the recent past. Scientists and regulators often held the view that consumers in general would not have the capacity to understand foodborne risks let alone the actions taken to prevent them. At the same time it should be realised that consumer perception is often based on easily available information in the public domain, e.g. in press reports.

The concept of food hazards is a difficult one to get across to consumers. Notably there are hazards in food that pose no risk to human health such as chemicals in concentrations below the acceptable intake, or bacteria at below toxin-forming levels, but how can this be explained to the consumer?

One way of trying to incorporate new thinking is the new framework of risk analysis. This takes account of risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. The assessment is science based, the management policy based, and the communication is an outcome of interactive exchange of information and opinions concerning risks. The final outcome will be a facts-based consumer perception of food risks.

The core elements of an improved food safety system are fivefold. Firstly, there is a need to integrate systems to cover the full food production chain, recognising that the critical point for efficient prevention may be at different points of the chain for different problems.

Secondly, interdisciplinary collaboration has been missing in promoting preventative work; this has to be reactivated. Thirdly, there should be a focusing of effort towards the real human health risks in the population through the use of the new risk analysis framework, i.e. to determine the disease burden.

Fourthly, contaminant monitoring, disease surveillance and food control efforts should be geared towards common goals, and fifthly, realistic targets should be set and success/failure monitored. For example, the lack of clearly communicated targets for disease reduction is still a major drawback of existing food safety systems.

Dr Schlundt concluded with an assurance that food safety is one of WHO’s top priorities and 192 WHO member states have adopted a strongly worded resolution that recognises food safety as an essential public health function. Now is the time for change!

Implications for New Member States of the Introduction of EU HAACP legislation: A Case Study of the Control of Chemical Contaminants from Fork to Farm in the Production of Baby Food

Professor Jana Hajslova, Institute of Chemical Technology, Prague, Czech Republic

Effective implementation of quality management systems in the new EU member states is a key precondition for achieving competitiveness for their foods/food products and services both on the European and world markets. The so-called Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Point (HACCP) is an obligatory system embracing quality control and quality management elements. Professor Jana Hajslova from The Institute of Chemical Technology in Prague reported on a farm-to-fork case study approach being taken on this issue in the Czech Republic.

As a prelude to the case study she showed compliance by those in the Czech food chain to the Czech Food Act, to the principles of HACCP as introduced by national legislation, and the achievement of the ISO 9001:2000 standard by many Czech food producers and SMEs. General rules concerning good hygiene practice in food production have also been defined in national legislation and hygiene requirements set for all food premises, to include internal and external areas. Food safety procedures based on identifying critical control points have been adopted by the new EU member states.

The case study involved the production of a chemically safe fruit-based baby food using a HACCP approach. Apples were one of the major fruits used and facilitated the tracing of any potential problems back to the growing firm. The potential hazards considered were pesticides and fertilisers used in apple production, naturally occurring toxic chemicals (e.g. the mycotoxin patulin in apples), environmental pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, persistent pesticides), chemicals leached from the food packaging into the baby food, and lastly, unintentional additives (e.g. detergents, disinfectants) used in processing the baby food. All these tests were carried in collaboration with a major Czech baby food producer.

The study showed that modern pesticides were identified as the most potentially serious hazard and an extensive monitoring programme was initiated by the baby food producer in addition to technological procedures leading to a decrease or elimination of the residues. However, all the test values were below the maximum residue limits for the pesticides in question. The study concludes that while prevention is the best control strategy, corrective action procedures must also be on-tap for application as required.

Surveillance Tools Supporting an Integrated Approach to Traceability through the Food Chain

Dr John Threlfall, Health Protection Agency, UK

Numerous international outbreaks of bacterial food poisoning have been pinpointed and recognised as a result of collaboration between microbiologists and epidemiologists on five continents. This early warning/detection enables appropriate intervention strategies to be implemented nationally and internationally to deal with these outbreaks. DrJohn Threlfall from the Health Protection Agency, London described two international networks, one in Europe (Enter-Net) and a second in the USA (Pulse-Net) on which this collaboration is based. A third network, Pulse-net Europe will come into operation this summer.

The need for such networks is due to the globalisation of food supplies and the fact that food bacteria do not respect national boundaries. It is common for foods/food products to be harvested/manufactured at one place and then distributed within a country, across economic regions (e.g. the EU), continents or even worldwide. This increases the potential for international outbreaks of food poisoning on a large scale.

Recent examples include 4,000 cases in three countries from a peanut-flavoured kosher snack, and the implication of chocolate (and its subsequent impounding in some countries) in large food poisoning outbreaks in several European and three non-European countries. These examples represent only a few of the ever-increasing number of outbreaks of food-borne infection caused by the distribution of contaminated products.

An international response to combating these outbreaks was the formation of the three surveillance networks. The remit of Enter-Net is to conduct surveillance of food-borne pathogens within Europe, and over 25 European countries are participating together with Canada, Japan, South Africa and New Zealand; there are also informal links with other countries. A complementary project, Salm-gene enhances the Enter-Net network by harmonising identification methods for bacteria and also via the rapid electronic transmission of captured data among the network participants. The co-ordination costs of Enter-Net are paid by the EU, and the Salm-gene research project is also funded by the EU. The Pulse-Net network covers the USA, Canada and the Pacific Rim countries and the use of a technique called ‘pulsed field gel electrophoresis’ has been standardised in order to identify several enteric pathogenic bacteria.

The cornerstones of the networks are strong databases (both microbiological and epidemiological) based on agreed and harmonised methods for identifying bacterial strains and supplemented by DNA methods. This provides results that are amenable to electronic communication between participating countries and are vital in recognising outbreaks of enteric infection. This facilitates public health intervention and hence protects both the European and the international populations from infections from food-borne enteric pathogenic bacteria.

Risk Reduction and Prevention Strategies towards Pathogen-free Food in Ireland

Dr Jim Sheridan, Teagasc The National Food Centre, Dublin

Risk to consumer health from food poisoning in Ireland and worldwide is often associated with meat and meat products reported Dr Jim Sheridan from Teagasc The National Food Centre, Dublin. He discussed risk reduction and prevention strategies towards pathogen-free (i.e. dangerous bacteria) meat in Ireland and stressed that the farm is recognised as the primary source of pathogens on fresh meat. Reducing the numbers of bacteria in animal faeces (contaminates the hides) is a major priority as are interventions in the slaughterhouse where incoming animals may harbour pathogens in faeces, on the hides and in fleece or skin.

Hazard prevention by implementing the so-called Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Point (HACCP) system is widely practised in the post-farm food chain but is difficult to apply to pathogen control in live animals largely due to the absence of critical control points. Recent research has addressed these issues. Potential solutions include the use of vaccines to control pathogen spread and persistence in live animals, the feeding of probiotic bacteria (i.e. beneficial bacteria that ‘fight’ the bad ones) to the animals, the feeding of silage rather than concentrates to pasture-finished cattle, and the use of chemical interventions such as the administration of sodium chlorate to pigs.

Modifications to farm practices can also help reduce pathogen numbers. For example, numbers decline slowly in manure but rapidly in compost, so composting is recommended. Staff hygiene and visitor access may also spread pathogens, and control of the latter is important in reducing cross contamination. Contaminated drinking water remains a problem, and chlorination is largely ineffective due to the build-up of organic matter in the water trough.

Slaughterhouse interventions are also crucial in reducing pathogen numbers. For example, recent tests using sodium sulphide for de-hairing cattle have been very successful. The detached hair is washed off with water leaving a clean surface with greatly decreased bacterial numbers. Organic acid washes may be used in beef processing pre and post-evisceration to decontaminate carcasses and can give a 10-fold reduction in bacterial numbers; steam pasteurisation of carcasses can effect a 100-fold reduction but hot water is more effective than steam in reducing the number E. coli and coliform bacteria.

Chilling retards bacterial growth on beef, pork and lamb carcasses and its efficacy is enhanced if carried out in conjunction with some of the other procedures, i.e. there is a synergistic effect. The outcomes from this research is that many of the interventions studied have the potential to reduce bacterial numbers, and that pathogen reduction in live animals pre-slaughter is a key requirement.

Making Ethical Stewardship Work

Dr Jo Murphy-Lawless, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, National University of Ireland, Dublin

It is important to recognise and explore lessons learned from the mad cow (BSE) and foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks in order to ensure more comprehensive food safety, reported Dr Jo Murphy-Lawless from the National University of Ireland. She suggests there are ongoing problems with risk assessment, government regulatory action, public accountability and trust, and with definitions of profit and efficiency in farming.

The BSE crisis was not just about getting science wrong or about government departments working foolishly, blindly or covertly to ensure damage limitation. It was about living our lives with uncertainty in relation to food and its production. The very fact that there cannot be 100% accuracy or certainty in this complex process means that a more diverse and flexible approach is needed to deal with food safety in a timely way.

Risk and avoidance strategies are important in contemporary society and we rely heavily on what science says about risk to help us reach society-wide decisions on how to handle illness and disease. However, there are significant limitations about scientific thinking on risk. In this context it was wrong of government officials to try to de-emphasise possible risk factors of BSE in order not to destabilise public perception about the safety of meat production.

Public response in the UK to the Phillips Report (October 2000) was quick to focus on the conclusion that BSE happened due to the inexorable search for greater profitability within agribusiness that licensed the use of meat and bone meal in the first place. This remains a challenging and uncomfortable position for all concerned.

The failure to initiate the ‘precautionary principle’, that is the principle that public actions should be taken ‘to reduce potential hazards before there is strong proof of harm taking into account the likely costs of and benefits of action and inaction’ is part of the reason why BSE became so widespread. It is known that the warnings of some scientists were rejected. There is a major lesson here for the handling of future food safety crises.

The core issue of insufficient surveillance featured in the British debate on the catastrophic outbreak of FMD in 2001. The rapid spread of the virus, even after it was detected, was attributed to competitive pressures in intensive agribusiness that led to practices like mixing animal flocks, widespread transport of animals, and animal holding centres. The BSE and FMD outbreaks have brought absolute recognition that animal and human health are dependent on one another.

Each successive food crisis has brought more local groups and communities to the fore challenging governments to think differently about farming and food production. This is moving towards an ‘ethical stewardship’ approach which embraces health and welfare, freedom and choice, and lastly fairness as seen through the principles of wellbeing, autonomy and justice, respectively.

This mix gives a tool for responsible decision-making in food safety matters. The complex struggle continues and Irish small farmers fear that their slim profits will shrink because of EU proposals on the transport of live animals. This needs a creative approach to achieve a solution and we know from the consequences of BSE and FMD that it is critically important to invest time to achieve this.