New opportunities for safer food
Consumer is King?
Jørgen Schlundt
Deputy Director
National Food Institute
Danish Technical University
Disease burden from Diarrhoea
Food- and Water-borne
Disease Incidence
approximately 4,000,000,000 cases per year
Deaths
approximately 1,800,000 per year (mostly children)
Remember
Significant numbers of other food-borne diseases
(caused by both microorganisms and chemical substances)
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Consumers rule !?
• In the 70’ies and 80’ies the definition of food safety policies was the
responsibility of authorities and food industries, presiding over a steady
decline in both safety and quality of the food we eat.
• Change has happened since then, but major changes in food safety
systems stem from food scandals (BSE in Europe and E. coli in USA) –
i.e. only when consumers were made aware of the problems
• In future systems, relevant data – on food and disease - will be transparent
and consumers will be at the table when decisions are made.
• This will only make a difference if consumers organizations are ready
to take up this responsibility.
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Consumer responsibility !?
• A typical old-time statement would for instance be that “… most
foodborne diseases could be avoided if consumers did the right thing in
the kitchen!!”.
• While there is a clear need to improve consumers behavior through
consumer education (e.g. via the WHO ‘Five Keys to Safer Food’), it is
clearly wrong to suggest responsibility for safe food is with the consumer:
this is a joint responsibility that lies primarily with the Producer.
• The crucial, new role of consumers as stakeholders also in defining
policies should open up a whole new playing field for Consumers
Organizations, influencing food production and food safety systems to
continuously improve , making more people healthy and fewer sick
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Consumer Organizations’ opportunities
• Consumers Organizations will have significant new opportunities in
relation to the new conceptual framework being introduced all over
the world for food safety: The Risk Analysis framework
• In this framework Consumers organizations are considered important
stakeholders in defining food safety policies and solutions.
• This is a significant departure from the previous roles for consumers
within old-time food safety systems
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Risk Analysis
Risk
Assessment
FAO/WHO
Expert Bodies
(Independent science)
Risk
Management
FAO/WHO
Codex Alimentarius
Commission
Risk Communication
Interactive exchange
of information and opinions
concerning risks
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Stakeholders
– part of the problem? – part of the solution?
From a framework developed by consumer organizations with WHO/FAO, 2005:
available at www.safefoodinternational.org
Public involvement throughout the risk analysis process is essential in order to
understand factors which can affect people's willingness to accept a particular risk. It
is essential that consumers are involved in determining an acceptable level of risk.
Communication among food safety authorities, consumers and the food industry
should be a vital and continuous function of a national food safety program
Risk management should include clear, interactive communication with consumers
and other interested parties in all aspects … and a major function is the process by
which opinion essential to effective risk management is incorporated into the
decision.
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Consumer as stakeholder
National Food
Institute
Independent science
Food Authority
Management –
inclusion of
stakeholders
Risk Communication
Interactive exchange of information and opinions
concerning risks – including all stakeholders
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Looking where the data is
in stead of
Looking for the right data
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Safety cannot be achieved by senseless testing
Lot: 0.1% defectives
10 samples:
Probability of detection ~ 1%
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Start by linking disease and food:
Principle of Salmonella Source attribution model
Compare the number of (reported) human cases caused by different
Salmonella subtypes
with the distribution of Salmonella subtypes isolated from the various
food (-animal) sources
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
100
Source: Danish Zoonoses Centre,
DTU National Food Institute
Estimated number of human cases per 100,000
Trends and sources of human salmonellosis
in Denmark, 1988-2007
80
60
40
20
0
88
89
90
91
92
93 94 95 96
Broilers
Total Import
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
97 98 99 00
Pork
Total cases
01 02 03
Table eggs
04
05
06
07
When describing risk:
often ignores the
public outrage factor
pays too little
attention to the
relative nature of risk
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
It takes two to communicate
Predict, discuss and
decide risk reduction
from sensible action
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
The unbearable weight of
Status Quo
Some Danish examples show clearly that significant reduction is possible for
specific pathogens – Setting and achieving Targets for Reduction
Part of the explanation of success lies in involvement of stakeholders (both industry
and consumers)
Who is responsible for driving change
Authorities?
Industry?
Consumer NGO’s?
Status Quo should not be an option
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Is this possible to communicate?
(we are not going for zero!)
Traditionally Targets have not been considered easily ‘communicable’ within food
safety (although clearly used in many other areas – e.g. environment)
On the other hand the EU system has clearly formulated targets in food safety areas
(Zoonosis Directive) and USA has tried target driven intervention at slaughterhouse
level (Salmonella in pigs)
Nevertheless a target discussion is now virtually absent from the international
scene, which has for some years been dominated by generic ‘hygienic guidelines’
discussions without any audacity
Consumers need to weigh in!
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Setting Targets to reduce foodborne disease levels
The Food safety Win-Win
Improved food safety
less illness, medical and social costs, poverty
Improved Food trade
international trade capability
safe national trade
Improved health
less illness, medical and social costs,
poverty
Economic Development
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Global approach – Global improvement
• Lowering the global disease burden is possible through
international standards based on health considerations
• Improving economic development is possible through
international trade of safer food
•
• Help to developing countries should not be given in a way
costing lives in importing countries (lowering standards) but
in a way that improves food safety both in exporting and
importing country (technical assistance as per WTO/SPS
agreement (Sanitary and PhytoSanitary))
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Prevention in one global food market
• Foodborne disease will not be prevented through end-product testing or
through border control alone
• New – and more efficient - food safety systems could attempt a focus
on preventative efforts as close to the source as possible
• New agricultural products will most likely affect both nutrition and
food safety globally in the future
reinforcing the need to
Include Consumers globally in Policy communication and decisions
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark