Lecture 35.
Food safety - an introduction

---

What we want to learn about this topic

Consumer concern over food safety issues has been growing. In this lecture, we examine

• why the demand for food safety and food regulation is growing
• risk analysis - the scientific basis for food safety regulation
• recent developments in EU and Irish food safety institutions and laws

Short introduction to the issues

The three characteristics of food which concern consumers, apart from price, are safety, quality and nutrition. This topic deals with the economics of food safety only.

The growing demand for food safety

From earliest times food has been particularly susceptible to exploitation, and there is a long history of food legislation with the purpose of preventing consumers being either cheated or poisoned! Measures for the protection of the consumer against the adulteration of food and drink were among the earliest examples of social legislation.

Despite the undoubted improvement in food purity and in merchandising practices brought about by this legislation consumers are increasingly uneasy about the safety and quality of the modern food supply. Issues of recent concern include:

• BSE in cattle
• salmonella in poultry
• agrochemical residues in food
• the increasing number and diversity of food additives,
• the use of illegal substances in livestock production
• food irradiation
• genetically engineered foods.

The growth in the demand for food regulation can be traced to a number of sources:

• The risk of food-borne diseases has increased for a number of reasons. Best hygiene practices are not always followed in commercial and domestic kitchens. Fewer people are preparing their own food and more eating outside the home means a higher proportion of people at risk in outbreaks. The increasing demand for ready-to-go foods has resulted in food being served in a growing number of non-traditional outlets such as garage forecourts. The global distribution of food has lengthened the food chain. The increased competition and price constraints on food producers has led the food sector to seek cost reductions through ever more complex food processing and may sometimes encourage producers to adopt practices which have adverse health effects.
• Economic growth increases consumer demand for quality attributes in general and for food safety in particular. As incomes rise, consumers become more demanding and are more prepared to pay for a regulatory regime that provides higher standards and minimises risks;
• Population now increasingly urban and because of modern consumption habits, such as the use of catering, ready to cook and convenience food, consumers are more dependent on public authorities for food safety than in traditional rural societies.
• Economic studies of the cost of food contamination and food-borne disease in the US suggest that it is very costly.
• Nutrition is another area of concern. While consumers are preoccupied with food safety at present, food quality issues and the nutritional value of food may re-emerge as a more important policy issue in future.

Risk analysis - deciding what is safe

No food, indeed no human activity, is completely free of risk, so what do we mean by safe food? Risk analysis is a structured approach whereby risks to human health are assessed and the best means for their control identified. Best practice in risk analysis follows a three-stage process:

• risk assessment. An assessment is made of the risk to human health associated with a particular food-borne hazard. This consists in identifying potential hazards associated with food and then identifying the risk, defined as a function of the probability of an adverse effect and the severity of that effect, consequential to a hazard(s) in food. Risk is an estimate of the chances you may have of being affected by the hazard in question, given that an appropriate assessment of the hazard was made and uncertainties were factored in. For example, the risk of contracting cancer from exposure to a cancer causing chemical agent in the environment due to industrial pollution, might be that one person in a million will actually contract the disease.
• risk management. This is the process of weighing policy alternatives in the light of results of the risk assessment and, if required, selecting and implementing appropriate control options, including regulatory measures. Decisions are made regarding the acceptable level of risk and measures implemented for the control of this risk.
• risk communication. Information about the risk and chosen methods of control are communicated among interested parties.

The implication is that regulatory decisions based on risk analysis should be consistent across different aspects of food safety and, perhaps, across other elements of risk, such as environmental protection and transport safety.

Issues arising from risk analysis

• techniques of risk assessment. Risk assessment are often done using animals to determine levels of toxicity and then extrapolated to humans. The legitimacy of this extrapolation can be questioned.
• an acceptable risk standard must be determined. This might vary from a zero risk (as used in the Delaney Clause applied to food additives in the US), to a minimum risk (the product might be acceptable if it leads to less than one additional death per 100,000 or 1,000,000 people over their lifetimes), to a risk benefit criterion (where the environmental and health effects may be offset by economic benefits). The amount of risk society will tolerate is decided by the political policy process.
• consumer perceptions of risk are often very different to expert assessments. As former EU Health Commissioner David Byrne once put it in a speech: 'Crossing a street is not considered a risk despite a death toll of 40000 every year - eating GMOs is considered a risk despite the fact that not a single person has died as a result of its consumption.' The willingness to accept risk appears to be systematically influenced by whether the risk is voluntary or involuntary, by whether there are offsetting benefits, etc.
• consumers may lack confidence or not have trust in the regulatory authorities charged with conducting risk analysis procedures.
• what to do when scientific understanding is uncertain or incomplete. The precautionary principle states that governments should take a conservative approach where there are potential risks to human health but these risks are unknown.

The EU approach to food safety regulation

In 1996 the Commission launched a public consultation on food law. This aimed to examine the effectiveness of EU food legislation from three angles: the provision of a high level of protection and safety; the functioning of the internal market; and the provision of a simple and rational legal framework within which industry and trade could operate.

The BSE crisis added a new dimension to the discussion, since it led to a questioning of the competence and independence of the public authorities and the effectiveness of the control system in protecting the consumer. The EP severely criticised the system of control in a Committee of Inquiry report, and called for full separation of legislation, controls and scientific assessment at all levels of the system. A Green Paper on Food Law was published in 1997 which was followed by a series of intensive consultations and which led to the publication of a White Paper on Food Safety in 2000. This set out the strategy for current EU food safety regulation overseen by DG SANCO (Commissioner David Byrne) and which is based on four pillars:

• Risk assessment based on sound science and undertaken by the European Food Safety Authority with a brief to co-ordinate the scientific basis of food safety policy and in co-operation with national food safety authorities to create a fully effective risk communication policy. The EFSA provides a source of independent, objective scientific advice on food-related risks.
• Risk management based on clear legislation based on this scientific advice. The White Paper proposed a major overhaul of EU food laws to create a single, coherent body of legislation and to streamline the hitherto fragmented provisions, for instance, in the area of hygiene. Over 80 legislative measures were outlined and a timetable suggested for their approval in the three years to 2002. Important elements of this legislation include general principles of food law, food hygiene and GMO labelling. Proposes to update and extend legislative controls to ensure the safety of animal feed were also included. This was a hugely ambitious programme exceeding even the flurry of food-related legislation introduced under the single market programme in the late 1980s. The result is that the EU now has a very comprehensive food safety legislation in place.
• Risk control based on a substantial strengthening of the EU framework for enforcement of food safety regulations. Enforcement of food regulations is the responsibility of national governments albeit under the oversight of the EU. An EU framework directive lays down norms and procedures relating to inspection and enforcement, and the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission, which is based at Grange, Co. Meath, controls the performance of national authorities and makes recommendations aimed at improving national control and inspection systems. Draft proposals from Commissioner Byrne in March 2003 are controversial in that they propose new sanction measures which foresee criminal punishment for those who commit any of a listed number of food safety offences.
• Risk communication which, as noted above, is the responsibility of the EFSA in co-ordination of national food safety authorities. The EFSA is responsible for the EU Rapid Alert System for food which links EU countries in cases of food-borne threats.

The White Paper strategy was broadly welcomed by industry and consumers. However, some doubts about the likely effectiveness of the new Authority remain. The Commission explicitly rejected the option of modelling it on the US Food and Drugs Administration which has responsibility not only for risk assessment (i.e. quantifying the risk associated with a potential food hazard) but also risk management (i.e. taking the necessary decisions to respond to a perceived food-borne risk such as strengthening existing regulations). The Authority's role is limited to giving its opinion (risk assessment), and it will be up to the Commission (in conjunction with the Council and the Parliament) to initiate the required action (risk management). Furthermore, the Commission's powers to ensure enforcement in Member States are slow and unwieldy. More effective procedures, such as withholding EU payments from states which are deemed not to respect EU law, will be necessary to ensure compliance.

It should be noted that European food legislation covers more than just food safety issues although this is the most important bloc. Indeed, it can be divided into three main groups:

• first group relates to product safety. Covers areas such as food hygiene, additives, solvents, materials in contact with food, contaminants, novel foods and the control system.
• second group concerns consumer information. Mainly provided through labelling. Horizontal measures set out rules for providing truthful, essential and meaningful information. Specific labelling requirements have recently been added, covering quantitative declaration of ingredients, novel foods and GMOs.
• third area concerns quality requirements, particularly common in the agricultural area. Examples include vertical directives for honey, sugar, chocolate, milk products, dietetic foods and special regionally produced foods or brands.

The key piece of EU legislation implementing the White Paper's recommendations is Regulation EC 178/2002 called the general food law. Under this legislation, food may not be placed on the market which is (a) injurious to health or (b) unfit for human consumption. While risk assessment of food and feed is to be primarily based on scientific evidence, societal, economic, ethical and cultural factors may also be taken into account. The regulation also incorporates the precautionary principle, allowing states to take action to protect public health when scientific uncertainty remains about risk. The principle of traceability is extremely important and is to be applied at all stages of the food chain. This includes food and feed business operators keeping records of who supplied the product and who it is subsequently sold to, and the requirement of accurate food labelling throughout the food chain. Labelling and packaging must not mislead consumers. The rules are to apply equally to food being exported from and imported into the European Union. Finally, Regulation 178/2002 established the Europan Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Its primary role is to provide independent scientific advice on risk assessments of food and feed. It is also responsible for data collection and for oversight of a rapid alert system.

Irish developments on food safety regulation

In Ireland, the Food Safety Authority was set up in 1999 under the aegis of the Minister for Health and Children to ensure that food produced, distributed or marketed in the State meets the highest standards of food safety and hygiene and to co-ordinate food safety activities 'from farm to fork'. The Authority has functions in relation to research, advice, co-ordination of services and certification of food. It operates the national food safety compliance programme by means of service contracts with the agencies currently involved in the enforcement of food legislation (including Government Departments, Health Boards, local authorities, and the Radiological Protection Institute). Around 1,800 persons in total are involved in the inspection and control of food. In addition, the Authority works with industry and training bodies to improve, harmonise and co-ordinate food safety and hygiene training through the country. The Authority is required to operate on the basis of scientific principles and with the primacy of consumer interests in mind.

Reading suggestions

Kinsey, J., 2003, Food safety in three dimensions: safety, diet quality and bio-security, Choices 20(4), 2005.

Wall, P., 2003, Food Safety: Opportunity or Threat for Irish Food Businesses, Paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Society of Ireland.
(an Irish perspective on food safety by the first Chief Executive of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland)

Web resources

For developments connected with European food law and the European Food Safety Authority, see David Jukes' now somewhat dated web pages at the University of Reading.

The EU Commission Food Safety website under DG Health and Consumer Protection US Foreign Agricultural Service Mission to the EU has a good page of links to EU food safety legislation.

For a developing country perspective on EU food safety policies, see the food safety section of the website maintained by the CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU.

For developments in US food safety policies, check out the resources in the US Department of Agriculture Economics Research Service Briefing Room on Government Food Safety Policies.

Food Safety Authority of Ireland website

Institute of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food Safety Risk Analysis Clearinghouse (includes an introductory tutorial to food safety risk analysis).