The issue of food safety and food-borne risk is gaining widespread public attention. Building and maintaining the confidence of the various stakeholders in food safety systems entails the need to explain clearly the role of ethics in food safety policy development. There is broad international agreement that food safety standards and related guidelines must have an objective basis in science. It is also evident, however, that risk analysis, and especially risk management, require that numerous subjective and value-laden factors be considered in determining the appropriate level of protection and in guiding the choice of the optimal risk-management option(s). The scientific community has developed ways to resolve disagreements over scientific facts, but disagreements over the value and ethical components of food safety decisions are often much harder to sort out.
To address these issues, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), organized an Expert Consultation on Food Safety: Science and Ethics as part of an ongoing effort to address ethical issues in food safety adequately. The aim of the Expert Consultation was to advance the global debate on the roles of science and ethics in food safety decision-making, thus guiding deliberations within FAO and WHO on their food safety programmes and informing the wider community. Specifically, the Expert Consultation was asked to:
[define] value judgements included in the risk analysis and make recommendations as appropriate;
provide practical guidance for improving risk communication at national and international levels;
make recommendations on food safety policy and procedures in the context of food aid situations; and
make recommendations on food safety policy in relation to the "right to food".
Risk analysis generally involves a process involving three phases: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. All three phases involve making value judgements. Many, if not most, of these judgements are ethical in nature, or have implicit ethical dimensions. Such judgements fall under both the "sound scientific analysis" and the "other legitimate factors" clauses in the Codex Alimentarius Statements of Principle Concerning the Role of Science as well as in similar documents used in national systems of risk assessment and risk management. Taken together, these elements include a variety of economic, legal, cultural, social, environmental and scientific values needed to conduct an adequate risk analysis.
The triggering event for a specific risk analysis can potentially be of great ethical significance. The fact that a risk analysis is undertaken often reflects a prior judgement that some person or group should take action to reduce the likelihood or severity of harm, or that someone should provide potentially affected parties with an opportunity to give or withhold consent, or that there is someone who could be held responsible for harms that might eventually ensue. Each of these "shoulds" and "coulds" can have an ethical, and sometimes legal, dimension. In this context, the ethically laden question of how much precaution is necessary comes up repeatedly and often plays a decisive role. These possibilities mean that the decision to conduct a risk analysis is not one undertaken out of idle scientific curiosity. It is rather one in which prior ethical understandings of the roles and responsibilities of both private sector stakeholders and government agencies are deeply embedded.
The interaction between science and ethics for the most part works smoothly, but the value and ethical components of food safety risk analysis are often less than transparent. There is thus a need to be more explicit about broader social, cultural, environmental and other values that are inevitably incorporated in science-based food safety decisions, in order to enhance and maintain the trustworthiness and integrity of those decisions. In this regard, international food safety organizations must make clear that science, while an important tool, is not sufficient in itself for food risk analysis and that it needs to operate within an ethical framework. Organizations must also develop and adopt procedures that facilitate discussions and debate over the ethical dimensions of their food safety policies, with the continued and increased involvement and participation of the affected private sector and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Risk communication about food hazards, risk assessments and risk management should take as its primary point of reference the perspective of those affected by the risk. Risk communication should address the question: "Is this food, with these known risks, safe?". Since the most difficult issues in food safety decisions generally involve competing values and interests, it follows that much of the risk communication in food safety policy-making should focus on the value and ethical dimensions of the decision. As the international food safety system comes to terms with its need and its responsibilities for risk communication, several considerations should be kept in mind. First, communication should ensure that ethical components of food safety decisions are clearly identified as early in the process as possible. Second, the system should function so that value-laden choices made by risk managers are made in an open, participatory way that respects the rights and roles of all stakeholders. Following such a strategy will not necessarily make food safety risk analysis more efficient, as dealing with all difficult questions may be time-consuming. But a strategy that is more sensitive to ethical issues should make food safety risk analysis more effective, by making decisions sounder, more transparent, more democratic and better understood. This, in turn, should make risk analysis decisions more acceptable to, and useful for, the governments and citizens of all nations.
The human right to adequate food is recognized in several instruments under international law. The right to food implies the right to produce or procure the food one needs and it demands that those who for reasons beyond their control are unable to do so be provided for.
Value judgements in food safety decision-making can remain implicit until necessity, borne of crisis, demands their exploration. We are often faced with significant value judgements in famine or food shortage situations where the focus is on providing food to ensure the very survival of a population. In these circumstances, the discussion of other values is eclipsed by the quest for food. It is, however, important to reflect on the values that apply to food safety systems generally and see what practical implications these have for handling food safety in situations where people's access to adequate food is at risk. Such reflection helps to improve our forward planning to ensure that ethical questions are not overlooked even in crisis situations.
If international food aid takes place in the context of crisis situations, how are the ethics of the food safety system applied? To address food safety concerns of people in situations of distress in a trustworthy way, donors must understand that people in these situations have substantial reasons for general distrust. International food aid, as an international allocation of foodstuffs, should therefore be subject to the same food safety standards as foodstuffs moving in international trade. It is sometimes claimed that upholding safety standards that apply to trade during a food crisis hurts the starving population. However, a "double standard" is not justified. Food aid professionals are confident that in most cases, compliance with international food safety standards is achievable. Moreover, food aid cannot burden recipient countries with ethical dilemmas regarding potential trade-offs between the need to feed a population and safety or other important national concerns. At the same time, deterioration in the quality and possibly the safety of donated food often takes place after food aid has reached the recipient country since, in food crisis situations, storage and transportation facilities and quality assurance measures are generally suboptimal. Sustainable infrastructure and capacity at the local level must also be established and maintained to ensure that adequate and safe food reaches the people who need it. International rules and codes of conduct exist to ensure, among other things, that food safety is guaranteed in food aid. However, such instruments should be made more explicit and better known. The donor agencies have the responsibility to be familiar with the ethical as well as the safety status of food products contained in each consignment.
The right of every human being to be free from hunger is fundamental and uncontested. The most important implication of the right to adequate food is that states and peoples must be supported to enable them to address situations of food insecurity themselves. The right to culturally acceptable food should not be regarded primarily as a right to receive a specific type of food aid, but as a right to be supported so as to create one's own food security. Support to address sustainable food security must therefore also include ensuring the capacity in recipient countries for food that is both safe and nutritious.
Discussion and decision-making with respect to these ethical and value dimensions of food safety must be transparent for interested parties, participatory in design and characterized by good communication among all interested parties. In this regard, risk managers and risk assessors, operating at national, international or organizational levels must ensure that their risk analysis procedures incorporate effective means of outreach to, and inclusiveness of, the affected stakeholders. Moreover, risk communication practices of risk assessors and risk managers -operating at national, international and organizational levels - must include strategies to facilitate access to these risk analysis processes in order both to enable public scrutiny and improve substantive results. International food safety organizations must also adopt procedures that facilitate communication among risk managers, risk assessors and interested stakeholders - in particular by developing risk assessment policies. In addition, they must continue to expand the involvement and participation of private sector and international NGOs in consultative and decision-making fora and meetings.
To participate equitably in ethical and scientific discussions in the food safety system, the capacity of the involved or affected parties has to be built. In this regard, international food safety organizations and other relevant bodies must stimulate capacity building in developing countries to enable them to participate effectively in international expert bodies and standard-setting organizations. Food safety organizations and other bodies must also stimulate capacity building in developing countries to enable them to incorporate into risk analysis processes both the identification and justification of ethical and value judgements and the application of science.
