| Agenda Item 4 | (AC 05/2) |
NATIONAL FOOD SAFETY SYSTEMS IN THE AMERICAS
AND THE CARIBBEAN - A SITUATION ANALYSIS
(Prepared by the FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean
and the FAO Subregional Office for the Caribbean)
Introduction
1. The increasing globalization of markets, the growth of the agrifood industry, advances in science and technology and changes in consumer habits require that countries have national food safety systems that are capable of dealing with the challenges demanded by consumers and trade.
2. The availability of safe and wholesome food is the result of an integrated approach in which all players in the chain have specific responsibilities and implies the assurance of safety in all stages of production, processing, storage and distribution. Such a situation calls for the active participation of a variety of sectors, so national food safety systems should focus on establishing mechanisms of collaboration and interaction involving government, industry, academia, traders and consumers.
3. Governments' food safety policies, which need to be consistent with their aims of protecting the public and complying with international treaties, therefore have an enormous influence on the state of public health and the socio-economic situation. Hence the importance of equipping national food safety systems with updated science-based (risk analysis) legislation, that is in line with recognized standards to facilitate the honouring of commitments and international trade agreements, and that is comprehensive in perspective to cover all the links of the food chain as a single continuum (“from farm to fork”).
4. Food contamination has major repercussions on public health, the national economy and trade in those products. Food-borne diseases (FBDs) constitute a widespread and growing problem of public health in the world, affecting children, pregnant women and the elderly in particular. Information from the Regional Information System for Epidemiological Surveillance of Food-Borne Diseases (SIRVETA) coordinated by the Pan-American Institute for Food Protection and Zoonoses (INPPAZ) of the World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO), although under-recorded, still reveals a total of 6 930 outbreaks of FBDs in the Americas between 1993 and 2002, with 17.8% from fish, 16.1% from water, 11.7% from red meat and 2.6% from fruits and vegetables.
5. One key feature of the Latin America and Caribbean region is that it is a major food exporter. Detailed statistics from the World Trade Organization indicate that 17.5% of the region's exports in 2003 were food products, with a value of US$66200 million and equivalent to 12.2% of global food exports. However, food contamination can seriously affect international trade, leading purchaser countries to reject shipments which can have serious repercussions on the economies of the producer countries. Data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report 3 645 rejections of food consignments from the region between September 2004 and September 2005, with 77% of these rejections due to food safety problems.
6. The national food safety systems of all the countries are made up of institutions of different ministries or secretariats that operate with varying problems of intra- and interinstitutional coordination and competence, which is a reflection of the legal instruments that underpin their actions. This situation generates both duplication and absence of control and is perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing current systems. Countries have already initiated action to optimize the integration and coordination in their control systems or to create a single national governing authority, while at the same time updating and harmonizing their legislation, basing inspection and control decisions on risk analysis, and integrating all stakeholders. Existing limitations in legislation and systems of control are preventing the desired food chain approach from being applied.
7. Canada has a national food safety system that has a high degree of coordination among official institutions, a single control agency and active integration of industry and consumers.
Food legislation
8. Food legislation exists in the form of food codes, health codes, regulations with force of law and distinct laws enforced by different secretariats or ministries, mainly those for agriculture, health, the economy and tourism. These in turn issue decrees, resolutions or agreements in their respective fields of competence. Other provincial or regional institutions and local governments also collaborate with the national institutions.
9. The general problem is not a lack of laws or regulations, but rather their enforcement as they are outdated and not science-based and overlap when there is more than one implementing agency. A PAHO/WHO evaluation of food safety systems in the Americas carried out in 2003 concluded that 29 of 33 countries had food legislation that was only 45% to 59% implemented, which reflected the weakness of their juridical systems in the area of food control.
10. An important aspect affecting the adjustment of food safety systems to changing circumstances is that regulatory modifications imply changes in law or regulations with force of law. The FAO/WHO Model Food Law appears highly recommendable in this regard as it allows for distinct amendment and updating through documents or regulations that can be rapidly issued.
11. Countries have public or non-profit private regulatory institutions affiliated to the ministries of economy or trade that tasked with drafting technical standards that go beyond food standards. Standards are generally agreed by consensus, are voluntary or mandatory (technical regulations) and can be complementary to obligatory regulations or become obligatory when such regulations do not exist.
12. Codex standards, guidelines and recommendations have assumed increasing importance, largely because of the WTO Agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The countries of the region are clearly in the process of reviewing their regulations and bringing them into line with Codex standards and are being helped in this by the National Codex Committees which include representatives of the government, academic, producer and consumer sectors.
13. At subregional level, some countries belong to economic blocs such as MERCOSUR or the Central America Customs Union which have agreed and harmonized a series of technical regulations and standards based mainly on Codex criteria.
Food control and inspection
14. Responsibility for the control and inspection of food is shared by the ministries of health and agriculture whose institutions determine regulations and programmes. Other agencies and entities are also actively involved, such as local governments.
15. With regard to processed foods for the domestic market, all the countries carry out inspection visits to establishments producing, processing, packing, packaging, storing, transporting, distributing and selling food products. These visits serve to verify adherence to national health standards and are sometimes based on risk analysis. There are also annual programmes of analytical sampling. Most countries require a health register for each production plant and line of product, while others only require a health register for the plant.
16. Import and export inspection and certification systems vary but all include inspection at ports, airports and border crossings with the active involvement of the customs services. There are sometimes operational problems because of inadequate technical capacity and infrastructure.
17. The issue of safety permits is an important mechanism used by countries for the import or export of processed foods. Each imported shipment of processed food or food additives needs to have a certificate of quality assurance issued by the officially recognized authority of the country of origin. Other countries do not require safety permits and accept imported foods on the strength of the food safety certificate issued by the competent authority of the country of origin allowing the product to be freely marketed in the home country. Checks are made in both cases to ensure compliance with national regulations.
18. Inspections of imported products are generally random, depending on the product, its origin and the history of compliance. Some countries allow unrestricted importation, with importers free to enter merchandise into the national territory and dispose of it as they please.
19. In Central America, the Customs Union is intended as a single customs territory with the free movement of goods and services, regardless of origin, especially those associated with the food trade. Agreements concluded include the mutual recognition of food safety permits for processed products.
20. The seizure or detention of foods that are unfit for human consumption, adulterated, contraband or illegal and their subsequent destruction or denaturing is provided for in the legislation of all the countries, for both locally processed and imported foods. However, not all countries have legal provisions and thus procedures for the re-exportation of detained foods.
Quality and safety assurance systems
21. Quality and safety assurance programmes serve to reduce the incidence of food-borne disease, to eliminate barriers to regional and international trade and to boost income for the agricultural and livestock sector. An important function of these programmes is to verify compliance with existing legislation and thus the use of Integrated Pest Management Programmes, Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Standard Sanitary Operation Procedures (SSOPs) and the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system.
22. The status of quality assurance systems varies from one country to another. Application of the HACCP system has focused mainly on the export sector, because of external market requirements, especially in fisheries where the system has been introduced with great success. Some countries only issue official export certificates to enterprises that have introduced the HACCP system.
23. There is less application of these systems for the domestic market, one reason being the lack of financial and technical resources for implementation, especially in small and medium enterprises. However, national authorities are clearly seeking to include these systems in regulatory provisions so that they become an integral part of the production process and protect domestic consumers.
24. Implementation of quality and safety assurance systemsin individual countries represents a challenge for the traditional (and not necessarily effective) system of control and inspection based on spot checks in the production chain and laboratory testing. The traditional system will have to be adjusted and staffed with trained personnel able to audit safety management systems in the production chain on the basis of documentation. It will also need a strong training component for producers, processors, distributors and consumers.
Laboratory services
25. National food control and safety systems also need official analytical laboratories that meet international quality standards. All the countries of the region have laboratories in public, private or academic institutions, some linked to networks, which carry out various types of analysis. Some of the public sector laboratories act as national reference laboratories while others test for the release of food safety permits.
26. In 1997, the countries of the region established the Inter-American Network for Food Analysis Laboratories (INFAL) which was tasked with promoting and assuring food safety and quality, in order to prevent food-borne disease, protect consumer health and facilitate international trade, by fostering and strengthening the development and interaction of testing laboratories within the framework of integrated national food protection programmes. FAO and INPPAZ/PAHO serve as the ex oficio secretariat of INFAL.
27. Since 1997, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has been recommending that laboratories responsible for the control of food exports and imports meet the requirements of standard ISO/IEC 17025 on “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories” and that they be accredited by an appropriate agency.
28. However, although a large majority of countries have adopted standard ISO/IEC 17025, few have accredited laboratories. Examination of laboratories belonging to INFAL in 2005 reveals that of 19 countries participating in two FAO technical cooperation projects for the “Development of an integrated system of quality assurance for food analysis laboratories”, 8 have accredited official laboratories with quality systems based on standard ISO/IEC 17025, while 9 have laboratories in the process of being implemented and two are at the early stages of implementation. The main deficiencies relate to specialized human resources, infrastructure, analytical technical capacity in line with reference methodologies, absence of national networks favouring decentralization, analytical criteria that are not uniform in methodology and scarce availability of certified reference materials.
29. PAHO/WHO has provided technical cooperation for the strengthening of food analysis services through INFAL, with an emphasis on quality assurance topics such as proficiency trials and distance learning through the Internet.
Food-borne disease surveillance systems
30. Disease from contaminated food is one of the most widespread health problems in the world and is a major cause of reduced economic productivity.
31. A large number of countries have food-borne disease surveillance programmes or systems run by the health sector. These are generally defective because of a lack of resources, limited cross-sectoral coordination, an absence of monitoring of risk factors associated with outbreaks, a lack of training for health professionals, non-functional laboratories and, in particular, a limited notification of outbreaks, which results in the under-recording of cases and outbreaks. Another limitation for FDB surveillance systems is their outdated legal framework.
32. There is clearly a need to strengthen existing surveillance systems by providing them with economic and technical resources that will help optimize coordination, increase training, improve laboratory implementation and involve all sectors in the notification of outbreaks.
33. Raising consumer awareness of the basic principles of hygiene in food preparation appears to be very important given that INPPAZ/PAHO data for the period 1993–2003 indicate that 33.1% of reported outbreaks in the region were due to foods consumed at home.
34. Canada has established an FDB outbreaks surveillance system which provides national data on outbreaks, identifies associated risk factors and helps develop data-based programmes of disease control and prevention. Its Integrated Outbreak Surveillance Centre operates through the Internet to improve surveillance, facilitating notification, issuing warnings and sharing information from public health jurisdictions throughout the country. Similarly, its FDB outbreak response protocol indicates how to respond to FDB outbreaks and makes sure that all agencies are promptly notified and collaborate effectively.
Limiting factors in national control systems
35. Control and inspection systems for the domestic sector and for imported and exported foods have the following inadequacies which combine to obstruct the achievement of food safety and quality throughout the food chain:
- systems that are not integrated and that function sectorally, resulting in a lack of coordination between institutions because there is no communication and there are no clear lines of responsibilities.
- duplication and overlapping of functions at different levels, with municipal agencies and regional or provincial authorities sometimes in dispute over receipts from safety permits.
- systems that are not based on risk analysis to achieve safety objectives.
- shortage of professional staff to conduct food control and safety actions.
- lack of infrastructure and resources for the inspection and certification of food imports and exports.
- absence of training and updating in quality assurance systems and risk analysis or training programmes that fail to achieve their objectives because of budget restrictions or the absence of follow-up.
- no systematic organization of inspection and certification system procedures and an absence of manuals and protocols.
- no refresher training or assessment of international control point officials on food import and export procedures and risk analysis.
- failure to update import and export regulations and harmonize them with Codex standards.
- diversity of criteria for the inspection of food products entering and/or leaving the country.
36. In recent years, FAO has provided technical assistance through subregional and national technical cooperation projects aimed at reinforcing National Codex Committees. These projects have included the formulation of actions plans to modernize national control systems for food imports and exports.
37. Also in the field of technical cooperation, FAO and PAHO/WHO held a workshop on food control systems in 2004, in which were presented the FAO/WHO guidelines for the strengthening of national food control systems and country case studies on the development of related strategies.
Coordination of activities of all organizations involved in food safety management
38. The fragmentation of systems into separate bodies, each coordinating food safety actions within its own specific field of competence, makes it very difficult to coordinate the food control and management system. This incurs waste in effort and resources of individual programmes and their reduced effectiveness, as well as overlapping of responsibilities and functions.
39. Countries have initiated actions to optimize coordination and resolve conflicts of food safety responsibility by creating working groups and coordination bodies, such as intersectoral commissions, and producing documents that clearly define responsibilities.
40. In Canada, the main food regulation bodies are the Ministry of Health (Health Canada) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Health Canada sets the standards and policies for the nutritional quality and safety of all foods sold in the country, which involves it in research, risk assessment and the regulation and registration of pesticides and veterinary drugs. It also assesses the effectiveness of CFIA activities. CFIA is responsible for enforcing Health Canada's policies and standards and for inspecting foodstuffs, for which it designs, develops and administers risk-based inspection programmes. Both institutions have established a protocol of agreement that identifies their respective roles and responsibilities, and determines the principles determining their effective collaboration.
Capacity building and establishment of partnerships
41. National situations differ widely. Some countries are fully capable of building capacity through universities or public institutions for the training of professionals and technicians and for the training of food handlers, although they lack continuity in refresher training. Others recognize the need to strengthen their training institutions for food safety professionals and their installed capacity for food research. Resource allocation is seen as an obstacle for the building of capacity in this area.
42. Noteworthy and highly significant at international level are the food control and safety training actions of international and regional agencies and organizations, such as FAO, PAHO/WHO, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) and the Caribbean Regional Human Resource Development Program for Economic Competitiveness (CPEC). Training and skills development is sometimes given to future trainers so as to broaden the outreach of trained personnel.
43. The creation of partnerships for the ongoing training of food control officials is in its early stages. This mechanism allows communication and interaction between the public and private sectors for the benefit of consumers. Most initiatives are training in food handling for small and medium enterprises, street-food vendors and consumers, through governmental or academic institutions or NGOs.
44. In Canada, collaboration between the different levels of government is facilitated by the existence of territorial, provincial and federal food safety committees that set joint food safety priorities and facilitate the national harmonization of inspection processes. Government-industry interaction includes the supply of funds to industry for the development of food safety, quality and traceability programmes and projects covering the whole food chain.
45. The raising of consumer awareness of food safety is very important, and consumer associations are becoming increasingly involved in bodies set up to determine technical standards, in commissions appointed to review and amend regulations, and in National Codex Committees.
46. At the level of MERCOSUR, the Food Commission of the Working Subgroup on Technical Regulations and Conformity Assessment is in constant liaison with consumers.
Communication between all stakeholders
47. A degree of communication between participant bodies generally exists in countries through:
- the web pages of public and private entities, national and international consumer associations, National Codex Committees and international agencies which channel information from relevant bodies and where activity programmes, health legislation and ongoing projects and programmes can be found.
- consumer agencies.
- public sector consultations and invitations to the other consumer, academic and private sectors to discuss matters of common interest relating to food safety.
Strategies and actions to improve food safety systems
48. The availability of wholesome and safe foods as the result of an integrated approach in which all stakeholders have specific responsibilities and which can only be achieved through the interaction of government, industry and consumers. The current limitations in legislation and control systems prevent the ideal food chain approach from being applied.
49. The establishment of national food safety systems that apply an integrated food chain approach requires the implementation of government food safety policies, the updating of food legislation, the national implementation of integrated surveillance systems, the establishment of safety assurance systems in the agriculture, livestock and food industry sectors that protect local consumers, the application of risk analysis as the basis for decision-making in inspection programmes, the strengthening of analytical capacity of national control laboratories and their accreditation, and a good coordination of all institutions involved in food control.
50. Many different strategies and actions are being applied:
- The adoption of national plant and livestock health and food safety policies and national policies for specific product chains, such as meat and milk that include risk analysis and seek to enhance operating capacity.
- The definition of sectoral and multisectoral measures for the consolidation of National Codex Committees, the stricter enforcement of key food and food safety laws and the establishment of national systems with greater cross-sectoral coordination.
- The formulation of framework food safety plans to steer and direct health policy and foster the stability and sustainability of national food safety systems.
- A shift from the present multiple agency system towards the creation of single bodies able to formulate, unify and standardize national food safety policies with sufficient technical, administrative and operational autonomy.
- The harmonization of national standards with Codex standards and the request for technical assistance from international agencies such as FAO and PAHO/WHO for the strengthening of national food control systems.
References
INPPAZ/OPS/OMS. Sistema de Información para la Vigilancia de las Enfermedades Transmitidas por los Alimentos - SIRVETA. http://www.panalimentos.org/sirveta/e/report_eta01.asp
Organización Mundial del Comercio. Estadísticas del Comercio Internacional 2004.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Informes de rechazos a importaciones del Sistema Administrativo y Operacional de Apoyo a las Importaciones (OASIS). http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/ora_oasis_ref.html
OPS/OMS. 2003. Evaluación de los sistemas de inocuidad de alimentos de la región de América.
FAO. 2005. Desarrollo de un sistema integral de aseguramiento de calidad para laboratorios de análisis de alimentos en América del Sur. Proyecto TCP/RLA/3013. http://www.rlc.fao.org/prior/comagric/codex/rla3013/
FAO. 2005. Desarrollo de un sistema integral de aseguramiento de calidad para laboratorios de análisis de alimentos en América Central, Cuba, México, Panamá y República Dominicana. Proyecto TCP/RLA/3014. http://www.rlc.fao.org/prior/comagric/codex/rla3014/
FAO/OMS. Capacity Building for Food Quality and Food Safety: Selected activities of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) July 2004 - June 2005. ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/cac/cac28/if28_05e.pdf
Antigua and Barbuda. 2005. Ministry of Health, Sports, Carnival and Youth Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Environment, Marine Resources and Agro-Industries & Antigua and Barbuda Bureau of Standards. National Food Safety System in Antigua and Barbuda.
Argentina. 2005. Subsecretaría de Política Agropecuaria y Alimentos. Sistemas nacionales de inocuidad de los alimentos en las Américas y el Caribe: Análisis de situación de la República Argentina.
Bolivia. 2005. Ministerio de Salud y Deportes. Inocuidad Alimentaria. Organización de Programas Nacionales Integrados de Protección de Alimentos.
Canada. 2005. Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The food safety regulatory system in Canada.
Chile. 2005. Ministerio de Salud. Programa Nacional de Control e Higiene de los Alimentos.
Ecuador. Diagnóstico de la situación actual en el control de la inocuidad y calidad de los alimentos en Ecuador.
Colombia. 2005. Departamento Nacional de Planeación. Sistema nacional de inocuidad de los alimentos: Análisis de la situación en Colombia.
Costa Rica. 2005. Sistemas nacionales de inocuidad de los alimentos en las Américas y el Caribe: Análisis de la situación en Costa Rica.
Guyana. 2005. Ministry of Agriculture. National food safety systems in the Americas and the Caribbean - a situation analysis.
Ecuador. 2005. Diagnóstico de la situación actual en el control de la inocuidad y calidad de los alimentos en Ecuador.
Honduras. 2005. Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería. Informe Situación nacional de la inocuidad alimentaria en Honduras.
México. 2005. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación y Comisión Federal para la Prevención de Riesgos Sanitarios. Sistemas Nacionales de Inocuidad de los Alimentos en las Américas y el Caribe: Análisis de la situación en México.
Nicaragua. 2005. Ministerio de Fomento Industria y Comercio. Sistema Nacional de Inocuidad de los Alimentos en Nicaragua: Análisis de la situación.
Paraguay. 2005. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología, Normalización y Metrología. Situación actual de la inocuidad alimentaria - Paraguay.
Perú. 2005. Ministerio de Salud. Análisis del Sistema Nacional de Inocuidad de Alimentos.
Venezuela. 2005. Ministerio de Salud y Desarrollo Social. Situación actual del control de la inocuidad de alimentos en Venezuela. Análisis de la situación.
| Agenda Item 5 | (AC 05/3) |
IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NATIONAL FOOD CONTROL SYSTEMS
IN THE AMERICAS AND THE CARIBBEAN
A case study of Belize
Michael De Shield BVSc MSc, Director, Food Safety Services
Central Investigation Laboratory, Belize Agricultural Heath Authority, Belize
A. Introduction
As early as 1983, a joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Safety concluded in its report “The Role of Food Safety in Health and Development” that disease caused by contaminated food is one of the most widespread threats to human health, and an important cause of reduced economic productivity.1 It is estimated that up to 30% of the population in developed countries may be affected by food-borne disease each year and the incidence in less developed countries remains largely unknown2.
Food-borne disease outbreaks and food contamination has caused food safety to become a major focus of public health policy, making regulatory authorities revisit their food control systems to ensure that the programmes instituted to ensure food safety are effective and sustainable. A major driving force for the implementation of effective food safety control programmes are consumers who expect governments to operate effective food control systems and to take greater responsibility for food safety and consumer protection.3
In addition, the rapid expansion of international trade in high value food products from developing countries has been governed by a growing array of food safety and agricultural health standards developed to address various risks including those associated with microbial pathogens, pesticides, veterinary pharmaceuticals, environmental contaminants, naturally occurring toxins and the spread of plant pests and animal diseases.4 The increased attention to food safety and agricultural health risks stems in part from scientific advances, but it is also substantially driven by shifts in consumer demand and by a series of food safety scandals and disease outbreaks in industrialized countries, adding to the impetus for governments to institute significant institutional changes in food safety oversight and reforms4.
Confidence in the safety and integrity of the food supply is important to consumers. The establishment of effective and sustainable food control systems in developing countries such as Belize necessitates the adoption of strategic approaches to agricultural health, trade and food safety that require the collaboration of the pubic and private sectors and assistance from international agencies and institutions that have demonstrated competence in this area.
This document is intended to provide an example of one country in the Americas and the Caribbean that has worked to strengthen its national food control system. FAO and WHO have also published Guidelines for Strengthening National Food Control Systems1 which provide advice to national authorities on strategies to strengthen food control systems. The Guidelines delineate the overarching principles of food control systems and provide examples of possible infrastructures and approaches for national systems, enabling authorities to choose the most suitable options for their food control systems.
1 Available from: http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/control_FCS_en.stm
B. STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE FOOD SAFETY PROGRAMMES IN BELIZE
To protect human health from food-borne diseases and contribute to sustainable development in developing countries, the following phases5 are suggested:
The following is the Belize situation with respect to food safety and the achievement of the above stated goals:
1. Development of a formal national food safety policy
Belize formally launched a Food and Nutrition Security Policy on 20 February 2001. This policy, developed largely through the efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Cooperatives, with collaboration from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Human Development, and other government and non-government partners who have ratified the policy, has food safety as one of the six programme areas that make up the national policy. The Food and Nutrition Security Policy outlines key strategies that seek to ensure the sustainable supply, accessibility and use of safe, high quality, nutritious, diversified and culturally accepted foods for all Belizeans in order to improve their well-being and quality of life6.
The six programme areas addressed by the policy are:
The policy allows for the establishment of a multi-sectoral National Food and Nutrition Security Commission (officially formed in 2002), responsible to the Belizean Cabinet and whose role is to coordinate and advocate with all sectors of the economy and other stakeholders on national food and nutrition security matters, including the monitoring of the food and nutrition security status in the country, and to make recommendations to Cabinet for its improvement. The Commission also ensures that national initiatives are in compliance with the international commitments made such as the “International Conference on Nutrition” of 1992 and the “World Food Summit” of 1996. The Chairman of the Commission is the Minister of Agriculture, and the work of the Commission is facilitated through a national coordinator.
The food safety programme of the policy (Programme 5) supports the development of national standards for food products, adherence to national and international standards and the development of monitoring mechanisms. It also includes the education of the public in matters relating to food quality and safety. The objectives are to regulate and control the safety and quality of food products according to the established norms of Codex Alimentarius and FAO/WHO. The programme seeks to improve the mechanisms for quality control and monitoring the safety of food products, to develop national standards for food labelling and safety and to disseminate information on food quality and safety to the Belizean public.6
The Food and Nutrition Security Commission, through stakeholder workshops and participation, has recently (May 2005) developed a 5-year work plan which forms the basis for implementation of the policy objectives, with the key entities from government, statutory bodies, non-government organizations, international agencies and the private sector identified that will take the lead in the carrying out the tasks identified in the six programme areas of the policy.
The Belize Agricultural Health Authority (BAHA) is a statutory body in Belize established by legislation (the Belize Agricultural Health Authority Act of 1999) under the Government of Belize “Modernization of Agricultural Health Services” project funded by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). The main objective for the creation of BAHA was for the enhancement of the competitiveness of Belizean agricultural products, especially in foreign markets, by strengthening the animal (including fisheries) and plant health services with increased participation of the private sector, and for the reduction of losses from diseases, and for ensuring the safety and quality of agricultural products for domestic and foreign markets. The consolidation of the functions of the plant and animal health services of the Ministry of Agriculture provided for the efficient administration of agricultural health programmes in Belize (Annex I Fig 1 BAHA Structure). BAHA is the competent authority for animal and plant health in Belize, plays a lead role in the implementation of the food safety policy objectives (Programme 5), and is increasingly being recognized nationally as well as internationally as the competent authority with respect to food safety issues in Belize. (Annex 11 Fig 2 BAHA food safety services)
2. Upgrading of food control systems
Food control is still largely under the Ministry of Health in Belize. Traditionally, the Ministry of Health, largely through the under-funded and overburdened department of public health, was responsible for the inspection of food establishments (including food processing establishments) as well as for performing meat inspection duties. With the establishment of BAHA, legislation empowered BAHA officers to regulate and establish cost recovery mechanisms in all food processing plants with respect to sanitary measures and designated BAHA as the sole authority for the regulation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems in Belize. A number of recently enacted legislative actions in the form of Statutory Instruments further expanded the role of BAHA in food safety.
2.1 BAHA's Regulatory Mandate for Food Safety
2.1.1 The BAHA ACT, 1999 (Chap 211 of the Laws of Belize)
2.1.2 Food Safety Regulations (Statutory Instrument No. 25 of 2001)
2.1.3 Other relevant regulations that impact on Food Safety
2.1.4 Regulatory Mandate Internationally (Codex Alimentarius and SPS Agreement)
In addition to local regulations, Belize also has an international regulatory mandate through the Codex Alimentarius and the Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Agreement (SPS Agreement) to develop food standards based on international standards that protect the health of consumers, and whose imposed sanitary measures are based on risk assessment thereby ensuring fair practices in food trade.
2.1.5 Belize compliance with Codex standards
Belize has referenced (adopted) a number of Codex standards, guidelines and codes of practice under its sanitary (food safety) legislation and through a number of national food standards which, if effectively applied, will give the consumer the necessary assurance of food quality and safety. Codex based standards, code of practices and guidelines in effect in Belize include:
2.2 Collaboration between regulatory authorities
Notwithstanding these legislative achievements, and with the exception of BAHA's major role in the regulation of the fish and fishery products processing industry, (BAHA has recently been favourably audited by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the European Union (EU) and Belize enjoys List 1 status with respect to the placing of fish and fishery products on the EU market), BAHA has not expanded to the regulation of other food processing industries as efficiently and effectively as is needed, leaving much of the regulation to the Public Health Department. Part of the reason for this has been the fact that the Ministry of Health is governed by the Food and Drugs Act (Chap 291 of the laws of Belize) and the Public Health Act (Chap 40 of the laws of Belize) which gives public health officers sanitary jurisdiction over food establishments, contributing to duplicity of roles and turf battles between BAHA food safety inspectors and Ministry of Health inspectors with regard to inspection duties. An MOU has recently been agreed upon between BAHA and the Ministry of Health where the Ministry of Health recognizes BAHA as the competent authority for food safety at the farm level, (on farm food safety) and in food processing plants (including meat and poultry slaughter plants), and for the regulation of food transport. The Ministry of Health thus retains food safety responsibility at the retail level (restaurants, distributors, meat outlets, hotels, supermarkets etc). This agreement has contributed significantly to efficiency of inspection duties where the role of BAHA Inspectors and Public Health Inspectors had not been clearly defined. The Ministry of Health is currently in the process of undergoing legislative reform to update its legislation and BAHA forms part of the legal steering committee to ensure compatibility with existing agricultural health and food safety laws under taken by BAHA.
BAHA also work closely with the Public Health Department and the Bureau of Standards (the Codex Contact Point in Belize) in developing sanitary standards for the various food industries as well as working to develop hygienic standards for food vendors, particularly in the tourist industry. Sanitary measures (Good Agricultural Practices) to be employed by farmers for the production of safe fruits and vegetables are also being developed by BAHA. An area that Belize needs more capacity is in the training of new food safety inspectors/regulators and industry personnel in food safety inspection or audit procedures that reflect current risk avoidance or mitigation measures, especially in the meat and poultry sectors.
2.3 Imported food control
BAHA has quarantine officers posted at all official border and entry points to Belize. All food imported into Belize for commercial purposes has to go through an import permit process where the sanitary conditions of importation are requested in applications approved by BAHA officers. The quarantine inspectors inspect the products imported at the border points and vet all relevant documents for compliance with sanitary requirements. As these inspectors form the first line of defense in safeguarding Belize's agricultural health and food safety status, it is paramount that these officers are kept updated in requirements to be met for effective imported food control. National workshops are held regularly where these officers are updated on new developments in animal health, plant health food safety and SPS measures which is delivered by the directors of those departments in BAHA. A manual of inspection procedures, including the procedures for the collection of samples to be sent for laboratory analysis, has been developed by BAHA and distributed to all quarantine officers at the border and entry points to Belize.
3. Improving the laboratory infrastructure
A National Food Control Laboratory has been established. A 556m2 food testing laboratory has been established through the renovation of the veterinary laboratory complex in Belize City. This laboratory (Central Investigation Laboratory - CIL) is the only food testing laboratory in Belize. The lab currently has a functional staff of four technicians who are active in processing food samples taken as part of the inspection and regulatory procedures of the Food Safety Services of BAHA. The laboratory operates on a cost recovery basis, and the majority of samples processed come from the fishery sector for microbiological testing. The laboratory recently purchased residue testing equipment and has expanded the capability of the range of testing that it can offer to the various food industries. BAHA is now able to test for residues in food such as aflatoxin, Chloramphenicol, veterinary drugs, pesticides, (organophosphates and carbamates). Equipment installed at CIL includes 2 Gas Chromatographs for the detection of herbicides and pesticides, High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) for veterinary drug residues analysis, and an Atomic Absorbance Spectrophotometer (AAS) for the detection of heavy metals.
Establishing a well equipped residue lab that is able to perform more sophisticated chemical analysis gives consumers and international trading partners the confidence in the safety of food products imported into, or exported from Belize. Staff has received IDB funded and BAHA sponsored training in analytical procedures and the laboratory has enrolled in an internationally recognized quality assurance and proficiency testing programme to assure the various industries of the validity of reported results. BAHA's Central Investigation Laboratory is part of the Inter-American Network of Food Analysis Laboratories (INFAL), which is a network of food testing laboratories in the Americas that promotes the assurance of food safety and quality in order to facilitate trade and protect human health by preventing the transmission of food-borne diseases. INFAL achieves this objective through harmonization of methods, systems development and the implementation of quality management and technical scientific cooperation among member countries 7.
BAHA is now seeking support to build capacity through training technicians in compositional analysis procedures which will help verify labelling claims and provide Belize with nutritional testing capabilities.
4. Improving Food Safety Education Programmes
Food safety education has been done minimally in Belize. Initiatives to improve the safety of foods produced in the CARICOM region that have been implemented by international agencies and national governments have been largely focused at the regulatory level (development of standards, inspection, surveillance and monitoring etc) rather than on food safety education programmes for consumers8.
An objective of Programme 5 (food safety) of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy for Belize calls for the dissemination of information on food quality and safety to the Belizean public. The Public Health Department, through their weekly food handlers' clinics disseminates basic food safety information to those people seeking a food handler's certificate. This is insufficient and inadequate. The food safety programme of BAHA will need to devote a significant component of its overall programme to food safety education - utilizing a number of media and collaborative efforts, particularly with those international organizations or regulatory authorities recognized for their expertise in this area e.g., FAO and WHO/PAHO.
BAHA had an opportunity to effect such collaboration by designing and implementing a food safety education campaign in early 20052 . The campaign was developed in response to the findings of a survey conducted in 2002, on food safety awareness among Belizean consumers which was sponsored and supervised by the Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute, (CFNI). The objective of the CFNI survey was to provide information on the current food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices of household consumers in Belize and was part of a wider survey also conduced in Barbados, Jamaica and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.9 The results of the survey would then be used to develop comprehensive and effective food safety public education programmes.
2 See Conference Room Document from Belize on this subject for more detailed information.
In the Belize survey, the greatest problems identified were those associated with the misconceptions or lack of knowledge for the requirements for refrigeration of leftover meat, fish or poultry. The public's main source of information on food safety was discovered to be friends and family but other sources included news programmes on television and radio followed by educational institutions. Food labels were ranked as the sixth most important source. Overall responsibility for food safety was perceived to lie chiefly with the consumer, but it was felt that the responsibility of setting and regulating standards rested with the Ministry of Health. 9
The purpose of the food safety campaign “Safe Food Handling Awareness Campaign 2005.” conducted during the period February/June 2005 by the Belize Agricultural Health Authority was to correct wrong perceptions and promote better practices, especially among housewives and school children who, together, do most of the food handling in the Belizean home. The Food Safety Awareness Campaign, 2005 also sought to promote better food handling practices through a coordinated campaign of school visits, community forums, public service announcements on radio and TV, talk show discussions, the distribution of educational materials, posters, brochures and refrigerator magnets that Belizeans were encouraged to carry into their homes and schools.
The Food Safety Awareness Campaign of 2005, which has been a collaborative effort between the Belize Agricultural Health Authority, (BAHA), the Ministry of Health and PAHO/CFNI, has allowed regulatory agencies responsible for food safety in Belize to address the food safety issues identified in the food safety awareness survey of 2002 by delivering key safe food handling messages to consumers through multiple media sources, some of which would otherwise be very difficult to achieve given the financial resource constraints faced by these regulatory agencies.
The consensus about the campaign is that it has been successful, with very positive responses from the public. The challenge now is developing the sustainable mechanisms that will make food safety education programmes an ongoing activity, and a key component in the delivery of effective food control systems.
In addition, BAHA will need to be kept updated in food safety issues and, along with the international community, get involved in the standard setting process by participating in relevant meetings where food safety education is current and scientifically based, such as those involving Codex Alimentarius. It is encouraging to see the FAO/WHO Trust Fund established to financially support delegates of developing countries' attendance and involvement in the international standard setting process, as launched at the Twenty-fifth (Extraordinary) Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.10
5. Strengthening Programmes for Surveillance, Investigation and Control of Food-borne Diseases
Food-borne disease surveillance programmes in Belize are inadequate. It is estimated that around the world almost 2 million children die annually from food or water-borne pathogens and even in developed countries up to one out of three consumers contracts disease from food-borne pathogens every year11. Keeping track of the incidence of food-borne diseases requires collaborative efforts and significant resources in order to put in place effective preventative measures that will reduce the risk to public health. Belize currently lacks such an effective food-borne disease surveillance system and will require international technical cooperation from such institutions as PAHO, CAREC or CDC in order to develop a workable system that is effective. Effective surveillance is especially important in the areas of the spread of new and emerging disease such as BSE and the human form of Avian Influenza (H5 NI).
A major concern to public health officials is the ability to perform (and pay for) necessary laboratory testing if there is a food-borne disease outbreak or for surveillance activities related to the “public good”. Since BAHA operates its food testing laboratory on a cost recovery basis, such testing will have to be funded by the Ministry of Health. But such “public good” testing can also be subsidized by funds received from industry by offering other laboratory services such as nutritional analysis for processed food or providing chemical analysis for environmental monitoring as part of industries' Environmental Compliance Agreement with the Government of Belize. Agreements similar to the MOU established with the Ministry of Health regarding the performance of inspection services by regulatory authorities in Belize will need to be established so that the proper mechanisms are in place to effect timely testing of food implicated in food-borne disease outbreaks.
Testing of human patients for food-borne disease is effected through the Ministry of Health's Central Medical Laboratory which has the capability of testing for the common bacterial and parasitic causes of food-borne illness - testing for food-borne disease of suspected viral etiology is virtually non existent in Belize. In addition, proper reporting of food-borne disease by medical personnel needs to be instituted so that the regulatory personnel involved in the outbreak investigation can do the necessary traceback to the source of infection which will contribute to an effective surveillance system. BAHA has teamed up with the Ministry of Health with the support of PAHO and CAREC in developing a protocol for food-borne disease outbreak investigation which identifies the key personnel involved in such an investigation and outlines the manner in which proper reporting should flow. Although this protocol has been drafted, it has not yet been used, so there is a need to conduct a simulation to see if the protocol is effective. Waiting for a food-borne disease outbreak to test the protocol would be folly.
C. Mechanisms for Effective Partnerships in Food Safety
1. Formation of “user groups”
One of the most effective mechanisms that BAHA has found to assist in the carrying out of its mandate for food control is via the establishment of “User Groups” i.e. industry or users of BAHA services made into consultative groups according to similar interest or commodity.
These stakeholder groups are informal but meet regularly with BAHA (and other regulatory personnel such as the Bureau of Standards and Public Health Department) to discuss regulatory issues, cost recovery options, comments on services rendered or for general problem solving purposes. The meetings also serve as a forum for training, industry or regulatory updates and discussion on market access strategies. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) may be established with these groups and fees for services rendered agreed upon.
User groups formed in Belize include representatives from the Fishery Industry (2 groups: aquatic animal health and fishery products processing), the Poultry Industry, Meat Processors, Fruit and Vegetables (Growers/Importers/Exporters), Dairy Industry, Bottled Water and Juices Industry, and the Tourism Industry (new).
2. Collaborate with those International organizations that have a food safety focus e.g. FAO, IICA, OIRSA, WHO/PAHO
By seeking out and collaborating with those international organizations that have a similar focus, food control agencies in an individual country can dovetail their work programme to complement/augment what food safety programmes or tasks need to be done in the country with less duplication of roles and effect conservation of scarce financial resources. Many of the food safety programs and plan of work established by BAHA has been augmented and supported by international organizations having the same focus and wanting to achieve similar goals. Partnering with these agencies avoids duplication and strengthens collaborative efforts in food safety.
3. Lobby for and provide industry funded training for regulatory personnel
In countries that have little or limited access to educational institutions or costly means of gaining continuing education or training for capacity building, food control agencies can lobby for support from those industries that will benefit from having a trained regulatory personnel. An added benefit is that training in conjunction with industry personnel provides for transparency in the execution of regulatory duties. In those instances where the food control agency is the beneficiary of external expertise training, invitation for industry to participate at a cost can provide a source of financial support to fund further training. Caution must be exercised, however, in the degree of dependence on this partnership - the regulators must always be aware of the possibility of collusion (real or perceived) when collaborating with industry.
4. Develop specific MOUs with other regulatory departments to ensure that their food safety services are budgeted and provided for
A number of services performed to protect consumers may not be able to be fully cost recovered. However, certain “public good” services can still be achieved on some cost recovery basis if food control agencies can access international financial support to affect those services or if governments can budget for them from their tax base. Where other collaborating agencies have a food safety component in their mandate (e.g. Public Health Department, Bureau of Standards, Environmental Health, etc.), specific MOUs can be developed to ensure that funds are budgeted to provide the specific services (e.g. laboratory testing) for those departments that may not have the infrastructure or personnel to provide the services required by that department.
Conclusions
From the foregoing, it is clear that it will take much collaborative effort with our international trading partners and colleagues in the areas that have been delineated above to help ensure that consumers at home and in the global marketplace will have access to safe food irrespective of origin.
Other countries of the region may be able to benefit from the experiences of Belize in strengthening their own national food control system.
Summary
In Belize, BAHA is taking the lead in the assurance of food safety and it does this in a manner that fosters effective partnerships. The establishment of a food safety unit in BAHA with the capability of implementing cost recovery mechanisms has helped both regulatory and industry personnel to effectively deal with the food safety issues affecting international trade and consumers in Belize. To continue to protect human health from food-borne diseases and contribute to an effective food control system in Belize, BAHA will pursue sustainable development in these key areas:
Strategies that effect the achievement of the above stated goals will not only improve food safety for the consumer but will also provide for capacity building in BAHA and encourage a robust demand for BAHA food safety services.
References
The Role of Food Safety in Health and Development. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Safety (1984).TRS 705 WHO Geneva 1984.
Food Safety and Food-borne Illness Fact Sheet No. 237, March 2000. http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact237.html
Joint FAO/WHO. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper No. 76: Assuring Food Safety and Quality: “Guidelines for Strengthening National Food Control Systems”. Rome, Italy.
World Bank. Food Safety and Agricultural Health Standards “Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Country Exports” Report No. 31207. 10 January 2005.
Report of the Meeting of Interested Partners, Food Safety Programme, World Health Organization, 29 June 2000, Geneva. http://www.who.int/fsf
Government of Belize “Food and Nutrition Security Policy for Belize” Belmopan, Belize, 2001.
Inter-American Network of Food Analysis Laboratories (INFAL) http://www.panalimentos.org/rilaa/ingles/index.asp
Todd EC. Epidemiology of Food-borne Diseases: A Worldwide Review. World Health Stat Q. 1989; 50 (1–2): 30–50.
Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute (CFNI). Strengthening Caribbean Food Safety: The Role of Consumers. A Report on Survey of Consumer Food Safety Awareness and Practices - Belize, Belize, 2003.
Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme Codex Alimentarius Commission, Twenty-fifth (Extraordinary) Session, Geneva, Switzerland, 13–15 February 2003.
CDC. Preliminary Food Net Data on the incidence of Food-borne illnesses - selected sites, United States, 2001, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, MMWR 51(5); 325–9.
Fig. 1 Structure of BAHA
Fig 2 BAHA Food Safety Services
| Agenda Item 6 | (AC 05/4) |
ASSURING FOOD SAFETY AT THE PRODUCTION/PROCESSING LEVEL
(Paper prepared by Costa Rica)
INTRODUCTION
Achieving the safety, quality and market competitiveness of food products is a challenge requiring innovative criteria, creativity and a willingness for teamwork, in both the public and the private sector, if food-borne diseases (FBDs) are to be eliminated.
These issues cannot be addressed in isolation but need to be integrated into all the links of the chain, with a focus on production and health. Hence the need for a multifaceted approach. Food regulations are evolving to encompass the concepts of quality and safety. Consumption habits are changing, with consumers demanding greater assurance of safety and higher quality of product, but also needing more information on the products they purchase, which adds importance to the nature, origin and characteristics of each product on the market, to the way it has been produced and to associated traditions.
This concept of the food and agriculture chain calls for a redefinition of the role of the State and the private sector, with regard not only to institutions responsible for public health but also to interaction with agencies responsible for agriculture and food production, the environment, consumer protection, and even tourism and education. What is required is the interlinkage and coordination of government bodies at different levels. This is possibly one of the most difficult challenges, as it means discarding traditional paradigms of distinct function and embracing a multidisciplinary approach, and abandoning the fiefdoms and individualism that only hamper national welfare.
The food product safety is a basic requirement for success on the global market. The control of food safety in the Americas and the Caribbean is generally by different official agencies, but its regulation needs to be integrated, multidisciplinary and responsible given the complexity of the food production chain. There needs to be equivalence and transparency and a country's regulation needs to be based on solid standards.
Such harmonization will produce a fair system for all and will ensure the supply of food that is safe, wherever produced, processed or sold.
A. Application of appropriate quality assurance systems (GAP/GMP/HACCP; “good practices”)
A.1 Good Agricultural Practices
Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) are defined as all actions relating to the production, processing and transport of food products of agricultural origin that aim to assure the protection of hygiene and human health and the environment, using methods that are ecologically safer, hygienically acceptable and economically viable (SAG, 2004).
Whatever the definition given to GAPs, these should serve as a tool and not as an end. This tool should be used for the environmental, economic and social sustainability of agricultural holdings, which should translate as the delivery of safer and more wholesome food products for the consumer. This means that we need to consider the difficulties and limitations that developing-country producers face as they seek to implement GAP programmes.
A.2 GAP experiences
Examination of countries with concrete GAP initiatives indicates the need to consider a number of important principles. Teams responsible for drawing up GAP guidelines need the active participation not only of technicians and professionals, but also of the producers who will have to implement the practices on their farms and the consumers, because of the importance of their input to the formulation of GAPs (FAO, 2004; Chapman, 2005). For example, in Colombia in 2003, the National Vocational Training Service, the National University of Colombia, the Corporación Colombia Internacional and the Colombian Agricultural Research Corporation worked together on the project “Integrated Programme of Technology Transfer for the Clean Production and the Marketing of Vegetables in the Sabana de Bogotá”. This programme had a quality and GPA component, which had been designed in a two-day consultation involving students, producers and institutional researchers, who thus produced a document that reflected local reality (CCI-SENA, 2004).
The specifics of good practices are not new as protocols already exist in the government and private sectors of other countries. The important thing is to identify the GAP requirements of key trading partner countries and to define the specifications accordingly. Attention should also be paid to international standards (Codex Alimentarius). This was the strategy employed by Chile and Argentina which used the European Union's EurepGAP protocol as a point of reference for their own standards. Chile was thus able to have EurepGAP recognize the Chile-GAP protocol, which gave its exporters considerable advantages. Similarly, Argentina drew upon the United States Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables for its Resolution 510/02 on GAPs for fruits. (Portal Alimentos Argentinos).
Another factor to be considered is the agroclimatic situation of a country. The requisites of foreign standards need to be adjusted to local conditions, or discarded where not appropriate, so that the standards designed are technically sound from the agricultural and the economic perspective. Standards also need to be modified to reflect scientific and technological progress and changing consumer habits so that they respond to reality.
The cost of implementing GAPs is another important factor in their development. The current range of international GAP standards oblige producers to comply with two or three different standards and to pay for as many certifications. Discussions are under way on the proliferation of international GAP standards for fruits and vegetables that only cause unnecessary confusion and added cost to production processes (SAG, 2004).
Producers need to be given appropriate tools for successful implementation:
The benefits of GAPs and a commitment to apply these practices should embrace all producers, regardless of their scale of production or socio-economic situation. This requires promotion and dissemination strategies at national, regional and local level.
GAP training programmes are needed so that small producers can be included in the achievement of safety of agricultural product. Proactive training programmes have been established in most countries of the region to form teams of trained persons who can then train others and implement GAPs in their enterprises; for example, the initiatives of PROCAL in Argentina, the GAP Commission in Chile (IICA, 2002), the Safe Foods Programme (PAS) in Brazil, the actions of Corporación Colombia Internacional (CCI) and the SENA Good Agricultural Practices Programme in Colombia, and SENASICA in Mexico.
There should be incentives for agricultural enterprises to train all their staff. Producer associations need to play a key role together with private and public training enterprises. A good example are the tax concessions granted by the Chilean Government to enterprises that request training for their staff from the National Training and Employment Service (SENCE) which is responsible for training, in this case in the rural sector (IICA, 2002).
Most countries with GAP guidelines have considered these to be voluntary.
Argentina has guides on GAP application which have become official through national resolutions. Although not mandatory, these guides serve as a national reference for implementation of this system of management. In this connection, Argentina's National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) and the Mendoza Institute of Agricultural Hygiene and Quality (ISCAMen) have published a GAP manual that is based on the national standards, on those of EurepGAP and on the US Clinton Food Safety Initiative. Its National Service for the Safety and Quality of Agricultural Products (SENASA) issued Resolution 510/02 on GAPs for fruits, which was drawn up on the basis of the manual and a similar GAP guide produced by the Fundación Barrera Patagónica (FUNBAPA),.
Other examples are Resolution SAGPyA 71/1999 “Guide on Good Hygienic and Agricultural Practices for the Primary Production (growing/harvesting), Packing, Storage and Transport of Fresh Vegetables” and Resolution SENASA 510/2002 “Guide on Good Hygienic, Agricultural and Manufacturing Practices for the Primary Production (growing/harvesting), Processing, Packing, Storage and Transport of Fresh Fruits”. (www.exportaSMEs.com)
In Peru, the Peruvian Institute of Asparagus and Vegetables (IPEH) has been promoting GAPs through the project “Implementation of Good Agricultural Practices and Strengthening of the Asparagus Production Chain” with support from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). This project promotes the implementation of GAPs on 54 asparagus farms, covering 3800 hectares, and provides specialist training to implementation outreach workers. (O'Brien and Díaz, 2004).
In Costa Rica, the agricultural sector has been keen to implement GAPs to penetrate and retain existing markets (US and Europe). The public and private sectors alike have conducted a series of training activities (melons, blackberries, roots and tubers, baby vegetables, banana and plantain, fitweed, US Bioterrorism Act) so that they can comply with the safety requirements of the Sanitation Standards Operation Procedures (SSOP) for packing and production. Production procedures include all necessary checks for a safe and wholesome product able to compete on markets and retain custom.
In July 2005, Colombia approved voluntary Technical Standard 5400 on Good Agricultural Practices for Fruits, Aromatic Culinary Herbs and Fresh Vegetables - General Requirements of the Colombian Institute of Technical Standards (ICONTEC, 2005). SENA is also developing the National GPA Programme for Agro-industry to consolidate and standardize the fruit and vegetable chain, with an emphasis on food safety, environmental protection and the safety and welfare of workers (COLCIENCIAS, sf).
A.3 Good livestock production practices
Good Livestock Production Practices (GLPP) refer to the application of existing knowledge on the use of basic natural resources in the production of safe and wholesome food and non-food livestock products to achieve economic viability and social stability.
GLPPs help meet new consumer and market demand for livestock products, with the monitoring of product quality and safety from farm to fork. There has been a considerable increase in global demand for livestock products, including meat, milk and eggs, which requires the prevention and control of diseases and contaminants in livestock products and the implementation of GLPPs.
Fundamental aspects include the quality of facilities, pest control, sanitary conditions, feed and water, animal transport, livestock registration and identification, animal welfare, working conditions, and the environmentally appropriate management of residues. These aspects have been integrated into different GLPP programmes, for example:
Evaluation and strengthening of the system of prevention of bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE) and the system of feed quality control in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.
Support to the breeding and use of South American camelids in the Andean Region (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru).
Development of small ruminant production (Barbados, Belize, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago).
Technology upgrading for animal health in Argentina.
Establishment of a national system of beef cattle identification and registration in Chile.
Preparation of a livestock development programme under the FTAs in Chile.
Training in meat technology and the use of meat extenders in Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
On the normative level, some countries consider GAPs to include the livestock sector. Chile, for example, has developed technical guidelines for good practices in the breeding of pigs, beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, layer hens and broiler chickens (FAO, 2004). Uruguay has adopted the EurepGAP standard in its certified organic meat programme (Inciarte, 2004). Argentina is using the Eurep standards to benchmark its own animal production standards, with adjustments to reflect regional circumstances (Mietto, 2004). Paraguay is at a less advanced stage of development of GLPP standards, which still have to cover beef, dairy products, poultry and pigs (Silvero, 2004).
With regard to traceability (FAO, 2004), Uruguay has developed a system of animal identification that extends from source to slaughterhouse. Traceability programmes are being implemented from the consignment of livestock to the exit of meat from the production plant (Barros, 2004).
In Costa Rica, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock is working with the Regional International Organization for Plant Protection and Animal Health (RIOPPAH) in developing manuals on good practices for beekeeping, pig farming, beef and dairy farming and bio-security in broiler chicken farms.
A.4 Good manufacturing practices and hazards analysis and critical control points
The Codex Codes of Hygienic Practice, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems are useful tools for meeting these requirements and preventing FBDs at world level. Countries complying with these practices are categorized as producers of safe foods.
GMPs, understood as an assortment of general practices aimed at preventing and reducing the hazards that foods are exposed to from the procurement or production of raw materials to the final product, are viewed as one of the pillars of the HACCP.
A.4.1 Application of GMPs and the HACCP in the Americas and the Caribbean
The status of application of GMPs and the HACCP in the region can be differentiated between countries with instruments for voluntary implementation and those with instruments for mandatory implementation.
Countries with voluntary implementation include Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru.
The governments and food industries of these countries recognize the importance of GMPs and the HACCP for ensuring the safety of food processed for human consumption and most of them are attempting to issue regulations calling for the gradual enforcement of GMPs, before moving on to the mandatory application of the HACCP. Some industries already meet the basic requisites and have developed HACCP systems to comply with international requirements. They have done this on their own initiative with government support for training and assistance from export promotion agencies.
Countries in which GMPs are obligatory and the HACCP voluntary are a minority and include Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, United States and Venezuela.
These countries there are formal regulations for GMPs while the HACCP is not obligatory. The main problem that exists in some of the developing countries is the inadequacy of coordination between the public and private sectors concerning the implementation and enforcement of these requirements. Some exporting industries have implemented HACCP systems to meet the requirements of the international market.
A.4.2 Examples of activities in selected countries
In Central America, a GMP technical regulation has been formulated in the framework of a Customs Union that will become official for all the countries of the region and which is currently in the process of notification to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Its application will be gradual, depending on the size of the industry, and will become fully operative within two and a half years of its entry into effect.
In Argentina, the National Food Authority has undertaken activities to achieve food safety through training, the training of trainers and advisers in food quality management, improved recommendations for small producers (starting with 23 producers in 10 provinces) and the establishment of a food control system, which is the instrument employed by the government to systematically and methodologically organize food monitoring in order to protect the health of consumers and food handlers, market transactions and the environment.
In Mexico, GMPs were made obligatory through NOM-120-ssal-1995, which applies to all groups of products that have no specific regulations. Progress in the implementation of this regulation varies according to the size and type of enterprise. The Federal Commission for Protection against Health Risks (COFEPRIS) is trying to conclude self-regulation agreements with selected industries, whereby the industries themselves will ensure that standards are met.
B. Control of food safety in small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
B.1 Application of safety assurance systems in SMEs in the field
While the main factor affecting the application of safety standards is the lack of producer education and training, other factors are:
sociocultural (low level of education, precarious land tenure, resistance from lack of support or confidence in adopting a new production method);
regulatory (confusion over the many existing regulations on food safety and the environment, which vary according to market); and
economic (lack of infrastructure and financing, inappropriate technology, prices not commensurate with the effort required to implement good practices).
Countries are taking action to mitigate these limitations. In 2004, Chile's INDAP worked on its national GAP programme for small-scale agriculture (berries, honey, avocado and grapes) introducing changes in production management to take environmental, social and product quality variables into account. Public meetings jointly organized by INDAP, SAG and local municipalities were held in September to inform small producer clients of INDAP and local agro-industrialists of SAG Resolution N№ 3410 which sets minimum requirements for raspberry production to comply with GAPs.
In November 2004, Chile's Cooperation Framework Agreement “More Training, Better Agriculture” was signed to train some 5 000 of the country's small farmers in 2005. The objective is to coordinate efforts and resources to implement a national training programme that will bolster small farmer competence in the administration and management of their resources.
In Neuquen, Argentina, an aromatic herbs programme is being implemented to give small producers with an alternative product and help them convert their operations. In June 2004, a draft law established the National Programme of Certification of Good Agricultural Practices (which includes GLPPs) for Small Producers, whose objectives include the promotion of an institutional system of support, the assurance of product quality and environmentally friendly farm management, the drafting of a GAP manual for small producers and their assured certification.
Mexico's Rural Alliance Programme has a food safety component providing various forms of support to producers, including small and medium producers that voluntarily apply GAPs and GLPPs on their holdings. Support includes the implementation of methodologies to minimize risks of contamination, contaminant diagnostic and analytical tests, sanitary inputs, infrastructure and equipment.
B.2 Application of safety assurance systems in SMEs in industry
The support that is given by governments of developing countries to small and medium food industries to help them implement GMPs and the HACCP varies considerably, despite the fact that SMEs account for a high percentage of total industry and have limited resources to conduct the necessary training, promotion and surveillance activities.
Support has been provided in the form of credit to selected enterprises to enable them to manage their own quality standards, including GMPs and the HACCP, as in the case of Argentina. Chile's support to SMEs has been in the form of tax concessions for enterprises receiving training in these areas. In the case of Colombia, many of the programmes are organized by the commercial sector which offers industries support, but only in the form of advice and training.
Other countries provide direct technical advice to SMEs for training and implementation of these systems by government institutions, as is the case of Costa Rica and Argentina. Costa Rica has developed programmes of training and targeted technical assistance for small and medium food industries. Between 2000 and 2002 a programme of environmental management for the agrifood cluster was developed with Canadian cooperation. Similarly, between 2000 and 2004, the policy programme organized by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Trade with support from institutions such as the National Institute of Vocational Training, the National Centre of Food Science and Technology, the Office for the Promotion of Exports and the Chamber of the Food Industry, included more than 500 companies, many of which boosted their innovation capacity and developed export potential.
C. Safety of street foods
The sale of street food in Latin America and the Caribbean is a phenomenon that has sociocultural, economic and health implications (Costarrica and Morón 1997). It is growing rapidly because of urban expansion, socio-economic difficulties and high unemployment. Cuéllar found in 1994 (cited by Costarrica and Morón, 1997) that total street food sales represented a higher income than the recognized minimum wage, which reflects the economic significance of this activity.
The sale of street food represents a viable economic option as a source of food and employment for the populations of large urban areas. On the other hand, street food also represents a challenge for the municipal authorities which have to devise measures to regulate the use of public areas, mechanisms for vendor access to water, sanitary and waste collection services and systems of registration and control, for which costs that have not yet been quantified (Costarrica and Morón, 1997).
The unrestricted growth of this activity and its lack of regulation place a heavy burden on urban resources and impact negatively on daily life, causing traffic congestion and an accumulation of waste (FAO Technical Meeting Report, 1995).
A report presented by the Dominican Republic (2005) points to a need for safety and control regulations for street food, given that more people are eating outside the home for a variety of socio-economic reasons. The report highlights the need for tighter control over storage inadequacies and poor hygienic practices in food processing and handling.
C.1 National regulations
The regulation of street food requires two types of legal provision. The first is the need for a license to exercise this activity, which might include restrictions on the type of food sold and the place of sale. The second refers to concrete measures to protect consumers against health hazards and commercial fraud (FAO Technical Meeting Report, 1995).
There is no doubt therefore that local authorities have an important role to play in each country at the level of legislation and in their role as trainers and regulators. Yet, many countries still lack hard and fast regulations for the safety of street food (FAO Technical Meeting Report, 1995).
In the case of Costa Rica, this activity is prohibited by General Health Law N№ 5395. However, some municipalities issue licenses for the sale of street food and one of the conditions is that only prepacked food can be sold. No food should therefore be prepared at point of sale but this ruling is not always respected by vendors, reflecting a lack of clarity in coordination between health authorities and municipal government. However, efforts are being made to minimize health risks to consumers and street food in the capital is being relocated to areas that meet basic conditions of health and safety and where crowding can be avoided.
A working group for the Caribbean, attended by 17 countries, was convened in October 2002 to discuss the subject of street food. The governments recognized that street food played a very important socio-economic role in terms of providing employment, extra income for women and foods that were affordable to the middle and lower economic classes. At the same time it presented an array of safety problems with regard to food handling, for which vendor monitoring, education and technical assistance programmes were required. (Dardano, 2003).
In Panama, the Sanitary Code regulates street food and an executive decree regulates the training of food handlers under the supervision of the Ministry of Health's Department of Food Protection (www.ingenieriadealimentos.com).
In Chile, the sale of street food is only allowed under the provisions of the Food Safety Regulation, with health officials and police keeping control over informal sales as part of health surveillance (www.minsalud.cl).
C.2 Sanitary aspects
The characteristics of the point of sale, the hygiene of vendors and the way street food is displayed are factors affecting the risk of food contamination. (Costarrica and Morón, 1997).
Street food is defined as food that is ready to eat. Because of its low cost and taste it has become a popular source of nutrition. In Brazil, the risk of food poisoning from bacterial contamination is heightened by the characteristics of the point of sale, the lack of infrastructure, the nature of the products sold and the lack of sanitary measures. Studies by Catanozi et al in Brazil in 1999 reveal the presence of pathogenic micro-organisms and high microbiological counts in different street food locations in the country.
Almeida et al (1996) (cited by Hanashiro et al. 2004) report that similar studies carried out in Latin American cities indicated a 9.4% to 56.7% frequency of faecal food contamination above established levels. B. cereus was higher than the safety limit in 1.7% to 8.1% of street food samples, while 1.9% to 25.2% of samples were above the limit for S. aureus (103 CFU/g). The safety of street food is therefore clearly a matter for concern not only in the Americas and the Caribbean but throughout the world. However, few countries have formulated specific, practical regulations for the street food trade (Hanashiro A., et al. 2004).
In 1991, Peru's street food was considered a source of dissemination of the cholera epidemic (Dawson and Costarrica, 1992). In the same year, three outbreaks of food-borne diseases were detected in Argentina and attributed to sandwiches sold in the street (Cuellar, 1994; FAO, 1991).
The application of improved technologies in the preparation and sale of street food is one of the main strategies adopted by projects to improve sanitary control. Alternatives for adopting improved technologies are to replace sales stands or to partially modify them and recommend and facilitate solutions for each defective aspect.
Both cases require the backing of an institution to provide vendors with accessible financing on favourable terms. For example, Mexico City has developed a prototype sales stand made of stainless steel, as part of an FAO project. Peru has developed two prototypes: one an integrated sales module mounted on a tricycle and made of galvanized iron and steel; the other a less complete hygienic and sanitary module designed to overcome the problems of water supply and elimination of solid waste. The integrated tricycle has been more successful because of its lower cost (Palomino, 1996).
Between 1991 and 1994, FAO provided food hygiene and control training in Latin America and the Caribbean for food handlers, national and municipal food control managers, food inspectors and laboratory analysts (Costarrica and Morón, 1997).
D. Conclusions and Recommendations
The adoption, reinforcement and enforcement of Good Practices is vital for the supply of safe food that protects consumer health, is produced in an environmentally friendly manner and is profitable to producers.
However, if such practices are to be widely applied, countries also need:
To strengthen small and medium producers through access to financing, research and the establishment of advisory systems that will facilitate the implementation of GMPs and the HACCP.
To raise productivity and quality through training in technical training centres and universities and at the level of basic education, and improve technology processes and transfer.
To enforce official regulations and step up the level of government control and verification.
To analyse their current state of street food vending and introduce necessary regulations and measures, and to raise the awareness of street food vendors and provide them with training.
To educate consumers in food safety, which is vital if they are to understand the risks that are associated with the consumption of street food or food sold informally.
To group the efforts of all players to achieve the above.
Bibliography
Calvin, L. 2003. Produce, food safety, and international trade response to U.S. food-borne illness outbreaks associated with imported produce. In: International trade and food safety: economic theory and case studies: Agricultural economic report 828. Ed: Buzby, J.C. United States Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. 145pp.
CSPI. 2005. Food safety around the world. Center of Science in the Public Interest.
COLCIENCIAS, sf. El SENA lanza estrategia para consolidación de cadenas del sector: Buenas prácticas agrícolas. Instituto Colombiano para el Desarrollo de la Ciencia y la Tecnología. 3pp. www.colciencias.gov.co
CCI-SENA. 2004. Guía de Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas para la Producción de Hortalizas Limpias en la Sabana de Bogotá. Programa integral de transferencia de tecnología para la producción limpia y la comercialización de hortalizas en la Sabana de Bogotá. Componente 7 Sello de Calidad y Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas. Corporación Colombia Internacional y Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje. Bogotá, Colombia. 60 pp.
Costarrica, M. L., y Morón, C. 1997. Estrategias para el mejoramiento de la calidad de los alimentos callejeros en América Latina y el Caribe. 15pp. www.fao.org/docrep/W3699T/w3699t08.htm
Chapman, B.J. 2005. An Evaluation of an On-Farm Food Safety Program for Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Producers; A Global Blueprint for Fruit and Vegetable Producers. A thesis presented to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of the University of Guelph, Canada. 196pp
FAO. 2004. Las Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. Roma, Italia. 49 pp.
FAO. 2003. Informe del Taller subregional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. Colombia, 2003.
FAO. 2003. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Colombia, 2003.
FAO. 2003. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Bolivia, 2003.
FAO. 2003. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Ecuador, 2003.
FAO. 2003. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Perú, 2003.
FAO. 2003. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Venezuela, 2003.
FAO. 2003. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Costa Rica, 2001
FAO. 2002. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. El Salvador, 2002.
FAO. 2001. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Nicaragua, 2001.
FAO. 2002. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Honduras, 2002.
FAO. 2002. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. República Dominicana, 2002.
FAO. 2001. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Guatemala, 2001.
FAO. 2001. Informe del Taller nacional de capacitación de formadores sobre aplicación de Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM) y Sistema de Análisis de Peligros y Puntos Críticos de Control (HACCP) en el control de alimentos. Panamá, 2001.
FAO. 1995. Los alimentos que se venden en la vía pública. Informe de una Reunión Técnica de la FAO. 6–9 de noviembre de 1995, Calcuta India. 26 pp.
FAO/PAHO. 2003. Report of the Expert Meeting of the Caribbean Regional Working Group on Street Food Vendors. October 23–25, 2002. Corboril Castries, St. Lucia. Sponsored by FAO, PAHO and BNSI. 28 pp.
FAO/RLC. 2004. “Las Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas (BPA): en búsqueda de sostenibilidad, competitividad y seguridad alimentaria”. Informe de la Conferencia electrónica realizada a nivel de los países del MERCOSUR y Chile. Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago de Chile. 63 pp.1
Hanashiro, A., Morita, M., Matté, G., Matté, M., Torres, E. 2004. Microbiological quality of selected street foods from a restricted area of Sao Paulo City, Brazil. School of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Food Control. Article in press. 6pp. Available online at: www.sciencedirect.com/
Herwaldt B.L. y Ackers M.L., 1997. An outbreak in 1996 of cyclosporiasis associated with imported raspberries. New England Journal of Medicine. 336:1548–6.
IICA. 2002. Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas: Eje Estratégico de Nuestra Competitividad Futura. Documento realizado en el proyecto “Diseño de Regímenes Regulatorios para Atributos de Valor de Productos Agroalimentarios” desarrollado en el marco del Convenio de Cooperación Técnica entre el IICA y la Subsecretaría de Agricultura de Chile. Serie de ponencias, resultados y recomendaciones de eventos técnicos. 141 pp.
Mischen, P. 1996. Strawberry Update: $16 Million Loss due to Cyclospora, National Food and Agricultural Policy Project, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. De: www.eas.asu.edu/~nfapp/html/ julaug96.htm.
O'Brien, T. Y Díaz, A. 2004. Mejorando la competitividad y el acceso a los mercados de exportaciones agrícolas por medio del desarrollo y aplicación de normas de inocuidad y calidad: El ejemplo del espárrago Peruano. Reporte del Programa de Sanidad Agropecuaria e Inocuidad de Alimentos del IICA con la colaboración PROMPEX de Perú. 27 pp.
OIRSA. 2000. Diagnóstico de situación de los países (Centroamérica, Panamá y Belice) sobre inocuidad de alimentos. Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria. San Salvador, El Salvador. Palomino, H. 1996. Las tecnologías apropiadas para la venta callejera de alimentos. FNA/ANA 17/18. 8pp. www.fao.org/docrep/W3699t06.htm.
Powell, D.A., Bobadilla-Ruiz, M., Whitfield, A. Griffiths, M.G. and Luedtke, A. 2002. Development, implementation and analysis of an on-farm food safety program for the production of greenhouse vegetables in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Food Protection. 65: 918 – 923.
Ramírez, E. y Caro, J.C. 2003. Estudio de Caracterización en el Sistema Agroalimentario: Lecciones de Experiencia y Efectos Sobre la Competitividad. Informe final de proyecto. Centro Interamericano para el Desarrollo Rural (RIMISP), Santiago de Chile. 17 pp.
República Dominicana. 2005. Análisis de Situación del Sistema Nacional de Inocuidad de los Alimentos en República Dominicana. Documento preparado para la Conferencia Regional FAO/OMS sobre Inocuidad de los Alimentos para las Américas y el Caribe. 6–9 de diciembre, 2005. San José, Costa Rica.
SADR-CORPOICA. 2004. Diagnóstico de firma “Acuerdo regional de competitividad de la cadena colombiana de Antioquia” Secretaria de Agricultura y desarrollo rural. Corporación Colombiana de investigación agropecuaria. Medellín, Colombia. 102 p.
SENASICA. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación. Manual de Buenas Practicas en Producción de leche caprina. SENASICA. México. 64p.
Surujial M. y Badrie N., 2003. Household consumer food safety study in Trinidad, West Indies. Dept. of Food Production, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of West Indies, Saint Augustine,
Trinidad & Tobago. Internet Journal of Food Safety V.3, 8–14. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Valiente, S; Olivares, S; Harper, LJ. 1986. Alimentación, Nutrición y Agricultura. Un enfoque multidisciplinario para América Latina. Chile. Printed. Chile. 375 p.
Vargas-Terán, M. 2002. Buenas prácticas ganaderas. FAO/RLC, Santiago de Chile. 3p.
WHO.1999. Food safety programme. Strategies for Implementing HACCP in small and/or less developed business. June 1999.
Other
Portal Alimentos Argentinos.
www.alimentosargentinos.gov.ar/programa_calidad/Marco_Regulatorio/)
Argentina. 2004. Sistema de
certificación de buenas prácticas agrícolas. Senado y Cámara de Diputados de
Argentina. Proyecto de Ley aprobado el día 16 de junio del 2004. 13 pp.
www1.hcdn.gov.ar/dependencias/ccytecnologia/proy/proy_dip_04/3549-D-04.pdf
INDAP.
2005. En la V región INDAP destinará 50 millones de pesos a proyectos de buenas
prácticas agrícolas. Noticias. 20 setiembre, 2005. INDAP, Chile.
www.indap.cl/Noticias/2005/09/02/20050902_proyectos.htm
México. 2002. Programa Alianza para el campo. Estado de Aguas Calientes. 9pp
www.ordenjuridico.gob.mx/Estatal/AGUASCALIENTES/Programas/AGSProg1.pdf-
Información de consultas específicas vía correo electrónico a fuentes de diferentes países de la región.
| Agenda Item 7 | (AC 05/5) |
INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL COOPERATION IN FOOD SAFETY
(Prepared by FAO; PAHO/WHO1;
IICA; OIRSA)
Introduction
Food safety is an essential public health and economic issue for all countries. Microbiological and chemical contamination in food is a major cause of illnesses. Food-borne disease remains a real and formidable problem in both developed and developing countries, causing great human suffering and significant economic losses.
In addition to improving public health, effective food safety systems are also vital to maintain consumer confidence in the food system and to provide a sound regulatory foundation for domestic and international trade in food, which supports economic development. New international trade agreements developed under the World Trade Organization (WTO) have emphasized the need for regulations governing international trade in foods to be based on scientific principles. The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) permits countries to take legitimate measures to protect the life and health of consumers, animals and plants provided such measures can be justified scientifically and do not unnecessarily impede trade.
Traditional food safety systems are inadequate to cope with the complex, persistent pervasive and evolving array of food safety issues existing today. In order to effectively cope with, and respond to, the wide range of food safety challenges presently confronting countries, modern national food control systems2 need to be based on 1) science, 2) a preventative approach, 3) risk analysis3, 4) a food chain approach4, and 5) involvement of all stakeholders.
It is therefore imperative that governments, the private/public sectors, consumers and other stakeholders work in a concerted manner in this shared responsibility of assuring food safety from farm-to-fork. Cooperation at the national, sub-regional, regional and international levels provides opportunities for synergy and maximized benefits for improved human health and economic development.
Role of FAO and WHO in assuring food safety
In response to these concerns, the 53rd World Health Assembly, through Resolution WHA 53.15, requested WHO Director-General the establishment of a global strategy for the surveillance of food-borne diseases and the reinforcement of technical cooperation in member countries regarding food safety and health. In response to this, WHO currently includes food safety among its main ten health priorities; consequently, the food safety programme became the Food Safety Department.
The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), as the Regional Office of WHO for the Americas, is a catalyzer for assuring that all the people of the Americas enjoy ideal health as well as for contributing to the population well-being. In the area of food safety, it develops a technical cooperation strategic plan focused on the countries, which has been submitted and approved by inter-ministry meetings on health and agriculture as well as by PAHO Directive Council. PAHO is the only region of WHO which counts with a technical group specialized in food safety that has been working with member countries to build a new vision and actions for improving food safety, based on a change of traditional inspection services towards a systematic approach of the entire food chain.
This strategy considers the orientations of the policy given by the Pan American Commission for Food Safety - COPAIA.
In response to recommendations from its governing bodies, such as Recommendation #47 of the 27th FAO Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean to Develop technical capacities to address the safety and sanitary requirements of the food trade, and the demonstrated needs of the region, FAO has been undertaking a number of activities, including the implementation of field projects, workshops and training courses and the development of useful tools to assist in the development of effective food control systems. These activities are often conducted jointly with WHO or other relevant organizations.
FAO is the UN agency with a mandate to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy. Governments are increasingly realizing the importance of reducing the potential for food contamination at the source, which is often at the farm or fishery level. Accordingly, as the production of plant and animal products, as well as food processing and distribution issues are within FAO's mandate, FAO is well-placed to assist countries in implementing a food chain approach to food safety.
In order to achieve this, FAO has developed its strategy for ensuring safe and nutritious food based on an interdisciplinary approach to provide normative, policy and technical advice for implementing prevailing international norms through a mixture of regulatory and non-regulatory interventions, as appropriate, at the most outcome-effective points in the food chain. The implementation of these international norms allows countries to comply with the obligations of the SPS and WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreements and also ensure national public health. The strategy addresses both formal and informal food chains and allows countries to implement elements of the strategy on a step-by-step basis according to their needs and their capacities. Implementation of the strategy therefore includes enhanced technical assistance and capacity building activities, policy advice to mitigate increased costs, and improved investment by both public and private institutions at appropriate stages in the food chain. It assigns a major role to communication and extension services in its implementation and it also foresees enhanced cooperation with other international agencies working in the same or related fields.
FACTORS WHICH LEAD TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH OF NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR FOOD CONTROL
Food safety requires the risk analysis from production to consumption
Traditional programmes for food control are focused on the control of the end product. For example, inspection programmes in meat plants or inspection of food transforming establishments. Currently, for competition purposes, supplies such as food additives, micro-nutrients, pesticides, and veterinary drugs, are inadequately used and they should be controlled throughout the food chain to guarantee their safe use. The last ten years have showed that traditional actions, based on well-defined problems, are not always sufficient to face new challenges. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the appearance of contaminants such as dioxin, are examples where the problem started with supplies, but the most important consequences became evident along the food chain.
As previously stated, modern food control systems must be based on risk analysis and address issues across the entire food chain. The FAO/WHO Food Safety Risk Analysis Manual further outlines the application risk analysis as a preventative and science-based approach to ensuring safe food.
Improving the risk analysis capacity
Where public health goals are not being met, the risk analysis allows evaluating options and suggesting modifications in the execution of food control systems. Today, conflict resolution based on science establishes risk analysis as the reference for decision making and highlights the importance of communicating the risk level to all stakeholders. Likewise, risk evaluation should consider an inter-disciplinary team. On the other hand, sharing information among governmental agencies, academic institutions and the private sector may result in more solid competitive advantages.
Although traditional approaches (improvement of inspection and analysis systems) have proved to be quite satisfactory, the risk analysis considers susceptibility of populations in combination with low levels of exposure to potential chemical and microbiological hazards. However, further data on food consumption and concentrations of contaminants in food are necessary, particularly in poorer countries, in order to evaluate, manage and communicate those risks, including the establishment of national and international norms. Therefore, interaction with organisms dealing with food and nutritional safety are very important, as well as interactions regarding risk evaluation and management. On the other hand, diagnostic quality is crucial. Hence, FAO and PAHO have identified and linked food laboratories through the Inter American Network of Food Analysis Laboratories (INFAL). Likewise, clinical laboratories have organized themselves through PULSENET Latin America and WHO Global Programme on Salmonella Surveillance (WHO-Global Salm Surv).
As previously stated, FAO, in collaboration with WHO, has developed risk analysis manuals on food safety and in Biosecurity. Training courses and workshops have been implemented based on these manuals and more are planned for the future5.
Modern programmes for food control are based on articulation of public and private sectors
The vertical normative approach was the cornerstone of traditional food safety programmes. The private sector was passive, a recipient of negative and positive results from State actions. Expansion towards the entire food chain involved a redefinition of the role of the State and the private sector. The State now includes the ministries of agriculture, health, commerce, tourism and others. Some of its partners are universities and research institutes for evaluation of new technologies and trends. The private sector, as the owner of products and processes, is the most active and has the responsibility of joining to define, support and sustain food safety policies and programmes.
Assuring food safety along the entire food chain requires partnerships and education at all levels. Training is an essential element of the implementation of quality assurance systems and good practices, such as HACCP, GMPs and GHPs, and all other activities involved in producing safe food. In order to improve food safety, all those employed in food production must be thoroughly trained in their responsibilities. In particular, the management should be conscious of the risks associated with the food business and must take adequate steps to mitigate such risks. The application of Good Hygienic Practices using the Codex Code of Principles of Food Hygiene as well as other Codex specific guidelines for certain foods must be applied.
Public health and food safety
During the last two decades, public health authorities of the countries of the Americas have faced a substantial increase in the number of food-borne diseases. Besides, the task of estimating the occurrence of FBD with a certain degree of accuracy is really difficult since, in many countries, epidemiological surveillance systems are inadequate, occurrence is not properly recorded and only a small number of cases are reported to health services and research is performed on even a smaller number, mainly due to the limited resources of food safety and food inspection management systems.
The responsibility of supplying safe food is shared, from food suppliers to consumers, thus defining a new scope of action for food safety. Biological contaminants such as bacteria, viruses, parasites, fungi and protozoa may be transmitted to food during production or harvesting activities by means of contaminated water, inadequate use of fertilizers, bad hygiene practices, or inadequate food handling during preparation or transportation. Chemical contaminants may contaminate food along the entire food chain and include mycotoxins, dioxins, PCBs, pesticide residues, antibiotic residues, among others, which may lead to the development of antibiotic resistance, veterinary drug residues and heavy metals.
Food Safety: A wider vision
The globalization of food trade poses a transnational challenge to authorities responsible for food safety, since contaminated food from one country may cause an outbreak of disease in another. Agriculture and food industries are in the process of integration and consolidation. This consolidation, together with a growing world trade, implies that large quantities of food coming from the same source are now distributed to much distant places than before, thus creating the possibility of wider and more spread out FBD outbreaks.
In order to reply to the increasing demands for safe food and their international trade, food safety programmes should reflect an extended mandate and a wider vision. Food safety services will no longer be based on the traditional organization of human health within the Ministries of Health. A fundamental condition for national and regional initiatives regarding food safety is to recognize that it is an intersectoral issue which covers the areas of public health, agriculture, fishery, commerce, education, environment and other sectors and that cooperation between those sectors is essential. Measures should be taken to guarantee public health, trade and competitiveness should be increased, food security and tourism should be promoted, and participation, continuity and commitment regarding environmental issues should be strengthened. In order to achieve these objectives, food safety programmes should include the entire agro-food chain, from inputs for production to consumption of the end product.
