Food Safety is Not a Chinese Problem: The EU has had its problems too

Patrick Wall

Food safety is a global issue and no country can be complacent or arrogant and consider that food safety violations only happen in other jurisdictions. Chinese citizens are very familiar with the melamine crisis in Chinese Infant formula but China is not alone in having major problems. In the European Union (EU) there have been a series of food contamination issues that undermined consumer confidence in:

• the safety of the food supply,
• the ability of the regulators to protect the food chain, and
• the commitment of the industry to produce food.  

  The EU is made up of 28 individual countries and has a population of over 500 M people. Two major issues, mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE) and a dioxin contamination incident, brought the issue of food safety to a head and triggered a reform in all EU food legislation. These crises originated in two of the EU countries, the United Kingdom (UK) and Belgium.

Mad Cow Disease

Mad cow disease is a neurological disease that arose in cattle in the UK in 1986 and, despite the concerns of some scientists, the British Government falsely reassured the public that this disease posed no risk to consumers’ health.  The UK Minister of Public Health went on national television and fed a beef burger to his young daughter in an attempt to demonstrate that he was confident that there was no risk from eating British beef. However in March 1996 the British Government had to do a U turn and acknowledge that a probable link existed between mad cow disease and a new neurological condition emerging in humans called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The media were angry because of the apparent cover up by the Government and there was sensational media coverage forecasting a man-made disaster of unpredictable proportions.

The UK Authorities were frantically acting to limit damage from BSE not only to human health, but also to agriculture, the economy, political credibility and public confidence. In an effort to calm an angry public and to attempt to restore faith in the controls system, the UK Government initiated a major independent inquiry into how the BSE crisis developed. The key conclusions were that BSE arose as a consequence of intensive farming practices where contaminated meat and bone meal was fed to cows, and appropriate measures were not taken to ensure this feed was safe for cattle and furthermore precautionary measures to protect human health were not always timely and adequately implemented and enforced. Food safety strategies were implicitly guided by the belief that BSE was not a real threat to human health. Moreover, there was too much secrecy and unjustified reassurance by Government bodies in order to protect the agricultural industry. A second BSE crisis started in 2000 when the first results of BSE surveillance confirmed scientists’ opinion that political claims of “freedom from BSE” in several other EU countries were wishful thinking rather than a reality. Like in the UK, citizens in these countries were angry that their Governments falsely reassured them.

Dioxin Contamination

The second major food safety crisis that occurred in the EU was in 1999. It arose in Belgium where a small amount of animal feed became contaminated with dioxin.  The problem started with some complaints from chicken farmers who noticed increased deaths among newborn chickens. Laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of dioxins well above normal limits in the eggs and tissues of the affected birds. Although the authorities were aware of the problem in January 1999, no actions were taken until the media exposed the problem in May 1999. Investigations revealed that the source of the dioxin was contaminated animal feed, which contained ingredients which came from an oil-and-fat-recycling company.  Some of the recycled oil was not cooking oil but transformer oil.  The public became very angry when the media broke the story and although there was only a minute amount of contaminated animal rations involved, an inability to trace which farms received it and which animals ate it and where the subsequent eggs, meat and milk were distributed caused the public to lose confidence in all Belgian food and the Ministers of Agriculture and of Health lost their jobs.

Later studies indicated that there was never a serious danger to human health because the amount of the contaminated material was very small and it was largely diluted during the production of the animal feed. However seven million chickens and fifty thousand pigs were slaughtered and discarded. Many farms were closed down for months and many Belgian animal food products were banned from the market. The crisis also damaged the export of Belgian animal products. Many Belgians went shopping for meat and dairy products in foreign countries. The total cost of this food crisis in Belgium was estimated at Euro 625 M.
 

The Belgian dioxin crisis caused no human illness and the crisis was triggered by a failure of the Government to communicate what had happened in an accurate and honest manner to the public. The BSE epidemic in cows did result in a small number of human cases but the situation got out of control because of the failure of the Governments to be honest and open about the problem with the people. Sensational media coverage of both crises forced the EU policy makers and regulators to react and reform the entire food safety regulatory infrastructure.
 

The BSE disease in cattle declined dramatically from 2005 as a result of the total ban of feeding meat and bone meal, derived from animals, poultry and fish, to any food animals, which was introduced in 2000.  However although EU beef was perfectly safe, consumer confidence remained low which necessitated drastic measures to restore public confidence. People, who heretofore had assumed their food was safe, began to ask questions about how it was produced and what methods were being used in modern agriculture.
 

For consumers, no matter whether they live in China or the EU, safety is the most important ingredient of their food and when their health, and the health of their children, are put at risk it is understandable that they become angry.  The situation in the EU is not unlike the situation in China where the legacy of the melamine crisis in infant formula has done long term damage to the Chinese dairy sector and measures to restore the public’s faith in domestically produced product are still ongoing.
 

The two big crises in the EU revealed that there were huge weaknesses in the food safety control systems. Many different Government agencies and local authorities were responsible for policing the different stages of the food chain. Often there were areas with no supervision and many of the agencies did not communicate with each other. In addition, conflict existed between Ministries of Agriculture and Trade who wanted to promote the industry and business, and Ministries of Health who wanted to protect the public’s health. 
 

Legislative Reform

The drastic reform of EU legislation introduced to restore consumer confidence contained several key elements:

• The setting up of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to undertake risk assessment and ensure that all policies are based on the best science, are independent of industrial and other vested interests and are open to rigorous public scrutiny. The tasks of the Authority are essentially to concentrate on risk assessment and risk communication. EFSA also covers animal health and welfare issues, and takes into consideration risk assessments in other areas, notably the environmental and chemical sectors where these overlap with risk assessment in relation to food.  EFSA makes special provision for informing all interested parties of its findings, not only in respect of the scientific opinions, but also in relation to the results of its monitoring and surveillance programs. EFSA has become the automatic first port of call when scientific information on food safety and nutritional issues is sought or problems have been identified. A highly visible Authority with strong pro-active presence on food safety matters has been a key element in restoring and maintaining confidence among European consumers. The EFSA web site is comprehensive and all information is freely available  (http://www.efsa.europa.eu) .

• Legislation was introduced to ensure that the food chain was supervised from farm to fork with no gaps and all loopholes were closed. Emphasis was placed on traceability of animal feed and human food and ingredients. The responsibilities of animal feed producers, farmers, food processors and manufacturers, food service operators and retailers were spelt out. They are responsible for the safety of their output and will be held liable if any contaminated product passes through their hands.
• To ensure the food chain is properly policed requires trained inspectors and auditors that are able to identify substandard practices and illegal activity. In addition laboratory staff have to be skilled in the latest modern diagnostic techniques and surveillance tools. The reformed EU legislation spelt out the competencies the food safety police in each jurisdiction should have.
• If consumers are to be satisfied that the reformed legislation is leading to a genuine improvement in food safety standards, they must be kept well informed. Actions speak louder than words so the challenge is to communicate to the public the improvements being introduced. At the same time, consumers need to be kept better informed of emerging food safety concerns, and of risks to certain groups from particular foods. Better labeling of foods was introduced.
• The EU is one of the world's largest importers of food products and one dimension of the reforms was to explain to the international trading partners what was expected of them if they want to continue to do business with the EU.  There would be little point in raising domestic standards whilst allowing inferior quality imports to enter the EU.
   

The Chinese Authorities have also reformed their food safety infrastructure to protect the health of the Chinese citizens and to also maintain confidence in the safety of Chinese food on the Chinese market in the very many countries that import food from China. The Food Safety Law has been revised and in addition to the introduction of new systems, the Chinese Authorities have looked at the governance practices in the food chain in many other countries and looked at what activities might be applicable in China to strengthen Chinese controls.
 

Every food contamination incident whether it arises in the EU, the US or China erodes public confidence and brands and reputations that take years to build can be damaged overnight. The modern social media is global and bad news travels rapidly around the world so there can be no tolerance for substandard practices or criminal activity in the food chain in any jurisdiction.
 

It is very important that countries collaborate and share their experiences and trust each other, as our futures are interdependent. Often the health of one country’s citizens depends on controls in operation in another jurisdiction completely. For example most of the vitamins and minerals used in EU animal feed come from China. As the food chain is only as strong as its weakest link, if controls are not good in this area in China major problems will arise in the EU.
 

Together we all face major challenges, the world’s population is increasing and there is a scarcity of fertile land and water resources which are necessary if we are going to be able to feed ourselves. Food is essential for human health and we need systems of production that can feed the world with safe wholesome nutritious food without destroying the environment for future generations. What is required is sustainable agriculture, which is the production of food using farming techniques that protect the environment, public health, human communities, and animal welfare.  This form of agriculture will enable us to produce safe, healthy food without compromising future generations' ability to do the same. Sustainable farms produce crops and raise animals without overly relying on chemical herbicides and pesticides and synthetic fertilisers, or practices that degrade soil, water, or other natural resources. By growing a variety of plants and using techniques such as crop rotation, conservation tillage, and better livestock husbandry, sustainable farms protect biodiversity and foster the development and maintenance of healthy ecosystems.

Dr Patrick Wall is both a qualified veterinarian and a medical doctor and is Professor of Public Health at University College Dublin, Ireland. He was previously the head of foodborne disease surveillance in the UK Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control (UKCDC), and was a Founder Management Board Member and the second Chairperson of the European Food Safety Authority (2002-08) and the inaugural Chief Executive of the Irish Food Safety Authority.

He was a member of the International Food Safety Committee convened to assist food safety arrangements for the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008, and is a Fellow of the International Academy of Food Science and Technology (IAFoST). He is a co-chair of the IUFoST Expert Panel on Food Safety.

He is currently a Member of the International Scientific Advisory Committee of the Chinese Centre for Food Safety and Risk Assessment (CFSA) and also an Advisor to CFSA on the development of their risk communication function; e-mail: patrick.wall@ucd.ie