Keeping Food Safe: Two Views

Henrik Dam Kristensen
Henrik Dam Kristensen is Denmark’s minister for food, agriculture, and fisheries.

NEWS & VIEWS: Recent media stories about outbreaks of food-borne diseases suggest that food may have become less safe in the 1990s. Does this reflect reality, or has the public become more sensitive to food safety issues? If food has become less safe, what are the reasons?

Kristensen: Generally, I don’t think that food has become less safe. A lot of problems have been solved over the years, but of course new ones have arisen, most importantly in the zoonosis field: salmonella of various types, E. coli, and so on. The rise of these problems is presumably linked to the use of more intensive animal production systems, which result in a higher stress-level in the animals, thus rendering them more receptive to infections of various kinds. Combined with the increase in the size of individual holdings and the centralization of slaughtering and processing facilities, livestock production systems generate, if not more incidences of food-borne disease, then at least larger outbreaks.

NEWS & VIEWS: Is there a difference in the way Europeans and North Americans perceive food safety issues? If so, what are the differences, and how do they matter?

Yes, certainly there are differences. Generally European consumers tend to be much more skeptical about the methods used in modern agriculture. There is a clear tendency toward putting extra value on traditional products and traditional production methods. That means a general and profound skepticism toward new technologies, such as genetic engineering, and toward products obtained with the assistance of, for example, hormonal substances. This caution is currently extending itself to a number of existing technological aids presently used in much food production, such as additives, colorants, antibiotic and other growth promoters, and so on. I might add that this is a very broad tendency within the European public and thus one that European politicians and producers neglect at their own peril.

It is my impression that there is no similarly broad consumer movement within the United States and that food safety and food production have not become such politicized topics over there. The profound differences between European and U.S. perceptions of food safety and food production mean that both sides will need to understand and accommodate these differences if we are to avoid ending up in an eternal transatlantic deadlock over safe and unsafe food.

NEWS & VIEWS: What can European policymakers learn from the U.S. experience with food safety issues?

I am quite sure that technologically both the European countries and the U.S. have a lot to gain from studying each other’s ways of handling food safety issues, but I think that the European policymakers are operating in a political climate that is very different from the one in which American policymakers are presently operating.

NEWS & VIEWS: How should Europe be responding to food safety issues? What are the implications of this response for developing countries?

The only way forward is to take the concerns of the public very seriously and to continue to improve and revise our legislation as well as our production methods. In some ways this will put extra demands on our external suppliers, but in this connection it is important to note that food safety is driven not only by policymakers but also by public demand. So even if the legal framework for the safety of imported food products were not changed, market demand would eventually provide more or less the same result as stricter laws.

Concerning the developing countries, it is clear that they may have to meet some new demands that might very well be problematic at first. But it is my firm opinion that the end result will be a qualitative improvement of the production and control facilities in the exporting countries, an improvement that will strengthen their export potential in the long run. That is the Danish experience from over 100 years of agricultural exports to foreign markets.

NEWS & VIEWS: What can developing countries learn from food-safety experiences in Europe?

Technologically, probably a lot. Many of the experiences that we gather in Europe and elsewhere will benefit food producers all over the world. And, after all, it is usually much cheaper to learn from other people’s mistakes, rather than having to make your own.

NEWS & VIEWS: Do you think the desire for food safety in the developed world interferes with the desire for food security in developing countries?

Not generally. Food security is a persistent problem in relatively few countries, whereas food safety is a concern for everybody. Moreover, the degree of food safety that a country should pursue will depend, of course, on a number of local factors, including economic considerations. Therefore, I see no problem in different countries’ applying different safety standards, in accordance with their situation. It would be difficult indeed to develop common standards that would be fair to all parties, given the very different circumstances in which such standards are to be applied. The experience of the last World Trade Organization talks seems to me to have brought that point home. That being said, it is also clear that some mutual understanding is necessary to avoid different standards becoming just technical barriers to trade.

NEWS & VIEWS: Do you think food safety priorities in developing countries have been skewed by debates in the developed world?

No.

NEWS & VIEWS: Does the current international standard for food safety need to be changed? What are the likely consequences for developing countries?

The existing standards of the Codex Alimentarius are all conceived as standards, not as legislation, and it would certainly be very problematic for developed and developing countries alike if these standards were to be transformed into some sort of binding global legislation. If that were to happen, the consequences for the developing countries, at least for a number of them, would be potentially grave. At the same time several developed countries would feel that the legalized standards did not offer them the required degree of protection.

The necessary global coherence of the standards can only be maintained if they are treated as just that, standards, thus giving the various members of the global community the freedom to apply them, but with variations as necessitated by the economic, political, and technological differences existing in the world today.

NEWS & VIEWS: Recent media stories about outbreaks of food-borne diseases suggest that food may have become less safe in the 1990s. Does this reflect reality, or has the public become more sensitive to food safety issues? If food has become less safe, what are the reasons?

Woteki: Clearly, both the public and the news media have become more attuned to food safety issues in recent years and perceive food-borne illnesses as preventable illnesses. Food safety is a high priority for American consumers, and the media’s awareness of that fact translates into more intense coverage. I do not think that food has become less safe in the 1990s, but many factors of today’s world challenge our ability to reduce the number of food-borne illnesses: emerging and virulent strains of pathogens that didn’t exist a generation ago; concentration in agricultural production and food-processing industries; global trade in agricultural commodities; and a greater proportion of immune-compromised and elderly individuals who are at greater risk for food-borne illness. However, just as there are many new challenges, we have many new tools to help us. In overseeing the production of meat, poultry, and egg products, for example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is completing the final phase of its science-based Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) inspection system. Preliminary data from most of the nation’s plants indicate significant reductions in the incidence of certain pathogens in certain products, pre-HACCP versus post-HACCP. New technologies are also helping us better control pathogens in products. For example, FSIS is in the midst of approving rules for the use of irradiation on meat products. Likewise, food safety research is advancing. Through research focusing on the farm, we are learning more and more about how pathogens occur and how they can be controlled. We have also intensified food safety education efforts for food handlers. More rapid and accurate detection and identification of food-borne illnesses and their causes and of contaminated food products are other improved tools we have in the 1990s.

NEWS & VIEWS: Is there a difference in the way North Americans and Europeans perceive food safety issues? If so, what are the differences and how do they matter?

I don’t think there is a difference in the importance placed on food safety on either side of the Atlantic. Obviously, there is disagreement in some cases over what constitutes a food safety issue and what is an acceptable level of risk. Those who have been watching the news recognize the European Union’s growing resistance, for example, to food products that have been genetically modified or to food from animals that have been treated with growth-promoting hormones. The U.S. finds such products to be safe. To resolve such differences, I believe that science should be the deciding factor in solving international disagreements about food standards.

NEWS & VIEWS: What can U.S. policymakers learn from the European experience with food safety issues?

Nations do learn from the misfortunes of other nations and, clearly, the public health and political implications of Europe’s recent experience with BSE (mad cow disease) and dioxi have not been lost on U.S. policymakers. When faced with a food safety problem, it is imperative that food regulatory agencies act quickly and in the best interest of public health. Food regulatory agencies also should inform the public of action they are taking.

NEWS & VIEWS: How should the United States be responding to food safety issues? What are the implications of this response for developing countries?

Strategic planning is crucial to addressing food safety issues, and a risk-based approach is central to food safety strategic planning. That is the way the U.S. today is addressing food safety issues. Through a presidential directive, U.S. food safety efforts are now led by the President’s Council on Food Safety. The president wants food safety agencies to coordinate their short- and long-range goals and use of resources to a greater degree. An early example of the council’s efforts is an Egg Safety Action Plan to cut egg-related Salmonella enteritidis in half by 2005. For developing countries, I think the implications are twofold: (1) our trading partners will have even greater confidence in the safety of food being protected by a modern, coordinated system that employs science-based inspection, surveillance, research, and education, and (2) there are lessons to be learned from a nation that has been improving its food safety system for nearly 100 years.

NEWS & VIEWS: What can developing countries learn from food-safety experiences in the United States?

I think building and continually strengthening a public health infrastructure—a U.S. priority—should be the number one objective for developing countries. Without a clear understanding of food-borne illness—what specifically triggers outbreaks, how to identify and contain a food-borne outbreak, and how to prevent future occurrences—food safety remains an unattainable goal. Once that infrastructure is in place, the focus on prevention can be more effective.

NEWS & VIEWS: Do you think the desire for food safety in the developed world interferes with the desire for food security in developing countries?

No. The two are not mutually exclusive. Food security is a global issue and will become more so in the decades just ahead as the world seeks to deal with potential problems associated with growing populations, limited or overtaxed natural food-producing resources, and the growing need for a food supply that addresses human nutritional and health needs. Safe, but scarce, food is not an option for the new millennium, and neither is a world with plentiful food that is unsafe. Fortunately, the answer to both potential problems is the same—research that provides the technologies for feeding the world of tomorrow and for ensuring that tomorrow’s food is safe and promotes good health. USDA scientists as well as researchers around the world are working to ensure that tomorrow’s food supply meets the population’s demands and is safe.

NEWS & VIEWS: Do you think food safety priorities in developing countries have been skewed by debates in the developed world?

To a certain extent, yes. Most developed countries are further along in building the fundamental infrastructure important to ensuring the safety of food: safe water, good sanitation, appropriate laws and food regulatory systems, and public health surveillance. These countries are in a position to turn to other food safety risks and issues that are certainly important but comparatively far less so than basic infrastructure. If attention in developing countries is focused on the lesser risks being debated among developed countries, resources and energy unfortunately could be diverted from more fundamental problems such as potable water supplies or refrigeration of food during transportation and storage.

NEWS & VIEWS: Does the current international standard for food safety need to be changed? What are the likely consequences for developing countries?

“Fine-tuned” might be a better term than “changed.” I expect that food safety standards will continue evolving as food scientists and technologists around the world learn more. The likely consequences are much more work for the more than 160 countries that actively participate in the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which has the important role of establishing international standards, guidelines, and principles for use in food trade among nations. The work of Codex has always been important, but its value has increased substantially because of its relatively new status in the World Health Organization as one of three international standard-setting organizations whose health and food safety standards serve as key reference points in settling trade disputes.

Next article