Horse-Meat Scandal Exposes Weakness in Global Food Chain
The horse-meat storm that broke over Europe two months ago has been in one respect a tempest in a horseshoe, because it posed no threat to human health. That’s not a minor caveat in an industry where, in the U.S. alone,tainted food kills 3,000 people each year and sickens 48 million.
The horse-meat substitution has struck a nerve, however, as people wonder what else they’re eating that isn’t what they think it is.
It could be almost anything. The list of counterfeit foods Interpol found in worldwide food-fraud operations during 2011 and 2012 includes olive oil, tomato sauce, cheese, wine, candy bars, coffee, soup cubes, truffles, caviar, vodka, soy sauce and fruit juice. Consider, too, the undeclared goat, donkey and water buffalo meat that professors at South Africa’s Stellenbosch University recently found in locally produced sausages and hamburgers.
In the U.S., the nonprofit group Oceana recently confirmed that a large share of the fish in groceries and restaurants is something other than what it is sold as. Researchers did DNA tests on more than 1,200 fish samples in 14 metropolitan areas and found a third to be mislabeled. Red snapper was misrepresented so often that the researchers were at pains to find the real thing: Of 120 samples, 113 were a different fish.
Ancient Practice
Food fraud is as old as the hills. Rogue traders have been adulterating olive oil and alcohol ever since humans started making and selling them. Laws against food adulteration have existed at least since Rome made it a crime punishable by servitude or exile. Scientists have been writing treatises on the subject since at least 1820.What’s different today is that the food industry has become so sophisticated and supply chains so complex and global that it’s much harder to monitor what goes into a product. There’s more to watch, too: Is that expensive organic turnip really organic? Was that sustainably fished salmon sustainably fished? Is that Champagne really from the Champagne region in France?
Worse, food prices are rising in the midst of a deep economic recession. That’s putting enormous pressure on suppliers to find cheaper ingredients, and the result is rising fraud. The U.K. Food Standards Agency added 50 percent more reports to its food fraud database in 2011 than the previous year. At the same time, budgets for state inspections are falling.
The U.K. agency’s director, Steve Wearne, told Bloomberg View that inspection agencies have to choose: Should they focus on looking for otherwise healthy meat and fish substitutes, or for big money olive oil scams and fake vodka made with methanol and chloroform, which can kill? “We try to strike a balance,” he said, and it tilts toward safety.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is working to expand its presence outside the U.S. to help monitor the global food supply chain, puts the same emphasis on safety, Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told Bloomberg View.
The question is how to inspect smarter and how to incentivize the food industry to police itself better. After all, because food fraud is a breach of trust between seller and buyer, it should be mainly up to food marketers to demonstrate that they are trustworthy.
Greater use of computers to track food and improve transparency can help. The FDA already uses databases to help it make targeted decisions on which imported foods to check for fraud. EU officials are considering adding a shared food authenticity alert system to the one they have for food safety, allowing regulators in Poland to see what their counterparts in Ireland are seeing and helping them to uncover cross-border scams earlier. They should do it.
EU agriculture ministers also are talking about extendingto all meats rules that demand certain categories of imported food identify their place of origin. Again, they should do it.
Supply Chains
Something more radical may be needed, though. Tesco Plc, the U.K.’s biggest grocery chain whose 60 percent horse meat spaghetti Bolognese became a poster villain, has taken the lead in the U.K. by promising to cut its supply chains shorter and source meat from inside the country wherever it can. That smells of protectionism, but not if it’s a purely commercial decision made by the food retailers to protect their brands. Tesco also promised to spend millions of pounds annually on DNA testing, to make sure its suppliers are delivering the ingredients listed on those boxes of frozen spaghetti Bolognese.By conducting such testing even sporadically, food sellers can make it harder for fraudsters to operate. The industry now has a new tool to guide it: a public Internet database of thousands of food frauds perpetrated since 1980, compiled by the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention.
Another useful database under construction is theInternational Barcode of Life Working Group’s catalog of DNA barcodes for thousands of fish species, which makes it easier for regulators and food companies alike to verify any fish’s identity.
Some U.S. fisheries are protecting their reputations by using computer tracking. A tracing system developed in the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf Seafood Trace, has fishermen log information about their catch of shrimp, oysters and fish into a database. That’s updated as the seafood moves through the market chain --until ultimately the person who buys it for dinner can check what it is and where and when it was caught. The peace of mind this allows consumers may make them more willing to pay a premium for the fish.
There are already laws against mislabeling. Horse carcasses in the EU are required to have passports (Europeans knowingly eat more than 200,000 horses every year). Yet the more information consumers have, and the more transparency there is in the global food supply chain, the harder it will be to dupe us about what we are eating.
McDonald’s introduces traceability across all food products
Ahmedabad, March 8:
McDonald’s India can now keep track of the products it sources from 40 different suppliers across the country. To do this, it uses a traceability system to record the movement of each ingredient that goes into making its burgers, a senior official said on Friday.
Every day, McDonald’s uses 8,500-9,000 buns, 3,000-3,500 kg of tomatoes, 2,000 kg of iceberg lettuce and 5,500 slices of cheese. These are delivered to 255 restaurants across India using 60-70 refrigerated trucks.
To maintain quality, these products can now be traced back along each step of the production and transportation process to their point of origin — the farms/ units from where they are sourced — right down to the date of harvest or production batch, Amit Jatia, Vice-Chairman, Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt Ltd, told Business Line. Hardcastle operates and manages McDonald’s 155 restaurants in the country’s western and southern regions, employing 7,000 employees, and serving 16.7 crore customers annually.
Using traceability systems, McDonald’s can track the temperature and location of any product being supplied to a restaurant anywhere in India, in real time and with accuracy (tracking temperature variations as small as 1 degree C). The system allows the company to identify where and when the produce temperature rose outside of preset parameters, and take immediate preventive action.
Traceability, he said, ensures not only consistency in the taste of food at McDonald’s but also puts in place stringent international standards of food safety and quality. If offers customers transparency on food quality and allows a specific batch to be identified, isolated and removed in instances where there is a discrepancy in quality standards.
It ensures the implementation of preventive processes within the McDonald’s supply chain, with significant savings in terms of product waste.
Each burger undergoes over 40 separate tests throughout the chain to ensure that the food served is inspected for safety, he added.
In the near future, McDonald’s will deploy brand extensions such as McDelivery, Drive Thrus, Kiosks and 24x7 operations, and will focus on re-imaging its restaurants with fresh and contemporary designs.
At present, the 16-year-old McDonald’s India has a network of over 300 restaurants across the country. Currently it procures 46,000 tonnes of potato from Gujarat. Its potato supplier in Gujarat, McCain, plans to double the acreage under the tuber to 8,000 acres next year under contract farming.
Research call for poultry assessment
The Food Standards Agency is putting out a research call to provide a better understanding of public health risks associated with partially eviscerated (effilé) poultry production.
The results will help inform decisions related to risk management interventions. They will also support a case for the development of policy, both in relation to the FBO controls over this type of production and the type and level of official controls required.
Background on effilé poultry production
Partially eviscerated (effilé) poultry is where the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, crop (a muscular pouch near the throat), proventriculus (part of the digestive system) and gizzard have been left inside the body cavity.
Regulation (EC) 853/2004 allows production of effilé poultry, provided it is authorised by the competent authority.
The UK has little experience of effilé poultry production, although trials have taken place in a few UK plants.
Regulation (EC) 853/2004 allows production of effilé poultry, provided it is authorised by the competent authority.
The UK has little experience of effilé poultry production, although trials have taken place in a few UK plants.
Our requirements
Proposals are invited to carry out a qualitative risk assessment of partially eviscerated (effilé) poultry and suggest alternative controls to address any significant and relevant public health risks.
Proposals sought will consider:
It is thought that the project will take a maximum of eight to nine months, with a final report submitted to the Agency by the end of April 2014.
Proposals sought will consider:
- details about the abnormalities that may not be identified in effilé as compared with fully eviscerated poultry
- the aetiology of the conditions that produce those abnormalities
- the public health implications of those conditions
It is thought that the project will take a maximum of eight to nine months, with a final report submitted to the Agency by the end of April 2014.
How to apply
Applications should be submitted online using our electronic procurement system by 5pm on Wednesday, 10 April 2013. To find out more about this call for tender, you will need to register as a supplier on the FSA’s electronic tendering system, ePPS, via the link below
In carrying out the joint risk assessment, the two agencies will use all available scientific evidence and consider data and results of ongoing testing of horsemeat in Member States as these become available.
In a joint statement, EFSA and EMA will provide advice on any potential risk for consumers arising from the presence of phenylbutazone residues in horsemeat. In this regard, the agencies will consider both the risk posed from consumption of horsemeat itself as well as that arising from other products illegally contaminated with horsemeat. The agencies have been asked to advise, where appropriate, if additional control options are needed to minimise any risks identified.
Phenylbutazone is used sparingly in human medicine for the treatment of severe inflammatory conditions where no other treatment is considered suitable. In veterinary medicine its use is permitted in some Member States for pain relief and to reduce inflammation in non-food producing animals (dogs, sport horses).
Phenylbutazone is not permitted to be used in the treatment of animals destined for the human food chain and any presence of the substance in food of animal origin therefore results from the illegal use of carcasses of treated horses.
Notes to editors:
EU agencies to advise on risks from phenylbutazone in horsemeat
The European Commission has asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to carry out a joint assessment of the risks to human health from the presence in horsemeat of residues of the anti-inflammatory drug phenylbutazone. The request follows the recent identification of beef products contaminated with horsemeat and the discovery of phenylbutazone – also known as “bute” – in a small number of horse carcasses intended for the food chain.
The European Union agencies will provide scientific advice by 15 April 2013 to help inform decision-making of the European Commission with regard to these recent findings. In carrying out the joint risk assessment, the two agencies will use all available scientific evidence and consider data and results of ongoing testing of horsemeat in Member States as these become available.
In a joint statement, EFSA and EMA will provide advice on any potential risk for consumers arising from the presence of phenylbutazone residues in horsemeat. In this regard, the agencies will consider both the risk posed from consumption of horsemeat itself as well as that arising from other products illegally contaminated with horsemeat. The agencies have been asked to advise, where appropriate, if additional control options are needed to minimise any risks identified.
Phenylbutazone is used sparingly in human medicine for the treatment of severe inflammatory conditions where no other treatment is considered suitable. In veterinary medicine its use is permitted in some Member States for pain relief and to reduce inflammation in non-food producing animals (dogs, sport horses).
Phenylbutazone is not permitted to be used in the treatment of animals destined for the human food chain and any presence of the substance in food of animal origin therefore results from the illegal use of carcasses of treated horses.
Notes to editors:
On 21 February the European Commission adopted a coordinated plan on controls with regard to fraudulent practices in the marketing of beef products. This includes a testing plan for phenylbutazone in horsemeat that foresees the testing of 1 sample for every 50 tonnes of horsemeat. Each Member State is required to carry out a minimum of five tests, the results of which will be reported regularly to the Commission.
EFSA publishes an annual report summarising the monitoring data provided by Member States on the presence of residues of veterinary medicinal products and certain substances in live animals and animal products in the European Union. This report includes information on the presence of residues of phenylbutazone in horsemeat.
The Authority is currently carrying out a major piece of scientific work in support of the proposed modernisation of the meat inspection system in Europe. EFSA has already published scientific opinions on the public health hazards to be addressed by poultry and swine meat inspection. In June 2013, it will produce a similar opinion on horsemeat inspection.
In the context of food safety in the EU, the EMA provides to the European Commission recommendations on safe levels (maximum residues limits) of residues of veterinary medicines in foodstuffs of animal origin. EMA assessed phenylbutazone in 1997 for the purpose of establishing maximum residue limits (MRLs) and concluded that the data available did not allow for a recommendation for the establishment of MRLs to be made. As a consequence phenylbutazone is not authorised for use in food producing animals.
For media enquiries at EFSA please contact:
EFSA Media Relations Office
Tel. +39 0521 036 149
E-mail: Press@efsa.europa.eu
For media enquiries at EMA please contact:
Tel. +44 (0)20 7418 8427
E-mail: press@ema.europa.eu
EFSA Media Relations Office
Tel. +39 0521 036 149
E-mail: Press@efsa.europa.eu
For media enquiries at EMA please contact:
Tel. +44 (0)20 7418 8427
E-mail: press@ema.europa.eu
Canada: Proposed US Country Of Origin Labeling Rule “Unfair”
March 11, 2013 by Leave a Comment
Canada is crying foul over the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) proposed change to Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements for muscle cuts of meat. The proposed rule would require location information about each step in the production of muscle cuts of meat such as where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered. It would also remove the allowance for “commingling of muscle cuts.”
The proposed change comes in response to a June 2012 ruling by the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which affirmed an earlier WTO Panel finding that the US COOL requirements for certain meat cuts discriminated against Canadian and Mexican livestock imports, putting the US out of compliance with WTO rules. The US has until May 23, 2013, to come into compliance.
“USDA expects that these changes will improve the overall operation of the program and also bring the current mandatory COOL requirements into compliance with U.S. international trade obligations,” USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, said in a statement. But his Canadian counterpart disagrees.
“Our Government is extremely disappointed with the proposed regulatory changes put forward by the United States today with respect to Country of Origin Labeling,” Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said in a statement. “We do not believe that the proposed changes will bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations. The proposed changes will increase the discrimination against exports of cattle and hogs from Canada and increase damages to Canadian industry. Our Government will consider all options, including retaliatory measures, should the U.S. not achieve compliance by May 23, 2013, as mandated by the WTO. We will continue to stand with Canadian cattle and hog producers against unfair Country of Origin Labeling in the U.S.”
Last fall, an E. coli outbreak in Canada was linked to meat produced by XL Foods of Canada. The outbreak triggered the largest food recall in Canadian history, millions of pounds of ground beef and muscle cuts distributed in the US and Canada were recalled.
The proposed COOL rule appears in today’s issue of the Federal Register. Comments will be received until April 11, 2013.
The proposed change comes in response to a June 2012 ruling by the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which affirmed an earlier WTO Panel finding that the US COOL requirements for certain meat cuts discriminated against Canadian and Mexican livestock imports, putting the US out of compliance with WTO rules. The US has until May 23, 2013, to come into compliance.
“USDA expects that these changes will improve the overall operation of the program and also bring the current mandatory COOL requirements into compliance with U.S. international trade obligations,” USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, said in a statement. But his Canadian counterpart disagrees.
“Our Government is extremely disappointed with the proposed regulatory changes put forward by the United States today with respect to Country of Origin Labeling,” Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said in a statement. “We do not believe that the proposed changes will bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations. The proposed changes will increase the discrimination against exports of cattle and hogs from Canada and increase damages to Canadian industry. Our Government will consider all options, including retaliatory measures, should the U.S. not achieve compliance by May 23, 2013, as mandated by the WTO. We will continue to stand with Canadian cattle and hog producers against unfair Country of Origin Labeling in the U.S.”
Last fall, an E. coli outbreak in Canada was linked to meat produced by XL Foods of Canada. The outbreak triggered the largest food recall in Canadian history, millions of pounds of ground beef and muscle cuts distributed in the US and Canada were recalled.
The proposed COOL rule appears in today’s issue of the Federal Register. Comments will be received until April 11, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment