Animal feed sector survives food safety trial

The Dutch animal feed sector and the food industry are to scrutinise the use of additives. Early this year, one such additive caused a new dioxin incident in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. The incident put the Dutch food safety system for animal feeds on trial. This system, GMP+, underwent a thorough review earlier this year. Later, this year it will be further altered to bring it into line with new legislation and market demand.

Contaminated hydrochloric acid was the cause of the incident in January (see boxout ‘Faulty filter’). This hydrochloric acid is a technical additive used in the production of gelatine. The Dutch dioxin incident of 2004 was also caused by a technical additive: clay that was used in sorting potatoes. In both cases, dioxin was found in residue from the food industry used in animal feed.

Survey of additives

The incidents induced the Dutch Product Board Animal Feed (Nederlandse Productschap Diervoeder, or PDV) to speed up the taking of measures. The PDV is currently taking stock of the use of additives in the food industry. After all, many of the raw materials used in animal feed are a by-product of food production. The survey is focusing on technical additives (like anti-foaming agents or flaking agents), utilities (including coolants, fuels and cleaning products) and additives (such as preservatives). The total comes to more than 150 different substances.

The next step is to assess the potential risks associated with the use of these substances. The incidents have revealed that assessment has not always been sufficient on critical points in the production process and in the product (HACCP). This assessment focuses mainly on the safety of food intended for human consumption.

The PDV is drawing up a list of facts for each substance with information about the chemical structure of the substance, the hazards it causes to people, animals and the environment, any legislative or other norms, methods of analysis and avoidable risks. All the is will result in the autumn in an estimate of the dangers connected with using raw materials from the food industry in animal feed. The risk assessment of the use of additives can then be refined and improved in order to prevent incidents from occurring.

Action plan

Suppliers of raw materials receive a lot of attention from animal feed companies in any case. The Dutch sector organisation, Nevedi, and the PDV feel that the assessment, selection and evaluation of suppliers are aspects that need to be improved. These are vulnerable points as incidents with contaminated animal feed have shown. For this reason, a number of major Dutch companies in the dairy industry and Dutch meat processing companies are also demanding that the animal feed sector takes fitting measures. After all, these incidents cause a loss of image and markets and much financial damage. The safety of animal feed is therefore being allocated a crucial role in quality assurance throughout the entire chain.

The PDV is shouldering its responsibility by drawing up an action plan, which will be completed before the end of the year. It contains five aspects. Apart from the assessment o suppliers mentioned above, more intensive monitoring of raw materials is a second point. For example, it is not sufficient just to check fats for PCBs as an indication of dioxin, as the incident in January showed. Random checks will be carried out to test for dioxin. Frequent examination will be sufficient for other substances, if the production process can be controlled properly. The PDV wants to make full batch control or very frequent sampling and analysis mandatory for uncontrollable production processes. For example, GMP+ already makes 100 percent entry checks compulsory for heavy materials and additives of mineral origin in feed.

If incidents and crises occur, business itself will take preventative measures more quickly. This third point in the action plan entails a possible temporary embargo and canalisation in the animal chain (from animal feed, cattle farms to the meat, dairy, egg trade and industry). By doing so, the sector wants to pre-empt legislative measures. The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (Nederlandse Voedsel en Warenautoriteit, or VWA) limits itself to monitoring the correct and effective implementation by business. In the dioxin incident last January, this appeared to work excellently at first (later, the VWA decided to implement measures in the Netherlands after all, whereas the Belgian Food Agency, Voedselagentschap, took the lead from the beginning).

The dioxin incident also brought the fourth point for attention into play: tracing and linking data in the chain. The cattle farming chain needs to focus its thoughts and actions on being able to intervene quickly if something goes wrong. Human errors will remain; various recalls in supermarkets show that zero risk does not exist. Thorough crisis management stands or falls with being able to get a quick picture of the businesses involved. In January, the source of the dioxin was found within a few days. We also knew within one day which cattle farms in the Netherlands had received contaminated feed. The privacy of the company code for livestock farms turned out to act as a delaying factor in the Netherlands. Because of that, the PDV has now asked the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) to abolish that privacy.

The last point in the action plan is the streamlining of GMP+ with ISO 22000. Here, too, the PDV wants the animal feed sector to add valuable substance to its position in the food chain. The sector has come a long way. Recently, the Dutch Board of Accreditation (Raad voor Accreditatie, or RvA) upgraded GMP+ to the international standard for certification (See boxout ‘GMP+ as an international standard’). The animal feed sector also survived the test of a new incident in the early months of this year.

This underlines the sector’s attitude. It even thinks it can be an example for the human food industry. After all, animal feed quality assurance has ensured that shortcomings in the food industry have come to light in recent years, which the industry itself had not tracked down. It again shows that both sectors have much common ground, and that both can benefit from a joint approach to food safety.