Take aim

Something of a regular to FS, Jorgen Schlundt gives us his views on progress towards reducing the foodborne disease burden in Europe. FS discovers how, despite big steps forward towards information sharing and rapid response, much of Europe’s focus is still being misdirected towards the end of the food production chain.

There has clearly been a much greater emphasis on improving food safety in the past five years. What is your own perspective on how successful these efforts have been?

JS. It has been successful in a number of countries including the Netherlands, the UK, and Denmark, where the efforts have been targeted in a particular area, for example, towards reducing the prevalence of Salmonella in chickens. However, while there are a number of success stories, there are also many countries that have not achieved such improvements and a number of areas where nothing has really improved. It is not enough to simply repeat that food is safe, especially when there is now a greater amount of quality data available that tells us otherwise. The fact remains that there is still a relatively big burden of foodborne disease in all countries.

One big change that has taken place in recent years is an improvement in the cohesion for food safety and control in many countries. This means that from farm to fork there is a single system in place or a system of components that works effectively together. Previously, this was not the case in many countries – for example, one issue was the responsibility of the ministry of agriculture while, another was under the ministry of health, and these different parts weren’t communicating with one another.

How coherent are the systems in Europe for testing and alerts for food safety incidence and how effective currently is information sharing?

JS. There are two elements to the issue of information sharing – the first being the need to rapidly share information about contamination events or outbreaks. We now have in Europe a very efficient system, called simply the Rapid Alert System, which has been developed over the last 10 years. which shares that information quickly. In fact, the problem with the system now is it’s so efficient you could even say it shares too much information. If you put too many small things that are not so important into a system like that, it can be difficult to pick out what is really important. Despite this, having a system such as this to share information quickly and effectively across the region is absolutely vital.

The second type of information is that relating to the foodborne disease burden and there is currently no standardisation of this information across Europe. Data from most countries in Europe is gathered together in a data centre in Berlin, but as there are currently no international standards for how this should be done, there is very poor comparability between the national data sets. In the future, there need to be some serious developments in this area.

What role do you think your own department has played in enabling the necessary improvements and raising food standards?

JS. We have had a role in a number of areas. First amongst these is in the provision of scientific advice. If the safety of a product is questioned, we can get experts from around the world together, who can then communicate the real risks to the rest of the world as well as giving information about what can be done to minimise the risks, etc. In that sense, as a global organization that works with the FAO we have a very important role, and have done for some time.

In that area also, we have initiated an expert group on microbiological risk assessment, called GEMRA, which is something that had not been done before. In the past, scientific advice had related largely to chemicals in food, and there was little focus on microorganisms. In the last 5-10 years, however, we have placed a growing emphasis on this because they are a major problem all over the world. Most people in Europe today are familiar with the names of the major foodborne bacteria. This is of course not only because of the work of the FAO, but it is an important part of our work.

Another area in which we work is with Codex alimentarius, where there has also been an increase in emphasis on microorganisms. After a major review of Codex we are changing it to become more responsive to the needs of the member states, in particular the developing nations. Whereas I believe in the past Codex was influenced largely by the developed countries, today it brings everyone to the table much better and as a result the global problems are better reflected in it.

The third area in which we’ve had an important impact is in the way that we interact with the consumer. We’ve been doing a lot more to directly interact with consumers, putting out and promoting simple messages that can be easily understood by everyone. The five keys to safer food is one of the example of this, and have been used even in relation to Avian Influenza.

In these three areas we have contributed not only to getting issues of food safety more on the political agenda, but also in coming up with more effective ways to reduce the risks.

Clearly avian flu is the biggest issue of interest right now. Is there enough knowledge yet about the threats to human health or are people misunderstanding or over-exaggerating the risks?

JS. Certainly, there is still some confusion among the public about the risks, despite the fact that the message we have put out has been correct from the start. Of course, the situation is different in each individual country so public perception really depends on how each national authority uses our messages and whether they decide to put out their own information, which can cause confusion. One of the biggest areas of debate has been whether in fact we should be talking about avian flu in the context of food safety at all. As the main risk to health is through contact with an infected animal, dead or alive, through airborne particles, it isn’t really a food safety issue.

However, it is also important to acknowledge that a couple of people have actually contracted avian flu through eating food – raw duck’s blood. So while it is important that we deliver simple messages, we must still explain the real risks without giving out any incorrect information. We should not be afraid to talk about the risks that do exist – you have to be open, give clear statements and emphasise the message, again and again.

Do you think such standards and regulations are tough enough at present? How could they be improved to raise standards or make it easier for the industry?

JS. Enforcement of regulations varies greatly from country to country, but in general I don’t think it is tough enough. Much could still be done to ensure that those producers that are not compliant become so in the future. However, while it is essential to have controlled systems in place, the most important thing should be to identify where the biggest risks are and to address them. If, for example, the biggest risk in your country is Salmonella in chicken farms, you need to go to those farms and do something about that problem. Taking care of the problem at the beginning of the chain is much more cost effective than addressing it at the end, which in most cases does not work.

This can be a difficult concept to explain to people, because there is a tendency to think that what is most important is having someone sampling our food at the end of the chain, just before we buy it. This is not the case. What is really efficient is to locate where in the food chain we can make most effective changes to reduce the risks. In many cases that is at the start of the food chain and in most cases it is only possible if you have good coherent data that can enable us to intervene appropriately.

What are the core priorities of your organization for the year ahead, and in the longer-term? Do you have any particular objectives or initiatives that you are working towards?

JS. We have three core objectives. Avian influenza is only one of many zoonosis that affect our food chain and there are a number of important emerging zoonoses that we are not yet doing enough about. So we’re trying to strengthen our focus on zoonoses.

Another important area in which we have a growing focus is the microbiological risk assessment that I talked about earlier. We need to get better scientific data in order to carry out interventions so we’ll continue to move this agenda forward more quickly. Lastly, we need to work to improve the effectiveness of the simple messages we put out – messages that will actually change people’s behaviour. We are now trying to work out the most effective ways to provide information that will actually impact on people’s behaviour and therefore the disease risk.