A Prescriptive Approach to Food Safety in Meat Products

(revised 20/02/04)

By

Robin Johnson¹

Abstract

This paper explores recent trends in the surveillance of quality standards in the food production chain. These trends are prescriptive because they lay down rules or standards for food quality. This prescriptive process is led by food safety standards in the US where systems such as hazard analysis at critical control points (HACCP) originally were developed in response to the high preservation requirements of space exploration. They are now being adopted in more and more countries. Exporters of meat products will have devote more and more resources to quality control. The adoption of these standards will be uneven across countries and will effectively restrict trade in agricultural products rather than encourage it.

The issue

The future development of food production systems and trade will see increased demands being put on both the product and the production process according to Thomas Urban (www.agriculture.de/discus/messages). He predicts a significant shift in consumer attitudes, buttressed by research discoveries, that will move the traditional commodity-based food production system into a "prescription system". Consumer expectations for food will include standards which reflect safety, health and the environment. The future structure of the world's food system will primarily be patterned after pharmaceutical standards for research, production, distribution and pricing. Operating and structural consequences of this shift will be extraordinary for each step in the development, production, distribution, and purchase of food.

The key elements in this prescriptive system are transparency and traceability. The consumer will expect to be able to trace each food item back to its earliest production stage. The system will be driven by heightened sensitivity to food-borne diseases, an increasing concern for animal welfare and the environment, and the potential for closer matching of genetic profiles of individuals in relation to nutritional needs.

Marked changes will be required right down the production and processing chain. Urban expects these changes will be global in nature. As food is produced world-wide, the new standards will also quickly be required in the developing world which aspires to be part of the world food system.

This paper explores recent developments in international food safety agreements in meat products with respect to these evolving trends. The process is lead by food safety standards in the US where systems such as HACCP originally were developed in response to space requirements. The international organisations associated with food standards, safety and human health are involved. Thomas Urban?s prophecies seem likely to come about.

Food safety requirements

Food safety is concerned with preventing animal products, not fit for human consumption, reaching consumers. Animal and plant health and food safety issues arise because of incomplete markets for food safety or for animal and plant health. Problems may be exacerbated by the failure of market forces to properly signal consumer demand to producers. Imperfect information arises when consumers are only partially aware of the hazards associated with the production and consumption of a product particularly where it involves protecting consumers from unseen or hidden threats like mad cow disease. For these reasons, government iintervention seems inevitable.

Food safety programs monitor and manage the production, feeding, slaughter, and inspection of farm animals and animal products from farm to consumption. In the past, Governments have put in place appropriate public health and animal health measures that have monitored animal disease status, zoonotic pathogens, feed contaminants, and problems of food hygiene and proper storage. Generally, departmental perspectives on disease control and safe food production drove such systems. More recently, mixed public/private sector efforts are taking responsibility for different aspects of the safe food chain and consumer and environmental advocacy groups have commenced playing an increasing and quite vocal role in articulating the public expectation for safe food.

This comes at a time when well-publicised food-safety issues seem to occur on a disturbingly regular basis. Examples are the 1999 Dioxin and PCB contamination of Belgian meat and poultry products, the world-wide outbreaks of the verotoxin producing E coli 0157:H7 food poisoning, the BSE or mad cow disease outbreaks in the UK and other member states of the European Community, a BSE outbreak in the United States, and the rise of bird flu in Asia. And, while arguably, whether of food safety importance or not, the use of GMOs in the human food chain.

In response, Governments have mandated 'Good Agricultural Practices' and 'Good Manufacturing Practices' that focus on the shared management of hazards through the food production chain, banned or placed moratoria on the agricultural application of certain technologies, e.g. hormonal growth promotants and GM foods, and established dedicated Food Safety Agencies to provide a comprehensive overview of food safety, 'from farm to plate'.

International agreements affecting food safety

Food quality considerations go back to medieval movement of livestock around Europe. Quarantine and outright bans were often used to prevent the spread of rinderpest for example. Controls on meat products started when the United States first started to export beef to Europe in the 19^th century. When the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) was being negotiated after World War II, human and animal health issues were seen as necessary exceptions to the proposed rules for the reduction of quantitative restrictions and tariffs on trade (Article XX). `Contracting parties may adopt or enforce any measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life?, was the wording, thus giving food safety priority over freedom to trade. Since that time, these provisions have been replaced by much broader national and international governmental programs driven by consumer and environmental concerns, as well as by new developments in agricultural technology.

For example, the World Health Organisation (WHO) in a situation analysis of its Food Safety Programme, talks of emerging problems such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), verotoxigenic Escherichia coli, multidrug resistant strains of bacteria, and genetically modified (GM) organisms as creating additional concerns among both the public and decision makers (www.who.int/programmes/foodsafety). The WHO has recently announced an enhanced program on food safety concerns involving the provision of sound scientific advice to member states and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (see below).

The United Nations Convention on Biological Biodiversity has set in motion the development of a multi-lateral agreement regulating biotechnology, trade and transfer of living modified organisms. In January 2000, 130 countries agreed on language for a Protocol on Biosafety, regulating biotechnology transfer and trade in GM products. The protocol raises questions about how it will relate to the WTO and how its approach to risk assessment differs from the SPS agreement. While applying largely to plant species, the principles apply to animal products as well.

Food safety and risk

These developments raise important issues of food safety and trade. Safety of a product from disease involves a risk assessment by some government inspector or scientist. The Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations put considerable emphasis on a defined role for science-based health and safety measures, and measures of acceptable safety limits. On the other hand, consumers tend to react to food safety as though risk can be reduced to zero. Thus there is a common misunderstanding as to the statistical basis of risk in food safety. Public perception leans to a view that the relevant authorities can prevent the movement of agricultural pests and diseases by a total ban on suspect imports and exports (as opposed to an occurrence as a statistical event)2. For example, MAFNZ have recently moved to a one hundred percent inspection of incoming overseas containers. To meet consumer perception, controls on the supply chain for many products are likely to increase and not decrease.

As the relevant authorities respond, trade in agricultural products will be more difficult and more costly in compliance terms for producers and wholesalers, and will tend to favour domestic production and increase discrimination against imports in the name of consumerism and health protection. There will be added incentives to intervene in agricultural trade. Standards are a movable barrier that can be moved up and down by the relevant authorities to control the flow of imported goods. Supplying countries will have to invest large sums of money in order to meet the standards laid down by importing countries.

The Importance of Article XX of the GATT

In devising rules for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, explicit recognition was made of the need for countries to maintain sanitary and phytosanitary standards (as referring to animal and plant derived products). While the general aim was to encourage trade by the reduction of quantitative restrictions and tariffs, it was recognised that domestic policy measures that maintain human and animal health should be seen as exceptions to the new rules. Article XX stated:

Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:......... (b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;....(g) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources, if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption; .³

Thus the GATT Articles recognised that animal and human health measures are legitimate domestic policy objectives, and also state the same standards must apply to imports from other countries as apply domestically.

In the Uruguay Round of the GATT a common set of rules and disciplines was adopted to guide the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (The Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures)( www.wto.org/goods/sps.htm). In the language of international diplomacy, greater `transparency' in these measures was sought in the sense that countries could achieve a greater understanding of other countries' problems and acceptance of a set of common standards. Greater international `harmonisation' of standards, rules and procedures using the international scientific organisations would produce trade benefits and reduce disputes. Better frameworks for consultation and dispute settlement would also assist. Acceptance of `equivalence' whereby countries would be able to adopt different measures providing they achieve the same objectives was sought and agreed.

It was thus agreed that trading opportunities between countries could be improved if individual countries could agree on a common set of rules for the conduct of trade. Rules provide common reference points and assist arbitration between countries in cases of conflict. At the same time, Article XX made clear that justifiable domestic measures associated with human and animal health constituted a general exception to the original rules of the 1947 GATT. Policy makers should be alert, however, to any measures that are introduced that are simply a disguised form of protection⁴.

Research of these issues is quite difficult and very little on meat products has been reported in the international literature. Petrey and Johnson⁵ report a survey of Pacific Basin Countries with regard to meat inspection procedures and state:

...these meat measures are historically the result of bilateral negotiation between countries. To that extent, they are fully transparent to the parties involved. The wider question, however, is whether such measures are transparent in relation ??to the problem they seek to contain? Is the underlying problem a true health risk or a form of non-tariff protection? Detailed rules for assessment of health risk along the lines proposed in the Uruguay Round would represent a significant advance in this direction.

From the data collected.....the following justifications for sanitary regulations in the meat trade area can be identified: threats to animal health; threats to public health; need for truth-in-labelling; meeting consumer aesthetics; maintenance of product quality; maintaining security from tampering; meeting customary practice; protection of domestic production; need for market discipline; and prevention of entry into the edible food chain. Within such a broad framework, case-by-case studies would be required to identify the original motives for each domestic policy measure and whether it was `justified' in WTO terms (op cit, p.437).

Traditional policies for international food safety and inspection

Countries taking part in trade in animals and animal products are signatories to a series of unilateral hygiene agreements which enable multilateral trade to take place. These agreements were protected by Article XX of the GATT in 1947. In the Uruguay Round of the GATT, now WTO, these agreements were harmonised to a large extent by agreement on a set of protocols for the management of non-tariff barriers to trade that were justified by human and animal health concerns (The SPS Agreement).

Unilateral agreements incorporated the time-honoured measures of quarantine, port inspection, animal health inspection and product inspection that had evolved from the middle of the 19th century⁶. Trade could only take place if the importing country could be satisfied that the shipped products were meeting its domestic regulations.

Inspection requirements are generally specified in domestic regulations enforced under some covering legislation. These not only serve to guide slaughterhouse/ abattoir inspectors but also form the standard for imports of meat products across international borders. Most countries provide certificates that accompany every shipment of a given meat product. Some importing countries require that such certificates include specific clauses relating to their own legislative requirements. International manuals might specify conditions for import of fresh and frozen meat and meat by-products, including prohibitions and import restrictions, labelling requirements and certification requirements. These requirements are a definite impediment to trade but are thought to be justified from the point of view of human health protection.

Traditional meat inspection focused on organoleptic inspection and the removal of visual pathological defects from the food chain. However, even within this traditional system of inspection, the success of major animal disease control programmes could not be ignored and traditional inspection gave way to modified inspection protocols that reflected the change in disease prevalence within identifiable herds and flocks. The need, also, for greater efficiencies due to departmental budgetary restraints, while, at the same time, the recognition of the greater importance of microbial contamination of carcass meat, lead to the wider introduction of systems of food inspection in many countries based on risk assessment methodologies rather than solely visual and physical methods.

The move to prescriptive management of risk in food safety programs

The management of risk throughout the food chain calls for new prescriptive approaches to an old problem. Hazard analysis at critical control points (HACCP) is such a system. Derived from engineering process control methods and deployed in the 1960s by NASA to ensure safe foods for astronauts in America's space program, it is now found almost universally in the food safety programs of developed nations.

HACCP is a risk management tool that provides a more structured approach to the control of processing or manufacturing products than that achievable by traditional inspection and quality control. It is entirely prescriptive. Rather than by testing the end product for failure it functions to prevent failure by systematically controlling the process. It requires systematic analysis for potential risks and then identification of appropriate control and monitoring systems, particularly those deemed critical to the safety of the product. This reduces the risk of food contamination two ways. First, it anticipates potential problems or failures and does not depend only on final inspection. Secondly, because it identifies problems during the process rather than at the end or once the product moves into the supply or marketing chain, there is a greater likelihood of resolving the problem at hand as opposed to pursuing a product recall. HACCP can also yield potential cost savings in product wastage, re-processing, or recall should problems occur.

Within North America, the European Community and Australasia, mandated process controls, based on HACCP and quality assurance have become the norm. Animal producers and food manufacturers are now required to design safe food programs and process foodstuffs in accordance with these relatively sophisticated protocols.

Within the European Union, various "Food Directives" have been promulgated focusing on reduced levels of all zoonotic pathogens. HACCP is included as a requirement within a number of these Directives. In the US, the "Mega reg" for pathogen reduction includes process control through the mandatory application of HACCP. For sea food and beef, New Zealand has instituted process control equivalent to the US HACCP standards. In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, HACCP is seen as a means of ensuring industries meet their responsibilities for food safety and become less dependent on traditional process methods⁷.

The concept of HACCP has been promulgated by the Codex Alimentarius Commission⁸. Recognising the importance of HACCP to food control, the 20th session of the Commission adopted Guidelines for the application of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point system in July 1993⁹. FAO notes that the application of HACCP is compatible with the implementation of quality management systems, such as the ISO 9000 series, and HACCP is the system of choice for the management of food safety within such systems. FAO has published a full scale training manual for HACCP.

The role of the international organisations

As a result of the Uruguay Round and the ongoing changes in technology and environmental concerns, the international food and health regulatory institutions are now much more involved in food safety and trade. Not only the standard-setting agencies but the health and environmental agencies have declared they have a role to play.

A lot of recent pressure has come from the international regulation of plant materials. There has been considerable debate over ownership, control and distribution of the benefits of plant genetic resources. These debates focus on plant genetic resources in international research centres, intellectual property rights (IPRs) for commercially developed crop varieties, the growing role of the private sector in plant breeding and seed distribution, and the impacts of biotechnology and modern agriculture on crop genetic diversity¹⁰. The main forums for these debates has been in a series of Undertakings of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

At the same time, GATT/WTO were discussing trade-related intellectual property issues, the so-called TRIPs agreement. The Agreement creates minimum standards for the protection of IPRs for commercially developed seed varieties. Article 27, 3(b) states "Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof".

The debate over IPRs for plant varieties and GMOs found its way into the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that opened for signature in 1992 at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (the Earth Summit). In particular, Article 19 of the CBD called for exploration of the need for a biosafety protocol regulating the trade and transfer of any living modified organisms resulting biotechnology that may adversely affect biodiversity. Consequently, on January 29, 2000, 130 countries adopted the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety, regulating biotechnology transfer and trade in GM products.

Frisvold and Hillman point out that countries must now work through two competing institutional structures dealing with environmental and trade-related aspects of GMOs. The WTO framework has more history and legal precedent behind, yet it remains to be seen how well it can resolve thorny SPS disputes such as the EU/US dispute over hormone beef. The SPS and TBT agreements do not specifically address GMOs but many issues surrounding GMO trade restrictions are applicable.

The WTO framework, however, is not aimed at achieving environmental objectives. Rather its purpose is to limit trade distortions arising from environmental policies being used as a Trojan horse to further economic protectionism. In contrast, the Biosafety Protocol deals narrowly and specifically with GMOs. Yet, its language is often ambiguous and seemingly at odds with WTO agreements. Also, the most controversial aspects of implementation have been put off to a future date. The protocol is aimed more directly at environmental objectives. Negotiators have also attempted to introduce distributional issues as well. Here, trade policies are not of interest, per se, but rather as a means of furthering these other objectives.

The WHO is a joint sponsor of the Codex Alimentarius Commission with FAO. With the establishment of the WTO SPS Agreements, the character of the Commission shifted from a voluntary standards-setting agency to one that establishes health and safety requirements for food which have implications for national food safety legislation. In May 2000, the World Health Assembly took the view that food safety was an essential public health function and priority area and adopted a resolution calling on WHO to increase its involvement and technical support in the work of the Commission and its Committees (www.who.int/director-general /speeches/2000).

The argument appears to be that the UN has declared the eradication of poverty as a major goal and that peoples' well-being depends on their enjoyment of good health. There will be no social and economic development where health is not given priority. Globalisation of the world's food supply also means globalisation of public health concerns. WHO therefore sees itself as expanding its commitment to food safety by way of giving sound scientific advice to member states as well as the Codex Commission. Two areas of importance were identified for a leading role: microbiological risk assessment and biotechnology in foods.

There is a view that the WTO agreements favour the implementation of commercial regulations over those concerning public health (Medecins Sans Frontieres/www.the lancet.com). Health is regarded as an object for negotiation in the same way as any of the other 160 services listed in the WTO's general agreement on trade in services. MSF believes WHO is against liberalisation of the health sector as populations of the poorest countries will suffer discrimination particularly over access to medicines. WHO Director-General Brundtland, MSF said, confirmed this situation when she said that WHO was invited to Seattle not as a participant, but as an active and vocal observer. An invitation was issued to governments, industry, NGOs and other partners to establish with WHO an appropriate mechanism for monitoring the actual effect of the new trade agreements.

Furthermore, says MSF, the WHO wished to challenge the meaning of Article XX of the GATT: the right to take necessary measures to protect the health of their people, but only on condition that these are not applied for the purposes of protectionism and do not present an unnecessary barrier to trade. Because WHO requires that any epidemic outbreak is reported to its international body, it is concerned there is a risk of potential conflict between respecting this requirement and the SPS requirements.

MSF points out that the member countries of WHO are practically the same as those that make up the WTO. However, the contradiction between the interests of each body does not seem to perturb them. The same applies to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Rio Declaration.

Concluding

There is a widespread trend toward increased regulation of food quality owing to increased consumerism and environmental concerns. For meat products, this takes the form of more testing within the production system before sale or export. The HACCP system is currently being adopted on a wider and wider basis. Such a system is entirely prescriptive in its approach to food safety. The European Commission has stated in this Journal recently that European food has never been so well tested, checked and verified, either in the framework of official checks carried out by the competent authorities, or by companies in the frameworkof HACCP or private control.¹¹

This has wide implications for trade in meat products. There will be increased costs right back up the production chain to producers. Producers will bear the costs and not consumers.

The benefits and costs are likely to be distributed very unevenly between countries as well. These costs effectively add to the trade barriers already in existance. Such barriers to trade in agricultural products are inconsistent with the aims of the WTO.

There has been some disagreement between the international food and health agencies over responsibility for international coordination of standards for both plant and animal products. There is a challenge to the validity of Article XX of the GATT. These concerns could add to the barriers that agricultural products have to overcome in entering foreign trade.

Footnotes