- Print Friendly - Help

Report of NZFSA Academy Annual Meeting

Present:
NZFSA Academy	NZFSA
Dr Michael Baker Dr Tim Blackmore Dr John Brooks Professor Nigel French Dr Andrew Hudson Professor Ian Shaw Dr Graeme Jarvis Dr Lynne Lane Professor Laurie Melton Dr Lindsay Pearce Dr Wayne Temple	Steve Hathaway, Director Science Carole Inkster, Director Policy NZFSA staff making presentations.

1 NZFSA Academy Role and Terms of Reference

Carole Inkster discussed the role of the NZFSA Academy, and suggested a change in the Terms of Reference (TOR) given that it has not been updated for several years. Members discussed the expectations of Academy members, suggestions for revised TOR for the Academy, and ways in which members can be more accessible and visible. It was agreed that the purpose statement needed to be a high level outcome statement. There was a query about how emerging issues should be flagged to NZFSA.

Steve Hathaway noted that the NZFSA Academy is similar to overseas models, but differs in that NZFSA does not have access to a large pool of experts where specific issues could be debated on a panel-by-panel basis. In New Zealand, discussion is issue by issue. The possibility of a small number of specialist sub-groups of the Academy was raised.

Action 2008/1: NZFSA will circulate an outcome focussed purpose statement, for comment, for inclusion in the revised ToR.

Action 2008/2: When Academy members are forwarding information on emerging issues to NZFSA in future, they will address it to the appropriate member(s) of the Science Group and cc. to Carole Inkster and Lisa Ralph from Policy. This will provide a record of Academy member contributions over time and facilitate a coordinated response to priority issues.

Action 2008/3: Academy members are invited to participate in NZFSA lunchtime seminars or put forward names of eminent people visiting New Zealand/ Wellington who could provide a contribution.

2 Natural toxins – toxic honey

A short seminar was presented by various NZFSA staff on the toxic honey incident that took place in the Coromandel just before Easter 2008. The format for presentation was the NZFSA Risk Management Framework in action.

Presentations

Steve Hathaway presented the background to the topic and reviewed the four steps of the NZFSA Risk Management Framework.

Wayne Temple described the risk profiling process which is the first part of Preliminary Risk Management Activities. He outlined the history of tutu human poisonings in New Zealand and likely clinical effects, together with exposure factors. The National Poisons Centre is looking into the kinetics and likely duration of symptoms but currently there is little available scientific data.

John Reeve presented information on the toxicity of the chemical compounds involved and summarised current knowledge on dose/response. His presentation covered the acute oral toxicity of tutin and hyenanchin in mice, and the derivation of an acute reference dose (2.5 μg/kg bw) and a proposed food standard (2 mg/kg food) that was not likely to present any health risks to honey consumers. Data obtained from clinical cases indicates that this acute reference dose is highly protective of consumers.

Following discussion on these preliminary scientific activities, Jim Sim presented a summary of risk management activities, including the process for selection of control measures, implementation of measures, and the early stages of monitoring and review. NZFSA had responded to the situation by imposing interim control measures as a precautionary response.

Jim summarised the proposals contained in the NZFSA discussion document on a standard for tutin, with maximum limits of 2mg/kg for honey and 0.4mg/kg for comb. Possible control measures include risk management plans for honey processors, verification of placement of hives relative to tutin sources, and specified sampling and testing programmes. All risk management activities are currently the subject of a consultation process with external stakeholders.

Steve Hathaway reported on the implications of tutin in honey that is sold overseas. New Zealand must provide appropriate assurances of product safety and the European Union (EU) requires application of a robust testing programme in the country of origin. Initial controls included a temporary stop to export certification while initial testing was carried out and certification then being subject to extra verification.

Discussion

The Academy welcomed the NZFSA presentations as a “work in progress”, illustrative of a systematic response to an emerging food safety issue. Tim Blackmore asked that Academy members be involved more in such incidents – they are willing to assist at any time. NZFSA advised that Wayne Temple from the Academy had been heavily involved to date in providing scientific advice.

The Academy agreed that NZFSA should focus on testing of comb honey. Academy members suggested that NZFSA was relying too much on testing of limited numbers of honey samples, especially in the absence of a formal intra-laboratory comparison scheme. NZFSA considers that current laboratory processes are satisfactory but may be subject to review when a complete risk management package is put in place. Legislation administered by NZFSA currently does not allow NZFSA to impose regulatory requirements on testing laboratories.

3 Draft NZFSA Nutrition Strategy

The mandate of NZFSA in the field of food nutrition was clarified in 2008. NZFSA has been developing a detailed draft strategy that, as well as providing direction for nutrition within NZFSA, will better describe the joint role with the Ministry of Health (MoH) in this area. Jenny Reid introduced the draft NZFSA Nutrition Strategy as a work in progress and sought input from the Academy on key issues.

It was noted by the Academy that because of email distribution issues, for some this was the first opportunity that they had to review the document.

Discussion

The draft Strategy generated a full discussion, with Academy members interested in a number of areas. Graeme Jarvis raised the issue of the growing exposure to functional foods. NZFSA replied that it is the Authority’s role to ensure that functional foods are consistent with the Joint Food Standards Code or meet the requirements of the New Zealand Dietary Supplements Regulations. NZFSA is currently finalising a New Zealand Supplemented Foods Standard (working with Medsafe). Nigel French was interested in the dietary modelling system (FSANZ Diamond) and this was explained. John Brooks commented that, as a consumer, he had difficulty in reading the detail of nutrition labels. Michael Baker was interested in the level of liaison and cooperation between MoH and NZFSA going into the future. NZFSA noted that the involvement of both government agencies is fully complementary, with the NZFSA/MoH Memorandum of Understanding focusing on a collaborative approach. NZFSA reported that there is already a high level of collaboration with FSANZ. Formal collaborative meetings, as well as ongoing informal meetings, are scheduled with MoH and FSANZ, some of which have reporting requirements e.g. the Healthy Eating Healthy Action (HEHA) Steering Committee. NZFSA also reported that it works formally and informally with industry groups in the area of nutrition.

Action 2008/4: Academy members to send preliminary comments on the draft Nutrition Strategy to Jenny Reid within the next two months. These comments will be combined with those from MoH in the next iteration of the draft.

4 Emerging issues

While reporting on any emerging food safety issues in their area of expertise is an ongoing activity for Academy members throughout the year, this is also a standing Agenda item at the Annual Meeting.

Discussion

The general discussion on this topic did not generate any priority concerns that had not already been communicated to NZFSA, but “food for thought” was provided on the following issues:

• Monitoring (and dietary modelling) of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in foods from all sources

• Campylobacter in meat products other than poultry

• Strengthening the monitoring of imported foods

• Food security and the likelihood of insufficient food to feed the world in the future

• Nutrigenomics

• Possible interaction between nutrients and contaminants in composite foods e.g. endocrine disruptors, “gene-switching” chemicals

• Hepatitis E.

Action2008/5: NZFSA to circulate the list of current emerging issues, for comment by Academy members.

5 Campylobacteriosis: Source Attribution and Epidemiology

Nigel French, from Massey University, who is a world expert on the epidemiology and source attribution of campylobacteriosis in humans, presented a detailed paper on this topic. The Massey University team provide essential research inputs to the NZFSA Campylobacter Strategy.

Epidemiological patterns throughout New Zealand were discussed, along with possible causes. Source attribution approaches were described, with similar proportions for primary pathways (poultry, ruminants and environment) being estimated from different models. Poultry continues to be the dominant source of human infections, and there were different age-related trends in urban compared with rural populations.

Discussion

Academy members were very appreciative of the presentation and congratulated the Massey team on their work. Epidemiological trends were discussed, with Nigel noting that there seem to be similar source attribution patterns in Australia.

6 NZFSA Performance Indicators for Foodborne Disease

Donald Campbell outlined the current disease rates of camplylobacteriosis, listeriosis, norovirus, salmonellosis, E. coli (STECs) and yersiniosis in New Zealand. He also provided a cost analysis for foodborne disease on an annual basis. With this is mind NZFSA has set performance measures of 50% reduction in Campylobacteriosis, 30% salmonellosis, and no change in foodborne cases for listeriosis.

7 Risk Communication: food myths and cancer

Sandra Daly reported that Academy members had been a part of the NZFSA Issues Management Group since 2007. The most significant issue in 2008 has been melamine.

In 2008, the Communications Group has been developing an information database on food claims relating to causality of cancer. Much of the information in the public arena lacks scientific verification but ever-present cancer stories in the media may cause consumers to avoid eating certain foods. As evidence-based information accumulates, NZFSA will work with stakeholder groups on communication in this area.

Discussion

Academy members agreed that there were many aspects to this issue and Academy member Ian Shaw pointed out that all foodborne risks needed to be managed in a proportionate manner. The aim was to provide balanced information to New Zealand consumers to help counter some of the unjustified concerns raised.

8 Update: Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STECs)

Roger Cook updated the Academy members on the status of gastroenteritis in New Zealand caused by shiga toxin producing STECs, the results of ongoing meat industry monitoring for STECs, and industry and regulatory initiatives to reduce contamination of meat with these pathogens. The baseline number of notified human cases of STEC illness has not increased this year, although an outbreak of unknown source in the first quarter added several cases by serotype O157:H7. Detections in beef from adult cattle are four times higher than previously and those from veal ten times higher. As the sampling plan and analytical procedures have concurrently changed to meet market access requirements, absolute comparisons cannot be drawn with previous years.

9 Update: Melamine

John Reeve updated the Academy with recent findings on melamine contamination of milk products originating from China. This major food adulteration event has had global impact. The mechanism of human illness was described, together with the outcomes of recent risk assessments from the World Health Organisation, Europe and the United States. Tolerable daily intakes for inadvertent contamination of foods have now been internationally agreed.

10 Update: Aspartame

John Reeve updated the Academy on two petitions that had been heard by the Health Select Committee; trying to get products containing aspartame withdrawn from schools, labelled with warnings to pregnant women, and requiring the dissemination of advice to doctors regarding signs of aspartame poisoning. He also summarised the scientific advice that was presented by NZFSA to the Committee detailing the safety of aspartame. Evidence presented by the petitioners was mainly anecdotal and was not supported by NZFSA. The Committee agreed with the NZFSA view and no recommendations for change have been made.

11 Update: Dietary Fat Intake

Jenny Reid gave an update on the issue of decreasing fat intake for New Zealanders. NZFSA has participated in the work of the Chip Group. This group which is partly funded by MoH and membership levies, has made considerable progress on decreasing New Zealanders‘ fat intake from hot chips. It has developed a number of strategies including:

• A standard for deep fried chips for independent fast food outlets;

• Meetings with the hospitality food sector;

• Meetings with the fast food industry;

• Online training modules in English and Chinese that cover all aspects of hot chip preparation.

NZFSA will remain involved with this group and continue to try to incorporate components of the training in Food Control Plans.

12 Update: Bisphenol A

John Reeve advised the Academy on recent events regarding the safety of bisphenol A (BPA), which is used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics and in the lacquer that lines cans used for food. An expert panel assembled by the United States’ National Toxicology Programme had reviewed all available data on BPA and concluded that for some developmental outcomes for exposed infants and foetuses, there is some concern as to the safety of the levels of BPA leaching out of plastics and can linings into infant foods.

Reviews have recently been carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Health Canada and the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA), with conclusions being based on the rate of metabolism of BPA in humans compared to lab animals. The Canadian and EFSA reviews concluded that the safety margin between exposure and risk was in the order of 100. The US FDA was re-reviewing its position on BPA as a result of criticism that it had excluded some data and this lead to questions being raised as to the stated safety margin of 7000.

John Reeve explained that NZFSA was awaiting the generation of new data commissioned by the US FDA to resolve issues that have been raised together with any further US review. He also explained that NZFSA was ready to take any action that these new pieces of work may indicate is necessary.

1 Update: Unpasteurised Milk Products

Scott Crerar gave a presentation on the work that NZFSA has been developing in the area of raw milk product standards. It is intended that the framework will enable NZFSA to approve a broader range of raw milk products in New Zealand. The raw milk products would be subject to additional on farm and process requirements. There are significant drivers impacting upon the need to develop a framework.

The drivers include: consumer desire for a greater variety of cheeses and other raw milk products: local manufacturers expressing an interest to manufacture them: and countries, mainly within the EU, seeking to export such products to New Zealand.

The presentation described how the current standards and associated requirements within the Food Act are largely geared around pasteurised dairy product with only a few specific exceptions for the sale of unpasteurised products. The exceptions were created from detailed risk assessments. Such an approach was onerous and resource and data intensive. NZFSA has proposed a new regulatory framework under which raw milk products may be categorised. A category approach in microbial risk differentiation of dairy products is proposed, under which three tiers of categories of raw milk products will be differentiated with increasing public health risk from 1 to 3. Tier 1 products will be essentially equivalent to pasteurised products due to processing having eliminated pathogens. Tier 2 products will be those where intrinsic characteristics and/or processing techniques may allow the survival of pathogens that could have been present in the raw milk but do not support the growth of these pathogens. Additional on farm and processing requirements, plus education of consumers and possible additional labelling will be applied to these products to ensure that an accepted level of food safety is ensured. Tier 3 products, although within the framework, will not be able to be produced or sold unless alternative validated processes demonstrate they could be produced safely.

To determine the categories of products, NZFSA would use a range of decision tools that developed through risk assessment work undertaken on raw milk and associated heat inactivation studies by the Science Group, together with specific modelling developed by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research.

13 Update: Imported Food Review Implementation

Chris Kebbell reported that the Imported Food Review was completed in 2004 and NZFSA has further developed this into the Imported Food and Food Related Products programme. (http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/importing/documents/reports/blueprint-for-change). NZFSA continues to implement this programme, however not all aspects are able to be realised unless the Food Act 1981 is repealed and replaced with a new Act. The Food Bill is currently subject to delays.

For high regulatory interest foods 'preclearance arrangements' are likely to be the tool of choice. Preclearance arrangements incorporate the philosophy of the review by acknowledging that for some commodities the inherent risks are best managed off shore in the market of production, relative to the current approach of inspection and testing at the border. Preclearance arrangements are concluded between NZFSA and the exporting market. Most imported commodity items will need to be accompanied by agreed certification.

Medium regulatory interest foods may require a level of further assurance to facilitate import, however a full preclearance arrangement approach may not be appropriate.

All importers of low regulatory interest foods will operate under the National Imported Foods Programme. Importers of medium and high regulatory interest in addition to meeting these obligations will also require an Import Food Control Programme (which may be an extension of an existing domestic Food Control Programme).

In order to ensure the imported food system remains agile and able to respond rapidly to the changing environment and developing risks, NZFSA will operate a 'scanning list' and monitoring programme. The monitoring programme will include audit and verification of the import system and the sampling of imported food for risk assessment / consideration / categorisation purposes. The 'scanning list' feature will enable NZFSA to selectively target imports of regulatory interest for the purpose of information gathering and to aid further risk management decision. For example intelligence may indicate that a risk has been identified internationally in a commodity that is also imported into New Zealand. The 'scanning list' would then enable the commodity item to be targeted and tested for the purposes of information and further risk management decision making.

Despite the delay in advancing key changes to the food legislation, new standards have been published in 2008 under the Food Act 1981 and encompasses the philosophy of the new imported food regimen. These include the Food (importer listing) and (importer general requirements) Standard 2008 http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/importing/food-importer-standards-guidance/. These standards took effect 16 October 2008 and have a six month transition period. The standards require all importers to be listed with NZFSA (moves to registration under proposed new legislation) and that some minimum obligations / requirements are met. These include the requirement that importers ensure food sourced externally complies with New Zealand Standards (safety and suitability), and that appropriate arrangements are made for the transport and storage of imports and that adequate records are kept of import decisions. The introduction of general standards amplify the current expectations of the Food Act 1981 and provide NZFSA with the opportunity to communicate directly with importers and audit and verify minimum expectations.